There are facts and truths that "sexual libertarians" don't want society or public opinion to know, that even they don't want to know. To sum up those facts - accumulated in different human cultures and societies - we don't need sex to live a full life and be content. To define one's identity on the basis of our sexuality alone is to reduce our human value and dignity. I am a lot more than just my genitalia, and so are you. G.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My purpose in these posts is to bring together significant and, where possible, representative echoes of our best human efforts to make sense of our lives - and of our human sexuality in particular - also including the voice of Jesus Christ, the one Saviour of the world, and testimonies from his Church, such as through her teaching voice, the Magisterium. The Church has been accumulating much valuable wisdom granted her by Almighty God since her foundation at Pentecost. In this way, wherever there is darkness in our human understanding, it will serve to highlight the bright and radiant truth, which is Jesus Christ: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." John's Gospel 14:6-7
Father Gilles Surprenant, priest & poustinik
In each case, please go to the link for the complete article.
1. A Child Is a Gift, Not a Right or an Object
2. What about children? "Redefiing Marriage: The case for caution"
3. How Heterosexual Marriage Protects Children’s Rights And Best Interests
4. First-Person: Same-Sex 'Marriage' Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered? DAWN STEFANOWICZ I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices.
5. Same-Sex Marriage Is Harmful to Children - From Opposing Viewpoints in Context Gay Marriage, 2012
6. Childrenhave Human Rights – Issues with redefining marriage
7. Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It
SUMMARY Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
8. Contemporary Developments in Child Protection - Volume 3: Broadening Challenges in Child Protection Edited by Nigel Parton - MDPI Switzerland (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute - 2015
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1. A Child Is a Gift, Not a Right or an Object
I Was Astonished to Find Thisin the Catechism Leila Miller April 18,
2017
Adults in our society are “discovering” new “rights” for themselves at an
astonishing rate, but to the detriment of authentic rights—including the rights
of children. When I read the following paragraph from the Catechism a
few years ago, it stopped me in my tracks. I have never forgotten it, perhaps
because of how thoroughly the culture has.
A
child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of
marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of
property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead.
In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be
the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and
"the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception"
(CCC 2378).
The
Church says to adults: you have no right to a child. You have a natural and
God-given right to many things, but a child is not one of them.
Why?
Because a child is a gift.
We
may hear that phrase bandied about, but do we really understand it? Think about
the nature of any gift—it is never owed. A gift is given freely and willingly
by the giver, never required and never demanded. You cannot force someone to
give you a gift, or else it ceases to be a gift.
The
minute an adult believes that having a child is his “right,” it follows that a
child must be supplied, in whatever way necessary to attain that
right. It would be a matter of justice, after all as our rights are owed to us!
But
when our thinking goes there (and it has in our culture), we begin to justify
the ways in which we will “get” the children we are owed; a human child is now
a commodity to be made and possessed. Furthermore, once a child is “considered
a piece of property,” as the Church describes it, all manner of injustice
against the child is now permissible. After all, what do we do with property?
Well, whatever we’d like, including buying it, selling it, manipulating it, disposing
of it. Property has no rights at all.
And
yet, the Church says to the child: You have the right to be created from the
marital act of your own two parents. You, the child, are the only one
who “possesses genuine rights” in this area of human existence.
Despite
what the voices around us say, every child has a natural, primal right to be
conceived from an act of lovemaking between his married mom and dad. Strip away
all the clamor of noise around us, the false promises that “you can have
whatever you want,” and remember what God’s design for marriage and family, “in
the beginning,” looked like—a child as the fruit of his parents’ one-flesh
union. This design and order has not changed.
So,
because a child has a right to be “the fruit of the specific act of the
conjugal love of his parents,” reproductive interventions such as IVF, donor
eggs/sperm, and surrogacy are always morally wrong. Pro-life attorney Dorinda
Bordlee of the Bioethics Defense Fund calls
these procedures “human reproductive trafficking.” Legal contracts are
negotiated and vast sums of money are exchanged for human gametes. The child’s
conception is literally put in the hands of a third party, and biological
mothers and fathers are reduced to body parts to be rented, bought, or sold.
The
truth of this is not easy for many to hear today. After all, what could be
wrong with the desire to have a child, especially infertile couples of good
will who desperately want a baby and have no intention of discarding “excess”
embryos during an IVF cycle or “selectively reducing” (i.e., aborting) one or
more children once multiples are implanted? The answer is that there is nothing
wrong with the desire. The desire of a husband and wife to have a child is holy
and good. But their good intention does not justify the use of evil means. (See
the Catechism 1750-1761.)
Infertility
is a heavy cross, and infertile couples certainly may avail themselves of any
and all moral reproductive technologies available to treat or
cure their infertility so that they might conceive and bear a child naturally.
This could include hormonal therapies or drugs to stimulate ovulation or aid
embryo implantation, or holistic approaches (such as NaPro Technology) that
address and attempt to heal the underlying problem or pathology, something
artificial reproduction cannot do.
For
a couple who cannot conceive a child even after treatments (or who would prefer
to forego treatment), adoption is a beautiful option. Some might wonder: Doesn’t
adoption treat a child as a “right” not a gift? And what of the fact that an
adopted child does not stay with the couple who conceived him? First,
we remember that adoption is about the needs of the child, not about fulfilling
the desires of the adults (although that would be a happy consequence).
Adoption is, therefore, a restoration of what has been lost to
a child. Again, it is the child who possesses the rights here, not the
adults.
The
other fundamental human right the child possesses, according to the Catechism,
is the right “to be respected as a person from the first moment of conception.”
That “supreme gift of marriage,” a new human person, is a life sacred and inviolable,
just like the rest of us. Every child conceived is made to love and be loved,
never to be used, certainly never to be killed. This reality affirms and
protects not only the dignity of the child, but the dignity of each person, and
of marriage, too.
God’s
creation and his laws are beautiful because they form a tapestry of truth. We
may get confused living in a relativistic and consequentialistic culture, but
when we back up, when we clear our minds and open our hearts to first
principles, things fall into place and we can see the beauty of God’s perfect
design.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/i-was-astonished-to-find-this-in-the-catechism
-------------------------------------------------
2. What about children? "Redefining Marriage: The case for caution"
Summary The Government’s proposal to introduce same-sex marriage seems to rest on reasons of equality, stability and convenience. But on closer inspection, these are respectively incomplete, speculative and negligible. As currently defined, marriage secures the equal value of men and women. It also promotes the welfare of children. By contrast, the new definition of marriage will unavoidably call into question its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature. Such an unravelling of marriage is too high a price to pay for a proposal which fulfils no practical legal need.
https://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge-papers/redefining-marriage-the-case-for-caution
-------------------------------------------
3. How Heterosexual Marriage Protects Children’s Rights And Best Interests
Presentation to the State of Massachusetts Judiciary Commission
By Louis DeSerres, B.A., M.B.A.
