FIC Guest Blog
Please welcome Peter from the FIC Blog. Peter took me up on an offer to publish one guest post here at Spazeboy.net, the details of which may be found by clicking here. Comments are still going to be moderated by me, and only comments which are deemed civil will be approved. Peter, take it away:
Same-Sex Marriage is Bad for Children, Undemocratic
To pass a same-sex “marriage” law is to pass a law saying that children do not need to grow up in a home with both their mother and father. And that would be wrong.
Why? Is it because the Bible says so? Well, I imagine it does, but that—or that alone—is not the reason. Since at least the early 90’s Atlantic Monthly cover article by Barbara DaFoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” there has been a growing consensus among social scientists that children do best in a home with both a mother and a father. David Popeno (dean of social science at Rutgers), David Blankenhorn (author of Fatherless America), Maggie Gallagher (Institute for Marriage and Public Policy) and Robbie George of Princeton University are just some of the scholars buttressing the case for traditional marriage. Psychologist Judith Wallerstein and the Institute for American Values’ Elizabeth Marquardt help round out the data with their books on the harm done to children by the divorce revolution.
Ah, you say, but their data merely proves to us that children need two parents, not that they must be of the opposite sex. You cannot produce the same level of data to make that case.
This is true, but only because same-sex “marriage” is so new. It was not until some 20 years after the unilateral divorce revolution began that the scholarship showing its harmful effects on children became widely available. Failing to learn how fragile and necessary marriage is from the last disastrous experiment performed on it, same-sex “marriage” advocates are asking us to try yet another one. No thanks.
And, while we may have to wait before the scientific data confirms what FIC warned against, the anecdotal evidence is already piling up. Consider Dawn Stefanowicz, the first of what, sadly, may one day be the many adult children of same-sex households with similar stories to tell:
Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences…From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to allinclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father’s relationships.
My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, “Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?” I can tell you that I suffered long term in this situation, and this has been professionally documented.
Can we hope that Dawn’s case is an extreme one? Sure, but even the best, most made-for-tv same-sex households will produce children who, like Dawn, will “not see the value of biologically complementing differences of male and female.” And the proportion of same-sex households that will fit the happy picture our opponents present to the legislature remains to be seen. As noted by Dawn, a growing body of evidence already suggests that her experiences are not as unique as the MSM—if they were to cover Dawn at all—would likely have you believe.
And—are you sitting down?—if you support same-sex “marriage” there is something you should know. It is not FIC that is the loony fringe in this debate—it’s you. Forty-one out of 50 states have DOMA statutes. 27 states have Marriage Protection Amendments in their constitutions. In every state but one where same-sex “marriage” was put to a vote the pro-family side won—usually by an average of about 71%. Even Oregon—a state so liberal they legalized assisted suicide—understands that marriage is between a man and a woman. And even President Clinton signed the federal DOMA into law.
Our opponents call us divisive. But in these otherwise polarized times marriage protection is perhaps the least divisive issue out there. Most men, women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Caucasians, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics and Protestants agree: marriage is and only can be the union of a man and a woman. I can’t think of another supposedly controversial issue than generates as broad and multicultural a consensus as marriage protection.
Hmmm…aren’t you guys supposed to be up in Hartford today denying women their reproductive rights? I wonder if the timing of your post is meant to occupy the local progressive blogosphere while you actively work to keep women from having the option of being treated with Plan B emergency contraception at publicly-funded Catholic hospitals. You’ve had several weeks to respond to Spazeboy’s offer of blog space, and THIS is the issue you happen to choose for today?
Interesting timing.
Anyway, I can’t help but see your vigorous opposition to same-sex marriage as not-very-thinly veiled homophobia. The Catholic Church denies gays even the slightest recognition, except to condemn their lifestyle. Don’t try to say you’re doing this to “protect the children”. You’re simply trying to use any convenient excuse to legislate your religious agenda.
It must be very frustrating to live in a society where, despite the best efforts of the Church, we are moving inexorably towards equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. If I were you, I’d be working overtime to bring the Church into the 21st century, instead of trying to make society bend to outmoded dogmatic reasoning.
It’s not like the Church hasn’t ever adjusted it’s philosophies and practices to adjust to changing times. It might be time for a “Vatican III” conference. A modern-day ecumenical council might be just what the Church needs to remain a viable and living religion.
