Freedom vs poverty #2

The second graph (I wont post it) is insignificant. It shows a slope of 0.04, and the result is statistically insignificant. Used data from Mercatus and the Census.

However, the Mercatus authors have noted that freedom, in their study, is correlated with  increased wealth, migration from states into the area (for example, New York has many people--not just retirees--moving to the more free state of Florida). The study finds that the growth is stronger in areas where the state is more free. Comparing rates is a flawed concept. Why? Because, for example, the states which are unfree may have been wealthy before tightening markets. Although tightening their markets may have harmed their outlook, they still place above free states with a basic comparison. Therefore, a better way to judge success is growth. You can see these results yourself on line.
http://freedominthe50states.org/print

Further, the Fraser study, using comparisons, finds that on balance using their measurements areas under a free market--using comparisons/cross-sectional data--are wealthier than those who are less free.

This study, which reviews 45 studies on freedom versus economic output, has found panel data and cross sectional data both support the view more freedom, more money. (http://biblioeco.unimo.it/ext/Copertine%20LibroMese/marzo11/EJPE.pdf)

Economic Freedom versus poverty

I'm baaaack.

Yes, I am posting something, again, after a hiatus for, what, forever?

Well, this time I made some data myself. I plotted economic freedom of the 50 states (not including the District of Columbia) using the Fraser Institutes Economic Freedom of North America of 2012 report.
See: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=19011

For poverty measurements, I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

I will soon update the freedom data from another source, as well as alternative poverty data (do I don't have to deal with the wikipedia is unreliable claims).

But here is the graph.

Ah, we see with more economic freedom (1-10 scale, with graph fitted 8 is about the highest any state got), we see that there is, on balance, less poverty.

Show this to your liberal friends!

Defending Paul Cameron

Paul Cameron, PhD, has been accused by the gay lobby of multiple things. Whether it be his removal from the APA, his "misrepresentation" of research, or his overall research quality. Actually, the more I read into him, the more credible he becomes. Which is odd, because almost everything is in opposition to him. Lets go down the list of claims. 
I will use this website for the main claims against Cameron.
1.) "[Cameron has been] Rejected by the scientific community for fraudulent research and misrepresenting the research of others." Actually, this claim (misrepresentation) is based on a court case. Generally, I don't know if a federal judge should be in control of this. I think other academics must also comment to validate the courts finding. And, this has happened. A correction to a dissertation from Capella University, formerly agreeing with the courts, has changed opinions, noting that there is no proof that Cameron has willfully misrepresented research.  They have noted his extensive contribution to the research of homosexuality, and the way they explain his contributions seems to put him in a favorable light. Second, they merely assert that his research is fraudulent, and give no proof. There is actually a lot of literature which replicates his research. 

2.) "Cameron was dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association in 1984 for ethical violations concerning his biased research. That same year, the Psychological Association in his home state of Nebraska adopted a formal resolution disassociating itself from Cameron's work." Here are the original letters. We see that first, Cameron resigned, he did not get dropped. Further, Cameron quit because he thought that the APA was unfair, biased, and that the APA no longer held a proper view based on the evidence. Nothing is wrong with this. Of course the APA will disassociate itself, because they do no agree with Cameron. The APA response, see the link, was that they no longer agree with Cameron. That's it. Not that he is a liar, discredited, etc. The critics of Cameron misread the resignation fury. Note that he was dropped after he resigned. If anything, he was never really found guilty. Cameron further notes (see link from Capella): "Having no APA charges against me, 26 years ago, on November 7, 1982, I resigned and got a letter of acknowledgement from the President of the APA November 29, 1982. My letter explaining my reasons for my resignation, as requested by the APA President, was published in the Monitor in March 1983. My letter said that I believed the APA had abandoned its scientific stance and become an advocate for abortion and gay rights. Following the publication of this letter, the APA informed me I had been dropped from membership while under charges. I have since been asked at least three times to rejoin." To rephrase: at the time of resignation, he was not being investigated. Then, after he resigned, the APA attempted to claim that he was dropped after he resigned. But reading the original documents refuted their claim. And since then, they have wanted him back, which kinda refuted the part where people think that he scientific community hates him.

3.) "his sworn statement that homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data  and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)" This is based on an old survey, which was updated and used superior datasets, which have been confirmed by other surveys. His overall numbers have stayed the same. 

4.) "According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk,
News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995" Cameron writes (see replication link), "The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted in the same article as saying that such an idea is “not politically, ethically or socially acceptable” today. Where former Surgeon General Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron whether he advocated such a policy."

5.) And the last part is about homosexuality taking over heterosexuality because homosexuality "feels better".  He never said this. He said that it "feels better", basically, and that if we don't condone it to some degree people will experiment with it. Its a pretty logical statement. People do things unless they are condoned, people want to be accepted. Now, I don't agree with him, homosexual sex sounds gross more than anything, but he is correct that if we fully embrace homosexuality, homosexual rates will likely increase somewhat.

The BSA decision on homosexuality

I applaud the BSA for preventing adult leaders who choose to indulge in a homosexual lifestyle, however, I am deeply saddened at their willingness to allow gay members under the age of 18. Here's why:

1. This is contradictory to the BSA oath, which includes the phrase "morally straight". The LDS church, and the Baptist church, both urged the BSA to keep the traditional membership policy. The LDS church and the Baptists are some of the largest contributor to the Boy Scouts, and allowing the gay members may shrink their religious support as homosexuality is against their biblical teaching. Furthermore, the Boy Scouts have a policy regarding religion: all children must have some type of religious affiliation. In most cases, the kids come from some Semitic religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism). All of which oppose homosexuality. To allow homosexuals is not "morally straight" in the minds of the BSA's main religious body, according to natural law theory, etc. We might as well remove morally straight from the oath.

2. I cannot find any reasons (yet) which support their decision, other than the gay lobby pushing this. However, if homosexuality is not genetic or natural, which it isn't, homosexuals are not a protected suspect class. As such, any reason relating to the legal threats of discrimination or upholding a immutable lifestyle are irrelevant.

3. Allowing gay children but not gay adults tells the BSA that homosexuality is ok, and this begs the question, why not adults? This will lead to discrimination lawsuits.

4. A recent survey of 200,000 leaders and parents affiliated with the BSA shows that 61% (LOL, gays were allowed in with 61%) support the policy of excluding gays, and only 34% want gays to be allowed in.