For the first time in over 150 years, the fight for human rights, which has led to the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and civil rights for African-Americans, is now in the process of turning backwards. With same sex marriage we are now taking away the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable citizens, children. We are also entering an era where freedom of speech is being challenged. (Read the full presentation at the link or at the end of this post.)
---------------------------------------------------
4. First-Person: Same-Sex 'Marriage' Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered? DAWN STEFANOWICZ I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices.
Notice to Reader: "The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC
USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that
deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly
reiterate the Catechism's teaching that people who self-identify as gays and
lesbians must be treated with 'respect, compassion, and sensitivity' (CCC
#2358). The Boards also support the Church's right to speak to aspects of this
issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section
have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect
with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC
will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and
lesbians to hatred or intolerance."
My name is Dawn Stefanowicz, I grew up in a homosexual household during the 60s and 70s in Toronto, exposed to many different people, the GLBT subcultures, and explicit sexual practices. I am currently writing a book, soon to be published, on this experience. As well, I was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-250 (hate crimes), and I have presented at the local school board.
My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.
Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of
personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of
strong commonalities to my personal experiences2-13. Not only do
children do best with both a mother and a father in a lifelong marriage bond14,15,
children need responsible monogamous parents who have no extramarital sexual
partners. Parental promiscuity, abuse and divorce are not good for children.
If same-sex marriage is legalized, a person, couple or group who practice any form of sexual behavior would eventually be able to obtain children through previous heterosexual relationships, new reproductive technologies, and adoption due to the undefined term sexual orientation. This would force all public and private adoption agencies to hand over children into experimental relationships or risk charges of discrimination.
What is the most suitable environment for children to be born or adopted into?16 The many personal, professional and social experiences with my father did not teach me respect for morality, authority, marriage, and paternal love. I felt fearfully silenced as I was not allowed to talk about my dad, his male housemates, his lifestyle and encounters within the subcultures without being browbeaten and threatened by my father. While I lived at home, I had to live by his rules. Yes, I loved my dad. However, I felt abandoned and neglected as my needs were not met since my father would often leave suddenly to be with his partners for days. His partners were not really interested in me. I was outraged at the incidences of same-sex domestic abuse, sexual advances toward minors, and loss of sexual partners as if people were only commodities. I sought comfort looking for my father's love from boyfriends starting at 12 years old.
From a young age, I was exposed to explicit sexual speech, self-indulgent lifestyles, varied GLBT subcultures and gay vacation spots. Sex looked gratuitous to me as a child. I was exposed to all-inclusive manifestations of sexuality including bathhouse sex, cross-dressing, sodomy, pornography, gay nudity, lesbianism, bisexuality, minor recruitment, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Sado-masochism was alluded to and aspects demonstrated. Alcohol and drugs were often contributing factors to lower inhibitions in my father's relationships.
My father prized unisex dressing, gender-neutral aspects and a famous cross-dressing icon when I was eight years old. I did not see the value of biological complementing differences of male and female or think about marriage. I made vows to never have children since I had not grown up in a safe, sacrificial, child-centered home environment. Due to my life experience, I ask, "Can children really perform their best academically, financially, psychologically, socially and behaviorally in experimental situations?" I can tell you that I suffered long term in this situation, and this has been professionally documented.
Over two decades of direct exposure to these stressful experiences caused me insecurity, depression, suicidal thoughts, dread, anxiousness, low self-esteem, sleeplessness and sexuality confusion. My conscience and innocence were seriously damaged. I witnessed that every other family member suffered severely as well.
It took me until I was into my 20s and 30s, after making major life choices, to begin to realize how being raised in this environment affected me. My healing encompassed facing reality, accepting long-term consequences, and offering forgiveness. Can you imagine being forced to tolerate unstable relationships and diverse sexual practices from a young age and how this affected my development? My gender identity, psychological well-being, and peer relationships were affected. Unfortunately, it was not until my father, his sexual partners and my mother had died, was I free to speak publicly about my experiences.
I believe same-sex marriage will dispose of unique values esteemed within marriage as recognized throughout history. Marriage needs to remain a societal foundation that constitutes, represents, and defends the inherently procreative relationship between the husband and the wife for the welfare of their biological children.17 Children need consistent appropriate boundaries and secure expressions of emotional intimacy that are not sexualized in the home and community.
The term "sexual orientation" does not distinguish between the individual, feelings of sexual attraction to a particular person or object, or the individual's sexual behavior or preferences. Thence, a person practicing pansexuality, which is diverse sexual expression, could not be discriminated against even with children present.
Are the government and judicial systems playing games with children, forcing upstanding citizens to tolerate all forms of diverse sexual expression against their will, conscience and or religious freedom?
Why is such a small, unrepresentative clique within the GLBT subcultures
wanting same-sex marriage? Mr. John McKellar, Executive Director of H.O.P.E.
(Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) has stated, and I quote:
"It is selfish and rude for the gay community to push same-sex marriage legislation and redefine society's traditions and conventions for our own self-indulgence .... Federal and provincial laws are being changed and the traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique."18
In my opinion, same-sex marriage will put the human rights of the individual in a higher place than what is best for society, families and especially children. Canadians should decide and not judges.19 Human rights were meant to protect the individual and not groups.20 In this crucial debate, children's human rights have become secondary, ignored and denied.
Moreover, if Canadians do not stop same-sex marriage, we will lose all of our freedom to address issues around sexuality with moral and religious vigor. By the way, the gay agenda in schools may owe its origin to Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill who published the article "The Overhauling of Straight America"21. If we do not stop Bill C-38, the gay agenda will prevail in every Canadian public and private academic environment22, inundating school environments with advocacy and sexually explicit resources and curriculum that mock parents' authority, moral rectitude, and religious traditions.
Already this is happening under the banner of anti-bullying, safe schools' policies and through Gay-Straight Alliances. In reality, these policies provide a direct legal entranceway of indoctrination, desensitization, personal and political recruitment of our vulnerable children by some gay activists within our schools while silencing all students who oppose the gay agenda.23
Similarly, all those who oppose the Canadian laws recognizing same-sex marriage would not be allowed to speak, express or gesture opposition, even on religious grounds. Look how the hate crime legislation Bill C-250 has instilled fear and is silencing the church. Did you know that the separation of church and state was enacted to protect religious freedom and conscience? Will religious freedom be trumped by sexual freedom?24 Will religious faith expressions and practices by individuals and organizations be prohibited by such bills as C-38 and others? We have an obligation, for the sake of our children, to speak freely and to direct the laws of our land.
