Anyone who defends marriage should expect to be demonised. Name-calling is a necessary part of the revisionist case, as they have no real argument apart from appealing to a warped definition of ‘equality.’ Every additional voice of reason threatens the revisionists’ unsubstantiated claim of majority support.
Anyone who wishes to promote the belief that homosexuality is perfectly equal to heterosexuality is embarking on an endless propaganda campaign. This is a belief that can only stand while those with a terminal case of political correctness and a talent for ignoring the obvious are propping it up on all sides. Everyone else will constantly need to be cut off from opposing arguments and re-educated, while being threatened with labels like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ if they show signs of doubting the new doctrine.

An article in 2001 in the American Sociological Review analized other researchers' articles until that about homosexual parents' effects on their children. They proved that many researchers cheated at their study and falsely concluded that there are no significant differences between children of heterosexual and homosexual children. Homosexual parents often do distort their children's gender identity, as Stacey and Biblarz proved in this articla. But they are not pro-family at all, on the contrary, their cynical conclusion is "so what?".

The data of this article can be found at this link:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=276907

And you can probably read it in a university library or on the internet through JSTORE.

I think that proper gender roles, gender identity work like the rules of a general social-sexual game. Without them a complete social anarchy might appear in the field of relatioships with many misunderstandings, absurd situations, disappointments, cheatings and many psychological injuries and silent personal tragedies coming from these.

Great article.

I am also a University student. And it's frustrating to see so many young people not engage with te real issues at play here. Thankfully, you've articulated them very well.

It's great to see someone stand up and argue about this. Because unfortunately you'll be branded a nutcase and an idiot by people who have a flawed idea of gay rights and the institution of marriage. These people are blindly following a progressive socialist political agenda. That's all it is.

So thanks for the article. Very well put.

As I've stated in the past - each society views its
own patterns of marriage, family, and kinship as
self-evidently right and proper, and usually as
God-given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of marriage
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we believe
that there is only one "right" form of marriage, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at least
in its own context, perfectly viable; and above all,
that marriage, and the family, like any other social
institution, must inevitably change throughout time,
in our own society as in all others.

As far as same-sex marriage is concerned - changing
attitudes have made these unions far more socially
acceptable than in the past, and, in fact, some churches
in the US are now performing weddings for gay couples.
A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness
of many courts to grant custody of children to a
gay parent - usually the mother.

For several years, moreover, social welfare agencies in
New York and other large cities have been placing orphaned
or runaway gay teenage boys - who are unwelcome in
heterosexual foster homes - in the custody of gay males,
usually couples.

The choice that Australians have to make is - what kind
of society they want to live in. From my understanding
the majority of people support same-sex marriage in this
country. Perhaps the way to go would be either a conscience
vote in Parliament or a Referendum.

Oh c’mon! Marriage has EVERYTHING to do with love and progeny; if you can’t see it in humans, just go study geese! Some people have missed a lot of science if they’ve never heard of pair bonding, or oxytocin.

Pair-bonding in Great Apes existed long prior to law. ‘Marriage’ is nothing more than the set of evolved behaviours which maximise prosperity of the group, and minimise conflict over sex and progeny. We don’t call it ‘law’ when orang-utans insist on monogamy and punish unsanctioned sex, but that’s what it is; give them enough time to develop writing and lawyers and they surely INVENT laws not dissimilar to ours. No doubt the first law they pass will be to enshrine monogamy; the second law will probably sanction punishment of the non-monogamous.

Nor is homosexuality a modern human development. Female sea gulls, when nesting habitats are overcrowded, exhibit clear ‘Lesbian’ sexual behaviours, something they don’t do in times of plenty or in less crowded environments. Similar examples abound. It’s entirely reasonable to surmise that, in crowded conditions, homosexuality would be a useful evolutionary tool to reduce fecundity without depriving individuals of sexual satisfaction -- for many species, not just humans. If it’s adaptive, it’s successful.

We need to show respect for homosexual relationships. The question is whether simply declaring that there’s no difference whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is adaptive. I’m arguing that’s unrealistic because the proposed mechanism for achieving it is so broad, and so abstract, that our courts will inevitably be asked to encompass polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, arranged marriage, and a fair few oddball forms yet to be invented. Not that it WILL ultimately sanction such things ... but if, by careful and clever consideration, we can keep the issue out of the hands of excitable ‘activists’ keen for a tabloid headline, I’d say that’s worth doing.

If we’re careful, conservative, and clever, we can acknowledge same-sex marriage in a way which makes it uncontroversial, and do it NOW. Get the details wrong, and the legal circus could last decades, demeaning all involved.

Mary Ward presents a paper by Dale O'Leary of NARTH to support her argument, however the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Australian Psychological Society, American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association "Expressed concerns that the positions expoused by NARTH are not supported by the science"
The morals of one listed advisor to NARTH George Rekers. who believes homosexuality is a sin, took a young male prostitute on holiday with him in June 2010. When this was revealed Rekers stated the male prostitute was there to carry Rekers luggage whilst on holiday together.
Sorry Mary you must do better!!