Same-Sex Marriage--Hurting the Children

In my estimation as an observer and researcher and active participant for decades in public debates on the matter, nothing has served to move the cause of homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" forward more than making the issue about children, if not also indoctrinating young people from grade school to high school and beyond, while countenancing and collaborating with child abuse organizations.

For a good while, the predominate sympathy ploy of gay advocates was that adult homosexuals were prevented from visiting their partners in the hospital and couldn't share health care insurance like heterosexual couples, to name just a few government benefits allegedly denied to them (see HERE), and so in order to right this supposed wrong, the argument was made that homosexual relationships should be legalized--forget that these government benefits could have been extended in other ways without legalizing homosexual relationships or mangling the definition of marriage.

And, while this ploy gained some emotional mileage, it wasn't enough to tip the scales towards broad or majority public appeal. What was needed was to also include children in the mix, and make the issue about alternative "families."

Accordingly, in the early part of the new millennium, arguments began to crop up on advocacy websites and in legal cases concerning adoption restrictions and the children of homosexual couples not receiving the same public support as heterosexual families.

For example, a writer for the NY Times recently put it this way: "The history of this issue is filled with stories of hardship and heartbreak befalling children whose parents are not recognized as — well, as parents. There are the cases of mothers and fathers turned away from a child’s hospital bed because they are not 'family.' There are the cases of beloved adults denied visitation rights after a breakup. Many states restrict the ability of a gay parent to adopt or to respond to a child’s medical emergency. Divorce laws were created in large part to assure that children get financial and emotional support when marriages end: no marriage, no divorce, no support." (See HERE)

These emotional appeals, while perhaps well intended, though seemingly oblivious to other forms of legal status--like civil unions and domestic partnerships--and the growing body of child protection laws, give the impression that children of same-sex couples have fallen between the societal cracks and are being "cruelly" neglected.

However, this is demonstrably false, as made evident by the fact that homosexual parents tend to receive more public assistance than heterosexuals with children. According to the gay advocacy website, Williams Institute, in 2010 approximately 3.4% of lesbians raising children, and 2.7% of gay men with kids, received public assistance, as compared with only 1.3% of heterosexual parents. (See HERE)

In other words, children of homosexuals were proportionately more than twice as likely as children of heterosexuals to get government help. So, where is the crack?

Why, then, have gay advocates been conspicuously silent about this inconvenient fact? In all my years of research on this topic, the first I learned of this statistic was a few days ago, and even then it was by accident and buried within an article on so-called "income inequality," and wasn't intended to speak to the question at hand.

Nevertheless, to bolster their recently formulated child-centric case, liberal and sympathetic groups have commissioned a number of dubious studies intended to selectively sift through the data for even the most tissuey confirmation of their bias and prop up the counter-intuitive perception that children of gay couples fare as well if not better than children of heterosexuals, and that they would suffer psychologically if gay marriage were not legalized. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

And, as expected, these dubious studies were widely trumpeted by the liberal media (ibid), presumptuously and mistakenly deemed the final word, and have found their way into legal briefs and court rulings, and were marshaled to elicit the endorsement of seemingly respected organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (see HERE) and the less surprising American Psychiatric Association (see HERE), and to bamboozle not a few federal judges (see HERE).

Aside from these studies having recently been debunked (see HERE and HERE and  HERE and HERE), followed by the expected circling of the liberal wagons lamely dismissing the debunking (see HERE and HERE and HERE), they conveniently omit a number of relevant facts, such as:

At best, only about 25% of homosexual ever enter into a legalized relationship, of which only a portion of them get married where available, as compared with 95% for heterosexuals. (See HERE)  So, we aren't talking about a demographic that is largely bent on legitimacy or marriage.

Very few homosexual couples live in the same household (30%--see HERE), and fewer still end up with children (only about 19%), and this number is on the decline (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as compared with 66% for heterosexuals, which number is also in decline (see HERE). So, again, we aren't talking about a demographic that is clamoring for children.

Even more disconcerting, homosexual relationships are disproportionately transient, even when legalized. In terms of relationship longevity, only 29% of homosexual couples stay together up to 7 years, as compared with 70% of traditional marriage lasting more than 10 years. (See HERE)  And, homosexuals are 2 to 3 times more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. (See HERE and HERE)

This may be due in part to several factors. First, the disproportionately high rates of infidelity among homosexuals--4.5 - 25% monogamy as compared with 70 - 88% among heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE) Second, the disproportionately high rates of promiscuity among homosexuals--they average 20 - 106 sexual partners per year, as compared to heterosexuals who average 8 per lifetime. (See HERE and HERE) And, third, the disproportionately high rate of domestic violence among homosexuals--4.6 - 5.8% annually, as compared to 0.035 - 0.27% annually for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

So, yet once more we aren't talking about a demographic largely intent on providing stable and safe homes for children.

