Monday, March 2, 2009

It makes sense: Homosexual households are not healthy for children.

One aspect of the homosexual marriage debate is the impact homosexual headed households will have on children. Homosexual activists love to showcase lesbian headed households with young children. But beyond the emotional images, how do homosexual headed households really impact children? Negatively, according to Dr. Rekers, a psychiatrist at the University of South Carolina Medical School. I recently came across his 80 page paper on scientific research given in defense, a few years ago, of Arkansas and Florida laws prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children.

His points were threefold. Homosexual headed households result in the following: 1) higher stress levels on children. 2) significant instability of households is not healthy for children; homosexual relationships are much more unstable than those headed up by a man and a woman. 3) role model deficit; kids need a mom and a dad in their lives. Something homosexual households inherently lack.

The negatives of homosexual households on children are merely another reason for not recognizing homosexual marriage -- a central purpose of marriage is the raising of children. If society wants to truly do what's in the best interest of children then it won't encourage placing children in relationship settings which aren't in the best interest of children.

Of course, I can already hear the responses of advocates of homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general. "But heterosexual relationships are getting divorced in record numbers. What about the lesbian couple who've been together for 25 years compared to the heterosexual couple who get divorced after 6 months?" What about it?

One doesn't look to the exception to overturn the general rule. It's like pointing to the 90 year old lady who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day until the day of her death and compares her to the exercise, health food fanatic who dies of lung cancer at age 25. Does this prove that smoking is not harmful for the person? Of course not. One needs to look at the general effects of the behavior not the exception. So too with homosexual household versus households headed by a man and a woman.

And then of course there will be the charges that one's being cruel and hateful to suggest that homosexual households aren't healthy for children. In fact, the opposite is true. If one desires to protect and do what's in the best interest of children - some of the most vulnerable members of our society, the loving thing is to speak the truth and advocate for what's best for children. If one remains silent and does not defend the interests of children when it's within one's power to do so, that's the exact opposite of love and compassion.

1 comment:

Troy said...

I agree with your three points, however, the solution to the first two would be to make gay marriage legal. It would reduce the stress on the child and possibly lead to longer gay relationships.

(number three I will not argue with, since I do not have an answer for this one, although we know many children that grew up without a father or mother).