Will the Canadian government and judges legally promote unhealthy and unsound environments that encourage motherless and fatherless units through same-sex marriage?25 Ultimately, children will be the real victims and losers if same-sex marriage is legally enacted. What hope can I offer innocent children who have no voice? What price is Canada willing to pay for sexual freedom, tolerance and diversity? Is that price children's lives?26 Government and judges need to advance and defend marriage as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for the sake of our children.
Endnotes:
1.
Proverbs 8:1-3. New International Version.
2.
Jakii Edwards, "Like Mother, Like
Daughter? The effects of growing up in a homosexual home", (Vienna, VA:
Xulon Press, 2001). Also, see testimonial "Just Like My Mother?",
Exodus International, North America. See http://exodus.to/testimonials_Family_11.shtml extracted
26/03/2005.
3.
Suzanne Cook, "My Parent is
Gay", (Seattle, WA: Exodus International-North America, 2000). Also, see
testimonial "Looking For My Father's Love," Exodus International,
North America. See http://exodus.to/testimonials_Family_12.shtmlextracted
26/03/2005.
4.
"A Son's Journey," 1997 Nathan
Bell, Distributed by Love In Action, 24/03/2005.
5.
"Mitchell," "The Tragedy of
"Gay" Parenting," Stephen Bennett Ministries, 25/03/2005.
6.
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron,
"Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties,"
Psychological Reports 2002, 90, 71-82. Also see http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_homokids.html?story=831 extracted 24/03/2005.
7.
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., "Comparing
the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples," Family Research
Council, April 17, 2004. See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?I=IS04C02&v=PRINT extracted 24/03.2005.
8.
Timothy Dailey, Ph. D., "Homosexual
Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Family Research Council, Issue
No.:238. See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?I=IS01J3 extracted
24/03/2005.
9.
Jon Dougherty, "Report: Pedophilia
more common among 'gays' Report purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual
culture." WorldNetDaily, Monday April 29, 2002.
10.
"Standards 4 Life:
Homosexuality," "Homosexual Adoption. Good for Children's
Health?", Christian Medical & Dental Associations. See http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=1695154697&CONTEXT=art&art=2649extracted 24/03/2005.
11.
"Homosexuality and Hope,"
Statement of the Catholic Medical Association. See http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0039.htmll extracted
24/03/2005
12.
Dale O'Leary, "Is This Diversity, Or
Tragedy: Children as Victims of their Parents' Choices,"' NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/diversity.html extracted
24/03/2005.
13.
''Gay marriage' and homosexuality some
medical comments," LifeSite, by authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP
(C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD,
FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi
Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP
MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist.
14.
S. Sarantakos, "Children in three
contexts: family, education and social development," Children Australia,
21, (1996), 23-31.
15.
"Children Need Both A Mother And A
Father," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html extracted
27/03/2005.
16.
"Sidelining Stability and Security
The case against abandoning the current grounds for adoption," The
Christian Institute June 2002.
17.
Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrow,
eds., Divorcing Marriage, (Montreal & Kingston, Ontario:
Published for the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture by
McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004), p.78.
18.
Quote taken from Patrick W. O'Brien,
M.P.'s speech delivered in the House of Commons regarding Bill C-38, 38th
Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansard, Number 061, Contents Monday, February
21, 2005. See 1345-1355 http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/061_2005-02-21/HAN061-E.htm#Int-1142182 extracted 24/03/2005.
19.
Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrow,
eds., Divorcing Marriage, (Montreal & Kingston, Ontario:
Published for the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture by
McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004), pp.151, 152.
20.
In the Supreme Court of Canada, In the
Matter of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985 C. S-26 In the
Matter of a Reference By the Governor in Council Concerning the Proposal For an
Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage for Civil
Purposes, as Set out in Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, Dated the 16th Day
of July 2003, Factum of the Intervener The Canadian Conference of Catholic
Bishops, (52.), p.26. See http://www.cccb.ca/Files/SupremeCourtMarriage.pdfextracted
24/03/2005.
21.
David Limbaugh, Persecution How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, (Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003), 94-110.
22.
Linda Harvey, "The World According to
PFLAG: Why PFLAG and Children Don't Mix," NARTH. See http://www.narth.com/docs/pflag2.html extracted
24/03/2005.
23.
Peter Sprigg, "The 'Recruiting' of
Children Into Accepting Homosexuality: How Homosexuality in Schools Furthers an
Agenda," Family Research Council.
24.
In the Supreme Court of Canada, In the Matter
of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985 C. S-26 In the Matter of a
Reference By the Governor in Council Concerning the Proposal For an Act
Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage for Civil Purposes,
pp. 27-31. See http://www.cccb.ca/Files/SupremeCourtMarriage.pdf extracted
24/03/2005.
25.
Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker,
"Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?", iMapp Policy Brief, Institute for
Marriage and Public Policy. See http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf extracted
27/03/2005.
26. Susan Brinkmann, "Homosexuality: The Untold Story: Gay Marriage: Who's Minding the Children?", Part 5 of 6, The Catholic Standard and Times Newspaper for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. See http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html extracted 27/03/2005.
Acknowledgement
Dawn Stefanowicz. "First-Person: Same-Sex 'Marriage' - Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" Agape Press (June 17, 2005).
CERC - Catholic Education resource Center
This article reprinted with permission from Agape Press. The Author Copyright © 2005
Agape Presshttps://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/first-person-same-sex-marriage-have-the-best-interests-of-children-been-considered.html
--------------------------------------------------------
5. Same-Sex Marriage Is Harmful to Children - From Opposing Viewpoints in Context Gay Marriage, 2012
Trayce Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice and an interest in the areas of marriage, parenting, male/female differences, and homosexuality. Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father. Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex. Although the research on same-sex parenting is very limited, some of it suggests that children raised in same-sex households will be more likely to be sexually confused and to experiment with sex. Also if same-sex marriage is allowed, it opens the door for other types of non-traditional marriage, such as polygamous relationships. Homosexual couples clearly can be just as loving to children as heterosexual couples, but love is not enough.
As mental health professionals, it's our ethical and
moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we
serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex
marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social
and legal recognition of their unions, but it's not in the best interest of
children.
A Two-Parent, Mother-Father Family Is Ideal
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all
children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it's just as
good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving
parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from
it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human
beings.
Fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls.
According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family. That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration.
Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children's development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.
It's clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can't be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren't interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.
Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.
Problems with Same-Sex Parented Families
Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves. And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, attempt suicide, experience domestic violence and sexual assault, and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.
Same-sex marriage no doubt will
increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people.
It shouldn't be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. There's no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant. Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a "gay gene," rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.
Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people, the implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn't matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.
