Open Letter to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, Jr.

Dear Chief Justice Roberts;

I understand that the Supreme Court will soon make a decision in regard to the constitutionality of same sex marriage.  I urge you to vote in favor of protecting marriage as between a man and a woman.

Please bring my concerns to the attention of the other Supreme Court Justices.

I am not here discussing homosexuals, many of whom contribute generously to their community, but rather considering consequences of homosexuality as a normalized behavior.  The profound changes that would be brought about in social integration, social organization, social reproduction and social health warrant caution and serious consideration.

My concern is not that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, but rather why the Bible and countless other societal writings throughout the milleniums have held homosexuality as a social taboo.

The family unit has integrated men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal, caring and supportive relationships that transcend the generations.  Countless research confirms that the greatest sources of nurture, support, and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit.

The opportunity for the autonomous family to preserve and pass down cultural values to the next generation is the foundation upon which freedom is built.  This process develops diversity of perspectives, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.

The normalization of homosexuality will jeopardize social reproduction.  When society changes rapidly it is prudent to inquire, "Who benefits".  The commercialization of reproduction through buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) will replace the caring and loving union of mother, father, children and grandchildren.  This is t;he foundation of eugenics.  Whose sperm?  Whose egg?  As children are taught to accept homosexuality as a normal choice, the intergenerational transfer of genetic and cultural patterns in society becomes jeopardized.    

The personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling.  The first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the U.S. in 1981 within the homosexual community.  Since then the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that over 648,000 deaths have occurred, the majority of cases resulting from male-to-male sexual conduct.  CDC reports that 77% of those affected with AIDS are male.  As bisexuality is listed as a gender choice, the deadly disease has transferred to the heterosexual community .

Syphilis was a disease on the verge of elimination.  The CDC reports "...in 2001 it re-emerged as a public health threat because of a resurgence of the disease among men who have sex with men (MSM).  In 2008 there were 13,500 reported cases of syphilis."  "In 2012, 75% of the reported primary and secondary syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men."  Bisexuality brings this disease to women and babies.  The syphilis rate in San Antonio has recently broken all recent records and an epidemic of babies have been born with syphilis.

The Supreme Court overturned the sodomy law of Texas.  Sodomy contributes to:
95% of AIDS infections among gay men (Commentary, Nov. 1987, pgs. 22-23),
4000% increase in risk of anal cancer (Between the Lines, Sept. 29, 2000), and
860% increase in sexually transmitted diseases (CDC, Sept. 10, 1999).

In the early 1990's the gay agenda sought to promote tolerance of the gay/lesbian lifestyles in the public schools at all levels.  To teach children that homosexual behaviors are equivalent to heterosexual behaviors jeopardizes their ability to move into responsible heterosexual and family relationships.

Children have neither the maturity nor background to understand and evaluate this information.  Childhood is a time to learn directives for living and growing into mature citizens and healthy and responsible adults.   Condoms, with a 14% failure rate (for pregnancy) are handed out freely in schools, even at the junior high level with the implication that sex will be 'safe' if you 'protect' yourself with a condom.

A responsible society must protect the children from behaviors that will endanger them.

Heterosexual family forms have been protected  and passed down through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies.  In every society it is essential to establish and protect laws that will benefit the well-being of the larger society and individuals.  The social discourse has been rampant with charges of bigotry, and hate mongering.  However, neither claims of tolerance, discrimination, intimidation, nor back slapping love fests are appropriate means to bring about change in social organization that has wide reaching negative consequences.

I have presented two papers at professional meetings related to the considerations listed above.  the PDF files of these papers can be downloaded from my website: www.wrestlingwithangels.com under the section "Related Essays".
 * Over the Rainbow: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America (49 pages).
 * The Impact of Contemporary Family Life Patterns on the Quality and Stability of Child Rearing (43 pages).

Thank you for your consideration and for the important work you provide for our country.

Sincerely,

Marjorie L. Coppock, Ph..D.    

(15) The Consequences: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NORMALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 1.

