The Case for the Traditional Family Structure

 

Social science research has conclusively proven that a strong family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, is the best environment for protecting, nourishing and developing individuals—this family structure provides significantly better outcomes than any other alternative.

There are specific social benefits called “social goods,” which flow from man/woman marriage. These social goods are derived from the complementary physical, emotional, and spiritual union of a male and a female.

The institution of man/woman marriage:

• Channels sexual relations in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to individuals and society.

• Helps men live more responsibly and productively.

• Transforms men into husbands/fathers and women into wives/mothers.

• Binds potential parents together to raise the biological children they create.

• Legally binds fathers to their biological children. (Mothers are always present at birth, but not so with fathers.)

• Provides the optimal environment in which to raise children.

• Generates the best outcomes in the areas of health, wealth and overall happiness for men, women and children.

Research findings illustrate that the “social goods” derived from man/woman marriage begin to disappear when individuals live outside of the married man/woman family structure. Studies show that any deviation from man/woman marriage generally results in serious negative outcomes for individuals and families. The evidence supporting this is remarkably consistent and compelling.

Outcomes According to Family Structure:

When compared to heterosexual men, men who engage in homosexual behavior:

• experience a significantly higher rate of domestic violence with their partners.

• are up to seven times more likely to attempt suicide.

• have a lower life expectancy by 20 to 30 years.

• have an incidence of HIV/AIDS that is up to 430 times higher.

• have three times the number of drug and alcohol dependencies.

• are significantly more promiscuous, with very few maintaining fidelity.

• are more than twice as likely to have an STD.

• are significantly more likely to engage in pedophilia.

• are much more likely to have mental and emotional disorders/illnesses.

• are at higher risk of deliberate self-harm.

When compared to heterosexual youth, youth who engage in homosexual behavior:

• are at increased risk of suffering major depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

• are associated with more school and runaway problems.

• are more likely to attempt suicide.

• experience a much higher rate of alcoholism.

• are more likely to engage in substance abuse.

• are more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior.

When compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women:

• are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence.

• experience a much higher rate of sexual coercion by their partner.

• are more likely to use drugs and alcohol.

• have a significantly higher risk of developing general anxiety disorder.

• are twice as likely to attempt suicide.

• are at higher risk for breast cancer.

• are at higher risk of deliberate self-harm.

Source: Stand For The Family

Debunking the discrimination of Sodomites

 

What is discrimination?

Discrimination is the act of choosing among options. In the context of civil rights, discrimination means accepting or rejecting people based on criteria such as race or skin color. 

Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. 

Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary. Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The homosexual movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

Discrimination has been useful to homosexualists because the public is deeply conditioned to associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the qualifier “rational” or “irrational” to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to consider the significance of the qualifier. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.

Is it wrong to discriminate against homosexuality?

Discrimination based on sex, religion, tribe, race or skin color is morally wrong because there is no legitimate reason for it- the criteria is morally neutral and immutable. Such discrimination springs from irrational prejudice. However, homosexuality involves voluntary sexual conduct that has negative personal and social consequences. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to discriminate against homosexuality on religious, moral, sociological and public health grounds.

 

What is tolerance?

For most people, “tolerance” means putting up with something we don’t like in order to serve the greater good of public civility.  Tolerance is therefore an essential virtue in a diverse society.  Homosexualists, however, use the term to mean total and unconditional acceptance of homosexuality in all of its aspects.  Anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct is labeled intolerant, even those who treat self-defined homosexuals with the utmost courtesy and respect.

Abuse of language is a dangerous thing. The misuse of the term tolerance is a good example. For every person that gives in to political correctness to avoid being considered intolerant, there is another whose strong disapproval of homosexuality makes him or her willing to be considered intolerant. The latter may even begin to see intolerance as a virtue, since it appears necessary to be intolerant to stop the legitimization of sexual perversion.

As the homosexuals have proved, many people just don’t think clearly enough to understand why intolerance of race and intolerance of sexual perversion are different. This confusion serves the racists as easily as it serves the homosexuals. To reaffirm the true meaning of tolerance in the face of homosexual sophistry, point out that tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech but low tolerance for harmful behavior and conduct that damages the body and spreads disease. The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it may cause.

Source: 

1. Redeeming The Rainbow 

See also: The Case for Heterosexuality and Are Homosexuals Being Persecuted in Uganda?