Friday, September 22, 2006

Where Are The Children's Rights In Same-Sex Marriages?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Louis DeSerres, co-founder of Preserve Marriage - Protect Children's Rights, addressed the harm to children's rights resulting from same-sex marriage at the What’s The Harm? How Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Society, Families, Adults, Children and Marriage symposium held at Brigham Young University Law School.

The symposium, jointly sponsored by The Marriage and Family Law Project at Brigham University Law School and The Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, was held on September 15-16, 2006.
Louis DeSerres asked if there is a more natural and self evident birth right for a child than to have a mother and a father. More specifically, while nature creates every child with two biological parents, same-sex marriage leads to the creation of fatherless and motherless children, taking away one of the child's natural parents.
Adult same-sex couples seeking the right to marry have relied on constitutional equality arguments in their court challenges. It is noteworthy that not a single child has been represented in any of these court challenges to defend his right to a father and a mother, a right recognized in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Furthermore, when children are discussed, the issue is relegated to family law, as if children do not enjoy the constitutional protection that adults enjoy. In time, the advantages gained by adults have started to seep into family law and children's rights and best interests are being further marginalized.
Man-woman marriage provides the child with many benefits. Louis DeSerres listed 14 such benefits. These are lost with same-sex marriage.
Can this harm be undone? Unfortunately, the harm is permanent as no legal authority can bring back the missing biological parent of a child born from an anonymous sperm donor or a surrogate mother. Only prevention can protect children's rights to a father and a mother.
Commenting on the "inevitability" of same-sex marriage, he cited the decision by France to reject same-sex marriage because it violates children's rights. Furthermore, the decision by the people in 20 U.S. states out of 20 to constitutionally reaffirm marriage as between one man and one woman with an average 70% of the population does not constitute a trend towards same-sex marriage. Recent court cases in the U.S. have also strengthened the man-woman nature of marriage, rationally based on the needs of children.
There are thus two models to address same-sex marriage. Either favor adults at the expense of children, like Canada(www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/Marriage_Canada_children_forgotten.pdf), Massachusetts and a few other countries have done, or rightfully place the rights and best interests of children ahead of those of adults as France has chosen (www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France-summary.pdf).
Earlier this year, Mr. DeSerres testified at the Massachusetts Judiciary Commission hearings on the Marriage Amendment. (see www.voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#louis).
For more information on marriage and the rights of children, visit http://www.preservemarriage.ca/

40 Comments:

Blogger Lynne said...

Wow! Great article. I didn't realize France said ix-nay on same-sex marriages. Maybe there's hope for the French yet.

5:56 PM, September 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Lynne,

Thanks for stopping buy. Good to hear from you again. I met Preserve Marriage at the State House back in April of this year during a hearing on the marriage amendment.

Louis is an awesome guy and has a lot of smarts when it comes to such a sensitive topic as this is.

Pro-traditional marriage advocates in Canada are going through a hard time with the new gay "marriage" laws as the government will not debate the topic for the rest of the year.

Thank God I live in America where our government is at least, well I should say somewhat, wanting to hear what we are saying. We are making great strides with the amendment and come November 7th we will be victorious.

6:59 PM, September 22, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Don't heterosexual women get artificial insemination? Children are born and raised many times without one or both parents for many reasons. My wife was raised by her Grandparents. Divorce along with many reasons leave children raised by a single parent or even possibly a foster home.

We live in the United States of America. Our constitution does not guarantee any person "opposite gender parents" or from being raised by someone other than your parents.

Our constitution does however grant other rights seen as imperative to our society; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc..

I've got to believe being raised by two parents is always better than one, regardless of gender.

6:00 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken you say "I've got to believe being raised by two parents is always better than one, regardless of gender." That is true if we are talking about two biological hetero parents. While there are divoced families out there, kids still have both biological parents (the mom and dad). Same sex families intentionally create motherless or fatherless families and that is not in the best physcial, phychological, or emotional interests of children.

The only published peer reviewed studies in existence show that same sex parenting is not better then divorced or step family configurations which is a very low std. Making marriage a non-exclusive legal arrangement doesn't strenghten marriage. If we are interested in that we should focus on "no-fault divorce laws,"cohabitation, and debunking the fminist myths perpetuated in colleges that males are not necessary in a family and that males and females are interchangable. This is the mind set that the 60s feminists-free love generation gave us and we have paid an enormous price as a society.

But if homosexuals want to marry one-another that is fine as long as it is decided by the constitutionally prescirbed legislative process- not via unelected activist courts. But we know how the people will vote and that is why homosexual "marriage" will never happen in this country via the constitutionally prescribed legislative process. Thank God.

10:19 AM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice racist comment from Lynne about the French. Don't bother deleting it, I have already recorded it for our history. We always knew that there was a fine line between homophobes and bigots, but now it shows in a way you cannot argue.

11:52 AM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

What price have we paid for the 60's free love mind set? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I was not born until 1970.

Who are we protecting marriage from? Gays? If we really wanted to protect "marriage" we should be concentrating on those that abuse the promise it represents, not trying to discriminate against a group who has not been permitted to partake in the institution.

I think you greatly underestimate the children we speak of. From what I have seen, children will generally rise to the occasion and adapt to their surroundings. All children really require is love, sustenance and stability. Once those three have been established the rest can take care of itself. Discipline and education will manifest once a parent deems the child ready for each.

For SSM to be successful, all they really need to do is have a belief in marriage equal to what heterosexual couples have established for years. Maybe if strait couples had honored marriage to a higher degree we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we are. I find it hypocritical to say to a prospective same sex couple that they should not be allowed to solidify their union because many see it unlikely they would respect that union, when it is strait couples themselves that have lowered that standard. I don't think society has a right to deny these marriages on the basis of "protecting marriage". We don't get to say "no" because we're thinking about repairing the damage done by no fault divorce and cohabitation.