In considering the future of marriage, Dr. David Blankenhorn chaired three one-day seminars for researchers and family scholars in 2004 to address concerns raised by the prospect of gay marriage. Seminars were held in New York City, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, with a total of 40 people attending, including leading family scholars. Some had spoken out in favor of gay marriage and some against. Serious scholars and leaders wrestled with the issue in an attempt to see both sides.

The results of the discussions confirmed that a movement toward gay marriage would not only affect a small minority but would constitute major social change. It became evident that the decision was not a morally easy one because when important goods conflict, any resolution will carry elements of loss. A diverse range of consequences were listed, both positive and negative.

Positive social consequences of extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples included:

* the improvement of well being and social worth for gays and lesbians,

* increased tolerance under the law,

* and equal treatment under the law.

Extending marriage benefits may:

* encourage gays to choose committed relationships,

* contribute to more stability and longer lasting relationships,

* and lead to less sexual promiscuity.

Negative social consequences that were identified in changing the public meaning of marriage from a social institution to a private relationship between two people included:

* the de-institutionalization of marriage, contributing to a social devaluation of marriage,

* endorsement of the idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father,

* opening the door to other forms of 'marriage', including group marriage and polygamy,

* subsidization of reproductive technologies,

* and fewer children being raised by their own married mother and father.

The religious values of most Americans in regard to appropriate sexual relationships would:

* no longer be legally accepted,

* lead to state imposed restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of expression,

* and lead to U.S. marriages becoming secularized, undermining religious conceptions of marriage.

The public socialization of young people into a marriage culture would be diluted to avoid suggesting that marriage is fundamentally heterosexual. If the decision was reached by the courts, a public loss in confidence in the judicial systems would result.

The total list of consequences identified by the 40 conference attendees included 23 negative, 24 positive and 12 'other' consequences that were considered important to recognize. The participants in this discussion concluded that gay marriage would represent "quite a bit of significant social change, affecting many aspects of society."

QUESTIONS ON GAY REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY 2.

In 1993, Morton A. Kaplan, distinguished service professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago and editor of The World and I magazine, wrestled with the challenges to society being proposed by gay activism. Noting that the issues of gay rights and alternative family forms generated enormous anger and political energy, he concluded that, "As long as the family, as now understood, commands the rational and emotional assent of most people, it is hard for homosexuality to enter the mainstream of American life." Noting that "We cannot, even if we wished, withdraw from these issues" Kaplan concluded, "it is therefore, quite important to think through these issues as objectively as possible."

A series of considerations were raised.

* "Many homosexuals and lesbians are intelligent, honorable, hardworking, and valuable members of society. Many of them are fine parents...They tend to greater promiscuity than heterosexuals, but this may be a product of social and legal factors..."

* "No decent individual would desire to see homosexuals harassed or deprived of dignified career opportunities."

* "Although it is regrettable that a group of people should pay disproportionate social and psychological costs because of their sexuality, the survival of the larger group cannot be put at risk."

* "We legitimate the heterosexual family to preserve the group."

* In extending the concept of normality, "damage may be done to society that may take generations to repair...some degree of damage to limited groups of individuals may be justified for the greater good of society... every set of social norms injures some."

* "Are homosexual and lesbian tendencies genetically governed?...such behavior likely depends on more than genetics."

* "...there were also incestuous or pedophilic families...But where is the line to be drawn, and on what basis? And, if we cannot draw a firm line, will we remain successful in outlawing child pornography if the child consents?"

* Can we tolerate all forms of consensual sexual activity"... Our ability to function rationally depends on taboos and social and legal constraints that maintain character and a sense of appropriateness."

* I suggest prudence, that we do not allow a slippery slope to take us unawares... we need serious discussion rather than the polemics and the heat we are now generating."

CAUTION IS WISDOM

Social movements promoting the normalization of homosexuality in our society have, and will continue to bring about profound challenges and changes in social organization, particularly in regard to social integration, social reproduction, social health, and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values.

Social Integration

The heterosexual family unit has integrated men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal and caring relationships that transcend generations. Countless and consistent family research confirms that the greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit.