5. People would be up in arms about allowing men into girl scouts. Why? Because intercourse is likely to occur, and this is not what the girl scouts want. If girls were to come into boyscouts, they would be given a separate living quarters on campgrounds, as is what happens at any other camp. No one would have a problem with this. If people did this to homosexuals, people would sue. Which is odd, because only women can claim the rights to a suspect class (under current evidence, at least. Who knows, maybe we will find a gay gene[s]). The only reason people care about this is because it is a political hot button issue. It is very hypocritical, and simply does not make sense. Unless we make allowing girls into the BSA an issue, then the fact that people care about this is really ignorant itself... but its called BOYscouts... And the same goes for you: morally straight. So, its the same issue. The fact that girls made a separate but equal program but gays have merely shows what the gay agenda wants: to pervert another institution.

I might sound like an extremist, but so did Moishe the Beadle.

Here is a more scholarly paper I put together on this. It's arguments still stand: http://social-conservatism.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-boy-scouts-and-homosexuality.html

Open Letter to the Supreme Court: Uphold DOMA and Prop. 8

I hope this post gets significant traffic. Also, the fact Justice Kennedy generally does internet research prior to making his decisions I may be lucky to influence the debate (or, at least I hope I do, though the chances are slim). Regardless, standing up for a noble cause means a lot. This year, I read two very significant literature pieces on this issue. Well, I have read many, but one point made keeps ringing in my ears.

Lawyer Lynn D. Wardle has equivocated the debate over same sex marriage to the book Night by Elie Wiesel. Not in the way that gay marriage will lead to the slaughter of millions, but in the way of "we told you so". Moishe the Beadle, a seemingly minor character at first glance, is one of the first Jews in the area to be taken into a concentration camp. He was one of the few that escaped and returned to the town where he was from. He told the populace about what he saw. No one would listen. His student heard him out (Elie), but did not believe him. He told stories of horror that no one would believe. They ignored him, this was absurd, he was lying, this will never happen. How can they do this, how can this lead to that, you are obviously wrong [1]. Ignoring them lead to obvious consequences. I, and Wardle in fact, feel like Moishe the Beadle. We warn of the consequences, we present arguments we feel are based on facts, but are discarded as liars or bigots. The similarities are striking.

Now, I proceed onto an essay on the issue.

I. Introduction
II. What is marriage?
III. Conclusion
IV. Final Remarks

I. Introduction

Why do I care about what gays do? Why would a straight, young, not even out of high school male care about this issue at all? How would it affect me?  Well, the answer is it may or it may not even affect me at all. Whether it affects me as a human being is irrelevant. I do care about what marriage is, and the well being of children, which leads me to the conclusion that gay marriage should not be legal. The state should be obligated (indeed, in most states it actually is obligated) to get marriage right. The state must understand why marriage exists in the first place, and what societal goods marriage can create.

II. What is marriage?

What is marriage? A recent group of scholars on many occasions have tried to make this point central in the marriage debate--indeed, the main ones (Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George) have made some of the most interesting comments on the issue. They have separated marriage into two large encompassing categories: First, marriage as a comprehensive union, and second a comprehensive union with a special link to children.

Girgis et al. has looked into the counter argument provided by the revisionist crowd (or, as more commonly known as SSM supporters). When asking a revisionist what marriage is, they provide the ambiguous answer of marriage is a loving union between spouses. But, as Girgis et al. notes, this definition can't hold up under scrutiny. If this was true, any loving union (for example mere cohabitation) should be treated as marriage, or a close friendship should be recognized by the state [2].

Marriage itself is an intrinsic good furthered by coitus. The loving generative act leads to a union connecting the mind, body, and soul. Procreation and child rearing, though important, are merely other social goods produced by the unions. To be simplistic enough to say marriage is only about love is false. Love is needed, or preferable, in a marriage and is what (generally) causes couples to marry. Love causes people to enter marriage, but that is different from what marriage actually is.

So, the key to this part is to focus more on the public purpose of marriage, which involves the intrinsic good of marriage. This good is the reason the state has decided to legislate its existence in the first place.

The state legislates marriage because of children--the special link to children. Tim Hsiao (who I also model the argument after) has written, "[m]arriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence." In many debates with teachers (even our former Young Republicans leader) had a quarrel with this argument on the grounds that he thought marriage required children. However Hsiao further notes, "[t]he claim isn’t that you need to be married to have children, it is that marriage is oriented toward child well-being in a way that other sexual relationships are not."[3]

The point can be expanded. When two people are together, bodily and mentally through marriage, they function better. A car functions best with four wheels, a car functions best with an engine. Having the ability to go forward is NOT the definition of a car, just like procreation is not necessary to have a marriage. Having the product of children through coitus, then, is an optional extra that makes marriage build upon its goods. A car would not be a car if it did not have a proper build. Just like marriage is not marriage when it is homosexual. In other words, coitus through marriage completes the marriage, and all marriages that are heterosexual are procreative in type, if not in effect. Marriage, then, is oriented towards procreation and children, though it does not require procreation or children. The state regulates it because coitus is the first step towards both of those means, and promoting heterosexual marriage merely encourages (does not force) more children raised by their mothers and fathers. Girgis et al. in their expanded book write, "... bodily coordination is possible even when its end is not realized; so for a couple, bodily union occurs in coitus even when conception does not. It is the coordination toward a single end [emphasis original] that makes the union; achieving the end would deepen the union but is not necessary for it."[4]

Other scholars have chimed in ad nauseum on the point. The infertile objection is really weak, as stated, because procreation is not a requirement, rather a benefit which builds upon marriages intrinsic good. The infertile argument must assume marriage has only extrinsic benefits.

To conclude this segment I will provide what I feel is one of the most important quotes for understanding what marriage is:

The key is to understand the specific type of community marriage actually is—in particular, how it is bodily, sexual, and of a type that would naturally be fulfilled by procreation. In every society, we find something like the following type of relationship: men and women committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and spiritual levels of their being, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. That such a distinctive type of community—marriage—does exist in every society is undeniable. There are, of course other relationships similar in some ways to marriage. For example, men and women may cohabit, regularly have sex together, and view the possibility of having children as a possibly attractive optional “extra,” or perhaps instead as a burden to be avoided. Or, by contrast, two or more individuals may form an alliance for the sake of bringing up children—two sisters, for example, or several celibate religious men or women. But these relationships are not marriages, and no society recognizes them as marriages. Marriage is that type of community that is both a comprehensive unity (a unity on all levels of the human person, including the bodily-sexual) and a community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. Moreover, there is an intrinsic link between these two aspects of the community; the comprehensive (and therefore intrinsically sexual) relationship is fulfilled by, and is not merely incidental to, the procreating and rearing of children.[5]

III. Gay Parents

I will quote DOMA:

Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about regulating the reproduction of children, families, and society . . . . Marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce.