Lastly, through the history of our country the general public was never permitted to vote to grant or deny a right to a group or individual. The majority doesn't always have the best interest of society in mind.

3:13 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

What part of what Lynne said:

"Wow! Great article. I didn't realize France said ix-nay on same-sex marriages. Maybe there's hope for the French yet." is racist?

When did Lynne suggest that the belief's France holds about race account for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?

Your use of words are questionable and do not make sense. Do you wish to clarify?

5:13 PM, September 25, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

"Maybe there's hope for the French yet."

there it is - the racist part.

and the article is so mind numbingly stupid and one sided my eyes are bleeding.

this whole argument is laughable.

2:22 PM, September 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are we protecting marriage from? Gays? If we really wanted to protect "marriage" we should be concentrating on those that abuse the promise it represents, not trying to discriminate against a group who has not been permitted to partake in the institution.

We are protecting the traditional definition of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman.

As to your cliam about "discrimination," you really need to understand the history/context. As I said, gays can marry. They can't redefine the legal definition. this is a usurpation of the legislative power -the only branch of govt who make laws.

All laws "discriminate" in one way or another. Laws are enacted by societies that reflect the moral preferences of the citizenry that coincide with natural law. Practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy, and pedophilia are all sexual "relationships" which society has deemed to be immoral and without legal justification and protections and therefore discriminated against.

The analogy between banning homosexual marriage and laws which banned interracial marriage is not an accurate comparison. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. In Loving v. Virginia the institution of marriage was not redefined. The court concluded that using race to deny a couple the right to legally marry was discriminatory. Yet it did not change the legal definition that marriage be confined to an exclusive union of one man and one woman. While advocates of homosexual "marriage" claim to be the victims of discrimination, they have no legal precedent to reinforce their central position. Thus it is fallacious reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and illegality of the so-called "same-sex marriage." Marriage laws were not invented to persecute or deny specific rights to homosexuals. Marriage laws in our country reinforce an institution that over thousands of years in thousands of cultures provided the foundation for stable societies


I think you greatly underestimate the children we speak of. From what I have seen, children will generally rise to the occasion and adapt to their surroundings. All children really require is love, sustenance and stability. Once those three have been established the rest can take care of itself. Discipline and education will manifest once a parent deems the child ready for each.

No I don't "underestimate" children. I do however understand the vital significance of the family having studied and researched it extensively for many years. What you say sounds nice but it not based on any substantiated evidence. Here are the facts:

Yes children require "love" but the family structure is the single most important factor in a child's development.
Of all the essential elements which lead to a child's proper development (access to health care, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and love) the most important factor is the marital status of the parents. According to Dr. Pitirim Sorokin, founder and first chair of the Sociology Department at Harvard, proclaimed the importance of married parents half a decade ago:



The most essential socio-cultural patterning of a newborn human organism is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioral, mental, moral and socio-cultural characteristics of practically every individual. …From remotest past, married parents have been the most effective teachers of their children."



According to Sara McLanahan of Princeton University: "Regardless of which surveys are looked at, children from one parent families are about twice as likely to drop our of school as children from two-parent families."



Children from divorced homes are 70 percent more likely than those living with biological parents to be expelled of suspended from school. Those living with never married mothers are twice as likely, according to the research, to be expelled or suspended. Additionally, children not living with both biological parents are 45 to 95 percent more likely to require parent/teacher meetings to deal with the performance or behavior problems than those who live with married parents.



The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, reports that "the relationship between crime and one-parent families" is "so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. The conclusions show up time and again in the literature."



A major study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that boys and girls who lived with both biological parents had the lowest risk of becoming sexually active. Teens living with only one biological parent had the highest risk of becoming sexually active at younger ages.



David Ellwood, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University notes that: "The vast majority of children who are raised entirely in a two-parent home will never be poor during childhood. By contrast, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single parent home will experience poverty."



The liberal think tank, The Progressive policy Institute states that: "It is no exaggeration to say that a stable, two parent family is an American child's best protection against poverty."



Former Clinton domestic policy advisor Bill Galston explains that avoiding poverty requires 3 things: 1- Finish high school, 2- Marry before having children, 3- Marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of the families who do this are poor. While 79% of the families who fail to do this are poor. Children from married homes are more likely to do all 3 things and less likely to raise children who are in poverty.



The limited research on homosexual parenting has revealed that they are no better than divorced/spep family configurations, and that is not a very high standard.



So you are incorrect when you say all children need is love. Children need two biological parents. (One man and one women) Homosexual "marriage" intentionally deprives a child of either a mother or a father and this is not good for children.





For SSM to be successful, all they really need to do is have a belief in marriage equal to what heterosexual couples have established for years. Maybe if strait couples had honored marriage to a higher degree we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we are. I find it hypocritical to say to a prospective same sex couple that they should not be allowed to solidify their union because many see it unlikely they would respect that union, when it is strait couples themselves that have lowered that standard. I don't think society has a right to deny these marriages on the basis of "protecting marriage". We don't get to say "no" because we're thinking about repairing the damage done by no fault divorce and cohabitation.

Just because there is a high divorce rate does not mean that we need to change the standard by which marriage is measured. It only means that we need to focus more attention on the problem of why such a high percentage of marriages fail and focus on changing behavior. Some of the reasons behind the high divorce rate have been "no fault" divorce laws, the rise of radical feminism, increasing cohabitation rates, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, and out of wed lock births. Yet to say that because some marriages fail that we should change the definition of marriage is ludicrous. Just because a high percentage of students fail a test is not prima face evidence that the test is flawed. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of civilization for the last 5,000 years. Traditional marriage is a sacred institution in spite of those who advocate the homosexual agenda who claim that it is outdated and has become a dismal failure.


Lastly, through the history of our country the general public was never permitted to vote to grant or deny a right to a group or individual. The majority doesn't always have the best interest of society in mind.