Intergenerational Transfer of Cultural Values

The foundation upon which freedom is built rests upon the ability of autonomous family units to preserve and pass down cultural values to the next generation. This process develops a diversity of perspectives, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.

Social Reproduction

As children are taught to accept homosexuality as a normal choice, the intergenerational transfer of cultural and genetic patterns in society becomes jeopardized. The normalization of homosexuality will create new forms of social reproduction. When society changes rapidly it is prudent to inquire, "Who benefits?" The commercialization of reproduction through the buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) will replace the caring and loving union of mother, father, children, grandchildren, and extended relatives. This is a foundation for eugenics with all the questions to be asked in this regard. Whose sperm? Whose egg will be favored?

Social Health

The personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. It is not useful to pretend that the dangers inherent in the homosexual lifestyle will be overcome by condom use, especially a careless distribution of condoms among the young.

Heterosexual family forms have been protected and passed down through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies.

The Slippery Slope

This discussion will leave the reader with questions addressed by Melik Kaylan in his article "The Way We Live Now." 3.

"...Most of the 'slippery slope' warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each -broken homes, addictions, AIDS?...

Already the era of gay parenting is here. It often involves an affluent gay couple adopting poor orphans and improving their material future immeasurably. How long before market forces noisily hold up such families as role models, pillars of style, tolerance, humor, free-thinking? Yet we have no idea how the children will fare emotionally, how anomalous they will feel... Will children, once reared know how to sustain a heterosexual marriage or family, having no inherited sense of its workings?...What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage, then to identify the cause?"

References:

1. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:202-212.

2. Kaplan, Morton A. "Common Sense on Gay Rights." The World and I. 1993:361,403-407.

3. Kaylan, Melik. "TheWay We Live Now." The Wall Street Journal. Friday, August 8, 2003: Opinion Page.

Homosexuality? Caution is Wisdom!

At the end of April, 2008 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the United States Student Association will sponsor the 12th annual Day of Silence in many public schools across the country with the goal of increasing tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle among children.

I am astonished and concerned at how quickly our society has been influenced to move toward the normalization of homosexuality.

I am not here discussing homosexuals, many of whom contribute generously to their community. As individuals in society, every person deserves respect and consideration. I am rather considering the personal and social consequences of homosexuality as a normalized lifestyle.

Some argue that homosexuality has a genetic base. There is much debate about this.
A molecular biologist who headed studies on gay brothers in 1993 concluded that social influences play the leading role in determining homosexuality. He stated, "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited."1.


Many behaviors, including premarital and extramarital sex, incest, sexual abuse of children, and polygamy, may have genetic predispositions; however, behavior is more than genetics. Behavior has a social dimension. To extend normality to behaviors that may be destructive to individuals and society and may take generations to repair is neither prudent, just, nor practical. 2.

The profound changes that would occur in social organization warrant caution and serious consideration, particularly in regard to social integration, social freedom, social reproduction, and social health.

Homosexuality and social integration

The normalization of homosexuality will encourage social disintegration as men relate intimately to men and women to women. In spite of immense variation within the sexes, there remain fundamental differences in biological and emotional makeup. Misunderstanding will develop as each sex holds the other in unrealistic awe on the one hand or loathing on the other.

The traditional family is the building block for the integration of society as individuals grow in
understanding of various perspectives within the heterosexual family. This family unit integrates men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal and caring relationships that transcend the generations. Countless research studies confirm that the greatest sources of nurture, support, and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit. 3. 3a.

To preserve and support the family as the building block for social integration, our schools need to include training in the processes that enable caring relationships in marriage and family, including skills in communication, conflict resolution, and compromise.

Homosexuality and social freedom

The essence of freedom in America does not rest on the belief that every person can do whatever he or she wants to do at all times. Freedom in America maintains our ability to preserve and protect our best values, express them within the culture, and pass them on to future generations. Social freedom requires responsible citizenship.

The family is the foundation upon which freedom is built. The autonomous family preserves and passes down it's unique cultural values to the next generation, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.

Homosexuality will jeopardize the intergenerational transfer of cultural patterns within society.