I see this quote everywhere, and don't see the need to cite it (one of my future sources has it in there!)

No difference theory states children raised by homosexuals do as well as children raised by heterosexuals. Honestly, I don't understand how this myth perpetuates today. Even the APA and the ASA claim this theory to be correct. The ASA actually have claimed there are large representative studies claiming that no difference theory is correct [6].

The ASA claim the pro-family studies do not apply to homosexuals, only single parents and such... But wouldn't having one mother be the same as having lesbian parents? If anything, it might even be better. One of the larger studies on gay parents actually finds children of single parents do better than those raised by homosexuals [7]. Further research, expanding of that by Paul Cameron, and adding to the data set and looking at other culture finds that children raised by homosexual are more likely to be homosexual [8]. Indeed, this coincides with the vast amount of evidence that homosexuality is not a genetic phenomena. The largest twin studies indicate that homosexuality is about 10% genetic. Everything we do is genetic, and this influence is not surprising. It is universally agreed upon that homosexuality (like everything we do, almost) is genetically influenced, not genetically determined. The American College of Pediatricians notes, "Every trait is influenced by genes, but only some are determined by them. “Genetically determined” is destiny, “genetically influenced” is not." The evidence indicates that people may be predispositioned for a certain behavior, but they only become gay if influenced by environmental factors which would influence those genes. The College writes, "Environment and free will decisions interact with these predispositions and play an important role in the development of SSA."[9] Indeed, homosexuality is only possible in humans if the right environmental factors are induced. 

Since homosexuality is environmental in origin, it is quite easy to understand why children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals. Even parenting studies authored by homosexual activists come to these conclusions, that homosexual parents increases the chances of children becoming gay, but the results are often minimized in the study (or fully ignored). Dr. Trayce Hansen writes, "Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true,[emphasis original  children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children."[10]

The largest most definitive study on the issue was authored by Mark Regnerus last year. He put together a nationally representative study whose methodology was impeccable compared to the studies authored before this. The study found that those raised by homosexuals on nearly every indicator did worse than those who were married or cohabiting [11]. The study prompted mainly political controversy and the scientific portion of the criticism has been misreported by the media. He was hounded for being a conservative catholic; but they forget that most of the studies in the field are written by openly gay or lesbian authors, or those who openly show their biases. If this is considered a valid criticism, which it isn't because if that's the best objection you have, you lost... back to the point. If this is considered a valid criticism, than nearly all of the research in this area needs to be counted as false, and all of the former court cases relying on this evidence reversed. The second objection was their being some conspiracy in the journal. The media claims that Regnerus was found guilty. This is a lie. When looking at the original task, if the journal had an adequate peer review process, he was found innocent. Also, if we care about the messenger, the person who wrote the study allegedly already hated Regnerus and... was no a sociologist, economist or statistical expert, etc. Rather, a music expert. Other reviews of the study have also vindicated its methodology. The analysis found that the Regnerus study had the best sample size of most of the research, that an extensive body of research supports the "children raised by gay are more likely to be gay" result, that all of the decisions made by Regnerus are respected and accepted statistical techniques and have even been used by some of the earlier studies, that his randomized sample is a strong plus to the overall conclusion to the study, and much more. All of the methods used by Regnerus are either far superior to equivalent pro-gay studies or use similar techniques [12]. Further, Regnerus has responded to his critics. Regnerus uses his data, edits it for each critique (for example, the foster care argument), and finds the same result. He uses the original data for other analysis's  where he applies new and different techniques to analyze the data set, all coming to the same conclusion. He responds to the academic response to his study, concluding, "Until much larger random samples can be drawn and evaluated, the probability-based evidence that exists—including additional NFSS analyses herein—suggests that the biologically-intact two-parent household remains an optimal setting for the long-term flourishing of children."[13]

IV. CONCLUSION

I ask the supreme court, but mainly the person reading this whoever they are, to sit down a minute, ignore the media, and objectively review the evidence.






1. Lynn D Wardle. "The Attack on Marriage as a Union between a man and a woman." North Dakota Law Review, (2007).
2. Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George. "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Winter (2010).
3. Tim Hsiao. "Getting Marriage Right: The Case for Conjugal Marriage." <http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/getting-marriage-right-the-case-for-conjugal-marriage/>
4. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Encounter Books, 2012.
5. Patrick Lee, Robert P. George, Gerard V. Bradley. "Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic connection". <http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/>
6. Their Amicus Brief is here: http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf
7. Soritos Sarakantos. "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development." Children Australia, (1996).
8. Walter R. Schumm. "Children of Homosexuals more likely to be Homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and Cameron based on examination of multiple sources of data." Journal of Biosocial Science, (2010).
9. American College of Pediatricians. "Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children." http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/empowering-parents-of-gender-discordant-and-same-sex-attacted-children
10. Dr. Trayce Hansen. "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:  Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality." http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html
11. Mark Regnerus. "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study." Social Science Research, (2012). 
12. Walter R. Schumm. "Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS)." Social Science Research, (2012). 
13. Study found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12001731 

Re: Sarakantos

In my post about gay parents a few months ago, I plotted the outcomes of children raised by homosexuals vs heterosexual marries couples vs heterosexual cohabiting couples based on the Sarakantos 1996 study (which has been largely been ignored by the ASA and the APA on the issue of gay parenting).  In that post StraightGrandmother  (I presume that is her online title) responded to the post claiming the differences in found in the is because of bullying and not family structure etc. I obtained the study (thanks Dr. Schumm) and read it myself (not relying on the data from Marks 2012).

Why so different? Sarakantos actually did not mention bullying once as the main factor for the differences. On page 7 of the PDF, he said, "differences between the three groups of children might be easy to establish, the explanation of these differences is not." Unlike StraightGrandmother, who assumes it is bullying and claims a consensus (source?) says the differences found in the study was due to bullying, I actually agree with Sarakantos that we really don't know. But since children also got less help on homework and had worse home lives (the study talked in length about this), it is more likely that the home life and not bullying was the cause.

On pg 3, where StraightGrandmother got her bullying quote, the study mentions how children were able to form cliques with other children raised by homosexual couples. Although this increased the amount of bullying, the study noted this made the children happier. With my experience with bullying (albeit it was short lived and stopped in 7th grade, for the most part) having a small group of friends (which I still have) was superior to having a large amount of tormenters (or, better described as people who dislike me). So it is very possible there was an overall net-gain when it came to happiness levels, at least when it came to the issue of bullying.