You may want to read up on US History and familiarize yourself with our Founding documents most specifically out Constitution. The Bill of Rights grants individual rights to individual citizens including the right to freely worship, unabridged potitical speech, freedom to petition the govt, the right to self defense, trial by jury, equal protection under the law, etc...

Marriage is not a constitutional "right." It is a legal privledge. One in which the state can and does regulate. And the way our representative republic works is that the majority makes laws- even laws governing marriage. So, "we the people" via our elected officials often vote on many things that end up denying many rights and privleges to people. Again, gays can marry. They have never been deprived of this legal privledge. They just can't unilaterally redefine the legal definition of marriage without the consent of "we the people." So, if you want to redefine the legal definition of marriage, go for it. Just do it via the constitutionally prescibed manner. Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?

10:06 AM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ryan,

Again, this does not fall under the definition of "racist".

Thanks for stopping by.

10:24 AM, September 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Racism is a belief in the moral or biological superiority of one race or ethnic group over another or others.[1] The term racism is also sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group (ethnocentrism)[2], fear of difference (xenophobia), views or preferences against interbreeding of the races (miscegenation)[3], and nationalism[4], regardless of any explicit belief in superiority or inferiority fact. Related concepts include prejudice, discrimination and racialism.

Racism has been used to justify discrimination | social discrimination, racial segregation and violence, including genocide.

The term racist, when used to describe someone who subscribes to racism, has been a pejorative term since at least the 1940s, and for this reason the identification of a group or person as racist is nearly always controversial.

Seems to me he used the right term...

1:40 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Wow anonymous, that was really long, quite good too.

“We are protecting the traditional definition of marriage which has always been between one man and one woman.”

No, marriage has not always been one man and one woman, not even in the U.S. Gays used to be able to marry on many continents including North America (although not while under the rule of the U.S.).

I don’t think gays are trying to change the law. Most of the laws will work just fine. It is those that are trying to deny marriage to gays that are changing the law. Massachusetts allows gay marriage; the problem is when a gay couple needs to move out of that state. States have always had differing views on marriage, although if any couple was married in a state legally, all other states would respect that union. Now with Massachusetts allowing these marriages some states are running to start a petition to deny those unions if that couple moves to their state.

“Some of the reasons behind the high divorce rate have been "no fault" divorce laws, the rise of radical feminism, increasing cohabitation rates, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, and out of wed lock births.”

You don’t think people after marriage sometimes find themselves incompatible? Are you against women being seen as equals to men? If couples are living together instead of marrying, why would they need divorce? I thought promiscuity and adultery were the same? Pornography, yeah I can see that if one is enjoying it and the other doesn’t know, but if both know and enjoy porn wouldn’t that go to help keep that marriage together? How does an unmarried woman who gives birth to a child cause more divorce?

You made some excellent points on what children need, I will have to ponder those statements and do some more research. Although I would like your point of view on this: Since marriage does not require children, and children do not require marriage, how does the issue of children’s rights get into this equation.

1:50 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"No, marriage has not always been one man and one woman, not even in the U.S. Gays used to be able to marry on many continents including North America (although not while under the rule of the U.S.)."

Which is EXACTLY what Anonymous said:

"All laws "discriminate" in one way or another. Laws are enacted by societies that reflect the moral preferences of the citizenry that coincide with natural law."

So thanks for backing up that point.

This statement by you is just preposterous and...I don't know, it speaks for itself:

"I don’t think gays are trying to change the law. Most of the laws will work just fine. It is those that are trying to deny marriage to gays that are changing the law."

What laws of marriage did four un-elected officials of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) just change? This is exactly what is wrong. The SJC does not govern the people...remember that old document called the Constitution that said "We the people"?

You said:

"You don’t think people after marriage sometimes find themselves incompatible? Are you against women being seen as equals to men? If couples are living together instead of marrying, why would they need divorce? I thought promiscuity and adultery were the same? Pornography, yeah I can see that if one is enjoying it and the other doesn’t know, but if both know and enjoy porn wouldn’t that go to help keep that marriage together? How does an unmarried woman who gives birth to a child cause more divorce?"

Your morals are expressing themselves and the majority of RADICAL homosexual couples. But as Anonymous said:

"Yet to say that because some marriages fail that we should change the definition of marriage is ludicrous."

4:27 PM, September 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...remember that old document called the Constitution that said "We the people"?"

I read on a little further and it said, "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperities..." and I do not recall seeing it say, "UNLESS THEY'RE GAY!"

5:06 PM, September 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You made some excellent points on what children need, I will have to ponder those statements and do some more research. Although I would like your point of view on this: Since marriage does not require children, and children do not require marriage, how does the issue of children's rights get into this equation."

B/C once the legal definition is no longer exclusively one man-one woman then homosexual couples by law will be entitled to all the same legal privaleges and rights as traditional hetero-couples including adoption. This is exactly why I favor legal protections for gay couples to enable them to transfer wealth, get hospital visitation rights, etc.. As I said every time a 'same sex couple" adopts a child the child is interntionally denied a mom or dad. This intentional deprivation is not fair to the child. (The Mass Legislature introduced legislation to this effect called reciprocal benefits which I support). I don't support the unilateral redefinition of the legal definition of marriage via unelected judges who lack the constitutional authority to make law. This usurpation of our legislative authority is unconstitutional.

You will have to clearly substantiate this assertion:

"No, marriage has not always been one man and one woman, not even in the U.S."


Where and when exactly was same sex marriage legal in the U.S.?

6:45 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"I read on a little further and it said, "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperities..." and I do not recall seeing it say, "UNLESS THEY'RE GAY!"

Who is refuting the fact that the security of blessings to liberty and prosperity are NOT for gays? I am not....stop fabricating fallacious comments that were never said to prove your point.

