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.

Credibility of co2science.org

The credibility of co2science.org has been called into question by CO2 alarmists, websites such as sourcewatch.org have claimed it to be funded by oil companies. Populartechnology.net has listed the credentials of Sherwood B. Idso, president of co2science.org. The credentials are excellent:

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964), M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966), Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967), Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962), National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993), Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974), Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001), Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980), President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982), Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007), Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), Member, Botanical Society of America, Member, American Geophysical Union, Member, American Society of Agronomy, ISI Highly Cited Researcher, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)[1]

 Idso has had his skepticism well known for many years. 25 years before he made his website, he was publishing in peer-reviewed journals about his skepticism. He also published two books in the 80's about his views on climate change. Idso notes his views and his website do not come from other organizations, rather his personal views of the truth. It comes from reviewing the scientific literature and publishing the results on his website weekly. Reviewing topics from paleoclimatology to the medieval warm period and plant growth. Idso says he has self funded much of his early research, and government funds also helped him, well before any company even thought of funding him to pay for what he is doing now. Idso writes:[2]

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that. ...  So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients.

Populartechnology.net on another instance further documents the Idso family view on the subject (the first part of the response is to the studies list showing many papers dissenting from AGW theory):[3]

I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.

Similar funding accusations rail against Patrick Michaels, though his funding, like Idso, happens because of his views, his views are not caused by the funding.

The attack on co2science.org, Patrick Michaels, and many others is blatantly false. The majority of skeptics aren't even funded by big oil [3], and other writers (like Roy Spencer, and the majority of other scholars) are funded mostly by the US government. So these attacks of oil funding is only to distract from the real science, because they are losing the battle.




1. Response to the oil funding for many scientists can be found here:  http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4030
2. Sherwood Idso writes about his funding. He explains companies do not dictate his views, only he does that, and the companies only invest in him because of his views, they do not invest to change his views. http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php John Lott in Freedomnomics further explains the funding issues for any scientific quest or political candidate, if you are interested in expanding on the issue.
3. Also has economist Ross McKitrick, Physicist S. Fred Singer, obviously Sherwood Idso, Physicist Richard Lizden, John R. Christy, among others. They all explain they are not funded by oil sources, and if they are/where it did not affect their views because the funding occured after their skepticism occurred. http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html