Sarakantos did mention a few theoretical reasons for the differences. He mentions socio-economic status, but he felt the parental characteristics (not influenced by bullies) was one of the larger factors in  the differences found. On pg 8 the study reads, "educational achievement of children may be associated with personal characteristics of the parents." Sarakantos also mentions family environment and family structure. Note the Regnerus study also mentions family structure as the main reason for differences in his study. Sarakantos actually says on pg 8, "this factor [divorce] is found to have the strongest impact on a child's behavior." and on pg 9, "the majority of children of cohabiting homosexual and heterosexual couples have experienced parental divorce". Note in my original post I noted how *usually* cohabiting heterosexuals still did better than homosexuals. So divorce may have brought the two down equally, with some other factor explaining the results. Although bullying could be a factor, and probably is, the fact homosexuals helped children with their homework least indicates the parents are the largest factor. It is also worthy of note children raised by homosexuals do best in social studies which means bullying does not harm them universally.

StraightGrandmother argues teachers are biased. This may also affect the results. But the fact homosexuals did better in history shows teacher bias is likely overstated.

There are many factors of importance to children raised by homosexuals, but bullying is likely not the main issue. Nor is teacher bias. 

Is DOMA unconstitutional?

With the SCOTUS deciding to take up the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) as to whether or not it is unconstitutional. Prop. 8 will likely be upheld, since Kennedy (who will probably be the swing vote) will mostly vote on states rights. So, I am not worried about Prop. 8 being upheld, though DOMA is facing serious difficulty. Although I don't understand how DOMA infringes states rights since it doesn't force the states to do anything--it merely dictates what the federal policy is. A law creating a federal policy isn't unconstitutional, unless it infringes one of the amendments, and a law telling the Feds what to do does not breech the 10th amendment. So I will be focusing on the other issues, namely rights, the states interest, and suspect class.

1. States interest in marriage

When a society or government creates an institution, as they have done on  the issue of marriage, the government and people have some purpose for the law. It has what is refereed to as a "public purpose". This public purpose is to link mothers and fathers to their children and encourage responsible procreation.

Marriage is based on the fact that men and women are complimentary, and children need a mother and a father. Marriage is the best way to protect children and uphold society's existence. by encouraging marriage norms, society heals its current ills and strengthens society's "good" aspects. Indeed, marriage enforcement is the least restrictive, least intrusive way of helping society in this way. Often, people deem me a fascist for opposing SSM, or a hypocrite because I support small government but support marriage regulation. Though they fail to see what would be otherwise unsuccessful regulation, I support a simple definition of marriage which accomplishes the same goal without the same intrusion on peoples lives. Marriage does not restrict homosexuals. They are free to participate in day-to-day activities, a loving relationship, and can have access to the same benefits marriage provides through other contracts (though it seems as though they complain about not having them when they just don't look far enough -- a will, for example, would transfer property the same way marriage benefits would).

But the nature of marriage is inherently  heterosexual, and the fruits of heterosexual marriage are inherently good. Procreation and child rearing merely enforce their current bonding marriage provided. Ryan T. Anderson writes, "Marriage connects people and goods that otherwise tend to fragment. It helps to connect sex with love, men with women, sex with babies, and babies with moms and dads. ... As the act by which a husband and wife make marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is inherently extended and enriched by family life and calls for all-encompassing commitment that is permanent and exclusive."[1] Now note he says procreation "extends" the inherit good of procreative-type unions, and that procreation is not itself marriage. Procreation is merely a common ad-on. This renders the infertile response useless, because the infertile argument assumes marriages is solely about procreation and child-rearing, when it is about male-female complimentary which is inherently good, with or without procreation resulting in children.

 Anderson, Girgis, and George have also submitted a Amicus Breif in order to influence the courts decision. They come to the same conclusion of states interest that I have come to above, and they then discuss the norms of marriage. They note the inherint goods of heterosexual love will be withered away if SSM is legalized. A question often posed is "why would it do that? It doesn't affect you." However, SSM affects us all. SSM legalization erodes the norms of procreative-type unions, robbing the inherint good of marriage, leading to societal decline. As the Breif writes:

"1. Law tends to shape beliefs.

2. Beliefs shape behavior.

3. Beliefs and behavior affect human interests and human well-being"[2]

 Now, it is possible SSM would spread stability, though this is unlikely. Anderson et al. argue in their brief marriage is only god because of its modern norms. It only provides stability because the law defines it as such. Redefining marriage destroys these norms, and their stability, therefore do not spread stability.

One study actually finds these results to be true, and finds legalization of SSM actually hinders is procreative aspect [3]. With the procreative aspect now divorced from marriage, marriage begins to fail at its main purpose: to bond couples together who often enforce their marriage with child-rearing and responsible procreation. A redefinition of marriage changes the rules of marriage, changing how it works, and therefore harming society as a whole.

Now some people have claimed this is unconstitutional still, because the argument is like prohibiting african americans to marry with other races in the 60s. And since the same arguments lead to an unconstitutional result in Loving occurred, than SSM should be legal too. However, in the next section that will be discussed in some detail.

2. Marital rights

In Loving v. Virginia the court ruled there was a right to marriage. Gay advocates often point to this decision as proof that gays have the right to marry, and therefore it should be legalized. However, they are comparing apples to oranges since interracial marriage and SSM are two very different issues. Former Attorney General Ed Meese writes, "On the merits, neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses require that marriage be  radically redefined to encompass relationships other than the union of one man and one woman. The fundamental right to marry recognized by this Court in Loving as protected by the Due Process Clause  was tied to the unique procreative capacity of opposite-sex unions, a fact that also renders same-sex and opposite-sex relationships not similarly situated for purposes of Equal Protection analysis, a threshold inquiry."[4]

The fact the court ruled in favor of interracial marriage is because there was no legitimate state interest against it. That interest was procreation. As we can see, the courts have always sided on the side of the procreation argument, and marriage rights only applies to those who enter into these procreative-type unions. This renders the rights argument false. Anderson, Girgis, and George in their famous 2010 paper write, "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."[5]

3. Suspect class 

This point is probably the most important in the debate. If homosexuality is not a suspect class, the homosexuals lose the debate with no contest. But if its true, the court may side with the homosexuals (though the arguments above would still apply, so if the courts did rule in favor of SSM that would be intellectually dishonest). For homosexuality to be a suspect class, it must be innate and immutable. Only one court case talking about homosexuals has ruled they are a suspect class. The others ruling in favor of homosexuals avoid the question because they will lose. I will be using the same source as the heritage foundation (I will provide the heritage link at the end; and a footnote to the source here) on the suspect class argument:

