How not to argue against homosexuality part 2

Preserve marriage as an institution

I REFER to Mr Janadas Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7), and Dr George Bishop's letter, 'Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum' (ST, July 11).

Both writers had used anecdotal examples of children having been raised by same-sex parents and, based on the high divorce rates in the US, suggested that children of same-sex couples were not worse off in any way. They argued, therefore, that the idea of same-sex couples having children, whether by adoption or otherwise, should be tolerated, indeed even legislated.

Such a line of argument is flawed. Using similar logic, one might say that since we might know of some smokers who are still alive and healthy, and there are a number of non-smokers who still develop lung cancer anyway, smoking should therefore be tolerated, even promoted.

It has long been known by human intuition and affirmed by studies, that the presence of both a nurturing mother and a nurturing father play a critical role in a child's well-being. Children are best served when raised in a home with a married mother and father. In addition, the parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage - the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives.

The fact that many marriages are 'unhappy' or 'on the rocks' does not mean that marriage in itself is a faulty institution. We need to look into the varied reasons that plague marriages today, notably so in many 'tolerant' Western countries.

Let us use an analogy. A doctor may give the best and most well tried medication to his patient to treat an illness. If the patient is not doing well despite the medication, the doctor does not immediately dump that medication and try a new one, especially so when it is one that is risky and hardly tested at all. The good doctor looks into other reasons for the patient's poor response: Has the patient been taking the medication as instructed? Has he taken to habits that are detrimental to his health? Has he been mixing the medication with other concoctions?

The same goes for marriage. The fact that many marriages are threatened today does not mean that it is losing relevance. Rather, we should as a society examine ourselves and see how it has been misused, indeed abused, in recent times. As a bastion of civil society, it has served us remarkably well, and it will continue to do so, as long as we put right our values that must necessarily complement it.

True creativity lies not in blindly aping all the values of the West, but rather in acknowledging those that help promote the public good, and integrating them with our own in a way that continues to build upon the important pillars of our country, an essential part of which is the family, founded upon the marriage between a man and a woman.

Dr John Hui Keem Peng
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what's wrong with this letter this time round?

"Both writers had used anecdotal examples of children having been raised by same-sex parents and, based on the high divorce rates in the US, suggested that children of same-sex couples were not worse off in any way. They argued, therefore, that the idea of same-sex couples having children, whether by adoption or otherwise, should be tolerated, indeed even legislated. "

Yes agreed. Anecdotal examples are seldom conclusive of anything. BUT BUT BUT .......... similarly, anecdotal examples of how homosexual couples make bad parents or provide an environment with negative effects are also not conclusive. So far in the letter, there's no conclusive evidence cited by the author that suggests that homosexuals should not be allowed to have children.

The 2nd paragraph just elaborates a rather redundant point made in the first paragraph. Let's skip to the 3rd paragraph.

"It has long been known by human intuition and affirmed by studies, that the presence of both a nurturing mother and a nurturing father play a critical role in a child's well-being. Children are best served when raised in a home with a married mother and father. In addition, the parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage - the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives." (Emphasis mine)

First, Dr Hui talks about making decisions based on the magical/never wrong/always right HUMAN INTUITION!!!!!! I expect something better than that seriously. Gamblers in casinos after all have "INTUITIONS" that after a long run of "SMALL" on the Big/Small table, it is unlikely to be small for the upcoming round. Shows you how reliable intuitions are.

Next, the phrase "affirmed by studies, that the presence of both a nurturing mother and a nurturing father play a critical role in a child's well-being." is rather carefully worded. What it says is a mother and father is critical in the well-being of a child. It does not say that homosexuals parents are detrimental to the well-being of a child. Nor does it says male-female parents are better for a child's well-being than same-sex parents. The rest of that paragraph is just meaningless ramblings of personal opinions.

"The fact that many marriages are 'unhappy' or 'on the rocks' does not mean that marriage in itself is a faulty institution. We need to look into the varied reasons that plague marriages today, notably so in many 'tolerant' Western countries."

True. But does not in anyway support why same-sex marriages should be forbidden. The next 2 paragraphs are about his analogies again. This fellow likes to use analogies to explain points that are of no value towards arguing against allowing homosexual parents. Seems like he's using the false dilemma fallacy, that heterosexual parents must either be better or worse than homosexual parents and that if heterosexual parents are good then children, homosexual parents must be detrimental to the children.

"True creativity lies not in blindly aping all the values of the West, but rather in acknowledging those that help promote the public good, and integrating them with our own in a way that continues to build upon the important pillars of our country, an essential part of which is the family, founded upon the marriage between a man and a woman. "

In the final paragraph, he attacks western values but not the arguments for allowing homosexuals to have children. That's like trying to discredit your opponent by attacking his character when u are unable to attack his arguments. As for the "public good" part, i don't see how by practising discrimination is for the public good. And the idea of "an essential part of which is the family, founded upon the marriage between a man and a woman" sounds very christian to me. Don't you think so?

And finally, take a look at this research article i found on the web. I copied the abstract below. It is unable to conclude that homosexual parents are detrimental to the well-being of children. I suggest for those who are interested in finding out the fact to search the net for the many studies done on this subject, come to your own conclusion based on those studies instead of making baseless assumptions all the time.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abs/

Abstract

Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.