To the editor:
Some questions for the author of the Feb. 21 'Same-sex marriage' letter.
1. You said: "Marriage and family were once seen as both historically and contemporarily interconnected, as marriage has been the gateway to family." Is this concept no longer valid? Should not the ultimate goal be 'The Good, the True, and the Beautiful'? The complementary union of a man and a woman in marriage producing future citizens?
2. When you say: "Much like any other civil rights battle, same-sex marriage will be legalized"; I assume you can identify a homosexual. If we are defining homosexuals as a "minority" similar to that of blacks or any other race that can be identified by their DNA and phenotype construction, can you tell us what properties define the homosexual? . But if there is no physical identifier for the homosexual, then the only identifying characteristic is based solely on behavior. But what about those homosexuals who went through programs like Exodus International or Courage Apostolate and became heterosexuals? It then seems to be one of those "here today, gone tomorrow" characteristics. Do you think maybe this is why some homosexual activists groups persecute ex-homosexuals, when they sense the instability of their condition? - see Parents, Friends of Ex-gays and gays (PFOX website and ex-gaytruth.com)
3. What percentage of homosexual unions end up being totally monogamous throughout the couple's entire lifetime? I did some research on this, and noted that McWhirter and Mattison spent five years studying 156 male couples - 312 individuals - "in loving relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years" and not a single couple reported sexual fidelity lasting longer than five years. If you have data showing otherwise, let us know. The U.S. Census Bureau says less than 0.6 percent of households are same-sex. Does it really make sense to change the definition of marriage in light of these statistics?
4. If we change the definition of marriage to mean also a union of two men or two women, what rationale will we have to refuse other unions? The Australian Human Rights Commission says there are 23 genders. Using that criteria, why not man-boy; and if a man loves his dog and the dog loves him, why not? You might say; but we have laws that can prevent this. Yes, but we had laws against abortion and sodomy, but that was changed due to pressure from activist groups. So laws can be changed for the better or for worse. Which brings up the question: Are there any homosexual activist groups who publically condemn man-boy sexual relationships?
5. Apparently, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off the official list of psychiatric disorders. What was the scientific basis for that decision? I note that Rueda & Schwartz in "Gays, Aids and You" say this change was the result of pressure tactics and intimidation. Also, Herrell and others published papers in the Archives of General Psychiatry, showing homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidal tendencies, major depression, and anxiety disorder." More info at narth.com. Do you have good data that validates the 1973 APA decision?
6. Have you read 'Defending a Higher Law'? If so, can you refute any of their arguments favoring traditional marriage? (a small book for free using a Tiny Url, tinyurl.com/79ac5up ) or the full url at; wwwa.tfpstudentaction.org/images/books/defending_a_higher_law.pdf?