Sexual orientation is neither a “discrete” nor “immutable” characteristic in the legal sense of those terms.… Scholars do not know enough about what sexual orientation is, what causes it, and why and how it sometimes changes for the Court to recognize it as the defining feature of a new suspect class.[6]

The article essentially says current evidence opposes the immutable argument, and the studies for it are fairly ambiguous. And since the literature here is so mixed, the Court cannot rule people with SSA a suspect class. However the brief does not the bast majority of evidence favors the non-biological model of environmental influences, with homosexuality only 6-20% genetic (which is very small. Since all behavior has some genetics involved, a 20% is very minor). The brief sites a few studies [6]:

1. Bearman and Bruckner 2002. The brief provides this quote. "[the study finds]'no support for genetic influences on same-sex preference net of social structural constraints.'"
2. Langstrom et al. 2010 "[the study finds] concordance rates of 18% for male identical twins and 22% for female identical twins)." So homosexuality is only 18 - 22% genetic
3. Kendler 2000 found "concordance rates of 31.6% for identical twins)."
4. King and McDonald 1992 wrote "genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation."

 NE Whitehead finds the vast majority of twin studies find homosexuality is only 10% genetic [7]. The hormone argument is also invalid because if this was true both twins would be homosexual, though this rarely happens refuting that argument.

The brief also indicates homosexuals change their sexuality often, with 50% of homosexuals changing orientation at some point in their life [6]. Whitehead does a literature review and finds in puberty nearly ALL homosexuals become heterosexuals or bisexuals (though most of them move full straight), with most bisexuals also becoming straight. He finds heterosexuals are the least likely to change orientation, indicating *most* heterosexual orientation is natural [8]. In my opinion, those who changed were always heterosexual BUT some factor made them homosexual (all gays, I think, are gay because of some environmental factor, so this is not a concession) and their biology eventually won out. And Whitehead also noted most studies on therapy often indicate nearly all clients becoming more heterosexual somewhat, and a large portion becoming 100% heterosexual.

 CONCLUSION

Is DOMA unconstitutional? I believe my case of 1) states interest, 2) gays don't have the same marriage rights, and 3) gays are not a suspect class leads me to the conclusion that it isn't. With this information I believe DOMA should be upheld.


1.  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it.
2. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-144-12-307_merits_reversal_rpg_etal.authcheckdam.pdf
3. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Allen.pdf
4. http://www.claremont.org/repository/docLib/20130130_CCJProp8AmicusBrief2013.pdf
5. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf
6. http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusMcHugh.pdf
7. http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf
8. http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf

Sarakantos 1996

I plotted the Sarakantos 1996 study on gay parents. Homosexual children do worse in school than every other group (except in math) in almost every subject. Each number at the bottom is a subject.

1. This number is language
2. Two is math
3. Three is history
4. Sports
5. Popularity
6. Learning attitude
7. Parent-School relationship
8. Parent support with homework
9. Parental Aspirations

The Boy Scouts and Homosexuality

This is an article originally posted on another blog (that I wrote) that I am now posting here.
http://www.conservativepolitico.org/2013/02/a-boy-scouts-view-on-complex-issue.html?m=1

The controversy over homosexual leaders and members has been recently re-ignited due to multiple press releases of boy scouts possibly changing their anti-homosexual policy. Gay activists claim the policy is discriminatory, and religious leaders and conservatives deem the policy harmful to children and against religious values. Both sides are hard headed. Gay activists have a strong advantage in the media, and conservatives have multiple think tanks and religious organizations spreading their material. Why/why not should the boy scouts uphold this policy?

            It is likely that homosexuals are more likely to molest male children than heterosexual men. This makes sense: homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex, and a minority of them would be interested in children of the same sex. Some may argue heterosexuals, then, would harm little girls. But the facts presented here show homosexuals are more likely to hurt a young male than a heterosexual would be to hurt a young girl.

It is not so say all (or even most) homosexuals are pedophiles; the majority of them are normal people. However, polls of homosexuals show 23% of homosexuals admit to having sexual relations with children under 16 years old, and 7% admit to having relations with children under 7 years old. Up to 71% of sex scandals with children were homosexual, 43% of teacher molestation was homosexual, and 50% of foster parent rapes were homosexual. In Canada, 20-40% of rapes are homosexual in nature.¹

Due to the fact homosexuals are only 1-3% of the population and comprise 20-40% of Canadian rapes/molestation cases, it is evident they are disproportionately more likely to be child predators. Indeed, studies of teachers find similar results. Every study finds gay teachers are the most likely to molest children, and heterosexual teachers are the least likely to molest children, including a study asking 1400 principles about teacher -sex allegations. The study reports 35% of the cases were perpetrated by homosexual teachers. In New York State, the number was 27%, and in North Carolina 29%. A final study in 10 western states found 32% of the perpetrators in teacher sex abuse scandals are homosexual.² The facts show homosexuals are disproportionately involved in child molestation scandals. Hence, preventing homosexual scout leaders would prevent many of these tragic cases from occurring.

Even with these facts, organizations such as the APA and the Southern Poverty Law Center (the law center is essentially a pro-gay lobbying group) still claim homosexuality has no link to pedophilia. When looking at mere police reports (for all crimes) homosexuals have been 47% more likely to be incarcerated. In Britain, studies show using newspaper accounts of homosexuality, three quarters of child sexual abuse of children under thirteen involve a homosexual perpetrator. Furthermore, when expanding the cases to rape and murder, homosexuals were involved in 30% of the cases.³ The organizations opposing these findings (APA, and most “professional” organizations) have turned down all responses, criticisms, and evidence opposing the movement for gay rights. A recent study (2012) deemed the New Family Structures Study confirms these results, to an extent. When researching children who were forced to have sex, lesbian and gay male children were the top two ranks (most likely to be raped).⁴

            Other studies on homosexual children obtain similar results. Not only were children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual themselves, fifty percent of those raised by homosexual men had sexual relations with their father.⁵ The number was less significant compared to those raised by lesbian mothers, 18% of children in those home are molested by their parents. However, both of these numbers are extreme when comparing to heterosexual parents: 0.6% of the heterosexual sample reported sexual abuse from a parent.⁶

A study published in the Regent Law Review has also obtained similar results to the data provided above. The 2002 study professes the massive amount of data opposing homosexuality, and supporting the conclusion of homosexual deviance. Interestingly, it cites many examples of homosexual organizations writing positive views for books promoting gay sex with children.  Furthermore, the demand for children in the gay community is likely increasing; the amount of child prostitutes identifying as homosexual has risen from 10% - 60% in recent decades. Now, the data written above (the figures on homosexual sex with children) includes data for women. When the dataset excludes girls and focuses on males, 86% of the cases were homosexual. This, in my opinion, is a horrifying number. The Law review documents many other studies; and the data is almost conclusive that homosexuals are more likely to molest children (especially males).⁷

