Just another poor dumb sinner; trying to do what he can for Christ & His Church
It seems to me that catholic unity presuposes reasoned though.... I built this blog so I could comment to another Blogger... I like a lot of what he has to say, and have questions about other things.
posted by Fitz @ 10:28 AM
I am A 35 year old Attorney from Michigan (around Detroit) I practice mostly probate & will contest, I am discerning a call to the priesthood (& considering the Jesuit order) I have an B.A. in philosophy and a J.D. I would describe myself as analytical & intellectually inclined. I spend a great deal of time reading on a wide array of subjects (mostly the humanities though, political and social science) I believe in the primacy of culture, (When I’m not espousing the primacy of Christ & his Church)
14 Comments:
Dear Patrick,
I actually didn't attend Loyola New Orleans, but taught there for the last two years--in the Philosophy department! So, I may know some of your old teachers. And, if your uncle teaches there, I might know him as well.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about Jesuit life and Jesuit priesthood. Please feel free to ask me any questions you'd like. As an attorney, you wouldn't be alone in the Jesuits, as we have many! My current provincial, in fact, is an attorney.
I would also suggest that you contact our vocation director, who is of great help to people who are considering the Society of Jesus. He's a seasoned veteran who has been doing the job many years and can point you to all kinds of resources that would be helpful. His name is Marvin Kitten, and his e-mail is mkitten@norprov.org.
But, I'm not passing the buck here. Like I said, I'd like to help you in any way I can. I'm not sure where you are in your discernment, so perhaps you'd be a little hesitant to contact a vocation director just yet. I understand if that is the case. But if you are really interested in making a move before Fall of 2006, you would have to get going in the application process within the next three months or so, and so it would be good for you to be in contact with a vocation director ASAP.
You know where to find me, you can e-mail me directly by hitting the "e-mail" link at my blog. That way, you won't have to put everything on display for all my blog readers.
Look forward to hearing from you!
Peace,
Mark
“The African-American experience and the experience in Eastern Europe, where out-of-wedlock births are also common, show that this social problem typically has nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage.”
Agreed (& I know of no one who says otherwise) But it dose prove a variety of other points we try & make.
#1. The institution of marriage is not invulnerable. (its susceptible to damage)
#2. Its breakdown has serious consequences for society.
#3. State manipulation has unexpected results.
#4. The cultural left are incapable of foreseeing them.
#5. The cultural right has foreseen them quite clearly.
”If Stanley Kurtz wants to claim a connection to gay marriage, then he’d better be able to prove it. But he can’t. He probably knows that he can’t, and so he doesn’t even try.”
It’s important to accurately understand Kurtz thesis in order to understand if he has “proved it” .
(Here it is verbatim – people always misrepresent it, as you have Ed)
“Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
He does try & continues to. He has answered Spendales & Eskriges work directly.
The problem with “prove” - is to who’s satisfaction.
When no fault divorce was being introduced, one of the arguments against its opponents ran ““
“What do two people getting a divorce have to do with your marriage?”
Well… now the divorce rate stands at 50%, and the rate of new marriages among the young continues to decline.
Simplistic and naïve understandings of foundational social institutions abound on the left.
A sophomoric scientific rationalism inspires calls of “prove it”? along with a callous dismissal of the data on fatherlessness, illegitimacy, divorce and so fourth.
If you can answer the question of-
“What do two people getting a divorce have to do with your marriage?”?
Then you are closer to understanding the way societies work.
If you can’t answer that question (if it leaves you baffled), well, then your probably for same-sex marriage.
If anyone is truly interested in understanding the complex ways that social tradition preserves the common good, the following links may prove helpful.
(as well as those presented in Ampersand | posting)
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-0…
marriage.rutgers.edu/]
www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/opinion/bo…
www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0402/opinion/eb…
www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html
www.americanvalues.org/html/hardwired.html
Here are two more (extremely timely) examples.
claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2005/watson.h…
claremont.org/writings/050408cella.html
However, I still believe the most important article for understanding the complex ways that society, gender & tradition interact is the touchstones article focusing on the work of George Akerlof a Nobel prize-winning economist, and professor at Berkeley.
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-0…
Warmed over feminism, in an age were women in general shun the term, and a abhorrence for any gendered roles is hardly settled public policy.
With 70% illegitimacy rates among the black underclass, both the preservation & promotion of traditional marriage takes precedent over further radically egalitarian experiments.