What I am trying to get a response to is that the laws in America are made by the people and for the people. Why are you so for the constitution, since you quote it I think you are advocating its usefulness in law, but yet you think four un-elected judges can impose law onto "We the people"? Where in the Constitution does it say Judges are to MAKE laws from the bench?

If you are advocating the Constitution are you afraid of what the people have got to say about how marriage should be defined via a legitimate vote? Just like what Anonymous said and no one has answered yet:

"If you want to redefine the legal definition of marriage, go for it. Just do it via the constitutionally prescibed manner. Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?"

Please, just ANSWER the question without drawing your own conclusions and translating the Constitution or fabricating ideas.

Good points Anonymous (the one in which I just responded to), your a good debator.

Since we have a couple of 'Anonymouses' here, can one of you label yourself as Anonymous 1 or A or whatever?

Thanks,

Scia

7:01 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

I must say this conversation has gotten interesting.

The SJC interprets the law, is it not possible that with many of the GLBT community coming “out of the closet”, that the SJC has come to a new understanding of the law? We may not always like their interpretations, but we do have to live with them. I just have a difficult time with the general public being able to vote denying marriage to some people. Marriage is seen as a right in America, it may not be listed in the Bill of Rights, but it has always been seen as such.

Scia, I think we would both find that our morals are different. My personal rule of life is quite liberal. Treat others as you would like to be treated. That said, I don’t want my right to marriage being voted upon by the majority, would you? Especially since my morals could be considered “loose” by religious standards.

Although I never have personally been in a foster home or an adoption facility I have heard stories. If a single parent can adopt, why couldn’t a same sex couple? Especially since the standard is as low as anonymous claims. From what I have heard about the child care systems from our government, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. If nothing else the child could at least be raised by someone whose heart is in the right place.

I never said same sex marriage was allowed, but I was under the false assumption that polygamy used to be legal. I realize my mistake and apologize. Thank you, I stand corrected.

9:09 PM, September 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"The SJC interprets the law, is it not possible that with many of the GLBT community coming “out of the closet”, that the SJC has come to a new understanding of the law?"

This is what I am not understanding. Why is it that just because people are coming "out of the closest" the way we make laws or interpret them has to drastically change? Why is it that "a new understanding of the law" has to take place to appease a small subgroup of people?

We live in a society of laws for a reason. We do not live in a 'be it as you wish if you stand up for your-self' society. I don't get it.

You said:

"I don’t want my right to marriage being voted upon by the majority, would you?"

Ahhhh, yah, that is why I am advocating democracy via a vote. In our form of democratic government the majority does rule.

What if Ken, a small subgroup of pedophiles wanted to make it legal to touch children because it is a part of their belief structure or sexual desires? I have NO intention of relating the homosexual lifestyle with a pedophile in this example. Don't you think the majority of others have a right to at least vote on the issue before it becomes law? I know the example above is ludicrous but so is the fact that the Commonwealth can NOT vote on such a vital issue.

5:59 AM, September 28, 2006  
Anonymous mygaydaughter said...

It took me by surprise that my daughter turned out gay, and being a Christian I am wondering what I did wrong. My wife and I have had many arguments about how to handle this. What do you suggest?

8:41 AM, September 28, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Scia, I believe a new understanding of the law comes with a new understanding of humanity. I’m not sure what your views are on the question of “is homosexuality natural or is it choice?” I believe it is natural, and from the way the SJC interpreted the law, it seems they would agree with me, for if it is “natural” they are a legitimate minority worthy of marriage, and no one should have the right to take it away.

I think I understand your meaning when referring to pedophilia. The problem with that analogy is that the child in that equation is a victim. Whether it is consensual or not, rape is a viable term for that situation. In homosexuality, there is no victim. Rape is illegal, homosexuality is not.

I find it odd that you would allow another to vote on your rights. If someone ever does try to vote on your rights you have my word that I’ll fight against them as equally as I fight against those that wish to vote on the rights of the GLBT community.

4:18 PM, September 28, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

To mygaydaughter:

I don’t believe you did anything wrong, if your daughter seems well adjusted in all other areas of life you have nothing to be ashamed of.

To handle this situation I can only suggest that you love her as unconditionally as you always have, and accept her for the human being that she is. I can only imagine what you must be feeling, but if you could try to imagine the shame and the fear of her parents’ disapproval, you might find her apprehension greatly outweighs your own.

I wish you the best of luck.

4:29 PM, September 28, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken and MY GAY DAUGHTER,

Ken,

Eventhough there were early findings that there was a link between a gene and homosexuality, other geneticists quickly debunked this notion. At this time there has never been any conclusive evidence demonstrating such a genetic causation. So homosexuality is NOT natural and it is a CHOICE.

My GAY DAUGHTER,

Yes, you do have options to convert your daughters behavior to what Christ wants it to be. I do agree with what Ken said about how you should love your daughter unconditionally no matter what but that does not mean that her sexual orientation is accepted by you and more importantly to Christ.

There is NOT one single place in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned in anything other than negative terms or where homosexual relationships were given any approval. From a biblical perspective, homosexuality is a consequence of the sinful nature that all people share. At the Fall in Genesis Chapter 3, God’s perfect creation was spoiled and the resulting sin affected all men from that point forward physically, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and sexually. Homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality that is God’s plan for all His creation.

You love your daughter greatly and show that love through helping her.

Ways to help in which I swear by. Attend a Love One Out conference. Click on the link on my homepage to go directly to the site to find out when the conference is coming near you. This seminar is christian based and has worked for many homosexuals and their transition to heterosexuality.

I hope this helps and I have A TON more ways in which to help you. First pray for the grace of God to help you, even if you have done this already, and then follow up with a visit to a Love One Out conference.

PLEASE keep in touch and let me know how things turned out and if I can HELP you further.

Scia

4:44 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

“So homosexuality is NOT natural and it is a CHOICE.”