Homosexuality and social reproduction

The normalization of homosexuality will jeopardize social reproduction and the intergenerational transfer of genetic patterns. Reproduction within the homosexual union will necessitate contrivance and manipulation.

The specter of eugenics becomes evident as the commercialization of reproduction through the buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) replaces the caring and loving union of mother , father, children, and extended family.

Homosexuality and social health

Personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling.

According to the American Medical Association, homosexual youth are 23 times more apt to contact a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) than their heterosexual counterparts.4

* Syphilis rates in the U.S. that had significantly decreased in the 1990's, increased between 2001 and 2006, primarily among men. Syphilis rates attributed to men having sex with men (MSM) increased from 4% in 2000 to 62% in 2004.5.

* In a 1997 news article, The New York Times stated that a male teenager entering the homosexual lifestyle today has a 50% chance of getting AIDS by the age of fifty.6.

* By 1998, AIDS was the fifth leading cause of death for people ages 25-44. The first cases were reported in the U.S. in 1981 in the homosexual community. 77% of those affected with AIDS are male. Bisexual behaviors have transferred the disease to the heterosexual community.7.

* In the United States, MSM accounted for 70% of all estimated HIV infections in 2004, even though only about 5-7% of male adults and adolescents identify themselves as MSM.8.

* The cumulative estimated deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States in 2005 was 530,307 persons. 9.

Homosexuality comes to school

In the early 1990's homosexual activists sought to promote tolerance of the gay and lesbian lifestyles in the public schools, and to normalize these lifestyles in the public perception. The National Education Association promoted material entitled Affording Equal Opportunity to Gay and Lesbian Students. 10.

Although children have neither the experience nor the insight to evaluate this information, comprehensive sex education curriculums included discussions of homosexuality even in elementary materials. Teaching homosexuality as a viable and normal behavior to elementary children is of particular concern because preadolescent children typically gather in same sex groups, avoiding the opposite sex. To present this as a possible sign of homosexual attraction jeopardizes the ability of children to move into a healthy heterosexual relationship and marriage.

Caution is wisdom

In 1993, Morton Kaplan analyzed the changing patterns of sexual and family relationships and wisely cautioned against hasty and unexamined changes in family patterns. He states, "Our ability to function rationally depends on taboos and social and legal constraints that maintain character and a sense of appropriateness...I suggest prudence, that we do not allow a slippery slope to take us unawares... We need serious discussion rather than the polemics and the heat we are now generating." 11.

In 2003, a writer in the Wall Street Journal cautioned, "Most of the 'slippery slope' warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each - broken homes, addictions, AIDS?"

Personal and social effects of changes should be seriously weighed before extending the range of permissible behavior.

References

1. Palen, John A. Social Problems for the twenty-First Century. 2001. McGraw Hill:438-439.
2. Kaplan. Morton A. "Common sense on gay rights." The World and I October, 1993:403-407.

3. Marriage in America: A Report to the Nation. Council on Families. 1995:pgs. 9-11.

http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-marriage_in_america.html.

3 a. Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences. Institute for American Values. 2005.
New York, NY.
4. American Adolescents: How Healthy Are They? The American Medical Association. 1990: pg 31.
5. Center for Disease Control, STD Surveillance 2006.

http://www.cdc,gov/STD/stats/syphilis.htm. Jan 2, 2008.
6. Sheryl Gay Stolberg. "Gay Culture Sense and Sexuality". New York Times (late edition, east coast), 23, 1997. section4, pg. 1.
7. Center for Disease Control. July 2006. http://wwwcdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/print/msm.htm.
8. Center for Disease Control, April 2004.
9. Center for Disease Control-Basic Statistics. pg. 5. June 28, 2007.
10. Buss, Dale. "homosexual rights go to school." Christianity Today. Vol. 37, No. 6 (May 17) 1993:70-72.
11. Kaplan, Morton A. "Common sense on gay rights." The World and I. October, 1993:403-407.
12. Kaylan, Melik. "The Way We Live Now". The Wall Street Journal. Friday. August 8, 2003. Opinion Page