A Family Research Council report writes the formula in a simple format:⁸

    1. Most pedophiles are men

    2. One third of child sex abuse involves a male victim

    3. Only 1-3% of the population is homosexual

    4. This small minority perpetuates about one third of the child sex abuse

    5. Many homosexual activists talk about how their orientation is naturally oriented to boy love

    6. Pedophilia is rampant in homosexual literature

    7. Therefore, homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.

 Not allowing homosexual scoutmasters is, to say the least, acceptable if not for the best. But how about homosexual members? Interestingly, the Canadian Boy Scouts have become all tolerant of homosexuality. The result? Their membership fell by 130,000 members and they were forced to sell multiple Boy Scout camps.⁹ In addition, the boy scouts generally want their members to make good decisions as well as learn life skills in the future. If children feel homosexuality is acceptable, there will be more homosexuals in the years to come. Gay activists would take this and think this is preposterous, however scientific research shows environmental factors (not genes, hormones in the womb, etc.) cause homosexuality.¹⁰ Making a pro-gay environment will increase acceptance for the action and, therefore, increase the rates of homosexuality. Trayce Hansen, sociologist, writes “[e]xtensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that 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.”¹¹ Studies of the animal kingdom replicate Hansen’s results. N.E. Whitehead, a biochemist, argues Rams (wild or domestic) have been found to be homosexual. But he also researches the cause: his research finds 1) Ram homosexuality is rate; 2) It is mostly caused by environmental factors; and 3) their orientation changes often (which would be contrary to “born that way” theory).¹² Creating a pro-gay environment would obviously increase rates of homosexuality.

But is homosexuality bad? Men who have never divorced live to a median age of 75, and 80% of them live past old age (old age is 65). The average lifespan for unmarried or divorced men is 57 years old as a median age, and 35% live past old age. 85% of married, never divorced women, lived past old age and the median age is 79. The median age for unmarried or divorced women was 71 years old, and 60% of them died old. For homosexuals, only 2% died old, with a median age of 42 (AIDS not listed as a cause of death). 20% of lesbians lived to old age, and the median age was 44. If AIDS is listed as a cause of death, the median age for homosexuals is only 39.¹³

Maybe this relationship is cultural. Marriage would stabilize them, being nice would help them… right? Wrong. A study done on Scandinavian married couples obtained similar results despite legalized homosexual marriage.¹⁴ Other research, as reported in the Journal of Human Sexuality, researched the effects of civil unions on gay life. Little research shows these laws stabilize homosexual life in any way.¹⁵ Homosexuality usually shortened life by two decades on average.

Now, let’s not get into the specifics to what homosexuals do, but a few consequences of their actions. Homosexual intercourse leads to one’s body trapping in bacteria and fluids that should not be there causing infection and death. Furthermore, since the area is an exit and not an entry the muscles get torn leading to inability to hold in fecal matter. Due to the fact the lining in there is so thin; any fluids have easier access to the blood stream (unlike heterosexual intercourse where the access is less certain). The thin lining, and access to the blood stream, makes homosexuals much more likely to contract diseases such as HIV and AIDS. I don’t think culture is causing the thin lining; it is inherent to homosexual actions.¹⁶

      Now, homosexual problems are increasing as society becomes more receptive of them (no pun intended). As education programs increase, the amount of homosexuals getting STD checks, using condoms, and other safety procedures is falling. Even as we become more accepting of the minority, they still willingly choose to have sex, even when tested positive for HIV or AIDS. Society doesn’t seem to fix these problems. Homosexual promiscuity is not low, either. A study by Bell and Weinberg finds 28% of homosexuals have over 1000 partners in their lifetime, and 43% report the number is 500 or above. Paul Aan de Ven et al. reports about 21% of homosexuals have 100-500 sex partners in their lifetime. The majority of homosexual relationships last shorter than two years, and even homosexual magazines report high levels of promiscuity. Even “committed” homosexual couples rarely have long lasting relationships. Stable relationships do not necessarily mean better for homosexuals, though. Long-lasting same-sex couples are more likely to get parasitic and bacterial infections compared to other relationships due to different sexual practices. For many homosexuals, the STD HPV is almost universal.¹⁷ A rare STD solely found in Canada only exists in one demographic in the USA: gays in Massachusetts. First identified one year after the legalization of gay marriage. Society isn’t causing gays to act this way. Gay promiscuity has brought these facts upon themselves.¹⁸

In addition to medical coexistent with homosexuality, are many mental health issues. Gays are much more likely to commit suicide. Coincidently, both sides agree here: we differ, though, on why. Gay activists say homophobia bullying, and conservatives argue that it’s inherent to homosexual nature. A 1991 study looked into this issue. Of all the factors, none involved bullying, discrimination, or homophobia. Past sexual abuse, drug use, illegal activities, prostitution, gender conflicts, and broken homes were all factors. Gender conflicts are the only factor that would include discrimination, but due to the fact nearly all of the respondents said illegal drugs was an influence; it is likely these suicides would have still occurred. Further study into the issue shows changing societal attitudes towards homosexuality are not helpful towards them.^{19, 20} Discrimination seems to have no effect on homosexual mental disorders: N.E. Whitehead notes “Very little evidence has been found for this. Whether in tolerant and accepting environments or in intolerant ones, the incidence and type of psychological problems remain about the same.”²¹

      It seems as though promiscuity also brings forth many of the problems in homosexuality. Societal factors have not influenced homosexual promiscuity, research in the Netherlands (where tolerance of homosexuals is quite high) indicates homosexuals have up to 8 sexual partners per year.²² The vast majority of studies accounting for “homophobia” have found the more partners a homosexual has, the more likely he/she is to commit suicide. Other factors, unrelated to homophobia, have also been identified as the drivers of suicide.²³

These points all show homosexuality is not something the BSA should not support. Natural Law theory (a moral view invented by Thomas Aquinas) proves homosexuality is immoral. Tim Hsiao, Ph.D. student, writes “I argue that homosexual acts are immoral because they misuse one's sexual powers. Such acts pervert a natural faculty, the proper functioning of which serves as a standard of moral goodness.”²⁴