Not all experts agree with that assessment. If homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality. I can not remember choosing one sex over the other. There is no proof that it is a choice, and there is no proof that it is not. So I believe it might be a little early to make an absolute statement. You have every right to “believe” it is a choice, but I would prefer to listen to those that are of the homosexual community, and from every one I’ve spoken with, they believe they had no choice in the matter.

6:30 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

There are no credible peer reviewed studies that conclude that people are born gay. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and “gene” linkage studies. Since about half the identical twins studies didn’t have the same sexual preference, twin studies demonstrate that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality. If as many claim, that homosexuality is inherited then identical twins should either be either straight or both gay. (Dr. Jeffery Satinover, “The Gay Gene?” The Journal of Homosexuality 4.)

Another study, which attempted to demonstrate a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome, has yet to be replicated and a subsequent study actually contradicted the findings of the first. (Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement. Eugene, Ore: Harvest House,1996).

In terms of you “preferring” to ONLY listen to other homosexuals in regards to seeing if they believe that their sexual preference is not a choice than I would recommend that you attend a Love Won Out conference. I am not trying to be smart with this recommendation. I just think you should listen to what ex-homosexuals have got to say about the issue and not just focus on one side of the coin. I don’t know if you have listened to what an ex-homosexual has got to say, but it is in my opinion that it would be interesting and eye opening.

Good job Ken, I enjoy our conversations.

7:25 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

You make an excellent point Scia, I think I will attend their conference, but they aren’t coming to Phoenix until Feb. 11th 2007. If I am able to attend I’ll let you know and also tell you what I heard.

I did hear a couple of months ago that it wasn’t genetic but it seemed odd that if a woman has multiple children, that her youngest ones were more likely to be gay than her first born. Here is a website that I found talked a little about this. http://www.borngayprocon.org/pop/brothers.htm

Thanks Scia, I enjoy our conversations as well.

11:06 PM, September 29, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

That's a tough question about your daughter...first of all, don't assume that you've done anything wrong, society is bombarding her with a message that it is "cool" to be gay. You just need to counter that message with some rationality, and tell her about the dangers of homosexuality. The Love Won Out Conference is a great tool, as are many resources over at Focus On the Family.

I'll pray for you and your daughter.

6:06 AM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Interesting. I will check out the website. I had heard about this story of the women with multiple children. This site will give me a chance to actually further research it.

Good stuff!!

Let me know if there are seminars about how to cope or deal with a homosexual lifestyle and I will open my mind up to what is said too.

Do you live in Phoenix, AZ?

8:49 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, excellent post with Ken. For a pro-homo-marriage homosexual he is pretty even tempered and reasonable. But his biggest failure is that he doesn't get the concept that Judges don't make laws period. End of story. All his blather about chnaging social mores etc are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

As I have said all along, Ken has the "right" to marry already. Nobody is denying him of that legal privaledge (it is not a consittuional "right" as I have already pointed out on numerous occasions- liberals have a tough time distinguishing between the two but such a distinction is not a trivial matter but is of vital significance when discussing such issues.) He just can't arbitrarily redefine the legal definition of marriage without the consent of the people. Whether that is "fair" or not is not relevant. That is how our constitutional system/rule of law works in our country. Another way to look at it is that he is against the majority "imposing" their "morality" on him. Don't the vast majority of pro traditional marriage advocates have a similarly valid concern about the diminutive minority of pro-homosexual marriage advocates "imposing" their "morality" on them? It cuts both ways.

But fortunately, our prescient Founding Fathers gave us a way to resolve such conflicts. We the people vote on these issues and make the laws governing our nation, and if individual citizens disagree with those laws and believe them to be a vilation of their constitituional rights, they are free to oppose them in a court of law.

So, if Ken is right that his constitutional guarantees have been eroded or violated in any way, then presumably the federal courts and eventually the Supreme Court will decide the matter- unless of course we amend the constitution to protect traditional marriage- which I am in favor of.

Nevertheless, this issue will be resolved via the constitutionally prescribed process. Thank God. Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart dudes.

8:55 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous Louis DeSerres said...

Ken,
You state that you want to "treat others as you would like to be treated". That is a reasonable proposition. But is the child consulted before he is deprived of one of his parents? Just ask children born from anonymous sperm donors how they feel about the conditions of their birth. How would YOU feel if your parents had denied you your father or your mother, and replaced him/her with a same-sex partner?

You refer to "natural" (unproven) rights of gays. What about the self-evident natural birth right of the child to have both a mother and a father?

Nature does not create slaves. Slavery is manmade. Similarly, nature does not create fatherless or motherless children. That is also a manmade invention. How can we decry slavery and promote the creation of a new kind of orphans?

To create fatherless or motherless children is discriminatory. Is there a single rational argument with regards to the best interests of the child that can justify this?

The SJC did not even consider that children have rights, probably because none showed up in court to defend their natural right to a father and a mother. Why should the courts only listen to the demands of adults? How can this be fair?

8:58 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Great points. I would now like to see what Ken has to say in rebuttle especially about your following comment:

"Another way to look at it is that he is against the majority "imposing" their "morality" on him. Don't the vast majority of pro traditional marriage advocates have a similarly valid concern about the diminutive minority of pro-homosexual marriage advocates "imposing" their "morality" on them? It cuts both ways."

Interesting take. Ken is a good debator so be careful ;)!!!

8:59 PM, September 30, 2006  
Anonymous MyGayDaughter said...

Things are complicated and intense. My daughter said that if I can't accept her for who she has decided to be she is not going to speak to me again. My wife is ready to walk out on me after 26 years together. My daughter waited until after she graduated college to tell me because she and my wife thought I would stop funding her if I found out. I guess I am the last to know. I don't want to lose her and I can't talk to anyone where I live because I am ashamed. There is no way to reason with her. This is tearing me apart. Is there anyone that has experience like this that can share? When does this Love won out come to Kansas? I feel lied to and wonder why God would let this happen. I have always lived by the Word. Thanks for the prayers and the love, it means a lot to me. My heart is breaking over this.

