Homosexual Marriage Not in Arizona's Best Interests

The Arizona Conservative ^ | Dennis Durband

[repentant_pundit]

Those who see no apparent harm in legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States should not be heartened by Tuesday's ruling in Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of seven homosexual couples seeking to overturn the traditional definition of marriage. If, through the application of the full faith and credit clause, Arizona and other states are forced to legalize homosexual marriage, the results will be predictable.

That's because social science research has already given us an accurate view of homosexual relationships and the instability of those involved, including children.

We know that homosexual relationships last, on average, for approximately 18 months. On average, these "committed" homosexual "partners" engage in sexual relations with eight individuals per year. Monogamy is almost unheard of among same-sex partners, and "infidelity" is considered the norm.

We also know that the children of same-sex couples do poorly in school compared to the children of traditional families. These children are more likely to get into trouble, use drugs and alcohol and experience more problems with depression.

Child psychologists tell us that around the age of nine, boys need to start lessening the bond with the mother and strengthening the bond with the father. When social engineering tinkers with that, the natural order is disrupted -- often with harmful effects with lasting repercussions for the walking wounded. This also applies to children of divorce, who don't fare as well in single-parent homes either.

An alarming statistic borne out by social science research is that in the United States, in the year 2001, more than 16,000 women were the victims of violence at the hands of their lesbian partners. In the same year, more than 13,000 homosexual men in the U.S. were the victims of violence at the hands of their homosexual partners. This represented 94.8 percent of all violent crimes committed against homosexuals in the U.S. for that year. That's correct: heterosexuals account for just 5.2 percent of violent crimes against homosexuals. If any group is guilty of homophobia, it's homosexuals themselves.

All these negative statistics point to one bottom line that cannot be ignored: it is not in the interests of communities, governments, societies, individuals -- adults and children -- or employers to encourage same-sex marriage. The social costs far outweigh any gains which can be accrued.

People argue that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender. This is a hollow argument. We don't marry everyone or everything we love. If same-sex marriage is force-fed to the American public -- as is the case in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, the United Kingdom and other foolish nations -- there will be no reason to regulate this institution any longer. What would then stop people in this litigious-obsessed time and age from seeking to marry animals, inanimate objects, or themselves (which has actually happened already)?

Homosexuals argue that their cause is directly related to the civil rights movement -- a totally hollow and unsubstantiated plea. A relative of the late Dr. Martin Luther King said that the homosexual movement has no substantive argument to make the tie to civil rights. An activity that one percent of the American population choose on their own to engage in -- at great health risks to themselves -- is not grounds for employment benefits or state-approved marriage rights. The myth of a homosexual gene is just that: a myth, totally without merit in the scientific community.

History is littered with the debris of failed social experiments, such as the Democrats' war on poverty, Planned Parenthood's farcical sex education and others. There are no good arguments for adding same-sex marriage in Arizona, or any other state, to that list.

Take away the nonprofit organizations with high-powered development and public relations functions, websites and the intimidation of opponents by the homosexual activist organizations, and all you have left is the plain truth that marriage is best served by the union of one man and one woman. The homosexual activist movement is incapable of countering that truth without resorting to name-calling, intimidation and coercion and in some cases, violence, threats and vandalism.

Bodies of government will do well to legislate in ways that encourage intact, traditional families headed by a man and a woman. Arizona's judicial system will be wise in resisting the liberal temptation to engage in radical activism as it relates to marriage. Communities and society will benefit from such wise lawmaking and disciplined jurisprudence.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[little jeremiah]

I can hardly believe this - an op-ed piece that makes total sense!