Overall, there is no good reason to allow homosexual leaders or members into the Boy Scouts. Of America (BSA). Promoting dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral practices should not be an implemented policy. Some evidence indicates homosexuality may be as harmful to oneself as smoking or drug use.²⁵ Nor should the BSA allow gay scoutmasters into the because it increases the rise of molestation or rape of children. Gay advocates miss one thing: they have the burden of proof. Due to the fact they are attempting to change the status quo, those supporting the policy of the BSA have no obligation to present evidence. Due to the fact the policy was passed years ago and upheld the Supreme Court, the burden of proof to pass a policy is behind us. Homosexuals must provide proof to get rid of it. They will not be able to levy one good reason, and, therefore, fail to uphold their burden and lose the debate. They will pull the diversity card. But wouldn’t having all pro-gay organizations end diversity? Having organizations on one end if the idea road and another organization on the other side of the idea road is as diverse as it gets. But we need tolerance. Right? Well, if this is true, why aren’t we tolerating the historical Boy Scout policy, and those who support it? Homosexuals do not tolerate us, so by what obligation should we tolerate them? Even if allowing gays is nicer to them, at what cost? A dead organization like Canada or one ridden with pedophiles like the research suggests? And if gays aren’t born that way, why should they be considered an ethnic class like race? If there is a net-benefit to blocking out homosexuals then letting them in, the equality argument does not cut it.

References:

1. Cameron, Paul . "How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?" Family Research Institute. 2012. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/how-much-child-molestation-is-homosexual/ .

2. Cameron, Paul. "Do Homosexual Teachers Pose A Risk In?" Family Research Institute. 2012. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/do-homosexual-teachers-pose-a-risk/ .

3. Cameron, Paul. "Do Those Who Engage In Homosexual Sex More Frequently Rape and Murder The Underage? A Test Of Traditional Morality” The Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior Vol. 1 (2007): 20-42. (Can also be accessed online)

4. Regnerus, Mark, and Witherspoon Institute. "FamilyStructureStudies.com - NFSS - Outcomes for Children." The Witherspoon Institute, 2012. http://www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/.

The study above met fierce criticism. This link will show you the authors response, and other academics response’s, to the debate. Most of the criticism is ideological and it is, by far, the strongest study on the issue. http://www.familystructurestudies.com/articles/

5. Cameron, Paul, and Kirk Cameron. "Homosexual Parents." Adolescence (1996): 757-776.

6. Cameron, Paul. "Homosexual Parents: Testing 'Common Sense--A Literature Review Emphasizing The Golombok And Tasker Longitudinal Study Of Lesbians' Children." Psychological Reports 85.5 (1999): 282-322.

7. Baldwin, Steve. "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement." Regent Law Review (2002).

8. "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse." Frc.org. Family Research Council, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2013. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3 .

9. "News Release: AFA of PA Calls for Removal of BSA Board Members."  AFA of Pennsylvania., 31 Feb. 2013. http://afaofpa.org/archives/p3947/

10.  Even the APA has downplayed its opinion on the issue. Going from saying it is definitely a gay gene (or some other biological cause) to saying there is no evidence one way or the other. However, reviewing 10,000 studies N.E. Whitehead shows the evidence strongly suggests environment causes homosexuality. His book can be seen online here: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

11. Hansen, Trayce. "Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence." Dr. Trayce Hansen's Writings, 29 Sept. 2008. http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_legalizing.html .

12. Whitehead, N.E. "Is ram behavior evidence of “natural” homosexuality?" http://www.mygenes.co.nz/rams.htm.

13. Cameron, Paul. "Family Research Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do." FRI, 2009. Web. 03 Feb. 2013. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/.

14. Andersson, Gunnar, Turid Noack, Ane Seierstad, and Harald Weedon-Fekjaer. "The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.

15. Byrd, A. Dean. "Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science Can and Cannot Say." Journal of Human Sexuality 3.1 (2011).

16. Cameron, Paul. "Family Research Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do." FRI, 2009. Web. 03 Feb. 2013. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/.

17. "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality." Frc.org. Family Research Council. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1 .

18. "Rare STD Spreads Among Gays In Canada, Massachusetts”. http://narth.com/docs/spreads.html.

19. O'Leary, Dale. "Gay Teens and Attempted Suicide." NARTH. http://narth.com/docs/gayteens.html .

20. Whitehead, N.E. “Homosexuality and Co-Morbidities: Research and Therepeudic Implications.” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 2 (2010): 124-75.

21. Whitehead, N.E. "Myths about Homosexuality | Misconceptions about Gays | Brief Facts about Homosexuality."  http://www.mygenes.co.nz/myths.htm.

22. "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples." Frc.org. Family Research Council, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2013. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02.

23. "Suicide Attempts and Suicidal Ideation among Homosexuals and Bisexuals." Homosexinfo. N.p., 7 Dec. 2007. Web. 09 Feb. 2013. http://www.homosexinfo.org/Psychiatry/Suicide.

24. Tim’s paper was presented to the Covenant College Undergraduate Philosophy Conference. http://www.academia.edu/2064279/A_Natural_Law_Critique_of_Homosexual_Activity.

25. Cameron, Paul, Thomas Landess, and Kirk Cameron. "Homosexual Sex As Harmful As Drug Abuse, Prostitution, Or Smoking." Psychological Reports (2005): 915-961.

Defending Regnerus

Mark Regnerus has published an extremely controversial article in Spring 2012 arguing homosexual children are indeed different from heterosexual children with some of the strongest methodology in the field. Regardless of his strong study, liberals and gay activists have attacked the study and claimed it is discredited. One group of scientists (150 of them) have written a letter to the publisher of the study, James D. Wright (editor of Social Science Research) claiming the study did not go through proper peer review, and that the study was severely flawed. However, the journal editor published three critiques of Regerus' research (which often said it wasn't perfect, but was the best study yet) and responses from Regnerus. A history of the debate can be seen here. Wright made David Sherkat (someone biassed; he hated Regnerus beforehand, and has never studies homosexuality before this) and found flaws in the Regnerus paper. However, when charged to look ONLY at whether or not the peer review process was not done properly, Regnerus was found not guilty.

Now, Regnerus did not only get criticism. Christian Smith, a sociologist, has argued the bast majority of the criticism levied against Regnerus is politically driven. Douglass W. Allen, an economist who studies family, has also come forward to help Regnerus.  He notes if his study is considered flawed by the gay movement, then every single study should also be thrown out, due to the fact his study is, by far, the best in the field. It used a large, random sample, and used methodology from many other gay studies and expanded their techniques providing the best study available. And lastly, another large group of scientists (about thirty) came out endorsing the study. I will list their reasons to support the study, and expand on them too.