8:59 PM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

My Gay Daughter,

PLEASE check out the Love Won Out website link on my homepage. Here are the upcoming conferances for starters:

Upcoming Conferences

Nov. 4, 2006 - Atlanta, Ga.
First Baptist Church in Woodstock

Feb. 10, 2007 - Phoenix, Ariz.
Bethany Bible Church

April 14, 2007 - Omaha, Neb.
Trinity Church

June 23, 2007 - Portland, Ore.
City Bible Church

Oct. 13, 2007 - Irvine, Calif.
Mariners Church

Nov. 3, 2007 - Indianapolis, Ind.
Traders Point Christian Church


To register and obtain a detailed schedule of classes for conferences, please call toll free (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459).

Do your wife and daughter follow the word of Christ? If so I WILL HELP you INTENSLY to get your little girl back!! PLEASE, please don't worry about this anymore. Give it to God and take a deep breath. I have tears in my eyes now as I am writing this because I KNOW and you must KNOW that the grace of Christ is helping you now.

Relax. The best thing you can do is hug your daughter. Do that for Christ tonite. Hug her and tell her you love her. No mention of her orientation from NOW ON!! It is in the hands of Christ my brother.

I am going to pray EXTRA for you tonite and I have a team of Christian brothers and sisters who are working on getting through to your little girl as we speak.

You have landed onto the right blog to get help.

The grace of Christ is now in control. AHHHHHH, that feels pretty awesome.

In Him,
Scia

9:10 PM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Boy, there’s a lot I need to respond to.

Scia, I do live in Phoenix, AZ

To anon. I realize that judges interpret law, and I know they don’t make the law. However, in our society all things (including morality) change. With these changes come new beliefs in what the law actually means.

I believe marriage is a right; driving is a privilege. When a person wants to drive they have to prove the ability to do so being judged by the state. I don’t think there is a marriage test.

The GLBT community is forcing no one to live their lifestyle, however it is people like yourself that are saying if the lifestyle is “unconventional” and some consider it immoral that it must not be allowed. Morals are different from person to person, consider some people like to “swing” or enjoy pornography. You don’t have to approve of their lifestyle, but I believe you must allow it.

Some of you seem to think you have a right to not “see” gays; you don’t want your children to “see” gays. I’m sorry but you have no such right. If you did, I would have freedom FROM religion, and freedom FROM speech.

I know many of you are believers in religion, I am not. I consider myself an “agnostic”. Freedom of religion allows us all to choose to worship in any way we want, or not worship at our choosing. I believe many of your views on marriage are based on religion (please correct me if I’m mistaken). If I can believe in a religion that allows SSM, how can society or the government deny it?

To Louis Deserres, since marriage does not require children, how can one deny marriage based on the rights of children?

If my father would have been replaced by a woman I think I’d have been okay with it, as long as she was around for me to talk to. I was born here in Phoenix AZ, my father moved to Tucson and then on to Vermont. My Father missed out on a lot with me and my younger sister. My Father would come back to visit for important dates but he missed a lot with me (we didn’t get along well). We talk more now than we used to, our relationship is still “strained” a bit though.

“How can we decry slavery and promote the creation of a new kind of orphans?” Don’t ask me, talk to the doctors and the partakers of those actions. Who is creating the majority of “Fatherless” children? I believe it is the unprotected sex of heterosexuals. Unless I’m wrong, most gays aren’t having sex in a “children producing” manner.

Thanks for the compliment. Let me know if I didn’t respond to something, there was a lot to go over and I may have missed something someone saw as important.

11:22 PM, September 30, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Hey Scia

I thought it might be a good idea to “set the bar” so to speak on whether homosexuality is chosen or not. Now if a person has changed from homo to hetero as some have claimed after attending a “Love Won Out” conference that would mean that they would be no longer attracted to members of the same sex. If they are being celibate by choice, and still find themselves “aroused” by the idea of a same sex encounter they would still be homosexual. If they are “forcing” themselves to embrace a heterosexual lifestyle, but are still attracted to members of the same sex, they would still qualify as a homosexual. I as a heterosexual have never been “excited” at the prospect of a same sex relationship, so I believe it would be the same for all heterosexuals (let me know if I’m wrong).

8:23 AM, October 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well since you asked me to keep you informed I have come back one last time to let you know what has happened. My daughter told me she is better off without me. My wife moved many of her things out of our house to a cottage we have at the lake. She says she intends on divorcing me because of how insensitive I am to my daughter's needs. I have taken some time off from work so I can get a grip on myself. I can't just pretend nothing is happening, I just found out she has had a girlfriend for some time now! I know this girl, I used to like her. I will admit that if she had told me all this before I probably would have reacted poorly. All this dishonesty though! I am afriad to ask anyone what they knew for fear of finding out how many people kept this deception going. I would rather turn my back on my daughter than God. What a tough choice to have to make though. If I condone her lifestyle I will surely burn in Hell. Ignoring the problem and trying to look past it is not the answer. There is no compromise on this matter, once homosexuals take root there evil spreads like a plague on the spirit. They are perverse and disgusting. Even if I tried I don't think I can look at my baby girl the same way again knowing she is a pervert. When I look back all the signs were there, I just didn't pay attention. She is just as set in her ways as I am, there is no changing her.

How do you have the patience to deal with them on a daily basis? It must be exhausting. God bless your strength, but I think trying to reason with them is much like trying to reason with my daughter. It is a lost cause. Good luck though.

4:14 PM, October 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken

You say:

"To anon. I realize that judges interpret law, and I know they don’t make the law. However, in our society all things (including morality) change. With these changes come new beliefs in what the law actually means."

