Customer Reviews

Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

According to Stanton and Maier, compassionate societies never create fatherless and motherless families . . . (my comments in parenthesis)

A same-sex family is never the answer to a child's developmental problems. (One way to inoculate a fatherless child from the ill-effects of not having a father is for society to have a clear idea of what a good father is. Same-sex marriage denies even that benefit to the fatherless.)

The push for same-sex families will subject generations of children to an uncontrolled, ill-advised social experiment to meet the "needs" of homosexual adults. (Children will be but "trophies" that symbolize achievement of a certain status for anxious gays working out psychological issues -- the same way one sometimes sees a luxury automobile parked in front of a run-down shack -- an "aspirin on wheels.")

Homosexual adoption is not necessary to provide homes for orphaned children. Same-sex marriage is not about providing rights or physical resources to children. No child in a same-sex family would ever ask, "Why don't we have the same rights as other families." Instead, they ask "Why don't I have a daddy?" or "Why don't I have a mommy?" (There are many heterosexual families looking to adopt children, but the legal system often interferes, making some children practically "unadoptable.")

Male and female are not "Mr. Potato Heads" where the cores are all the same and only the externals are different. Gender matters.

Endorsements of same-sex families by professional organizations are traceable to gay activism, not science. (Scientists are ill-equipped to deal with the philosophical and emotional arguments used by gay activists -- so they "cave.")

A common challenge of same-sex family proponents is "how does my family situation hurt you." (I would use the illustration of currency. One person counterfeiting a $20 bill doesn't appreciably depreciate a genuine $20 bill -- but an initiative to make monopoly money equal to legal tender would have enormous impact. The push for gay marriage makes counterfeit relationships equal to legitimate ones and diminishes every marriage)

Traditional marriage has huge public benefits backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence. Homosexual marriage will have enormous, negative public consequences. (If homosexuality were held to the same standard of public harm as smoking, there would be no public debate. Instead, we would have attorneys general of the states bringing lawsuits that would eventually bankrupt pro-homosexual organizations.)

Arguments for same-sex marriage also break down barriers to other kinds of marriage. The first couple in line in Massachusetts for a same-sex marriage license had an "open relationship." (In recognizing same-sex marriage, society will have leap-frogged over polygamy into a more radical form of sexual relationship. Consistency will demand legalization of polygamy since it's less extreme than what will have already been accomplished in allowing gays to marry.)

The debate over same-sex marriage has been poisoned by name calling. Concerns about gay marriage cannot be reduced simply to "homophobia." Many gays recognize the social harm gay marriage would bring and are therefore against gay marriage.

Gay advocates conflate same-sex marriage with interracial marriage -- but saying "I have a mommy who's a (particular race)" is radically different than saying "I have a mommy who's a man."

If legalized, same-sex marriage will not just be acceptable in public schooling; it will be relentlessly indoctrinated. (Humans have a perverse impulse to "worship" the unnatural.) Promotion of traditional marriage will eventually be labeled as "hate speech" if same-sex marriage becomes legal. We've already seen it in Sweden and in Canada.

-- Bill Brewer
[...]

Glen Stanton is director of social research and cultural affairs, and senior analyst for marriage and sexuality, at Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He is the author of Why Marriage Matters and a contributor to many books, including Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. His book My Crazy, Imperfect Christian Family explores the virtue of imperfect families and the sacredness of the mundaneness of family life. Stanton has published articles in Christianity Today, the American Enterprise, National Forum, Citizen, Dr. Laura's Perspective, Christian American, and The Sunday Times. He is also a winner of the 2001 Amy Foundation Writing Award and is featured in the PBS documentary Affluenza. As a media spokesperson for Focus on the Family, he has been interviewed by hundreds of print and media outlets, including MSNBC and CNN, and he has been quoted in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA TODAY, Salon.com, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, the Washington Blade and the Advocate.

Bill Maier is a clinical psychologist and serves as vice president and psychologist-in-residence at Focus on the Family. He hosts the national Weekend Magazine radio program and The Family Minute with Dr. Bill Maier. He is a regular contributor to Focus on the Family magazine and has written for Current Thoughts and Trends, Today's Christian Woman, the Houston Chronicle and the Colorado Springs Gazette. Maier received his master's and doctoral degrees from the Rosemead School of Psychology at Biola University. He has served at respected institutions such as Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Camarillo State Hospital and the Long Beach Child Guidance Center. He has extensive experience in parent training and education, and his major area of research interest is the impact of cultural trends on child development and family functioning.