Loony? Loony?
Hey Peter you want to know what loony is? Try guys like you who think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term, even when the father is, –get this, — a criminal rapist!
Yep, that’s right. Members of the State Legislature want to make sure that Plan B is available in emergency rooms to every rape victim in Connecticut, yet the loony FIC is fighting this initiative tooth and nail, calling it “anti-Christian”!
Can you get further out of the mainstream than that? Sadly that is what happens when you warp religion to further latent political ends.
So everyone please remember if your wife gets RAPED, and is pregnant by some criminal, the FIC crowd wants to insist that she should have to carry the pregnancy to term!
Bob,
I picked the topic, since the bet was on a marriage rally.
-Spaze
Nothing like one anecdotal example to “prove” that gay parents are bad parents.
Plus, “[I]f you support same-sex “marriage” there is something you should know. It is not FIC that is the loony fringe in this debate—it’s you.”
Calling your oppents in a debate looney – interesting method of persuasion!
Its good to see that coming over here didn’t somehow make you analytically sharp!
How’s that traffic count at the FIC blog? Still getting 350,000 hits a month?
…LOL.
I can’t bring myself to counter this kind of Anita Bryant silliness. It’s like beating up on a child.
So glad to finally see the FIC has posted. I’m writing from the perspective of an openly gay, single mom of a 9 year old son.
First,I love that “Peter” only uses his first name. Brave soul that he is. Second, if that’s the best he can do to “defend” marriage, it’s pretty weak. There was a pretty good article in today’s Courant that highlighted some of the history of marriage that in fact, it is not deeply rooted in the Bible; whose earlier books tout polygamy (which our opponents love to toss out as the proverbial slippery slope), concubines, and divorce.
The “case study” which he presents as evidence as to why there should not be same gender marriage, is pretty sad. Obviously, that person grew up in a grossly dysfunctional home. The fact that his/her father was gay, was incidental to his experiences. The same, and frankly, far worse situations exist today in opposite gender households. Simply refer to yesterday’s Courant which told the story of a father (in a heterosexual marriage) with four children who routinely terrorised, tortured and otherwise abused his wife and children. Yet, we see no public outcry to ban heterosexual marriage, do we?
I love these “Family” Institute folks who claim to be all about strengthening the family. I’m an AIDS activist and spend a lot of time at the Capitol testifying on issues impacting the lives of people with HIV/AIDS. I can tell you that I never see the FIC characters there testifying on or advocating for issues like healthcare, housing, and education — issues that would most certainly strenghten and support the families of this state far more than their efforts to tear down families like mine.
Personally, I’d like to see civil unions for everyone (which, in essence we already have. Everyone has to go to city hall and get a marriage certificate; not everyone CHOOSES to get married in a church.)and level the playing field. Let the churches choose who to support and who to discriminate against.
Unfortunately, homophobia lives on in organizations like the FIC and the people who choose to associate themselves with it. The struggle, indeed, continues.
Shawn,
I’m responsible for only putting in Peter’s first name in the post above. He is identified under his full name on the About page at the Family Institute of Connecticut’s blog.
I like your point about civil unions, and it’s one that I don’t think we make enough. I’m not getting married in a church, and I don’t really give a hoot if the “church” thinks that my marriage is legitimate.
Shawn,
The things that will strengthen families, and yes marriages, is to have a two family home, one man one woman, where the woman actually stays home to care for her children. Old school? I don’t think so. If you look at divorce rates of families with large families where the mother stays home with her family, it is virtually non-existant. I’m sorry for your son. That he has to come home to a home where there is no dad, no male influence, no male to emulate. Boys need their dads, despite popular belief. I can firmly attest to this firsthand, having had a son by myself, then going on to have 3 more in a traditional marriage. The difference is amazing. Single mom’s don’t get it and I don’t think ever will.
Steph,
You’re basically saying that there’s only one right way to raise a family, and that’s the way that you are doing it. Interesting…
I find it amusing that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is automatically homophobic. You ought to tell that to the guys I went clubbing with everynight for years. I was opposed to gay marriage then and I still am. And I still have some of my gay friends, because they can see through the either/ or rhethoric.