It also must be expected that if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of non-traditional marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping also will be deemed discriminatory. In fact, such legal maneuverings have already begun. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous.
Fighting for the Needs of Children
To date, very little research exists that assesses long-term outcomes for homosexually parented children. According to Charlotte Patterson, a self-proclaimed, pro-same-sex-marriage researcher, there are only two longitudinal studies of children raised by lesbians. And no long-term studies of children raised by homosexual men. A professional organization dedicated to the welfare of its patients cannot and should not support drastic change in social policybased on just two, small and non-representative longitudinal studies.
Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.
Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children. That position is unconscionable and indefensible.
Same-sex marriage isn't in the
best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who
long to be married and parent children, we mustn't allow our compassion for
them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of
some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to
lose.
Further Readings
Books
·
Gordon A. Babst, Emily R. Gill, and
Jason PiercesonMoral Argument, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Advancing
the Public Good, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009.
·
M.V. Lee BadgettWhen Gay People Get
Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, New York:
New York University Press, 2009.
·
David BlankenhornThe Future of
Marriage, Jackson, TN: Encounter Books, 2009.
·
George ChaunceyWhy Marriage: The
History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality, New York: Basic Books,
2009.
·
David Orgon Coolidge, William C. Duncan,
Mark Strasser and Lynn D. WardleMarriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate,
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2008.
·
Evan GerstmannSame-Sex Marriage and
the Constitution, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
·
Patricia A. GozembaHistory of
America's First Legal Same-Sex Marriages, Ypsilanti, MI: Beacon Press,
2007.
·
Frederick Hertz and Emily DoskowMaking
it Legal: A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage, Domestic Partnerships & Civil
Unions, Berkeley, CA: NOLO, 2011
·
Andrew KoppelmanSame Sex, Different
States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2006.
·
Sheri Lynne LawsonThe Spell of
Religion: And the Battle over Gay Marriage, Parker, CO: Outskirts Press,
2009.
·
Man Yee Karen LeeEquality, Dignity,
and Same-Sex Marriage: A Rights Disagreement in Democratic Societies,
Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010.
·
Susan Gluck MezeyGay Families and the
Courts: The Quest for Equal Rights, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2009.
·
Nancy D. Polikoff and Michael BronskiBeyond
(Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law, Ypsilanti,
MI: Beacon Press, 2009.
·
Peter Nicolas and Mike StrongThe
Geography of Love: Same-Sex Marriage & Relationship Recognition in America,
Seattle, WA: CreateSpace, 2011.
·
Gerald N. RosenbergThe Hollow Hope:
Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 2008.
·
Michael J. RosenfeldThe Age of
Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions, and the Changing American
Family, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
·
Andrew SullivanSame-Sex Marriage: Pro
and Con, Vancouver, WA: Vintage, 2009.
·
Frank TurekCorrect, Not Politically
Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, Charlotte, NC:
CrossExamined, 2008.
· Lynn D. Wardle, ed.What's the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families or Society? Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2008.
Periodicals and Internet Sources
·
Associated Press "Obama: Defense Of
Marriage Act Should Be Repealed," The Huffington Post, July
19, 2011. www.huffingtonpost.com.
·
David Badash "GOP Debate:
Constitutional Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Wins Big," The New Civil
Rights Movement, June 14, 2011. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com.
·
Bob Barr "No Defending the Defense
of Marriage Act," Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2009.
www.latimes.com.
·
Michelle Boorstein "Same-Sex
Marriage Again an Issue for Religious Charities," The Washington
Post, July 12, 2011. www.washingtonpost.com.
·
Philip N. Cohen "Same-Sex Marriage
and Children, What We Don't Know Shouldn't Hurt Us," The
Huffington Post, April 10, 2009. www.huffingtonpost.com.
·
Nicholas Confessore "Beyond New
York, Gay Marriage Faces Hurdles," New York Times, June 26,
2011.
·
Cristen Conger "Does a Parent's
Gender Impact a Child's Success?," Discovery News, January 28,
2010. http://news.discovery.com.
·
Sara Israelsen-Hartley "Traditional
Marriage Has Impact Beyond Faith," Deseret News, January 27,
2011. www.deseretnews.com.
·
Chris Johnson "2011 to Bring New
Marriage Fights Across U.S.," Washington Blade, January 13,
2011. www.washingtonblade.com.
·
Ed Kilgore "The Hypocrisy of
'States' rights' Conservatives: The 10th Amendment Is Sacred to the
Right—Except When It Comes to Fighting Abortion and Gay Rights," Salon,
August 7, 2011. www.salon.com.
·
Michal A. Lindenberger "Why
California's Gay-Marriage Ban Was Upended," TIME, August 5,
2010.
·
Adam Liptak "Looking for Time Bombs
and Tea Leaves on Gay Marriage," New York Times, July 20,
2010, p. A11.
·
Tom McFeely "Needed: A Federal
Marriage Amendment," National Catholic Register, April 17,
2009. www.ncregister.com.
·
Jennifer Roback Morse "Same-Sex
'Marriage' and the Persecution of Civil Society," National
Catholic Register, June 3, 2008. www.ncregister.com.
·
Paul Mulshine "Same-Sex Marriage:
Right or Wrong, It's Not a Right," NJ.com, August 10, 2010.
http://blog.nj.com.
·
Frank Newport "For First Time,
Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage: Republicans and Older Americans
Remain Opposed," Gallup, May 20, 2011. www.gallup.com.
·
Martha Nussbaum "A Right to Marry?
Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Law," Dissent, Summer
2009. www.dissentmagazine.org.
·
Logan Penza "Anti-Gay Marriage
Movement = Inefficiency," The Moderate Voice, May 22, 2011.
http://themoderatevoice.com.
·
Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg
"In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights," New
York Times, February 23, 2011.
·
Erin Solaro "Marriage Is a Human
Right, Not a Religious Issue," Seattle PI, December 12, 2008.
http://blog.seattlepi.com.
·
U.S. News & World Report "Is
the Defense of Marriage Act Constitutional? Debating Whether the
Anti-Gay-Marriage Law Passes Muster," March 11, 2011. www.usnews.com.
· Chrisopher Wolfe "What Marriage Has Become," The Public Discourse, March 21, 2011. www.thepublicdiscourse.com.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2012 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning.
Source Citation
Hansen, Trayce.
"Same-Sex Marriage Is Harmful to Children." Gay Marriage,
edited by Debra A. Miller, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context, eztcc.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010014234/OVIC?u=viva2_tcc&xid=10655cf0. Accessed 4 Sept. 2017. Originally published as "Same-Sex
Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children," The Therapist,
2009.