Apart from ad hominem attacks on the author's personal character, a reviewer of this book must admit that the points made in this book are well taken. On an charged issue like marriage, most people are not willing to suspent their suspicions and biases to fully understand what the other side is really saying. If you have already made up your mind on the issue and you are just looking to pick a fight - this book will be a waste of your time.

The Author points out a lot of flaws in the arguments supporting same sex marraige such as the interracial marraige analogy, the "how will this affect you?" argument, and various other postmodern stances on marriage. One of the most important points he makes is that marriage seves several functions (raise children, enculture men, etc) that are best performed by a union involving both sexes.

His slippery slope argument is quite strong. Namely that if marriage is definted as a right for anyone who wants it - whats to say that a someone can't marry their sibling, that a 50 year old can't marry a 12 year old, that 4 men can't get married to eachother? He exposes that his opponents have no good answer to this question except recourse to their own personal beliefs - recourse I might add, which is not afforded to people on his side of the issue.

Stanton and Maier have produced a book that makes a well documented case for traditional marriage. The book is very well written with numerous references for further study and research. The book is organized around most of the contemporary questions people ask about same sex marriage and homosexuality in general. This is not only a good book concerning the rationale for traditional marriage but is infomative concerning the traditional view of homosexuality.

Despite the clear value framework of this book, the authors do not show disrespect for gay and lesbian identified people. On the contrary, the book is clear about principles but the authors convey compassion for people.

Many people think that are no divisions within the gay and lesbian community concerning same sex marriage. This book documents the reality that not all of those who are gay want same sex marriage legally recognized.

The book is very well organized and despite the scholarly foundations, quite readable.

In reading the reviews written previous to mine, I cannot believe they read the same book. The authors take great pains to document their points and use good social science research to do so.

If you are open minded concerning this subject, you will want to get this book as an aspect of your investigation.

I usually approach this testy subject with a few disclaimers:
a) Some of my best friends are gay, and I do not condemn homosexuality;
b) I do not hate all people who are unlike me; and
c) I do not wake up early to eat small children and pets, nor do I set fire to my neighbor's house.

Having noted that, I found this book by Stanton and Maier (another disclosure: I am a journalistic colleague of Maier's) to be valuable both for gays and straights with religious affinities.

There are several obvious clues that Amazon reviewers who trashed this book below could not be bothered to read it, and likely skimmed the descriptive info supplied on this site before launching into reductionist talking points.

The dominant narrative in today's discussions of homosexuality is tied to civil rights. Who, after all, doesn't believe that all humans deserve equal dignity? And certainly, mainstream culture and religious folks like myself, Stanton and Maier must apologize for the lack of dignity extended in the past toward gays and lesbians.

The problem is that many people manipulate this to preempt thoughtful attempts to spur legitimate discussion within our society about sexual ethics, interrelational psychology, child-rearing and other issues. Maier and Stanton have nonetheless used mainstream university studies and many gay writings themselves to erode the conventional wisdom about gay marriage and same-sex parenting. (For instance, it really does "catch" -- even gay-friendly sociologists have found that children adopted by same-sex parents will have a far higher tendency to consider homosexual activity for themselves; maybe that's perfectly fine, but that's not what we've been taught to believe on account of the discounted-but-still-pervasive-and-PC "genetic" basis for homosexuality.)

Maier and Stanton note that the civil rights aspects of the gay movement are alreading growing cloudy. Soon the civil-rights issues will give way entirely to other issues. Already, there is a battle raging within the homosexual community about whether gay marriage is a civil-rights *nightmare,* a "dangerous" effort to shoehorn gays into straight concepts of family and monogamy.

The authors find several distinct camps within the gay community, each with radically different prescriptions for gays and for society. The most surprising of these camps are those gay academics who have demanded respect for gays while still *protecting* society's interest in traditional nuclear family structures.

It is fine for a gay person or a straight person to reject this book's prescriptions for society, for the gay community and for individual gays. But these arguments merit close scrutiny and intellectual integrity, not propagandistic preemptions that are far too common on Amazon these days.

No matter your stance on the issue, this book is a must read! It makes a solid, thought provoking, and incredibly well researched argument for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage. Stanton and Maier's arguments are brilliant, yet logical and easy to follow. They examine the proposal for same-sex marriage from all angles and comprehensively evaluate the impact that this proposal will have on our society. There is no claim made that is not backed by at least one reputable study, if not more. People who argue with their facts argue with reality.

