Monday, March 25, 2013

Peter Sprigg is on a roll lately

Logo of the Family Research Council.
The oh so erudite Mr. Sprigg is Family Research Council's "gay expert." He is also one of the primary reasons that FRC has been designated a hate group. A Baptist minister by trade, Sprigg should stick to the pulpit. Preferably in the Bible Belt.

Today, the Sprigg tackles Defining Marriage—What Harm Would It Do to Redefine Marriage? Begging the question you little devil. According to the Sprigg:
Giving unique privileges and a unique status to the only type of relationship that can ever result in the natural creation of another human being sends an important message to society. Contrary to the charges of those who would redefine marriage, that message has nothing to do with “sexual orientation” as such. It simply sends the message that relationships of a type which can result in natural reproduction are unique,  ...
Marriage law isn't intended as a means to send a "message."

The purpose of marriage law and marriage is to create a marital estate, to raise children that might be the product of the marriage and to provide a means to care for those children if the marriage dissolves. Up until a few decades ago, marriage transferred a bride as property from father to husband. "Giving away the bride" had literal meaning.
The greatest tragedy resulting from the legalization of homosexual marriage would not be its effect on adults, but its effect on children. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.
Marriage has nothing to do with seeking government's approval.

Like many culture warriors, Sprigg is completely ignoring the fact that gays are already raising quite a few children. Kids who would be better off with married parent. Allowing gays to marry does not increase the number of children raised in same-sex households per se.

If Sprigg has a problem with gays adopting kids or sperm donors (and he probably does) then he should object to those in contrast to marriage. After all, unmarried women also participate in conception through artificial insemination and single men have children through surrogacy. Sprigg is trying to avoid murky territory. Sprigg goes off the rails on how we are creating everything from criminals to poverty. It is absurd. Then he gets to Regnerus:
Critics of the Regnerus study questioned its relevance to the marriage debate, because some of the children of homosexual parents never lived with that parent and a partner, and almost none were raised by a same-sex couple from birth. (This illustrates, in part, how rare such “stable” same-sex households are in the real world).
The overwhelming majority of the children never lived with the gay parent and his or her partner. Moreover, in spite of the suggestion that same-sex households are unstable, the sample does not illustrate     in any form     that stable children of stable same-sex couples are rare. Sprigg's concluding theme:
There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.
That is probably untrue as well. The correlation is more likely to be to level of education which also correlates to marriage equality. That is why science strives to determine causation in contrast to correlation.

Sprigg should stick to preaching.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.