Yes, Being Moderate Certainly Sounds Good, But Maybe It’s Only A Sound

Bob Siegel Bob Siegel 26 Comments


Lately, I’ve been hearing about how “the public doesn’t want the Far Left or the Far Right.” Supposedly, if Republicans take over the House and the Senate again in November, they should remember to be more moderate.

Yes, that always sounds good, to do things in moderation. But sometimes this is simply impossible for those who hold to standards with any degree of consistency. For example, if I believe  abortion is murder,  how do I moderate that position? It does not mix with the notion that abortion is not murder.

Should the abolitionists have been more moderate in their desire to see slavery end? Should they have worked with southern Democrats in a “bi-partisan” fashion? What would they have come up with? Some kind of new law that gives slaves extra benefits without actually granting them their freedom?

I would also ask those who believe in a happy middle to define “Far Right.”  The reason I challenge you this way is because the definition of “Far Right” is ever changing. Most Liberals, when they think of the Far Right, imagine some kind of Fascist teaching. And yet, it is the Liberal who wants government to control every sector of our lives. These days, those who believe in less government are viewed as Far Right. By that definition, our forefathers were Far Right because they wrote a constitution with extremely limited government.

And ten years ago, would you have believed the day would come when those who want to protect our own borders would be viewed as Far Right? All other countries believe in protecting their borders, even the countries who chastise us for caring about ours.

How about marriage? Ten years ago, most Liberals, regardless of their view of gay marriage, would have laughed at the idea of calling somebody a Fascist, simply because he had the audacity to believe marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman.

You see, as the Left goes farther left, the real genuine center looks “farther Right.”

For me, it is no longer a matter of Right or Left as ends in themselves. Neither do I accept the fact that Centrists alone are the only wise and balanced individuals; not if Centrists are embracing the Left’s definition of what is “too far right.” One might ask where Liberals got the authority to issue such classifications. After all, if we hold to the current definition authored by the Left, Centrists are no longer Centrists. They are instead, people who pat themselves on the back for being moderate, all the while failing to watch the undertow. They themselves are moving to the left unawares. Gradual and unnoticed as the change in landscape may be, we should stop for a moment and look how far down the beach we drifted. Chances are, our towels and umbrellas are nowhere in sight.

Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Details of his show can be found at Comments to posts are discussed by Bob over the air where anyone is free to call in and respond/debate. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170


Comments 26

  1. “And yet, it is the Liberal who wants government to control every sector of our lives.” Terry Schiavo’s widower, for one, would probably disagree with that statement. So would many committed homosexual couples. I think it would be more accurate to say that the far left wants to control every aspect of your business and the far right wants to control every aspect of your personal life. Although I admit that is as much an oversimplification as your original statement.

    The bigger problem we have is the automatic support for everything the party does and the corresponding lack of honest debate. If a Democrat had suggested the Prescription Drug Denefit, the right would have been apoplectic. Since it was Bush and the Republicans, barely a whimper was heard. If it was Bush escalating the war in Afghanistan, the left would have crucified him, but Obama gets a pass.

    Look at the Supreme Court. The right decries “activist judges,” but applauds their recent decision on campaign reform despite decades of established law and a noticeable absence in the Constitution of the words “corporation or labor union.”

    Being a moderate doesn’t mean having no values. It does, however mean being able to see the other side of an argument. It means not blindly following an ideology nor changing the rules of game depending on who got 50% +1 of the votes in the last election. It means governing for the benefit of all of the people.

  2. The problem faced today in politics is the fact that people tend to be centrist. With this approach, as we have seen with the 2008 election, the Republicans lost. Understandably, they wanted to attract swing voters, but in truth, to adopt a middle-ground position is not necessarily the best tactic. There is only black and white, no gray area. People should remember that key fact.

  3. Post

    Alger, You said: “The bigger problem we have is the automatic support for everything the party does and the corresponding lack of honest debate.”

    I happen to be a Democrat critical of both Democrats and Republicans. Never in my life have I automatically supported anything. Yes, I am a conservative but I call for open debate constantly in my articles and on my radio show. You are welcome to come on the air and debate any of these issues incidentally.

    As for your comments about who controls who, do you really want to use Terri Shivo’s widower as an example inasmuch as the government literally ordered Terri’s death? Did you know that the judge who gave the order belongs to the Hemlock society?

    As for gay marriage, one of your other examples, I have an article right here on the Rostra about gay marriage literally loaded with important documented information. This is a far more complex issue than two gay people getting married. Other people’s rights are at stake. You may want to become more familiar with the real genuine militant gay agenda. It is a long article but one that challenges and certainly invites debate. Indeed, some are trying to pass laws that would actually forbid saying anything negative about homosexuality at all. Presumably, one like yourself who welcomes debate should be very concerned about such a movement.

