Attorney Discerning

Just another poor dumb sinner; trying to do what he can for Christ & His Church

Thursday, February 01, 2007

State / Religious Issues.

This section contains relevant issues concerning the infringment of religious liberties caused by the enactment of same-Sex "marriage", civil unions and related issues such as adoption.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp


http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/105038/

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

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/dutch-scholars-on-ssm-new-statement.htm

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/dutch-scholars-on-ssm-interview-with.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04wwlnidealab.t.html?ref=magazine

Molly Moore, More Longtime Couples in France Prefer L'Amour Without Marriage, Washington Post Foreign Service, November 21, 2006; A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html

Stefan Theil, Why More Married Couples Are Going Childless, NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE, Sept, 4 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14535863/site/newsweek/


http://www.essenceofmarriagemag.com/1458242.html

http://www.unmarried.org/newsletters/july01.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841_pf.html

http://familyscholars.org/?p=6330

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Civil-Unions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

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 always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.”
Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.


Quoting Professor Germain Grisez

:

“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”


“it is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair….”
And notes a though experiment by Grisez

Imagine a type of bodily, rational being that reproduces, not by mating but by some individual performance. Imagine that for these beings, however, locomotion or digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by biologically complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anybody have any difficulty understanding that in respect to reproduction the organism performing the function is the individual, while in respect of locomotion or digestion the organism performing the function is the united pair?


Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) THEIR CAPACITY TOGETHER TO CREATE SOCIAL DISORDER, and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated. Thus, it inevitably must implicate the political and public aspect insofar as the production of future citizens is not only vital to the survival of a nation, but that the REGULATION OF THIS PRODUCTION OF FUTURE CITIZENS IS JUST AS VITAL.

How we ever came to such a state, were something as profound and obvious as the begetting of children is divorced from all reality and routinely denied…is not just Orwellian, it’s Carol -wellian.


Lee Y Yateel.

Abortion is an excellent corollary. I hope to post in greater depth in the future under a post entitled. We told you so

I have sites from near history showing social scientists claiming that abortion would make illegitimacy rare to nonexistent. This is an example of “logical positivism” at work.

Why would anyone have a child out of wedlock, everyone knows that’s bad. With the availability of abortion, women will never choose to have such children. The logic makes perfect sense except for one thing, people aren’t logical … their human!

Well, times change, and the law helps them change…. Illegitimacy was not reduced because of abortion, on the contrary it exploded after Roe v Wade.

Why…well I could explain…but now as then, someone would scream “prove it”. I can do that, but to who’s satisfaction.
For the purposes of this discussion it means those in power.

Their weren’t a lot of Bolsheviks either.

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 (anything but traditional marriage)

In this regard the first two represent very important, very influential legal opinion. (do look into who is actually leading you… and where)

To the extent that the ALI document dealt with the issue, it was summarizing state responses to these problems.

(from my article on the subject)

Founded in 1923, the ALI includes within its membership many of America’s most influential judges, lawyers, and law professors. The influence of the ALI includes aiding in the Uniform Commercial Code’s drafting, as well as other model codes, such as the Model Code of Evidence, and the Model Penal Code. It has been typically known for its “Restatements of the Law” in certain fields, including contracts, torts, trusts, and conflict of laws.52 This pedigree has established an informal system through such restatements whereby members of the legal community and, significantly, judges, will use these restatements in discerning the direction of their own state's case law when confronted by conflicts in the law and undecided cases with no state precedent, essentially adopting in the process the restatements' recommended thrust or specifics.

It is considered unusual for ALI to make a foray into a field such as family law. Stranger still was for the ALI to recommend changes to existing law. As we have seen, it has been typical for it to simply restate existing law.53 However, the timing of the Report's release made it more than fortuitous.