As in the past, the most pejorative effects will fall on women, children & the poor.
New statement. Here it is in Dutch. What follows is an unofficial English translation:
At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.
Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution.
Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants). This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent), by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant to
their own lives or that of their offspring. We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children. There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best
structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships.
The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.
Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful
development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order.
Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
My email is neripowell(at)yahoo(dot)com. I'll check out your blog. Thanks to you all for visiting mine.
Fr. Philip
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that can never produce children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Mike
Self-pity is the worst kind of narcissism.
So called gay “marriage” does two things necessarily. (that is it follows axiomatically from the very definitional change)
#1. It androgynies the institution.
#2. It separates it from any necessary connection to procreation.
You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can concieve children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.
Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
Of coarse I’m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.
For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined. The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for your inclusion.
See, I’m not the only one who thinks this way kids
In Recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex “marriage” courts do specifically reject the most egregious illogical conclusion of Goodridge, that procreation is some kind of bad faith post-hoc invented reasoning to hide the “real” reason marriage is a husband-wife institution.
From the Washington State Decision
“Plaintiffs also rely on Goodridge, where the Massachusetts court rejected the argument that procreation justified limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court said that “{t}he ‘marriage is procreation’ argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage.” Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 333. The court held that “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.” Goodridge, 440 Mass. at 332.
“But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”
Note the court appropriately applies Loving, etc.
The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots. Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and a reflection of “the dominant political ideas of their local community,” the concurrence says: “[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”
The opinion employs a traditional legal analysis, deciding that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification and that there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. The plurality was very deferential to the reasons the state advanced in support of its marriage law. The concurrence was even stronger, arguing that the marriage law was supported by compelling interests because of “its exclusive link to procreation and child rearing.”
1. You can agree for any allowance you want to try and win what you want. Problem is the cultural left has a pedigree. They think marriage is archaic and patriarchal.
When Senator Daniel Patrick Monihan published his famous “Report on the Negro family” the cultural left called him a bigot.
When Dan Qualye eschewed Murphy Brown for making single Motherhood “just another lifestyle choice” the cultural left called him a bigot.
This Blog is replete with articles from the NYT and other sources of the cultural left about single women and men “choosing” to raise youngsters on their own. No moral condemnation is made or even suggested.
Illegitimacy is not a problem in New Delhi,. The correlation with a declining marriage culture is not income, couples live on a bowl of rice and stay together.
I’m afraid the illegitimacy rate is still 70% among the underclass. The lesbian couple next door implicitly states that marriage is androgynized and Fathers are not important.
If the cultural left has embraced monogamy and repented from their sexual revolution its news to me. My law school “family” law department was made up of two lesbian strident feminists and a polymorist. None of them asserted anything except all family forms are inherently equal, and the traditional family is archaic and patriarchal.
The important thing is not the answer to the question, but who writes the question. Your happy to know that your having your debate on your terms. The capacity of the public for sustained debate on any topic is limited. It’s a precious commodity. Your activists and activist judges have succeeded in pressing this issue. No matter what happens you move your ball down your court.
How do we provide a child with his natural mother and father living together under the same roof? Or.. What is the social utility of traditional morality? Or.. How has the feminist project undermined and alienated relations between the sexes? Or…What accounts for the disintegration of married intact families since the 1960’s? Or… How do we best alleviate and rebuild this broken structure? Or, what accounts for the decline in marriage and increase in cohabitation in Scandinavian countries that have adopted same-sex “marriage”? Or… How can we hope to build a marriage culture around a androgynized definition that separates a Childs natural parent from any necessary connection to his or her child? Or… why is the cultural left suddenly conceding the importance of the family unit when it has spent years calling it archaic a patriarchal? Where were these same people during the divorce revolution? Where were they when Senator Moynihan issued his report on black family disintegration? Could this sudden concession on the importance of marriage and monogamy be a momentary faint in a well documented history of considering all family forms as being inherently equal?
I disagree. I say that allowing SSA couples to marry will do irreparable harm to the institution of marriage by showing that marriage is outdated, any family form is adequate; a Childs own Mother & Father are not inherently necessary to that Childs future and proper upbringing and either sex is ultimately irrelevant to the institution.
The religious right is terrified that Americans might notice the obvious similarities between the African-American civil rights battle and the fight for equal rights by gay and lesbian Americans.