Gale
Document Number: GALE|EJ3010014234
----------------------------------------------------
6. Children have Human Rights – Issues with redefining marriage (article no longer on the web)
In the rush to afford equal rights regarding marriage to same sex couples, legislators have all but completely forgotten, ignored, or eclipsed the rights of children. Traditional marriage in all of the world's societies and cultures reinforced and supported the marriage of one man and one woman precisely to protect and assure the rights, proper development, and prosperity of children.
Gilles Surprenant 210220
Defending Traditional Marriage - American College of Pediatricians
Children benefit from the unique parenting contributions of both men and women.
Homosexual Parenting: A Scientific Analysis - American College of Pediatricians
Children need a mother and a father
1- CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS
NY Convention on Rights of the Child
(1989) - United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Convention (ratified by Canada in 1991) states in Article 7 that the child has "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents". Article 3 states that "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 10.1 on family and marriage states that: "The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children." The expression "the natural and fundamental group unit" refers to the natural combination of a man and a woman required to create a child.
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16 declares the right to marry based on the traditional definition of marriage, and states that such a family is "the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
France: Parliamentary Report on the
Family and the Rights of Children Full report
(French, 453 pages)
This report was presented to the
French National Assembly by a 30 member parliamentary commission (called a
Mission) on January 25, 2006. Society and the legislator have the
responsibility to ensure that children develop harmoniously. The right of the
child must override adult aspirations. By virtue of the precautionary principle
and in order to protect the best interests of children, the commission does not
want to question the fundamental principles of filiation based on the « one
father, one mother, one child » triad. For these reasons, the commission
refuses to open up marriage, adoption and medically assisted reproduction to
same sex couples.
The law was adopted based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the ruling by the Supreme Court. In the name of equality, it legalizes marriage for same sex couples. This law, like the Charter and the Supreme Court ruling, addresses adult rights, yet makes no mention of protecting children's rights or best interests. (see below)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Equality rights, under section 15 of the Charter, include race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex (without any mention of sexual orientation which was added by interpretation by the courts), age, and mental or physical disability. Children are only mentioned with reference to the right to lingustic education in French or English.
Supreme Court of Canada reference on Bill C-38
The Supreme Court of Canada's answers to four questions on same-sex marriage. The court refused to answer question 4: "Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, ... consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" first because, among other reasons, "the federal government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage legislatively regardless of the Court's opinion on this question." The ruling does not mention children, their rights or needs.
Marriage: Why the Charter is Failing
children
In Canada, the adoption of the Civil Marriage Act (C-38) in 2005 legalizing same sex marriage was entirely based on the imputed equality rights of adults in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Children are not mentioned in the Charter and hence their rights and best interests were not given any weight. We must reestablish the right of children to have both a mother and a father by defining marriage between one man and one woman, right which was negated by our Parliament. (2 pages)
The Other 'Rights Question' in
Same-Sex Marriage - By
Bioethicist Margaret Sommerville
" Same-sex marriage ... would also, unavoidably, be a societal declaration that children don't have any basic right to know who their biological parents are and that they don't need both a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage makes children's rights secondary to adults'. It contravenes the ethical principle that children, as the most vulnerable people, must come first." (one page)
The Rights of Children and the
Redefinition of Parenthood
Presentation by David
Blankenhorn, Danish Institute for Human Rights, June 2, 2005
"In
Canada, in an amazingly contradictory pair of moves, it is now the right of an
adopted child to know the identity of his or her biological parents; whereas in
the case of donor-conceived children, revealing to the child the identity of
his or her biological parents is a federal crime, punishable by a fine,
imprisonment, or both. Also in Canada earlier this year, the federal government,
as a part of its implementation of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian
couples, proposed striking the term “natural parent” from all of Canadian law,
and replacing it with the term “legal parent.” ...This erasure not only
represents a dramatic transfer of power from private life to the state, but is
also, I believe, contrary to the best interests of children." (5
pages)
2- CHILDREN HAVE NEEDS:
Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?
Summarizes the scientific evidence that man-woman marriage "is an important social good associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike." Discusses fatal flaws in the studies finding no disadvantages to children raised by homosexuals. (5 pages)
Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science
Agree
Reviews numerous studies on the unique and vital contributions mothers and fathers make in parenting. Notes the evidence of social and emotional difficulties and homosexual experimentation among children of homosexual parents, all of which were ignored or minimized by original researchers. Examines serious physical and mental health risks of the homosexual lifestyle and concludes, "the placement of children in settings where there is not a mother and a father begins a slippery slope, one filled with risks that neither the children, nor society can afford to take." (22 pages).
Statement from the American College of Pediatricians Statement on
Homosexual Parenting
They conclude: Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science. (1 page + references)
Excerpts
from: Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social
Experiments - Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow, editors
"We know also that biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones. That these facts are either ignored or trivialized by some advocates of gay marriage... says something about concern for children in our time."
For the Sake of the Children - by Paul Albers
"The government has made it clear that they intend to eliminate any difference between mixed and same gender couples, how then will government justify allowing society to continue to promote the traditional family structure as superior?... Inventing same sex marriage as a human and legal right will only make the situation worse. Promoting the ideal family as the best environment for children will become politically incorrect, in time it may be branded as homophobic. Meanwhile, same sex couples will have the government’s blessing and protection to experiment with the lives of children, deprive them of a basic right, and inflict lasting harm on their future." (2 pages)
"For the first time in over 150 years, the fight for human rights, which has led to the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and civil rights for African-Americans, is now in the process of turning backwards. With same sex marriage we are now taking away the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable citizens, children." Drawing from debates in Canada and France, this Canadian witness lists 14 child-centered arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage and why all children need the protection that would result from a marriage amendment to the constitution. (6 pages)
Senate testimony by an activist in
favor of same-sex marriage
Ms. Evangiline Caldwell, Coordinator, Québec Coalition for the civil marriage of same sex couples: "The question may be why we still want marriage. ...marriage is the golden standard. Marriage is recognition. It is recognition of your relationship. It is recognition of your equality. It is recognition of you and your partner as being as committed as a heterosexual couple... The reason is equality, that we, our couples, our families, be treated in the same way, with the same respect and recognition, as heterosexual couples."
Same-sex marriage: What about the
human rights of Children?
"Proponents of same sex marriage claim that granting them the right to marry has no effects on you and me. They conveniently forget those who do not have a voice: their very own children... Is there a more natural and self evident birth right for a child than to have a mother and a father?" What happens when a child has two same-sex parents?
Dawn Stefanowicz' Testimonial - Has the welfare of children been
considered in same-sex marriages?
