How is homosexuality "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family"?

Question

According to Senator Rick Santorum.

Answer 1

Um... it's NOT antithetical to a health or stable family. I would say that two closet gay people of opposite genders living together out of obligation is far less healthy and probably far less stable than two people who love each other and are happy, raising kids in a happy, open, stable home if they want to.

It is, however, inherently untraditional, in that a traditional family is defined as having two parents of opposite genders (plus 2.5 kids and a dog), but that's neither here nor there.

But of course, everyone knows that kids are better off with a mom and a dad who beat them and lock them in the basement every night than two moms or who dads who are loving and nurturing, because the most important thing is that the kids grow up to be straight (besides, a hard childhood just builds character, right?), and with gay parents they might get the impression that it's actually OK to be gay.

Answer 2

I must admit I'm surprised that anyone even asks this question. The very definitions of the words in your question answers your question. Research might be recommended here. You do understand the terms "antithetical", and "traditional", and "stable", and "healthy" and "homosexuality" and "family" I presume. Then, if you apply proper syntax for your question, which you have, you should have no question. The terms "family", "stable", "healthy", "traditional are "antithetical" to "homosexuality", or to use another word, "homosexuality" is an oxymoron to the first four terms: healthy, stable, traditional and family. Maybe the use of the word "oxymoron" might help you. If you're not familiar with that term, any dictionary can help you, and therefore your answer. God Bless you.

Answer 3

Well, first you must consider the source. After that you must analyze the statement in question.

Knowing Santorum and his views I would say the statement was meant to stir up some type of reaction within his constituency because, after all, this is a major wedge issue and he is having trouble in his reelection campaign. Now, as to the statement itself, there is little to determine as there are no definitions for four of the terms.

What is healthy?
What is stable?
What is traditional?
What is a family?

However, even taking into account a rudimentary definition of all of his terms he is arguing from a fallacious viewpoint. By virtue of his being a senator he is claiming authority on a subject for which he knows little or nothing. In fact, studies by psychologists suggest a different result.

Answer 4

Partly, it's a religious argument. Only relationships (families) that conform to a particular religious pattern can be healthy or stable. Because homosexual relationships don't conform to that narrow religious definition, they are therefore opposite those ideals.

Partly, it's a argument based on social inertia. If it hasn't been done before (or done only sporadically) then it can't be traditional.

This, of course, assumes that traditional families are both healthy and stable, and I think statistics can show that those are by no means safe assumptions.

The same arguments were made against interracial marriage for decades. California realized this wasn't rational in 1948, and the rest of the US caught up in Loving v. Virginia (1967). This time, its Massachusetts and California in 2004/2005, and unfortunately likely another twenty years (one more generation) before the rest of the country stops being irrational.

Answer 5

I think he meant they could not have children & therefore the family as we know it would not exist. Therefore, it would be the opposite of a traditional family - mother, father and 2.1 kids, & a dog or cat. Hey I am Mormon & polygomy did go over well because it was different from their traditional family. At least no one is signing an extermination order like the did on Mormons.
They killed women, children & men.

Answer 6

Because in theory, the homosexual couple cannot procreate.

Of course, that ignores the laws of adoption, which the conservatives are now trying to modify to prevent gay couples from adopting.

And of course, it ignores the millions of divorces, spousal beatings, child beatings, and child neglect that are found in these "healthy, stable, traditional families".

Answer 7

Assuming you mean anti-ethical... it's not. That is just rhetoric that the opposing side is using.

I wish at least they would be honest with their reasons. The bottom line is that those who oppose gay marriage believe that gay marriage is wrong. It is that simple. They don't want it because they don't agree with it.

I mean try telling them about separation of state and church or try telling them about individual rights or even try telling them that their marriage shouldn't be given special rights by the state since gay ones aren't.

Even with all those facts, they will still fuss.

So, like I said, it's very very simple. They, thinking they are the majority and have all the say so thereof, don't agree with it therefore don't think ppl that do agree with it should have it.

Answer 8

Everyone but gays and liberals know that gay marriage is wrong.
It is a perversion and it goes against the balance of nature. Every post that I have read about this subject brings up the fact that marriages between a man and a woman aren't always perfect, and I agree, but you make it sound like gays will never have problems and will never divorce. Bullshit!!!

Answer 9

In his mind, a family can only be a man, woman and children. And of course, this doesn't guarantee healthy or stable in and of itself.

Answer 10

It's just BS to try to divert attention from real problems like the war, the biggest deficit in history, the destruction of our environment, and various scandals.