The problem with the argument from analogy, is it is merely that; an analogy. It’s strength rises and falls on the power of the analogy.
Gay people were not brought here in chains, forced into chattel slavery and then lived under apartheid for 200 years.
We fought a civil war with a countless death toll to end slavery and insure equal rights for blacks. We also (and this is crucial in your spurious analogy) have three different constitutional amendments that attempted to address this historic inequality. One of them is the 14th on which you so slavishly and narrowly rely. Each amendment was ratified by the people. This was done democratically through a vote. We also have the various civil rights acts ratified through legislative action. Every “fundamental right” in our constitution has been voted upon and ratified by the people. It is equal justice UNDER THE LAW, that is written above the supreme court. We the people decide what those laws aught be. They don’t simply proceed from spurious and weak analogies. Indeed the co-opting of the moral authority of civil rights language not only insults my intelligence, but insults African Americans generally.
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.
Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Family in Focus 2/27/04
The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Remarks in an address at Harvard Law School
The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination.
The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery.
Senate Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson
St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church
The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston
Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc.
Boston, MA
1. 57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
62-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.
Believe it or not these are people defending marriage & the family. If they were all that concerned with the behavior of homosexuals they would have been up in arms against Lawrence and NOT Goodrich.
All of this is for naught however. It is a mere procedural argument. It pales in comparison to the deeper truth about what we exalt as a family. What we hope our Sons & Daughters will aspire to, and how we best organize and raise our families.
Hennry
“I propose that the end of patriarchy has done more to kill traditional marriage than any court ruling. I'd prefer that partriarchy stay defeated, myself, and let marriage be reinvented.”
Nice proposal- the “patriarchy” huh? (you really ought not listen to your professors their not to be trusted” )
I propose that marriage has been “reinvented” & the “patriarchy” completely destroyed.
Its called the black underclass – lets call it a matriarchy.
57-43 = Oregon.
59-41 = Michigan.
62-38 = California.
62-38 = Ohio.
66-34 = Utah.
67-33 = Montana.
71-29 = Kansas.
71-29 = Missouri.
73-27 = North Dakota.
75-25 = Arkansas.
75-25 = Kentucky.
76-24 = Georgia.
76-24 = Oklahoma.
78-22 = Louisiana.
86-14 = Mississippi.
56-44 = Colorado
63 – 37 = Idaho
74-26 = South Carolina
52- 49 South Dakota
82 -19 Tennessee
57-43 = Virginia
60 -40 Wisconsin
I hope you all would consider for a moment, people other than yourselves. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them evil. Moral certitude of this sort always blinds one to the effects of their actions. People value marriage and think children are best when raised by their Mothers & Fathers. That’s no reason to call such people bigots, just because they see things differently than you do.
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Uncle & Critics
Apparently you’re not familiar with the American Law Institute. It is the most influential & premier professional organization for family law in the United States. The proposals in PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION included (famously) three distinct proposals: each of which brings the law further away from its traditional foundations.
One includes polygamist/polyandrous & “polyamoris”t family formations. The others recommend collapsing the distinction between cohabitation and marriage law.
http://www.ali.org/
Here is their web site.
I understand the “keep trying” is some type of snipe that says I have not “proved” my point.
Nonetheless I feel undeterred. It’s evident that the contemporary Academy is influenced by specific trends popular on the left. The connection between the make up of my Law Schools family law department and current decisions in the Massachusetts & New Jersey Supreme Courts as well as the (influential) professional organizations and activists I provide links to above satisfy my criteria.
The difficult thing about the charge “prove it”- is the question – “to who’s satisfaction?”
The “proof” of their Lesbian/polyamorist activism/scholarship can be seen in the fruits of their labor.
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA REPORT: BEYOND CONJUGALITY
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
They make no secret of it….
The want to De-privilege the Privileged (traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-Privileged (any thing but traditional marriage)
(yes I believe there is a direct causal connection between lesbian/feminist/polymorist law professors saturation of family law dept and universities & Judicial rulings and legal movements as exemplified above.)
By Academics such as Demographers David Coleman and Joop Garssen Dutch demographer Jan Latten Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
g_olds - 4:54 PM ET January 26, 2007 (#38605 of 38609)
fitz how sad...
You never even question the validity of "normative behaviours". For instance, is single parenthood a "bad" thing, in and of itself?
Oh, and how many times could possibly put the word "deviant" into your post before you think we'll 'get' your 'point' anyway?