A first hand account of same-sex parenting from the daughter of a homosexual man. She states: "Ultimately, children will be the real victims and losers if same-sex marriage is legally enacted. What hope can I offer innocent children who have no voice? What price is Canada willing to pay for sexual freedom, tolerance and diversity? Is that price children's lives?" (5 pages)
"Ms. Margaret Somerville: I must admit, after reading this morning's paper, I wondered whether it was worth coming to speak to you, but I decided it was, if only to put a few things on the record that I think perhaps are not on the record so far... I see this whole same-sex marriage debate as an awful conflict of rights... I think the people who want to change the law to say that children don't need a mother and a father should show that's not harmful to children, and everything we know so far would be that it is. Everything we know about children is they want to know who their mother and father is, and not just them but that larger biological web in which they're embedded. You only just have to look at adults who want to go back and look at where their great-great-great-grandmother walked the earth generations ago...
A Member
of Parliament: surely with this piece of
legislation we're not throwing away anything. Aren't we extending rights?
Ms.
Margaret Somerville: No,
you're absolutely throwing away a child's right to a mother and a father."
(Her complete testimony and the Q&A are worth reading in full.)
--------------------------------------------------------
7. Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It
SUMMARY Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
KEY POINTS
1. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.
2. Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need both a mother and a father.
3. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Marital breakdown weakens civil society and limited government.
4. Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. 5. Government can treat people equally and respect their liberty without redefining marriage.
6. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers.
At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity?
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.
Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
Read the full report at the link with possibility of downloading it.
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it
—Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------
3. How Heterosexual Marriage Protects Children’s Rights And Best Interests
FULL TEXT FOLLOWS HERE
DOES MARRIAGE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION?
Presentation to the State of Massachusetts Judiciary Commission
By Louis DeSerres, B.A., M.B.A.
For the first time in over 150 years, the fight for human rights, which has led to the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and civil rights for African-Americans, is now in the process of turning backwards. With same sex marriage we are now taking away the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable citizens, children. We are also entering an era where freedom of speech is being challenged. (Read the full presentation at the link or at the end of this post.)
Many of my comments are directly inspired from the debates in France and in Canada surrounding same-sex marriage. Both countries reached fundamentally different conclusions. While Canada legalized same-sex marriage, France did not. France went even further. It reiterated its prohibitions against adoption and access to medically assisted reproduction for all same sex couples. How could two mature countries reach such different conclusions? Quite simply, France’s laws still favor the best interests of children over adults while Canada does not. France does not recognize minority rights, but Canada’s recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms does. Progressively in Canada, adult homosexual rights have increased in weight to the point where they now trump children’s rights and best interests.
Finally, France has been at the forefront of the worldwide movement to recognize children’s rights. It has signed the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and has been diligent in implementing its articles. In contrast, while Canada is also a signatory, it has chosen, particularly during the debates on same-sex marriage, to ignore its essential features, leading to same-sex legislation that most probably violates at least two articles of the Convention:
Article 3: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
Article 7: Each child “shall have, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents”. France refers to these as filiative rights.
The French government affirms that children now have rights and “to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.”
Same-sex marriage is part of a larger set of issues directly affecting children, namely adoption and medically assisted reproduction. One cannot separate these issues, as French parliamentarians discovered from their travels to various countries, “Countries that have opened up marriage to same sex couples have all authorized adoption by these couples and developed systems to assist procreation, including surrogate motherhood, in order to allow these couples to have children.”
Now, how does defining marriage between one man and one woman protect children’s rights and best interests? In summary,
1- Heterosexual marriage provides that a child will know and be raised by his own parents.
2- Research demonstrates conclusively that heterosexual marriage serves children’s best interests.
3- Heterosexual marriage provides the child with a natural network of care and support from his immediate and extended biological family
4- Heterosexual marriage sets the foundation for the child to have the same biological, legal and care giving parents.
5- Heterosexual marriage greatly reduces the risk that children or their constituent parts will become commodities.
6- Heterosexual marriage provides children with a multi-generational sense of identity.
7- Children born from heterosexual parents have access to their own genetic heritage for medical purposes.
8- Constitutionally defining marriage between one man and one woman strengthens the judicial protection accorded to children
9-Allowing court ordered same-sex marriage to prevail creates precedent for further erosion of children’s rights.
10- Heterosexual marriage protects the filiative rights of all children.
11- Defining heterosexual marriage is an absolutely essential first step in protecting children’s rights and best interests.
12- Defining heterosexual marriage is insufficient to ensure adequate protection for children’s rights and best interests.
13- Heterosexual marriage provides a simple and understandable set of norms.
14- Heterosexual marriage naturally protects children from potential discrimination because of the sex of their parents.
Now, for the details:
1- Heterosexual marriage provides that a child will know and be raised by his own parents.
Is there a more natural right for a child than to know and be raised by his own mother and father? When asked by a Canadian legislator about same sex marriage: “surely with this piece of legislation we’re not throwing away anything. Aren’t we extending rights?” Margaret Sommerville, Professor of Law at the McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law answered: “No, you’re absolutely throwing away a child’s right to a mother and a father.” This is already happening in Québec, my home province, where some children now have two mothers listed on their birth certificate and no trace of a father.
2- Research demonstrates conclusively that heterosexual marriage serves children’s best interests.
There is no such evidence for same-sex marriage. The French National Assembly Commission was presented with “research on children raised by same sex couples concluding the absence of any ill effects on the children. Their scientific nature and the representation of the samples of the populations studied were broadly criticized and contested during the hearings… the lack of objectivity in this area was flagrant.” One presumes that the very best research would have been presented. These conclusions are consistent with other studies here in the U.S..
It is incumbent upon legislators to ensure that children are protected. We buy the safest car seats for our children. We require that drug companies prove the safety of new drugs; we recall baby strollers when even just a small number of children get hurt. In its Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, The French National Assembly Commission endorses the statement of an expert witness: “inasmuch as there is absolutely no reason to doubt the educative and emotional qualities of homosexual parents, we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child’s psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?”
Margaret Sommerville further explains from an ethical perspective: “There are obligations on society not to create genetic orphans, which is what we would be doing. I think we have to recognize a right to natural genetic origins and genetic identity. We have to recognize the full scope of the harms we do and the ethical problems, and first we have to be activated by a principle that’s called non-maleficence–first do no harm. “
3- Heterosexual marriage provides the child with a natural network of care and support from his immediate and extended biological family, including parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, etc..
In a world where increasing numbers of parents divorce their own children, France favors the permanent nature of biological filiation over fleeting emotions and unstable relationships. Same-sex marriage is not grounded on the biological ties, as William Eskridge explains, same-sex marriage: “involves the reconfiguration of family-de-emphasizing blood, gender, and kinship ties and emphasizing the value of interpersonal commitment.
In our legal culture the linchpin of family law has been the marriage between a man and a woman who have children through procreative sex. Gay experience with “families we choose” delinks family from gender, blood, and kinship. Gay families of choice are relatively ungendered, raise children that are biologically unrelated to one or both parents, and often form no more than a shadowy connection between the larger kinship groups.”