This point is irrelevant to the axiomatic fact that legislatures make laws and judeges decide constitutionality on the actual written laws not some "new" interpretations based on changed social mores. Sorry

You say:

"I believe marriage is a right; driving is a privilege. When a person wants to drive they have to prove the ability to do so being judged by the state. I don’t think there is a marriage test."

Ken, how many times do I have to rebut this fallacious assetion? Marriage is a legaly prescribed privaledge in which the state can and does limit and control. And yes there are a great many marriage "tests." One has to be a specific age, a US citizen in the state in which they are marying, and must be a man and a women. So yes there are many legally prescribed requirements for marriage. But you know this Ken, right?

YOu say:

"The GLBT community is forcing no one to live their lifestyle, however it is people like yourself that are saying if the lifestyle is “unconventional” and some consider it immoral that it must not be allowed."

Nobody has ever said this Ken and I defy you to show me where anybody in this post said such a thing. We have jsut said that no single group or person has the legal authority to usurp the consttituionally prescribed jurisdiction of hte legislative branch of govt to redefine the law without the consent of the people. You can engage in whatever sex you want within the law. You just can't unilately change the legal definition of marriage without doing so via the constitutionally prescribed manner or else you are imposing your view of what the legal defintion of marriage should be without my consent. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to comprehend?

Ken you say:
"Morals are different from person to person, consider some people like to “swing” or enjoy pornography. You don’t have to approve of their lifestyle, but I believe you must allow it."

Yes Ken "morals" do change. But it does not justify the "legality" of every behavior. If the majority of citizens decide that "pornography" should be "legal" and ensrine it into the law then I have no problem with that as long as our laws are decided by "we the People." That is how people who are self governed decdide such matters. I may think that it is "ok" to have sex with small animals but it doesn't mean that it should be "legal."

You say:

"Some of you seem to think you have a right to not “see” gays; you don’t want your children to “see” gays. I’m sorry but you have no such right. If you did, I would have freedom FROM religion, and freedom FROM speech."

Ken, what the heck are you talking about? Nobody has ever said this. Can you please cite where anybody actually said what you claim? Be specific.

You say:

"I know many of you are believers in religion, I am not. I consider myself an “agnostic”. Freedom of religion allows us all to choose to worship in any way we want, or not worship at our choosing. I believe many of your views on marriage are based on religion (please correct me if I’m mistaken). If I can believe in a religion that allows SSM, how can society or the government deny it?"

B/C laws are not decided upon based on what specific religions dictate. I am assuming you know how laws are made. But by your fallacious logic, I could say that my "religion" said that I could marry children as young as 9 just like the Prophet Mohammud did. Would that have to be "legal" b/c my persoanl "religion" dictated it?

You say:

"To Louis Deserres, since marriage does not require children, how can one deny marriage based on the rights of children?"

I will defer to Lou, but although Marriage doesn't "require" children it is the primary purpose of marriage (procreation and the rearing of children for a healthy society). Lou already provided an articulate justification for how same sex marriage would intentionally deny children either a mother or father which has detrimental effects on children emotionally, physically, and spiritually.

You say:

"If my father would have been replaced by a woman I think I’d have been okay with it, as long as she was around for me to talk to. I was born here in Phoenix AZ, my father moved to Tucson and then on to Vermont. My Father missed out on a lot with me and my younger sister. My Father would come back to visit for important dates but he missed a lot with me (we didn’t get along well). We talk more now than we used to, our relationship is still “strained” a bit though."

I think the fact that you really had no father figure in your life Ken may expain why you look for this "love" with other men. no? think about it.

anon

5:03 AM, October 06, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

To Anon, I hope I can clear some things up for you. Instead of reposting what you have said, I’ll just go in the order of your paragraphs.

Judges throughout our history have changed the interpretation of different laws based on society’s “morals”. Marital rape used to be acceptable, so was physical punishment for a wife. Society’s views on these topics have changed, without a vote by the general public.

We have the right to bear arms, but you can’t purchase a firearm until a certain age. There are no tests to address a person’s ability to use a firearm. If a person wishes to drive they must prove their ability to do so, with written tests and actual driving skills. The only prerequisites for marriage are age and that any children coming from that union are not likely to be deformed as in cases of incest. Age is a requirement for many of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, as well as certain privileges. The tests for marriage are not for certifying one’s capability to follow the vows one agrees to in marriage, nor even for understanding those vows. The government’s role in marriage should not be to decide validity other than ensuring that those involved are capable of making the decision to enter into the “contract” of marriage.

No one on this post has said that if the lifestyle is unconventional or immoral those who engage in it should not be allowed to do so. However, I’ve heard this reasoning from others that I have conversed with on previous occasions. The legal definition of marriage varies from state to state, and the federal government does not define marriage as between “one man and one woman”. At least I assume it doesn’t due to the fact that they recently tried to amend the constitution to define it as such.

Did you know that the general public was never invited to vote on the issue of pornography? Do you know why? It is due to the fact that freedom of expression is a right in our country. Art is a form of expression, and pornography is a form of art. The government has tried to address the issue of obscenity, but when it comes to defining that term the only response one can get is “I’ll know it when I see it”. If a person is attempting bestiality, that animal can not consent to those actions; much like a child can not. If one is unable or unwilling to consent, it should be considered rape.

Others have stated on this post that they don’t want the issue of SSM imposed upon then. “Another way to look at it is that he is against the majority "imposing" their "morality" on him. Don't the vast majority of pro traditional marriage advocates have a similarly valid concern about the diminutive minority of pro-homosexual marriage advocates "imposing" their "morality" on them?” This is what I meant by “seeing” homosexuals and SSM.

With the issue of children marriage you have a good point. But as I said before, a person must consent to marriage; as such children are unable to consent to marriage, because they haven’t matured to a point of comprehending the contract they would be entering into.