The Report was released while both the Lawrence and Goodridge cases were pending. Issued only six months before the former and less than a year before the latter decisions were announced, the Report “appear[ed] intended to influence legal developments, particularly those initiated by judicial decisions.”57 As Arizona law professor and editor of the ALI report Mark Ellman noted, “the new report is intended to set guidelines and for individual judges and state legislatures.”58

Equal to the prestige of the body making the Report and its curious timing is the startling nature of the proposals made in The Principles of the Family Dissolution when compared with family law as practiced.

"The major flaw in the Family Dissolution Principles in general, and chapter 6 in particular, is that it deconstructs family relations and tries to “level” marriage, parenting, and “alternative” relationships by greatly expanding the kinds of relationships that are given the same preferred, privileged legal status and benefits as “family” relations. Some aspects of that theme pervade nearly all of the chapters of the Family Dissolution Principles."59



Indeed, David Westfall, writing in the Harvard Journal of Law in an article entitled “Unprincipled Family Dissolution” goes so far as to raise concerns about the “controlled nature of the consultative process”60 used in drafting the Report, noting how the small group of legal academics who produced it had such broad latitude on a subject of such general and public concern.

The remarks of Professor Katherine Bartlett, one of the three principal drafters of the Report, both tells us something about those drafting this work, as well as neatly summing up the drive of the proposals:

"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.”62



52 See The American Law Institute, at http://ali.org
53 The Future of Family Law, Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America A Report from the Council on Family Law at 16
57 Katherine Shaw Spaht THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE The Current Crises In Marriage
58 Karen S. Paterson Love and the Law: A realty Check USA Today, Dec. 4, 2002, at D8
59 David Orgon Coolidge, Widening the Lens: Chapter 6 of the ALI’s Principles, Hawaii and Vermont, 4 J.L. &Fam. Stud. 79 (2002) Id. at 79
60 David Westfall, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 27 (2004): 918-20.
61 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):

When encountering such debates it is important to note….

“According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”

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.

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 legal 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.”

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.

The Blogosphere 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 three lesbian strident feminists/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.


Countering sophomoric plea’s of “Prove It!!”

Multiple posters who support ss“m” ultimately regress towards the request that those opposed produce “discreet and demonstrable harms.”



Leaving aside (for the moment) that this is precisely the object of book length projects such as Kurtz, Blankenhorn & others.




Well, one initially notes that our opponents know that a good offense is the best defense. However; one is left wondering how defenders of a universally acknowledged foundational social institution could come to a position of having the burden of proof laid on them.
{In this regard its helpful to note that court has done so…not even Goodridge}



One can attack such foolish requests with a variety of legitimate tactics. (such as)


#1. Social science studies societies, you need to (a) run the experiment (b) see the results (c) argue the results until a consensus emerges.


{In this regard the arguments that divorce harms children is a excellent example}



Often proponents of same-sex “marriage” end up questioning the very veracity of social science as a discipline.



#2. Noting that the “conservative” case for same sex marriage does not defend its causal case that it would strengthen it.



As Dale Carpenter asserts in his recent Post on Blanhenhorns book.



Seriously, here's another "cluster" of beliefs to add to the mix: gay marriage will enhance the primacy of marriage, take the wind out of the sails of the "families we choose" movement, cut off support for the creation of marriage alternatives (like domestic partnerships and civil unions), de-radicalize gay culture, gut the movement for sexual liberation, and reinforce recent conservative trends in family law. So say what we might roughly call the anti-SSM marriage radicals.

Were is the evidence for this set of wild speculations?



#3. Past performance of the sexual revolution: Abortion will eliminate illegitimacy as a social problem? Divorce will be good for children? How do two people getting divorced hurt your marriage? Women’s “liberation” will make relationships between men & woman easier? How does adoption of no-fault divorce affect your marriage.



#4. An overall moral environment that promotes certain behavior, and discourages other behavior is something we intuitively rely on all the time. Laws against theft don’t simply punish thieves and retrieve property – they also discourage theft and promote industry. More cogent examples lay in everything from smocking, to drunk driving to hate crimes laws and projects that target racism. Indeed, the same-sex “marriage” movement itself claims that this innovation will help inculcate an “overall moral environment” that will encourage monogamy, or increase respect for homosexuals, or lessen stigma on the children the acquire.
It’s a strange double standard that presumes so much of one side and then demands discreet and demonstrable” harms of the other.