4- Heterosexual marriage sets the foundation for the child to have the same biological, legal and care giving parents.
Same-sex marriage does not. Furthermore, same-sex marriage cannot be isolated from adoption and medically assisted reproduction. Medically assisted reproduction opens the door to the breakdown between the three dimensions of parenting: the biological (progenitor), the judicial (parental authority) and the social (day to day care). For example, because gay men cannot reproduce naturally, they must rely on a surrogate mother. France has prohibited all surrogacy for many years.
When asked to reconsider it, the recent National Assembly report maintains this prohibition because “revisiting those values would amount to denying the bond that grows between mother and child during pregnancy and opening the door to a wide range of abuses. In California, for instance, the birth of a child might involve as many as five people: a sperm donor, an egg donor, a gestator and the couple who are the legal parents.” Thus, taking a child away from the mother that nurtured him for nine months creates an emotional discontinuity for the child and weakens his sense of security.
5- Heterosexual marriage greatly reduces the risk that children or their constituent parts will become commodities.
Same-sex marriage increases those risks as it creates a new market for assisted reproduction, adding to the demand for sperm, eggs, surrogate mothers and adopted children. This leads to the commoditization of human life where some of the participants have little regard for the rights of children. This is similar to the bygone era when slaves were traded as property. For example, France rejects surrogate motherhood for these reasons: “Preserving the prohibition on surrogate motherhood is justified … for two crucial reasons based on the protection of human dignity: first, the fact that the human body cannot be made available for trade; and second, the fact that filiation also cannot be made available for trade.”
In Canada, giving eggs is legal but selling them is strictly forbidden by law and subject to substantial penalties. Early in 2006, a Montréal investigative reporter revealed that he had located six women offering eggs and who, over the course of discussions, were demanding payments of up to $10,000.
6- Heterosexual marriage provides children with a multi-generational sense of identity.
In testimony to Canadian parliamentarians, Margaret Sommerville explained: “In conclusion, children and their descendants who don’t know their genetic origin cannot sense themselves as embedded in a web of people past, present, and in the future through whom they can trace the thread of life’s passage down the generations to them. As far as we know, humans are the only animals where experiencing a genetic relationship is integral to their sense of themselves. We do know the effect of eliminating this experience–which we do know through reproductive technologies and adoption–is harmful to children, to biological parents, to families, and to society.
Same-sex marriage puts in jeopardy the rights of children to know and experience their genetic heritage in their lives and withdraws society’s recognition of its importance to them, their wider family, and society itself. Finally, same-sex marriage also opens up the wider, unprecedented question of what is ethically required in terms of respect for the mode of transmission of human life.”
7- Children born from heterosexual parents have access to their own genetic heritage for medical purposes.
Most children born from same-sex unions do not. Genetic research is constantly expanding the usefulness of this information.
8- Constitutionally defining marriage between one man and one woman strengthens the judicial protection accorded to children, without it, children are inadequately protected.
A brief history of how same sex marriage was adopted in Canada illustrates. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a constitutional document) was adopted in 1982 to protect individual rights and minorities. Woefully, children, the most vulnerable group in society, were ignored. This was not an omission by design or malevolence, but simply because it was considered a given that children would always benefit from the protection of the law.
Later, sexual orientation was added by the courts to the list of groups needing protection. Today, sexual orientation, which the framers of the Charter specifically refused to include, now trumps children’s rights. When judges ruled that gays and lesbians were discriminated against because they were prevented from marrying, they focused on adults’ Charter implied rights. The Supreme Court did not even mention children in its judgment. In so doing, the courts, and now Parliament, have failed to protect children. Unless children’s right to a father and a mother is affirmed by legislators, same-sex marriage will erase it.
9-Allowing court ordered same-sex marriage to prevail creates precedent for further erosion of children’s rights.
Passage of same-sex marriage legislation simply reaffirms court decisions by judges who do not seem to have the tools required to adequately defend the rights of children when confronted with the equality rights of adults. This only reinforces the notion that children have no right to both a father and a mother, no say in the matter, and that their best interests carry little weight. Aren’t these denials of human rights similar to those that inspired abolitionists, suffragettes and civil rights leaders in the past? (In Canada, bowing to political pressure, the federal government even refused to appeal court decisions mandating same sex marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada.)
Furthermore, as the Canadian Parliament was debating the issue of same-sex marriage, the government was forcefully denying that this could lead to the legalization of polygamy since polygamy was a criminal offense (yet rarely if ever enforced). At the same time, it was secretly evaluating if passage of same sex legislation could lead to its eventual legalization. The published report later confirmed that it would be very difficult to prevent successful challenges to laws prohibiting polygamy and that polygamy would probably be legalized.
10- Heterosexual marriage protects the filiative rights of all children.
Same-sex marriage legislation jeopardizes them for all children. After the courts imposed same-sex marriage in Canada, Parliament adopted formal legislation making it applicable across Canada. In order to do so, it had to change the definition of parent from (biological) parent to legal parent for all children. According to the Institute for Marriage, Law and Culture, this erasure of the biological link to the child’s parent affects all children, not just those in same-sex relationships.
11- Defining heterosexual marriage is an absolutely essential first step in protecting children’s rights and best interests.
Furthermore, a preamble to a constitutional amendment could reinforce children’s rights if it states that heterosexual marriage is the only institution that can guarantee the right of the child to know and be raised by his/her natural parents. Interestingly, because courts in France have resisted same-sex marriage, the French National Assembly did not see the necessity of enshrining a formal definition of marriage. In Canada, that is clearly not the case.
12- Defining heterosexual marriage is insufficient to ensure adequate protection for children’s rights and best interests.
For instance, France refuses to legalize same-sex adoption because it is a back door to circumventing laws meant to protect the filiative rights of children. For example, same-sex couples could circumvent French prohibitions against medically assisted reproduction by traveling to another country, coming back with a child, and then having the non-biological parent adopt the child. Therefore, unless the state adopts a coherent set of laws protecting children, children will not be adequately protected.
It would be like building a fortress with half the walls missing. From up front, the fortress might appear unassailable, but a cursory tour would reveal easy alternatives. The absence of restrictions on same sex adoptions and medically assisted reproduction for same-sex couples can also lead to forcing the issue on same-sex marriage: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. This is pretty well what happened in Québec when judges imposed same-sex marriage after highlighting that Québec’s civil unions resembled marriage in almost every feature.
13- Heterosexual marriage provides a simple and understandable set of norms.
