The Burden of Proof May 1, 2006
The burden of proof is upon those advocating and supporting change. When will those advocating and supporting changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex/gay to marry put forth legislation allowing for an up or down, yes or no vote by the entire Massachusetts legislature? Why is it being said that those who support and favor maintaining the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman are against marriage equality? Those advocating and supporting same-sex/gay marriage, not those who support and favor maintaining the status quo, have raised the issue of changing the definition of marriage. The votes taken thus far have been to maintain the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, not in any change in the definition of marriage to include same-sex/gay couples. The best way to resolve this so far endless discussion in changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex/gay couples is to have an up or down, yes or no vote on same-sex/gay marriage itself. The burden of proof is upon those advocating and supporting change to the definition of marriage to allow same-sex/gay marriages to put forth legislation and allow a vote by the entire Massachusetts legislature.
Those who are advocating and supporting changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex/gay couples must support and defend their position in a meaningful, open, and honest discussion. A discussion that is free from the use of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, and threats and intimidation. Those advocating and supporting homosexuality consistently use these tactics. The most visited section on www.banap.net is homosexual myths. For more detailed information then written below please visit www.banap.net.
· 10% Gay Myth
Bruce Voeller chairman of the National Gay Task Force in the late 1970s takes credit for the origination of the 10% gay myth. Voeller writes in his article Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale how he came up with the 10% number. This article is found in the book, Homosexuality/Heterosexuality Concepts of Sexual Orientation. In a legal brief filed in a June 2003 Supreme Court case, Lawrence vs. Texas, a coalition of 31 leading pro-homosexual activists groups did not use the 10% figure for the number of homosexuals in America. Included in this coalition are some of the leading national organizations the Human Rights Campaign; the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); and the People for the American Way Foundation. They filed an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court’ brief) with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas. The admission of these figures by these groups in their legal brief is in stark contrast to what has been historically cited in the popular myth that 10% of the population is homosexual.
· Gay Teen Suicide Myth
The gay teen suicide myth controversy began with a government task force formed to gather papers on youth suicide. There were 50 background papers addressing a very broad range of issues related to youth suicide and suicidal behavior. Two of the papers were by Gibson and Harry addressing the issue of sexual orientation. Both Gibson’s and Harry’s papers did not present any original research on completed suicides and sexual orientation. Also, it has been noted that these two papers were not submitted for the rigorous peer review that is required for publication in a scientific journal. Gibson’s paper was not based on an actual study but rather on a review of non-probability (non-random) studies and agency reports of lesbian and gay adolescents and adults conducted between 1972 and 1986. There are questions as whether the papers submitted by Gibson and Harry were accepted by the task force and included in the final recommendations of the task force. The gay teen suicide myth originated with the paper presented by Gibson.
· Gay/Homosexual Parenting Myth
While there is a growing body of social science research on gay/lesbian parenting generally, the body of research on gay/lesbian-headed families is still quite small. The professional literature tends to be philosophical rather than empirical, or focuses on areas other than child and family functioning. There are several small qualitative studies, but only three larger studies have been found to date, and only one specifically examined child functioning. (Expanding Resources for Children: Is Adoption by Gays and Lesbians Part of the Answer for Boys and Girls Who Need Homes? by Jeanne Howard and David Brodzinsky.)
The above quote is taken from a Policy Perspective paper recently released by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in March of 2006. Funding provided for the institute to undertake this study was from two leading homosexual/gay political advocacy groups, The Gill Foundation and the Human Rights Campaign. The paper in its entirety may be found on the adoption institute’s web site, www.adotioinstitute.org. Why does The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in their Policy Perspective support expanding gay and lesbian parenting, because in their view gay and lesbian parenting is becoming increasingly acceptable by society? Even though the adoption institute acknowledges the flaws and limitations within the professional literature and studies of gay/homosexual parenting. The adoption institute is recommending that adoption policies and even state and federal laws be changed.
The burden of proof is on those advocating and supporting change. So far those advocating and supporting a change in the definition of marriage have been opposing those who advocate and support maintaining the status quo that marriage is the relationship of one man and one woman. They are the only ones who have been seeking legislative action. When will those advocating and supporting changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex/gay to marry put forth legislation allowing for an up or down, yes or no vote by the entire Massachusetts legislature?