Read Goldberg’s thoughts on “gay marriage” below:

________________________________________

Gay ‘Marriage’: Bad Science, Bad Politics

[Note: we have taken the liberty of putting quotation marks around "marriage" when used in a homosexual or "group marriage" context. We also added a web link for "polyamory." --Ed.]

By Arthur Goldberg and Michelle Cretella
SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH STATE
June 19, 2009

Legislation is presently pending in the New Jersey state legislature to approve same-sex “marriage.” There is a strong effort by gay activists and their allies to push such a bill through the legislature rather than asking the citizens of the state to vote for its approval. Because informed public policy decisions should be based on rational judgment grounded in fact rather than fiction, it is helpful to review a few of the key considerations relevant to this debate.

Nearly every argument favoring same-sex “marriage” is based on the belief that homosexual orientation is inborn and immutable. Thus, the argument often is made that just as interracial marriage gained approval so, too, should gay “marriage.”

But sexual orientation is not like skin color; it is not genetic. An avowed lesbian, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of developmental biology and gender studies at Brown University, admits “[Although the claim that homosexuality is genetic] provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court, [f]or me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s bad science and bad politics.”

No genetic earmark distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals has ever been identified. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are genetically indistinguishable. As stated in a British medical journal, “From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.”

Indeed, taking the question further, more than 100 scientific studies indicate that change of sexual orientation is possible for many motivated individuals. The father of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (the Bible of psychiatry), Dr. Robert Spitzer, changed his own lifetime view. He published a study in 2003 confirming that many dissatisfied homosexuals are able to make substantial long-term changes in orientation.

Another premise of the same-sex “marriage” debate claims homosexual coupling involves stable, long-term relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Drs. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, both openly homosexual, studied 156 male couples who had lived together for 20 years or more. To their dismay, they found that the longest period of sexual monogamy for those couples was five years; the average was under two years.

Within the gay subculture, the concept of monogamy is simply not synonymous with sexual exclusivity. Gay activist Andrew Sullivan writes: “homosexuals have a need for extramarital outlets.” Lesbian writer Camille Paglia notes how gay magazines glamorize “the bigger bang of sex with strangers” and advocate “monogamy without fidelity” in same-sex couplings.

The instability of same-sex relationships and prevalence of polyamory cannot be attributed to social discrimination or “homophobia.” During the 1990s many gay-affirming countries legalized same-sex “marriage.” The instability of homosexual relationships, however, remained unchanged. For example, a 2003 Dutch study found the average male homosexual partnership lasted only 1.5 years (Compare that figure to a CDC U.S. study of heterosexual marriages showing 50 percent of heterosexual marriages lasting 15 years or more.) Similarly, a 2004 Swedish study found that homosexual unions had a 50-percent higher divorce rate than heterosexual unions.

Inherent health risks of the gay lifestyle present another issue. Life expectancy for men who have sex with men, according to a 1997 International Journal of Epidemiology study is eight to 20 years less than that of heterosexual men. There is also a higher rate of intimate partner violence between same-sex couples.

Higher parent mortality and promiscuity increased rates of domestic violence and greater rates of divorce are not healthy for children. Consequently, acceptance of gay “marriage” requires a disregard for the best interests of children. It follows logically that if marriage is defined merely by “who we love” regardless of what is in the best interest of children, then the government has no right to discriminate against those with other sexual orientations including orientations toward children or animals. This is why advocates of pedophilia, group “marriage,” bestiality and incest cite gay “marriage” victories as their own. It is also no coincidence that within 10 years of legalizing same-sex “marriage” every Scandinavian country legalized polygamy.

Clearly, New Jersey has an interest in promoting and protecting traditional marriage. Decades of research demonstrate that children fare best physically, emotionally, and academically when nurtured by a married mother and father. Fatherless families, in particular, are associated with higher rates of violence, poverty, delinquency, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, and teen pregnancy, all of which cause an increase in tax dollars required to fund remedial social programs. Clearly, if Americans want to improve the economic health of our nation and maximize the well-being of our children, traditional marriage must be strengthened.

The European experience, however, demonstrates that same-sex “marriage” weakens the institution overall. Every Scandinavian nation legalizing same-sex “marriage,” for example, has seen an unremitting decline in traditional marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out of wedlock births. Predictably, the cost of social programs in those countries has risen sharply.