However: to be fair, two philosophical strains do lend such camps (if not credibility) at least a certain claim to foibles of the modern mind that haunt us all….



We would all do well to understand the philosophical ground we do battle on. In this regard it is useful to be aware of the currents of though that hold the modern mind in a certain thrall.

A good dictionary of philosophical terms may help us undermine calls of “prove it” by revealing there lineage and utter anti-intellectualism..


A good start would be terms such as: Logical positivist, positivism, consequentialist, Materialism,


The following is a quote from an essay called An Opinion About Opinions By Stephen Barr & is an excellent, concise foray into what I point to above.


It is written in response to It’s Not All Relative By Robert T. Miller.


http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=679
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=678
One of the historical (and indeed still very current reasons for traditional marriage is that it helps bridge the gap between the sexes. (often referred to as complementariness)

Not every young man or woman is the Barbi & Ken ideal. Not on the outside or on the inside. They require something to aspire towards. Getting ones sea legs with opposite sex can be a arduous and often lifelong struggle. Strains of misogyny and misandry can manifest themselves and are often played to in today’s “gender wars”.

As the article makes plain, young women in this instance can be lead astray. Rather than slowly conform and be conformed to relations with men; lesbianism can represent surrender in the timeless battle to bring the two haves of this timeless Yin & Yang together.

It doesn’t take much imagination to envision what is already occurring. Sometimes referred to as SLUG’s (a term coined at Smith College) meaning Lesbians Until Graduation. A certain aspree’ de corp’ exists naturally among women and moiré so among the subculture of lesbianism.

The introduction and normalization of same-sex “marriage” can easily lend itself to a culture that fails large numbers of our youth. Rather than doing the hard work of dating and mating (especially in a post sexual revolution environment with few customs and rules) the homosexual “community” offers an easy out. A place of refuge for all those who (at the least feel) that the hurly burly of competition and heartbreak is beyond them.

A very real danger that is already obvious.

6 Comments:

At 4:22 PM, Blogger smkyqtzxtl said...

I was reading your reasoned comments in another blog and linked over to yours. Obviously the bloger you were trying to reason with had not read your blog or referenced your links. I was impressed with your use of logic and as I now look at your blog I see a person seriously seeking to discern the Word of God. May God give you strength and courage to continue your journey and continue to speak the Truth in Love. God speed.

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

The Second (Silent) Pillar.

My Sister the Bigot: On a recent summer day my older sister, her husband and their three children drove an hour or two to popular amusement park. It was a special Fathers day treat. Upon arrival they could not help but notice that someone had chosen Fathers day to also be GLBT day at this park. (someone’s clever idea).

This is howe








http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JenniferRobackMorse/2006/02/20/the_hetero-flexible_gene


http://www.narth.com/

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49877


http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573

http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html

http://www.satinover.com/cv.htm

http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2006/08/who_are_parents.html#more

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JenniferRobackMorse/2006/02/20/the_hetero-flexible_gene

Homosexual activist and molecular biologist Dean Hamer’s study claiming the existence of a homosexual gene has been scientifically discredited. Studies that claim to prove homosexuality is genetic have been purposefully designed from a homosexual advocacy perspective and seek to convince society that homosexuality is innate, psychologically normal, and thus socially desirable.

In the future we will be discussing Dr. Jeffery Satinover's paper, "The Trojan Couch," about research fraud by the APA and the Gay activist in the area of Gay families.

The Second (Silent) Pillar.

We know that people will stand up and be counted when it comes to defending marriage. There is a second front however, were the homosexual lobby confronts massive resistance. That is when it comes to acclimating young people toward homosexuality.

Concern about same-sex “marriage” has powerful resonance for multiple reasons, one of the most powerful is because it precisely lends itself to inculcating young impressionable minds towards homosexual behavior.