As a young woman, I find this book very refreshing. Not only do the authors present a thoroughly compelling argument for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage, but in doing so they unashamedly contest the dogmatic tenets of political correctness and dare to recognize the obvious- that there are distinct differences between men and women, that these differences matter, and that they should be celebrated. This book makes sense and is definitely a must read for our times.

I just finished reading this book and found it to be an excellent resource in the debate over same-sex marriage and gay fostering parenting.

The reviewers who have criticized this book must not have read it very carefully. The studies are clear about the need for children to have both a mother and a father. In addition, social researchers have clearly shown that homosexual partnerships are notoriously unstable.

Our culture should not allow a minority of vocal activists to redefine the institution of marriage. Children are not science epxeriments. No-fault divorce has resulted in devastating consequences for children. Same-sex parenting could be far worse for the well-being of children.

As a clinical psychologist, I found Marriage on Trial a very informative book. Much of the debate over homosexual marriage is argued based on emotion. Rarely are facts exposed as they are by Stanton and Maier.

There are no value-free world view. Everyone begins discussing this issue with a bias on questions of morality and religion. Stanton and Maier are clear about their world view and presuppositions. However, they make a compelling case to perserve marriage even apart from religious argument.

A must read for anyone interested in defending traditional marriage!

If Glenn Stanton were a lawyer arguing in a real live trial, he'd lose the case. Many of his arguments against same-sex marriage play right into the hands of gay-rights activists. For example, to make the case against gay marriage he lists all the ways that heterosexual marriage benefits adults and children. (Huh? Those benefits are exactly what the homosexual community is seeking for their own unions.) Stanton also argues that gay marriage is not genuinely necessary for the gay community because not all gays want it. (Huh? Does this mean that straight marriage is not genuinely necessary for the straight community because not all straights want it?) He further argues that homosexuals make up only one or two percent of the population and that gay activists (who claim it's closer to ten percent) are inflating the numbers for their own advantage. (Huh? If the homosexual population is that small, a book against same-sex marriage is hardly worth the time. Why not write a pamphlet and save the book for a topic like poverty-a factor that correlates strongly with family breakdown?)

To his credit, not all Stanton's arguments are that transparent. To debunk scientific research affirming that "well-grounded, credible studies have shown that it is likely--highly likely--that homosexuality is grounded in biology," he responds with this very persuasive statement: "The truth is that there are no replicated scientific studies that prove . . . homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors." Unfortunately, few readers of "Marriage on Trial" will realize that this is exactly WHY scientists use phrases like "highly likely" and and make no proof-claims for biological cause. Ironically, even as the biological evidence mounts, scientists have the decency to be conservative about their findings. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, are indecently sure about their own position. Quite rightly, though, Stanton is alert to the possible biases of homosexual scientists. The problem is, he doesn't acknowledge his own.

It's evident that Stanton had already decided that same-sex marriage was wrong before he wrote "Marriage on Trial." That's not a scholarly way to examine this or any complicated topic no matter how much research is done. If you care about this issue, and are seeking a fair coverage of the pros and cons of same-sex marriage, this book is not the one for you. If you oppose same-sex marriage and want to confirm your pre-existing convictions, this book still might not be the one. In fact, if you good at identifying fallacious arguments, it might even change your mind.

An excellent book on a difficult subject. Very well researched.

If you think in black and white, hate women, gays and lesbians, and foreigners to boot, you'll love this book.

Some of it's more entertaining arguments are that children need a father, because a father uses big words when he scolds and is more strict than a woman ever could be. If a child did something wrong, a father would say "now that is incredibly inappropriate behavior, stop it" and a mother can only say "no no nooooo *in a baby voice*" And the father using the BIG WORDS would cause the child to ask questions and learn! Children certainly couldn't learn vocabulary from a woman, women are morons who only worry and want to shield their children off from the rest of the world.

He also says that women keep men working. Umm...okay.
Men would just sit around flipping through the chanels, but the woman will turn the tv off and tell him to go get his work done.
Sounds like the "little woman must stay home and clean & cook & care for the kids, and that strong brave man has to go hunt & gather the food!"

The colours for the cover of this book are fitting, black & white, exactly how this man views the world.