France explains: “Family law, notably concerning filiation (the fact of being the child of certain parents), has been subject to profound reforms that have turned family configurations upside down. In this regards, (the province of) Québec has developed a distinctive inventiveness in setting up a system of filiation without equal in its complexity.” Rather, France believes that laws should not simply validate changing mores but should set norms in order to “allow individuals to build their lives around stable, sure and understandable criteria.”
With regards to adoption, the French report expresses concern about the “uncontrollable multiplication of filial links created as adults change partners over time, thus confusing children.” How does a child explain who his parents are if even legislators have difficulty in understanding the system? Same-sex marriage imposes additional confusion for the child, and many parents!
14- Heterosexual marriage naturally protects children from potential discrimination because of the sex of their parents.
When same-sex couples decide to have a child, either through medically assisted reproduction or adoption, they create a new minority, their own children, who are prevented from having both a mother and a father. They then turn around and ask that their children to be protected from potential discrimination because of their unique family situation. This would require all of society to be transformed, an uncertain proposition at best.
The January 25, 2006 Report on the Family and the Rights of Children to the French National Assembly approaches the issue from another perspective. It stresses that children represent the future of society and that they “must not suffer from conditions imposed upon them by adults”. In effect, it is these children’s own parents who have created this situation in the first place. The report adds: “The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms… even including the lifestyle choices of parents”.
At the start of my presentation, I made a reference to challenges to freedom of speech. Let me cite four events – three from Canada and one from Europe – to illustrate my point.
1- In Canada, Dr. Chris Kempling, a school counselor was suspended by his employer after he wrote a letter in a local newspaper explaining his professionnally based opposition to same-sex marriage. The issue went to court and he lost. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was rejected.
2- Dr. Grant Hill, an elected Member of the Canadian Parliament, former opposition leader, had his license as a medical doctor challenged after he made medically-justifiable statements that homosexual practices posed health risks for homosexuals. He won and was able to keep his license.
3- During Senate hearings on same-sex marriage legislation last summer, Dr. John Patrick, another medical doctor, shared his experience and opposition to same sex marriage and was rebuked by a senator and told: “you are part of the problem!” (I trust American legislators are more respectful).
4- Finally, the European Parliament recently embarked on an anti-homophobia campaign, specifically targeting Poland because of its refusal to allow same-sex marriage. Although this is not strictly a free speech issue, it sets the groundwork for future limitations as has happened in Canada, using the full force of the state.
* * *
APPENDIX:
Report on the Family and the Rights of Children
French National Assembly, January 25, 2006
Executive summary (2 pages)
Marriage: Why the Charter is Failing Children (in Canada)
Louis DeSerres (2 pages)
Marriage: Adult Rights or Children’s Rights
Preserve Marriage Canada (1 page)
Homosexuality Trumps Free Speech And Religion in Canada
A summary, NARTH (2 pages)
Redefining Marriage? A Case for Caution
Daniel Cere, McGill University
Feb. 12, 2003 (15 pages)
---------------------------------------------------
8. Contemporary Developments in Child Protection - Volume 3: Broadening Challenges in Child Protection Edited by Nigel Parton - MDPI Switzerland (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute - 2015
Developments in Child Protection: Foreword(s) for Three Book Volumes
The last forty years has witnessed increasing public, political and media concern about the problem of child maltreatment and what to do about it. This is now evident in most jurisdictions and is receiving serious attention from many international and trans-national organisations. While the ‘(re)discovery’ of the problem in the USA was particularly associated with the ‘battered baby syndrome’ this has now broadened to include: physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, abuse on the internet, child trafficking, female genital mutilation, sexual exploitation and refers to all children and young people, not just babies. Similarly, the focus of attention has broadened from intra-familial abuse to abuse in a whole variety of settings including schools, day care centres, churches, youth and sports clubs and the wider community more generally. There has also been a broadening of concern from not simply protecting children and young people from serious harm to also attempting to prevent the impairment of their health and development and to ensure that they are able to grow up in circumstances which are consistent with the provision of safe and effective care so that all children can achieve the best outcomes.
In the process, the laws, policies, practices and systems which have been developed to try to identify and prevent child maltreatment have become much more wide-ranging and complex and have themselves been subject to continual criticism and review. A wide range of professionals and members of the community are all seen to have key roles to play in both protecting children and young people and also assessing and monitoring actual and potential perpetrators.
However, while these issues have been subject to often heated and high profile media and political debate, rarely have they received sustained analytic and research attention in the social sciences. It was in this context that the internet journal Social Sciences, in 2013, invited papers for publication in a Special Issue dedicated to the topic and these were published from July 2014 onwards. In the event thirty papers were accepted for publication—far and away the highest number of papers submitted and accepted previously for a Special Issue in the journal. Authors came from a range of countries including: Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, Ethiopia, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, and the USA. Sixteen of the thirty papers were based on original research, ten provided a policy analysis, two were based on particular practice developments, one was a literature review, and one provided a more theoretical/conceptual piece. Authors came from a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds including: sociology, history, social policy, sports science, psychology, social work, education, law and various branches of health and medicine. The focus of the papers was diverse, though they did tend to cluster around a number of themes and it is these that have provided the rationale for the organisation of the papers into the three published volumes; however, the process of organising and ordering the papers proved a particular challenge. There are ten papers in each volume.
Volume 1: Policy Changes and Challenges
Volume 1 takes as its central theme the ongoing and challenging issues which child protection agencies have to address and the policy and practice initiatives that are developed to try and address these. The volume includes papers on: the relationship between the decline in the rate of ‘unnatural’ deaths and the growth of concern about child abuse in the USA between 1940 and 2005; mandatory reporting; the balance between providing urgent intervention and meeting chronic need; risk and the Public Law Outline in England; the nature and implications of ‘child centred’ policies; the impact of intimate partner and family violence; the intended and unintended consequences of high profile child abuse scandals; developing multi-disciplinary team work in a health setting; and the possibilities of technology-based innovations in prevention programmes.
Volume 2: Issues in Child Welfare
Volume 2 is primarily concerned with how best to respond to maltreatment ‘within’ the family and hence has a range of papers which are much more concerned with the area of policy and practice more traditionally framed in terms of ‘child welfare’ and social work with children and families. It also includes a paper on how to respond to child maltreatment and neglect in a large hospital context.
Volume 3: Broadening Challenges in Child Protection
Volume 3 takes a somewhat broader brief and reflects many of the changes over the past twenty five years in terms of the broadening of concerns from maltreatment within the family to maltreatment in a variety of extra-familial contexts, including: sport, the internet, various institutional settings and is much more concerned with sexual abuse and the challenges for criminal justice and public protection.
Nigel Parton
Guest Editor
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Amyv6OjUkKMfjn8sKbOVuvNZsPkR?e=LhU1Fd
© 2006-2023 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal QC
© 2006-2023 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