I encourage everyone who reads and rights for this blog to study and note probably the most thorough and important synthesis to date concerning this second front. Written by Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.S., M.D1, this eminently qualified doctor and researcher has condensed some of the most recent findings concerning human sexuality along with a critique of political advocacy’s impact on the mental health profession. This paper highlights the importance of legal changes in fostering an environment conducive to homosexual behavior and acclimation.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/

http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html

http://www.satinover.com/cv.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573

Basing his findings on The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Dr Satinover writes..


{The Laumann study,} 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 publication, 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” & stating that “[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 subject. 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 stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”

His conclusion echo’s what most people suspect and what every parent fears. The “social milieu” being created by homosexual activists acclimates and inculcates young people to first experiments with, and then adopts a homosexual identity.

But the reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic
evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors. We may now say with increasing confidence that those “extraneous” factors are primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself. Ironically, this “ social milieu” is the family setting and culture being created by, inter alia, the decisions enforced by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States acting in coordination with the misrepresentation of scientific evidence provided to it by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.


Understandably marriage activists have resisted being dragged into a battle between competing mental health professionals. Nevertheless, a proper understanding of current research into human sexuality reveals that parental and social concern is justified.

Same-sex “marriage” does not simply undermine the family & society. It is also the most powerful weapon to date in creating the kind of atmosphere that is conducive to defining young people’s sexuality. A second and all too silent pillar in this battle: If properly phrased and forwarded, this second pillar represents a powerful weapon against the establishment of same-sex “marriage”

The Trojan Couch is an excellent place to start.
If you just want to get your feet wet, I recommend this from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JenniferRobackMorse/2006/02/20/the_hetero-flexible_gene

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 publication, 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 subject. 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 stable 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




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 publication, 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).









“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.



“All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality 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
1. Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.S., M.D1
Presently conducting research in complex physical and economic systems in the department of physics and the condensed matter physics laboratory at the University of Nice, France. The present work reports on research conducted while teaching constitutional law in the department of politics at Princeton University and physics at Yale University, and consulting to groups writing briefs in various state and federal Supreme Court cases.
DEGREES:
S.B., Humanities & Science, M.I.T., 1971
Ed.M. Clinical Psychology & Public Practice, Harvard University, 1973
M.D., University of Texas, 1982
M.S., Physics, Yale University, 2003
LICENSES:
Connecticut (Medicine)
BOARD CERTIFICATION:
Psychiatry (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology)
OTHER:
Fellowship Year in Child Psychiatry
Added Qualifications in Geriatric Psychiatry
(American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology)
http://www.satinover.com/cv.htm
1. http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/ln202/Newson%20-%20Modern%20Low%20Fertility.pdf
Chase-Lansdale, P.L., L.S. Wakschlag and J. Brooks-Gunn (1995), “A Psychological Perspective on the Development of Caring in Children and Youth: the Role of the Family”, Journal of Adolescence 18:515-556.
Cialdini, R.B., M. Schaller, D. Houlihan, K. Arps, J. Fultz and A.L. Beaman (1987), “Empathy-based Helping: Is It Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:749-758.
Cialdini, R.B. (1991), “Altruism or Egoism? That is (still) the Question”, Psychological Inquiry 2:124-126.
Cialdini, R.B., S.L. Brown, C. Luce, B.P. Lewis and S.L. Neuberg (1997), “Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One into One Equals Oneness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:481-49
http://www.fatherhood.org/doclibrary/delinquency.pdf