To summarize, homosexuality is not genetic like skin color. Interracial marriage never changed the definition of marriage; marriage remained the exclusive and faithful union of one man and one woman. Defending traditional marriage is not bigotry. Defending traditional marriage protects the greater common good for everyone — including those with homosexual attractions.

Arthur Goldberg, J.D., C.R.S., is the author of “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.” Michelle Cretella, M.D., is chair of the Sexuality Committee, American College of Pediatricians. Here’s a description of the book, available at Amazon.com:

Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change by Arthur Goldberg Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) tells how. This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information to gay strugglers, their families, friends, and surrounding community.

[Note to AFTAH readers: click HERE to watch the Congressional testimony of Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness]

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is shown here training with the Danish Home Guard (59,000 strong). Unlike Denmark, America’s armed forces (1.43 million active duty members; 1.46 million in reserves) protect freedom the world over — and cannot afford the problems and distractions caused by politically correct social experiments like open homosexuality in the military.

By Jack Roeser

I’m a business owner now, and I was a private in the Combat Engineers, having volunteered in 1942 and served over three years at the bottom of a big army in a big war.

All this patty cake about “don’t ask don’t tell” or of just accepting homosexuals in the army doesn’t take into account how that affects military life.

First of all, the army is not a democracy, it is all about accepting orders without a vote. Promotions or assignments are the prerogative of sergeants and officers. This power must be used with some restraint and fairness or the cohesiveness of the unit suffers. As a soldier you have to work together, perhaps with a lot of gripping, but you know there are unpleasant or dangerous things to do that someone must do, hopefully not you. Put a homosexual into that mix and you get trouble when he or his homosexual buddy get into the command structure. Thereafter promotions and assignments will be seen as affected by weird sexual influence. Fairness and respect suffer. Retribution of a very unfair sort may result.

Also, an army must inflict less than luxurious living conditions including sleeping in double deck bunks, in a barracks, showering en masse, eating from a mess kit, etc. In a peace time army conditions may be more effete, but we can’t forget that armies are all about knocking the other guys down and destroying their stuff while they try to do it to you. Unit cohesiveness and a certain manly toughness need to be cultivated.

I once saw a picture of a Danish army squad. They looked more like bellhops. The joke about it was they could be conquered by a telephone call: “We’re coming, do you surrender?”

A photo of a German platoon coming down a muddy road gave the conviction that these guys could be real trouble. That is a deterrent.

You don’t fool around with John Wayne or the Marines. That is the deterrent we pay for in having an army. Homosexuals are a problem better left out.

The businessman in me must say that the whole concept of someone basing their identity on how they do sex, is repulsive. Adding the concept of “gay pride” to it is beyond rationality; that the schools and media try to tell us that the homosexual lifestyle is OK, is nuts. No one looks at their baby boy and says, “How wonderful, he can grow up to be a homosexual.” That destructive path leads to diseases and a short life for the homosexual, and no grandchildren for the parents of a misguided sexual extrovert.

Yours truly,

Jack Roeser

Founder, ChampionNews.net

Jack Roeser is an entrepreneur in business and politics. He is Chairman and founder of Otto Engineering Inc., in Carpentersville, Illinois which manufactures electronic control and communication switches for aerospace, medical and industrial uses. Previously, he started three other successful businesses which are now owned by large corporations.

In 1991, Jack was selected as “High Tech Entrepreneur of the Year” in Illinois. He was also chosen as an Outstanding Alumnus of the University of Illinois in 1996. A Pi Tau Sigma honors graduate of the University of Illinois in Mechanical Engineering, Jack holds over 50 patents in Electrical, Mechanical, Machinery and Marine products.

Jack enlisted in the Army in 1942 and served in the Combat Engineers in the South Pacific.

In 1994, he ran for Governor in the Republican primary, receiving 26% of the primary vote. He also served by appointment on Governor Edgar’s Education Transition Team and Lamar Alexander’s Education 2000 in Illinois.

For the past 25 years, Jack has been an advocate of education reform through the application of free market principles and of school choice. He lives in Barrington, Illinois with his wife Jeannine. His sport is sailing; he has won the Chicago to Mackinac race among many others.

After working as an engineer for several other reputable firms, Jack began his own engineering manufacturing company in 1961 with $5,000. He operated the business in Morton Grove for several years before moving it to Carpentersville.

Today, Otto Engineering is housed in a beautifully renovated campus on the east and west banks of the Fox River. Last year, Otto had over 500 employees and annual sales of over $79 million. Otto’s success is marked by the high precision and quality of its products.