And true Blue CT, you never did bother to respond to my blog. My family would be at a loss, if Amanda had been aborted for a crime that she did not commit. And her mother would not have been able to get past the rape without her daughter. All the women that I have ever met who have been raped-none of the ones who abort ever overcome their victimhood. They are always victims. By many (although not all) of the women who choose to give life to their child do overcome and move on. Maybe it is because they have something else to focus on besides themselves. Selfpity never helps one heal. And this comes not from and old woman but a young one.
Keep your self righteous relativity away from me and my children, Please.
Holly
Steph, Why do you assume that my son has no men in his life? That’s quite presumptuous of you. Why isn’t your group focussing on men and women who choose NOT to be part of their children’s lives? Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not parents are part of their children’s lives or even if they’re around, whether they are actually respectful and involved with their kids. Re-read my post about the married, heterosexual man who terrorized his family. Where’s your outrage and outcry about that (not to mention the thousands of women and kids in this state alone who are abused by the men in their lives).
My son has a great number of adults — men and women, gay and straight — who are part of his “family”; who love and nuture him. I feel sadder for your poor children who won’t be exposed to the great diversity of people and life(ie, the real world) and instead will grow up fearing difference. My son’s world is rich and full. He feels good about himself and incredibly loved by all those around him.
Spaze – Obviously (or at least what should be obvious) the best way to raise a child is with a mother and a father. You’re not trying to dispute this, are you?
Shawn – Male influences are no substitute for a full-time, life-long father. I too feel sorry for any child that has been denied a mother or a father – especially due to the selfish choice of a parent, guardian, or the state. Sad.
Shawn,
I didn’t presume that your son has no men in his life, just a father. A boy needs his father in his daily life.
Spazeboy,
Yes, there is only one way to raise a family, which has been evident for… well, ever.
Steph, Now you’re assuming that my son has no relationship with his biological father or his step-father. You should check your facts before posting.
There are many different types of families. I remember former Senator Kevin Sullivan speaking during the Senate debate on the co-parent adoption bill when Sen. Upson wanted to include some amendment which, in essence would have defined a “family” as a married, heterosexual couple. To paraphrase former Senator Sullivan (and feel free to check in with him yourself) he talked about having been raised by a mother and grandmother and that who was Senator Upson to tell Senator Sullivan that his family was not really a family. There are intentional families in this world who choose to raise children (or not) in a respectful, loving way. And there are “families” who have children and choose to abuse and neglect them. It’s not the design that makes the family, but the intentionality, respect and love that makes any kind of family one that not only survives but thrives in this world. How dare you negate the fact that my son and I are indeed a family. I’ll let him know that the next time I tuck him into bed when he says to me that he’s the luckiest son in the world.
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/03/21/616091.html&cvqh=itn_boysdeath
“Traditional” families don’t always work out so well…
Shawn,
There may be many “different types” of families, but we know what the best “type” of family is. Children simply do best in a traditional family with a full-time and committed mother and father for life. Sure, there are many cases where children turn out great where one parent died or left – or where a grandparent became the parent for whatever reason, etc., but these are the exceptions, not the rule. It has been demonstrated, time and time again, that many of our social ills from economic to emotional & mental health issues to crime (and many other issues besides,) are directly linked to the breakdown of the family. It’s a sad truth of western society. What’s most unfortunate though, is that much of the breakdown is due to personal choice. It’s not as if there was an epidemic or war where a large segment of spouses have been widowed. Rather, there has been a devastating epidemic of selfishness in our society where one or both parents have not been willing to make the necessary, selfless sacrifices – and have abandoned their primary responsibilities. And the worst part about this is that even though we’ve been though it all already, while we can look back at the devastating social experimentation over the past half century and see the ailing, destructive effects, here we are in the early 21st century still experimenting on the next generation in an effort to please ourselves. It’s simply maddening.
I don’t doubt that you love your son and that you want what’s best for him, but you also must realize that the situation that you’ve chosen for your son is surely not the ideal. You have placed your son in circumstances that is questionable – at best, imo. You’re participating in yet another social experiment using your son as the subject. And if recent history is any indication then your son and others like him are headed toward the same place that other novel, broken families have arrived since the 60’s.