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/
Their friend Nathan, a senior with John Lennon hair and glasses, is there with his guitar, strumming softly under the conversation. “So many of the girls here are lesbian or have experimented or are confused,” he says.
This past September, when the National Center for Health Statistics released its first survey in which teens were questioned about their sexual behavior, 11 percent of American girls polled in the 15-to-19 demographic claimed to have had same-sex encounters—the same percentage of all women ages 15 to 44 who reported same-sex experiences, even though the teenagers have much shorter sexual histories. It doesn’t take a Stuyvesant education to see what this means: More girls are experimenting with each other, and they’re starting younger. And this is a conservative estimate, according to Ritch Savin-Williams, a professor of human development at Cornell who has been conducting research on same-sex-attracted adolescents for over twenty years. Depending on how you phrase the questions and how you define sex between women, he believes that “it’s possible to get up to 20 percent of teenage girls.”
Alair and her friends, on the other hand, are known as the “bi clique.” In the social strata, they’re closer to the cool kids than to the nerds. The boys have shaggy hair and T-shirts emblazoned with the names of sixties rockers. The girls are pretty and clever and extroverted. Some kids think they’re too promiscuous. One student-union leader told me, “It’s weird. It’s just sort of incestuous.” But others admire them. Alair in particular is seen as a kind of punk-rock queen bee. “She’s good-looking, and she does what she wants,” said a senior boy. “That’s an attractive quality.”
To these kids, homophobia is as socially shunned as racism was to the generation before them. They say it’s practically the one thing that’s not tolerated at their school. One boy who made disparaging remarks about gay people has been ridiculed and taunted, his belongings hidden around the school. “We’re a creative bunch when we hate someone,” says Nathan. Once the tormenters, now the tormented.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/g/questioning.htm

Definition: A gay-friendly person unsure of their sexuality or same-gender-loving feelings. This person often feels they may be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; but confirmation of those feelings may take further emotional or physical exploration.

These repressed and closeted gays and lesbians are messed up. Why are heterosexuals so concerned about sex with their partners? Don't they realize there is more than sex? Yes, pose these same kinds of questions to straight people, and we see how ridiculous, repressed and sick it all is.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/0226469573



Basing his findings on The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

The Laumann study, 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 publication, 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”
stating that “[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 subject. 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 stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”
The reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors. We may now say with increasing confidence that those “extraneous” factors are primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself.

 
At 1:28 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

Right….Ok –critical thinker
There’s the New Resolution Passed by American Anthropological Association
Opposed to US Military Action Against Iran.
There’s another Against Coca-Cola.
Or maybe people can just go to their site itself and see if this is the result of “scientific consensus”.
Hint: Such resolutions are not. They are the work of the Association, not the scholars themselves. This is common knowledge.
Jayhuck
Fine - one last time.
Be it from the APA or other “associations” you need to be more discerning and critical in your reading skills.
#1. These are broad statements issued by the associations themselves NOT scientific consensuses or scholarship in themselves.
Never the less
#2. When you read them you can see just how vapid & non-committal they are. (allow me to demonstrate)
The 2004 American Anthropological Association statement: (ISSUED -the day after President Bush called for a national marriage amendment)
{notice the precision of the wording}
“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”
This says nothing about what most societies recognize as marriage (now or in the past) nor what is best for society or children. It basically says “we anthropologists don’t think the earth will spin of its access if gays get “married””

Here is just one of many links that discuss precisely the overtly politicized and (as demonstrated) horribly thin statements made by groups like the AAA.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWE0YjBiYzE3ZmE3N2MzZTI4YWI1OWVhOWJlM2ZjNzY=
Don’t be an advocate – be a thinker!
No they are not. These are statements by the organization, they do not represent scientific consensus on the subject or the views of individual members.
Unless your dense enough to believe all the anthropolists off the world got together and agreed to
“Resolutions on Iraq and torture” or the AAA Supports of U. Michigan in Supreme Court Case right to invoke affirmative action policies in school admissions to ensure diversity in its student body or the “American Anthropological Association Statement on Cuban Trade Embargo” as well as those I already listed.
I am a member of the Bar Association. Its policy statements don’t reflect my opinions or the opinions of most let alone all lawyers or the “law”.
This is common knowledge.
Don’t swallow everything you read as blunt “fact”.

 
At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please let me know if you're looking for a author for your blog. You have some really great articles and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'd absolutely love to write
some material for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.

Please blast me an e-mail if interested. Thanks!

Here is my web-site; Dailymotion.Com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home