(1) The media is being extremely biased on this issue, as are other scholars. They argue the Regnerus study is flawed, but ignore the flawed research that support homosexuality. Lerner and Nagai 2001 has found most research in the 1990s and 1980s is extremely flawed, and cannot be used to make any conclusions. Williams 2000 finds many gay studies conceal their findings, or simply do not emphasis the findings, that show the large differences that come about from homosexual parenting. Stacey and Biblarz 2001 also finds large differences amongst children raised by homosexual couples. Nock 2001 also shows these studies are severely flawed. Walter R. Schumm (2006, 2010) and on many other occasions has shown studies coming to the no difference claim are severely flawed. Regnerus was criticized for using Knowledge Networks, even though that organization is known for creating accurate samples and is used in many other pro-gay studies. Interestingly, Paul Amato, a pro-gay scholar, has said the Regnerus study is one of the best studies in the field. The inability to also critique pro-gay studies, which are FAR worse than the Regenerus' study, shows the inability for the media and other scholars to represent the debate properly.

(2) To quote the report, "Regnerus has been chided for comparing young adults from gay and lesbian families that experienced high levels of family instability to young adults from stable heterosexual married families. This is not an ideal comparison. (Indeed, Regnerus himself acknowledges this point in his article, and calls for additional research on a representative sample of planned gay and lesbian families; such families may be more stable but are very difficult to locate in the population at large.[7]) But what his critics fail to appreciate is that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin. This instability may well be an artifact of the social stigma and marginalization that often faced gay and lesbian couples during the time (extending back to the 1970s, in some cases) that many of these young adults came of age. It is also worth noting that Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples based on large, random, representative samples from countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples.[8] Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.[9] Thus, Regnerus should not be faulted for drawing a random, representative sample of young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex romantic relationships and also happened to have experienced high levels of family instability growing up."

(3) Another study, published in the Journal of Marriage & Family confirms Regnerus' results. Indeed, other studies (usually ignored) often replicate the Regnerous study. Also, Javaid 1993 finds all of the children (in that study) that were asexual came from lesbian households, and were less likely to get married. Cameron and Cameron 1996 finds children raised by homosexuals were more likely to have had sexual relations with their parents, more likely to be gay, their first sexual experience was gay, and had more cases of gender dissatisfaction. Sarantakos 1996 finds homosexuals do worse in school then all other types of families (single; divorced, and married). Sirota 1997 finds children of homosexuals had more cases of anxiety disorder, more likely to fear sex, less religious, more likely to be gay, more likely to have abused drugs, and are not as close to their parents as other children. This data can be seen here.

The Regnerus study, although it has its limitations, is a sound study. This report, written by Walter Schumm, explains how Regnerus' methods are well accepted by the scientific community, and many of his results are confirmed by other valid studies.

Overall, the attack on Regnerus is mainly political.

Death Penalty and its costs: new data

I have written posts on this before, but am updating some of the data I presented.

Now, I would like to first note even if I am wrong on this issue, the cost argument is not an argument for the abolition of the death penalty. It is only an argument to reform it. Indeed, limiting appeals would decrease the cost to almost nothing. As Gary D. Beatty argues, is appeals cases are pursued in a fiscally responsible manner the death penalty is much cheaper then life without parole cases [1]. Kent S. Scheidegger has studies plea bargaining (this avoids all trial costs). He finds no cost studies account for these variables, and when accounted for the death penalty is the same cost or even less then life without parole cases [2].

Instead of writing more, I will refer you to an article I wrote with more data on the subject.
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/09/04/wait-does-the-dp-really-cost-too-much-an-analysis.aspx








1. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article
2. http://www.cjlf.org/publications/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf

Should we ban High capacity mags or "assault" rifles?

Obama and the gun controllers are coming out in droves to push their agenda. 58% of America now supports "assault" weapons bans (semi-autos, when called "assault"weapons the number is 55%) as well as high capacity magazine bans. 85% of Americans support background checks, etc. Pew Research has published this interesting poll:





Whoa, people want to ban the sale of ammunition online? That's idiotic. People will argue "lots of cheap ammo online, criminals would love it". Well, they forget, "lots of cheap ammo online: gun collectors, hunters, sporting events, and people defending themselves would love it". Gun controllers really don't understand how gun ownership works. But let's focus on "assault weapons" and high capacity mags.

The poll above made me laugh: they separated semi-automatics and "assault" weapons. "Assault" weapons ARE semi-automatics. The only difference is the aesthetics. Assault weapons are semi-automatics, not automatics. This video further discusses the issue. He takes apart a hunting rifle, but when he changes the parts it looks excatly like an AR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=

How about high capacity magazines? The question, which favors a gun controllers standpoint in the eyes of the public, can be reversed: How about multiple attackers? In the LA riots, South Korean Merchants were able to keep their stores standing while the stores next to theirs burned. Their high capacity magazines (they were using assault weapons by the way) actually saved lives. Unlike a revolver where, in this case, there is no good reason to waste one of your 6-8 bullets, you can afford 3 warning shots.

Alright, these bans would save lives, right? Eh, no. Both 1999 and 2004 studies issued by the U.S. government finds that while assault weapons crime did fall during the ban, there is no evidence the bans decreased the assault weapons crime. How can this be? First, crime (in all categories) was decreasing in all categories before the ban. After the ban was passed, the crime fell at the same rate. Near 2000, the crime leveled off. After the ban was lifted, crime began to fall. Now, these studies mainly focused on murder. John Lott published two studies (one not peer reviewed) in 2003 and again in 2010. Lott's 2003 study found two things:

1. There is no evidence assault weapons ban decrease crime -- as supported by every single study and most academics (other than a Brady Campaign report)
2. There is weak evidence assault weapons bans increase crime.

Obviously, when looking into other factors, the basic data trends may not be enough. Lott accounted for these variables. In his 2003 study, he found Assault weapons increased crime 1.5% and murder increased 11.9%. He also found rape would increase 3.2% and robbery 9.9%. Only two categories showed a decrease: Aggravated assault, down 4.6%, and Auto Theft, down 12.4%. The Assaukts were not statistically significant [1]. Lott's second study, in 2010, is the only study done since the sunset of the ban. His second study had lower results, with a 3.2% increase in murder, 0.1% increase in assaults, 1% increase in rape, and 2.7% increase in robbery [2]. All of his second study results were statistically significant, whereas many of his first study's results were not.

The assault weapons bans studied had High capacity bans, too. And look how successful these bans where (sarcasm). I hope these new policies are not enacted and these facts come to be recognized.










1. Lott, John R. The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003. Print.
2.  Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.