Now, as for your fallacious contention that equal marriage somehow "De-privilege[s] the privileged. (traditional marriage and family)", please explain how my marriage has in any way 'de-privileged' any betterosexual couple? What rights have they lost? How has their "marriage" been diminished, demeaned, debased, de-sanctified, or, to use your word, "de-privileged"? What is it that they're no longer allowed to do now that I am allowed to get legally married?
(We've asked this many times before, and have never got an answer, so I doubt you'll be able to, but I would like to hear your thoughts on what you've lost. Care to try?)
imnsho, you're as off your rocker as the delusional Miss sophgeorgette.
i < “You never even question the validity of "normative behaviours". For instance, is single parenthood a "bad" thing, in and of itself?” <
Yes, it is. Through design or divorce, single parenting deprives a child of his or her natural parent inside the home in a stable relationship with either the mother or father. Gay “marriage” will further encourage novelties like chosen single motherhood for women who can’t manage to find a husband. The ability for society to condemn such behavior will be considerably diminished.
i < “Now, as for your fallacious contention that equal marriage somehow "De-privilege[s] the privileged. (traditional marriage and family)", >
That’s not my contention, those are the exact phraseology of those prominent academic advocates of same-sex “marriage” – they hope to “queer the normal”
c > the value I place on family diversity and on the freedom of individuals
to choose from a variety of family forms. This same value
leads me to be generally opposed to efforts to standardize families into a certain
type of nuclear family because a majority may believe this is the best kind of family
or because it is the most deeply rooted ideologically in our traditions.
Instead, we should embrace equally all forms of “intimate relationships.”
aiming to de-privilege marriage by treating cohabiting and other kinds
of relationships just like marriage. In this view, protection of diverse constructions of
intimacy becomes the central public task of family law.1 <
If you would like I can point you to multiple references to prove this obvious contention.
They include law review articles, scholarly publications, organizations and prominent authors. (like we don’t know who we are dealing with?)
i < explain how my marriage has in any way 'de-privileged' any betterosexual couple? What rights have they lost? How has their "marriage" been diminished, demeaned, debased, de-sanctified, or, to use your word, "de-privileged"? <
(I have answered countless times)
Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can concieve children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage, that any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We can’t defend what we can’t define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage. That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
1. Katharine T. Bartlett, “Saving the Family from the Reformers” (Brigitte M.
Bodenheimer Memorial Lecture on the Family), University of California, Davis Law Review
31 (1998): 817. One of the ALI three main reporters in contracting the “principles of family dissolution”
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485908p-408965c.html
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1300
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml
http://www.nospank.net/n-m61r.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_40/ai_115078637
Well, it seems the question of the day is…
i< “Do you think a person's sexual orientation can be changed?”
Well, I don’t know if it can be “changed” but apparently it changes..
The Laumann study, written by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels and published by the University of Chicago Press, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publicat ion, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist
“[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”
Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the s ubject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is st able over time, and that it can be easily measured.”
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago (1994).
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573
http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html
Well, it seems the question of the day is…
i< “Do you think a person's sexual orientation can be changed?”
Well, I don’t know if it can be “changed” but apparently it changes..
The Laumann study, written by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels and published by the University of Chicago Press, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publicat ion, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings.
“[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”
Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the s ubject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is st able over time, and that it can be easily measured.”
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago (1994).
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573
http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html
ericgbostrom - 5:48 PM ET February 6, 2007 (#38920
“The problem with sexual orientation is that like most personality traits it is established when people are very young. Few people change much once they have reached primary school age. People may develop and grow but it's pretty much in conformance with what has already become recognizable and predictable about them.”
“Laumann, provides the most careful and extensive database ever obtained on the childhood experiences of matched homosexual and heterosexual populations.
Not according to the latest studies including the one I site above (although I do concede that it may feel this way to you imparticualr)
“All the evidence points to the fact that homosexual ity is not a “stable trait.” Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals a ged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were. (See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)”
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago
American Journal of Psychiatry that reported a 65% success rate,”
26 M. F. Schwartz and W. H. Masters, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141, pp. 173—81
Berlusconi blasts EU rejection Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 9:26 AM EDT (1326 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/12/italy.eu/index.html
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006
Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions-Gay issue stirred move by agency
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
jubile pharmexcil blogstreet interstate pans customisable lmited tacd sankara cooper brewing
lolikneri havaqatsu
Post a Comment
<< Home