A single person and others can adopt children, and since one anonymous stated that “The only published peer reviewed studies in existence show that same sex parenting is not better then divorced or step family configurations which is a very low std…” I find it odd that we can allow a non-married person to adopt but not a homosexual couple based on the premise that SSM intentionally denies a child the right to a Mother or Father.

Lastly, did I ever say I look for love with other men? Are you assuming I am a homosexual? If so, what led you to that assumption?

3:43 PM, October 06, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comments. It was a busy week.

You said:

"Judges throughout our history have changed the interpretation of different laws based on society’s “morals”. Marital rape used to be acceptable, so was physical punishment for a wife. Society’s views on these topics have changed, without a vote by the general public."

Decades of protest by temperance and woman's rights advocates, combined with shifting attitudes toward corporal punishment and changing gender mores, together worked to discredit the law of marital chastisement. By the 1870s, there was no judge or treatise writer in the United States who recognized a husband's prerogative to chastise his wife. Thus, when a wife beater was charged with assault and battery, judges refused to entertain his claim that a husband had a legal right to strike his wife; instead they denounced the prerogative, and allowed the criminal prosecution to proceed.

If civil rights reform is to be effective, civil rights law must continually adapt, striving to remain in critical dialogue with the evolving rules and rhetoric of any status regime it aspires to disestablish.

With this, if the pro-same-sex "marriage" advocates and the pro-traditional marriage advocates are to come to some sort of agreement on who is to enter the institution of marriage than the dialogue with the evolving rules and rhetoric of any status regime needs to come to a vote and not by a hand me down decision by four unelected officials of the supreme court.

Judges INTERPRET the law based on what "We The People" (morals) want. If the Massachusetts Supreme Court were to decide the fate of traditional marriage now, then they would listen the what the majority of Massachusetts voters want: A Vote on Marriage. I am not making this up, 170,000 people of the Commenwealth want to vote on marriage. What does that tell you Ken?

You said:

"The legal definition of marriage varies from state to state, and the federal government does not define marriage as between “one man and one woman”. At least I assume it doesn’t due to the fact that they recently tried to amend the constitution to define it as such."

This is incorrect. Legislation was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 that defines marriage ONLY as the legal union of a man and a woman. It allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. This law is also known as the Defense Of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA).

You said:

"I find it odd that we can allow a non-married person to adopt but not a homosexual couple based on the premise that SSM intentionally denies a child the right to a Mother or Father."

Does the SSM configuration have a mother and a father? No, it does not so therefor it denies the child the right to a mother and a father. It is that simple.

In closing you said:

"Lastly, did I ever say I look for love with other men? Are you assuming I am a homosexual? If so, what led you to that assumption?"

I agree with you Ken. You did say you were a HETEROsexual, but you did say:

" I was born here in Phoenix AZ, my father moved to Tucson and then on to Vermont. My Father missed out on a lot with me and my younger sister. My Father would come back to visit for important dates but he missed a lot with me (we didn’t get along well). We talk more now than we used to, our relationship is still “strained” a bit though."

I am NOT stating this comment to prosocute or put you down but to SOLEY make my point in my previous paragraph. This is why a mother and a FATHER are important to a family.

I am terribly sorry that this occured to you. I am a "victim" of divorce and I know the hurt that comes with this.

Your a smart and good hearted guy Ken and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Great job!!

Scia (Great Job, I mean it!!)

Peace be with you and your family.

10:16 PM, October 07, 2006  
Blogger Ken Weaver said...

Scia, you made some really good points there, wow.

To be honest, I don’t know how to respond. Apparently I need to do some serious thinking about this issue. I am not ready to say that SSM should be outlawed, but you have shown me that I really don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

I will continue to visit your site regularly and post once in a while, but I need some time to reflect on my views.

Thank you Scia for teaching me on this issue, you have humbled me and earned my respect.

Thanks again

Ken

10:06 PM, October 08, 2006  
Anonymous Louis DeSerres said...

To the grieving father.
There is a difference between your daughter and her behavior. As a parent, you need to love her. That does not mean that you need to endorse her behavior. You can show your love in many other areas that do not conflict with her sexual orientation. Surely, your daughter is more than just a lifestyle. She has qualities, interests, talents, abilities, likes, etc.. Given that relations are tense right now, maybe just writing her a kind letter might be helpful, letting her know that you love her, apologizing for any unkind remarks if you need to, and sharing your commitment to love her and help her.


Let the people vote.
The people can vote all kinds of laws for the betterment of society. If the people are wise, they will not vote on things that violate natural laws, for this will cause hardship.

Given that nature creates EVERY child with a father and a mother, doesn't nature intend for children to be raised by both a father and a mother?

Ken: you responded to only a portion of the questions raised. Also, in your answer, you mentioned that relations with your father were not ideal. What if you had been born from a surrogate mother and had, as parents, your biological father along with another man?

Your comment about the medical profession is interesting. I sense that you agree that the situation needs to change. Absent any regulation to the contrary, the medical profession is more than happy (financially) to help same-sex couples have children. And same-sex marriage will clearly increase demand for their services.

One last comment about children not consenting to marriage. That is precisely the reason why the state must exercise prevention. With marrriage comes the right to have children, and ssm has the potential to create fatherless or motherless children. The state regularly enacts laws to prevent certain adverse outcomes. For example, the state will not issue a drivers license to an underage person. Numerous kinds of medicine are only available with a prescription. In all these situations, it is not the marriage ceremony, the possession of a drivers license or the purchase of medicine which cause harm, but the potential/probable consequences of their use.

With children, only prevention will work. To adequately protect children, not only should the state start by recognizing only man-woman marriage, it should, through its power to regulate the medical profession and the adoption process, restrict medically assisted reproductive techniques and adoptions to married man-woman couples. These are the measures that France has adopted to protect children's rights. While many may disagree with France on a number of other issues, they are clearly showing the way with regards to insuring that we do not create fatherless or motherless children.

7:33 AM, October 10, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com