Fathers for Life
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001


Dale's Web Pages

Response to the Vermont Psychiatric Association Amici Brief in the Vermont Marriage Case


It is well documented that children suffer when their parents or caregivers abuse alcohol and drugs. There are even studies which suggest that smoking may damage children living with smokers. Substance abuse causes mood swings, violence, verbal abuse, general instablity, and drains the family's financial resources

There is substantial evidence that homosexual men and women are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. While heterosexual substance abuse declines with age, homosexuals are more likely to continue abusing substances into their 30's and 40's. Drug and alcohol abuse are related to sexually irresponsible behavior, in particular, anonymous sex. Lesbians are far more likely that heterosexual women to smoke, to drink, and to use illegal drugs.  


Homosexual males are more likely to be interested in pornography and have large collections of homosexual pornography in their homes. Homosexual are more likely to engage in sado-maschoism and other extreme sexual behaviors. This kind of behavior in the home could effect minor children.  


According to the VPA brief , "Fears about difficulties with sexual identity among children of gay and lesbian parents have not been supported by results of empirical research."

The studies produced to support the claim of "empirical research" do not contain samples large enought to validly answer this question. Another problem with the studies is that the authors use the discredited Kinsey statistic that 10% of the population are homosexual as a base. If 10% or less of the children raised by homosexual parents are themselves homosexual, the authors conclude that homosexual parents do not produce homosexual children. The percentage of homosexuals in the general population is not 10%, at most it is under 5% for males, perhaps as low as 3%, and less than 1.5% for women. This would mean that the studies quoted suggest that homosexual parents are more likely to have homosexually oriented children. For example, the Bailey study quoted in the VPA brief found that of 82 adult sons of gay men 10% were gay or bisexual. In the Golombok study of 25 adults raised by lesbians 2 (8%) were homosexual versus 0% of those raised by single heterosexual mothers (who are an acknowledge risk group). In addition the Golombok study found: "children of lesbian mothers were more apt to consider the possibility of a lesbian or gay relationship." In the Brian Miller study of 48 children of gay fathers 4 (8%) were homosexual. All these are higher than would be expected if the percentage of homosexuals in the population is under 5% or as some have studies sugges 3% for men and 1.5% for women.  


The VPA brief states: "Committed, same sex couples are similar to committed different sex couples, and marriages between partners of the same sex would be functionally comparable to marriages between partners of different sexes."

These "marriages" would not be functionally comparable because there is no way in which the relations between two persons of the same sex can result in the conception of a child that is biologically related to the two persons.

The state has a legitimate interest in the establishment of legal fatherhood. The purpose of homosexual marriage is to deny the link between children and their biological parents and create the fiction of "two mommies."

Man/woman married couples have an interest in defending the connection between fidelity and marriage. In addition, this connection is essential to the religious concept of marriage - adultery in most faiths is considered as a serious offense not only against the spouse but also against religious precepts.

Within the male homosexuality community, there is little support for sexual fidelity. In fact, some apologists for homosexual marriage consider the lack of fidelity as an advantage to homosexual men. On the other hand, sexual exclusivity and fidelity are considered as an essential part of the marriage covenant and the state has generally regarded marital infidelity negatively. The creation of a class of marriages in which infidelity would be regarded as acceptable undermines the very concept of marriage and the protections of the bond of marriage.

VPA brief ignores evidence of problems found in homosexual relationships presented in the very articles they use as references. According to the Kurdek (1986), homosexual couples reported "more frequent relationship dissolution." While Duffy (1985) claims that: "The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual women and men are really quite similar, driven by similar general forces," the same article reports striking differences between homosexual and heterosexuals. According to Duffy, only 41% of homosexual men said that their current relations was monogamous, versus 76% of heterosexual men (marital status not included) and 88% of heterosexual women. In addition, "The lowest levels of investment and commitment, as well as duration of current and longest relationships, were reported by gay males."  


When faced with irrefutable evidence of problems associated with the homosexuality, the advocates for homosexuality argue that whatever problems may exist are caused by homophobia, heterosexism, and general discrimination against homosexuals. The researchers frequently dismiss evidence of negative outcomes -- infidelity, drug usage, relationship dissolution -- as the result of the pressures placed on homosexuals by society. Evidence of such a causal relationship is rarely offered.

If discrimination caused pathology would expect to see more pathology among homosexuals in small conservative communities where homosexuality is not accepted and little or no pathology in communities where the homosexual life style is fully accepted and applauded. In fact the reverse is true. The rates of HIV infection, multiple partners, and substance abuse are substantially higher in the homosexual friendly urban enclaves - San Francisco, South Beach, Florida, New York City,

The supporters of homosexual marriage argue that allowing homosexuals to marry would eliminate homophobia and heterosexism and that this would in turn promote the health and psychological well-being of homosexuals.

Even if one were to accept the unproved hypothesis that the excess pathology observable among homosexuals were caused by homophobia and heterosexism, the removal of these forces would require far more than acceptance of homosexual marriage.

Heterosexism is built into the very core of society. To remove all homophobia and heterosexism as defined by the homosexual community would require societal changes on scale not contemplated since the Russian revolution. All religions which regard homosexual acts as sinful would have change their teachings or be silenced. All parents who want heterosexual children would have to be re-educated. Every language would have to be changed to eliminate the heterosexist bias. The universal tendency of children to gender norm would have to be suppressed. All persons who claim to have changed sexual orientation would have to recant and all such therapy would be declared unethical. All legal codes would have to changed to eliminate laws which favor heterosexuals. History, literature, children's stories, and all forms of social communication would have to be rewritten. Anti-homophobia education would have to be introduced at every level of the educational process. Non-compliance with hate-speech restrictions would have to be severely punished.

While such a project may seem impossible, the Deconstructionist ideology favored by many homosexual activists is founded on the conviction that total societal change as not only possible, but essential. Legalizing homosexual marriage is just one part of their agenda.

The recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision requiring the Boy Scouts to employ homosexual scout leaders is an example of the imposition of anti-homophobia legislation on private institutions. In their decision the justices characterized the Boy Scouts defense of God and morality "prejudice", "bigotry," and "invidious discrimination."


Back to Dale's Home Page

From Dale's Disk, hpparent3.rtf, last updated 1999 10 17
Formatted in HTML 2000 10 23 —WHS