Defense of Marriage: A Moral and Societal Imperative – Part 1
From a scientific and sociological perspective, the morality, legality and imperative for a defense of marriage act hinges on the two following questions. First, is gay marriage a minority rights issue like inter-racial marriage? Secondly, will any harm result if the legal definition of marriage is changed?
The inter-racial marriage debate differed from today’s gay marriage debate in two ways. First, it concerned the union of one man and one woman. Secondly, it was a clear case of unjust discrimination because it was based on an innate and immutable trait – skin color. This is not so with same sex attraction.
In 1995 the pre-eminent openly homosexual gay gene researcher, Dr. Dean Hammer, made a startling admission - “[we] know from twin studies that 50% or more of the variation in sexual orientation is not inherited.” A study by Kendall and associates in 2002 suggests that 70% or more is not inherited.
This means that there is no gay gene or set of genes. Skin color, in contrast, is 100% determined by skin color genes. Homosexuality is not genetic like skin color. Homosexuality is not innate.
Yet, same sex attraction is not a conscious choice either. According to the American Psychiatric Association, sexual attractions develop across a person’s lifetime due to a combination of familial, social, societal and biological factors. In other words, SSA arises from a developmental process that is only partly influenced by biology.
While people do not choose their same sex attraction, they can choose whether to act on, suppress or attempt altering those attractions. True lasting change of sexual orientation is possible. This has been documented by gay affirmative researchers in the peer reviewed psychiatric literature, most recently by Dr. Robert Spitzer.
Members of the Council for Responsible Genetics, Queer by Choice, and radical lesbian feminist Camille Paglia are examples of true to science gay activists. Even the president of Parents Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFFLAG) and the American Psychological Association recently affirmed the position of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality that re-orientation therapy may be beneficial for those who desire it.
Sexual orientation, unlike skin color, develops as a result of various familial and social factors perhaps in only biologically predisposed individuals. Biological predisposition, however, is not destiny. Sexual orientation, unlike a person’s genetically determined skin color, is changeable.
Still, if some with SSA cannot or do not desire to change, shouldn’t we allow same sex marriage out of democratic fairness? Not if that form of marriage is “harmful to the fabric of society” – a question to be explored in our next column.
From a scientific and sociological perspective, the morality, legality and imperative for a defense of marriage act hinges on the two following questions. First, is gay marriage a minority rights issue like inter-racial marriage? Secondly, will any harm result if the legal definition of marriage is changed?
The inter-racial marriage debate differed from today’s gay marriage debate in two ways. First, it concerned the union of one man and one woman. Secondly, it was a clear case of unjust discrimination because it was based on an innate and immutable trait – skin color. This is not so with same sex attraction.
In 1995 the pre-eminent openly homosexual gay gene researcher, Dr. Dean Hammer, made a startling admission - “[we] know from twin studies that 50% or more of the variation in sexual orientation is not inherited.” A study by Kendall and associates in 2002 suggests that 70% or more is not inherited.
This means that there is no gay gene or set of genes. Skin color, in contrast, is 100% determined by skin color genes. Homosexuality is not genetic like skin color. Homosexuality is not innate.
Yet, same sex attraction is not a conscious choice either. According to the American Psychiatric Association, sexual attractions develop across a person’s lifetime due to a combination of familial, social, societal and biological factors. In other words, SSA arises from a developmental process that is only partly influenced by biology.
While people do not choose their same sex attraction, they can choose whether to act on, suppress or attempt altering those attractions. True lasting change of sexual orientation is possible. This has been documented by gay affirmative researchers in the peer reviewed psychiatric literature, most recently by Dr. Robert Spitzer.
Members of the Council for Responsible Genetics, Queer by Choice, and radical lesbian feminist Camille Paglia are examples of true to science gay activists. Even the president of Parents Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFFLAG) and the American Psychological Association recently affirmed the position of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality that re-orientation therapy may be beneficial for those who desire it.
Sexual orientation, unlike skin color, develops as a result of various familial and social factors perhaps in only biologically predisposed individuals. Biological predisposition, however, is not destiny. Sexual orientation, unlike a person’s genetically determined skin color, is changeable.
Still, if some with SSA cannot or do not desire to change, shouldn’t we allow same sex marriage out of democratic fairness? Not if that form of marriage is “harmful to the fabric of society” – a question to be explored in our next column.
posted by Michelle A. Cretella, M.D. at 12:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home