In fact, for most of the 19% of same-sex households raising children, the vast majority of the children came from prior opposite-sex relationships. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

In other words, by and large, and contrary to the propagandized impression, not only aren't homosexuals clamoring to raise children, nor desperate to get married so as to raise those children in a stable and safe home, but most of the children they have been raising came from breaking up traditional homes.

[Update: according to the 2014 U.S. Census (see the spreed sheet for 2014), Of the estimated more than 5.7 million  homosexuals in the U.S. only 27% of them were in committed relationships (married or otherwise), as compared with 89% for heterosexuals. Of the 27% of homosexuals in committed relationships, only 17.3% had children in the home, of which 16. % were there own--presumably biological from previous heterosexual marriages. ]

Given the uncontroversial and relatively undisputed view that divorce and other unstable parental relationships can have serious and lasting ill-effects on children (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the even less controversial view that domestic violence has a debilitating impact on kids (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the significantly higher rates at which divorce and domestic violence occur among homosexuals, the implications are clear and a matter of common sense...and yet the good folks on the Left actually expect us to believe the agenda-driven reports that children of homosexual parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexuals, including and more particularly those homes with two biological parents?

Were this not enough, I report on a number of other potential ill-effects of same-sex marriage on children in my article on the Ripple Effects of Same-Sex Marriage.

Children are also being exploited in other ways. It was little more than a third of a century ago that homosexuality was not only generally considered as morally repugnant, but the psychiatric community also deemed it a mental disorder. (See HERE)  Whereas, nowadays, homosexuality has become generally accepted and even celebrated in pop culture. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

How did this happen?

The relatively short transition from condemning to condoning to embracing was a function of multiple factors, but none more key than the heightened indoctrination of our Nation's children. Kids as young as fourth grade have been the intended target of sustained and skillfully executed PR campaigns, which have manifest themselves both in popular media (ibid) as well as throughout our public school system (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and this under the guise of "Multiculturalism" and "Safe Schools". (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

[Update 7/26/15: Eroticizing the Classroom: Protect Your Kids]

Here is a Top 10 list of strategies homosexual activists have used in public education. (See HERE)

And, it isn't just Right-wingers making this claim. Homosexual activists have also owned up to it (see HERE and HERE), and have included it as a plank in their manifestos and agendas. (See HERE and HERE and HERE),

In spite of liberals and gays scoffing at the notion of a "gay agenda" (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as mentioned in some of the links above, the primary architects of the real, massive, and rather detailed public relations campaign were Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (a.k.a. "Erastes Pill"), by way of their 1987 article in Guide Magazine, "The Overhauling of Straight America," and their 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s."

One may easily peruse the last several decades to see ample instances where most, if not all the Kirk and Madsen PR strategies have been adeptly employed, and even less unmistakably, the intended results of escalated favorable opinions (see HERE), particularly among young people. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Now, understandably, homosexual sympathizers have been quick to distance homosexuality from pedophilia (see HERE and HERE and HERE) even though studies have raised serious concerns somewhat to the contrary (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE). And, clever semantics have been employed to give the impression of greater distance than in reality (see HERE), and bold declarations by gay activists about child recruitment have been ardently downplayed (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Never mind the fact that gay rights organizations like Boston-Boise Committee and the Mattachine Society and Gay Activist Alliance gave rise to the pedophilia/pederasty movement (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and several leading gay voices in the 1970's went on to become founding members and staunch supporters of NAMBLA and other pederast causes (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), not to mention that until the late 80's and early 90's, NAMBLA published a gay pedophilia magazine (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and was a part of several gay alliances (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and was even a welcomed participant in gay pride parades (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) until it became politically inexpedient (see HERE), even though not a few people on the Left are in denial about this (see HERE).

It should come as no surprise, then, that pedophilia, which is estimated to be as prevalent if not more so than homosexuality (see HERE), has surged in reported incidences following the successes of the gay movement (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and that the movement has become a springboard for so-called "intergenerational sexuality" ( and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), which is the new code word for adults having sex with kids (see ibid, and HERE), as well as emboldening the movement towards pedophilia rights and normalization (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

This is not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, or even suggest that homosexuals are generally in favor of sex with children. Rather, it is to show yet another way in which homosexuals have not only countenanced, but have used kids for their adult purposes.

To summarize, one of the most disturbing aspects of the presumably adult issue of  "same-sex marriage," and the Leftist LUNC here is, how children have been falsely exploited to promote the cause, and yet sadly, as has been and will be shown in the following articles, if not also in due time, these children are at most risk of suffering the consequences of this radical social experiment. 

NEXT in SERIES    START SERIES    SUBJECT INDEX

For an explanation as to why these same-sex marriage Leftist LUNCs have happened, see: The politics of Victimization, Compassion, Equality, Emotions, Bullying, Propaganda and Disinformation. [the unlinked topics will be posted later as they are completed]