    Article Title: If You Think Gay Marriage Will Not Affect You, Think Again

    Warmest Regards

    Bob Siegel

  4. Bob, Sorry you took my comments personally. I never said YOU automatically support everything the Party does, but I hope you can admit that my examples in that paragraph were indicative of a larger problem.

    Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the problem is the automatic criticism of everything the other party does. I am still waiting for any Democratic leader to praise anything George Bush did and the Republicans have made it clear that their record on Obama will be any better; this despite the fact, as I pointed out above each has taken actions that normally would please the other party.

    As for Shivo, a true conservative knows that should have been a decision left to her doctor and her husband. And I guess the other family members also had a right to seek judicial relief, but no conservative should have been cheering the calling of an emergency session of Congress.

    As for gay marriage, what “other people’s right are at stake?” Are you equating them with the rights that were taken away from African Americans because of slavery? Or the rights taken away from the unborn during an abortion?

    I am sure that there were “militant” women that wanted more than the right to vote during the Suffrage movement, but that wasn’t a good enough reason to deny them that basic right. Again, I thought true conservatives believed in personal freedom. Fear of “the militant gay agenda” shouldn’t be a good enough reason to deny homosexuals this freedom.

    And what of the latest Supreme Court decision that I referenced in my earlier post. Why aren’t Conservatives decrying this “legislating from the bench?”

    The bottom line is we need a plurality of elected officials who are willing to look at both sides of an issue, debate honestly and legislate not to score political points with the base but actually for the common good. Until then, we will be in a constant back and forth between two ideologies and 50% of the public (on a good day) will have a visceral hate of our elected leaders. I can’t believe you would call that a good thing.

  5. Post

    Hi Alger

    No worries. I took no offense. I responded from my own experience because you were commenting on my blog post but just so you know, these kinds of conversations never bother me. I do not mind disagreement and to me an argument can still be done in a civil manner. I see you feel the same way and you seem like a nice person, so I trust the reverse is true and that you are not taking offense at any point I make. We can agree to disagree agreeably.

    About judges: I believe we are on the same page with judicial activism but that only makes my case for Shivo. At the end of the day, a judge overrode the Florida government and the United States Congress which had ordered the hospital to keep her alive after many nurses and friends of Shivo testified to very suspicious behavior on the part of her husband. Had Terri put something in writing before she died, that would have been another story. We must err on the side of caution. I do not believe such decisions should be left up to the doctor or to a family member. The decision is the patient’s alone and if we cannot prove her wishes we come down on the side of life. Either, way the courts should have stayed out of it, especially when the judge had such a personal euthanasia agenda. This does not contradict my belief in limited government. The idea is LIMTEiD government, not NO government. The government is there to protect life and that is one of the very few reasons for its existence in our constitution. Our forefathers were very uncomfortable with big government but naturally they knew we needed some.

    With campaign finance reform: I think it’s a stupid rule but I would rather have seen the law repealed through the legislature.

    About homosexuality and gay marriage: It is simply too complex of an issue to discuss with quickly written sound bites. That is why I invited you to read my article. The question you just asked me regarding other people’s rights is answered in the article. For me to explain again would be to basically retype the whole thing. I know it would be time consuming on your part and I totally understand if you do not have the time, but if you would like to read my article so that my case can be made in the context that a case deserves, I would be happy to talk with you about this. I.E. First see and truly understand where I am coming from. Then if you still disagree, fine.

    Take care, my friend.


  6. Post

    To Gabriella Hoffman

    I read your comment and your biography here on the Rostra. I am impressed with what you are doing at UCSD. I did ministry at UCSD for many years and my daughter graduated UCSD. I’d love to interview you on my radio show sometime. Let me know if you are interested.


  7. Bob,

    I took the time to read your article and I will try to reply to your points:

    “All we ask is that they not force the rest of us to change our own definition of marriage. If they are entitled to their view of marriage, we are also entitled to ours.” Unfortunately, your view of marriage doesn’t accept that they are even married. The reverse is not true. Take the analogy of the Israeli-Arab situation. I have always taken the side of the Israelis because were the Arabs to lay down their weapons there would be peace. The Israelis have accepted the Arabs’ rights: obviously the reverse is not true. Likewise, you have not accepted that homosexuals should have all the same rights that you and I have.

    “A civil union grants identical rights. There is no financial benefit denied…” This is not true especially in the case of Social Security benefits. If I were to die, my wife would collect my Social Security plus monthly payments (in our case over $3,000 per month) to care for our children. For the gay couple whose breadwinner died, they get nothing. Not to mention that the whole “separate but equal” was taken care of sixty years ago.

    The effect on children: I agree that the ideal environment for a child to be raised would be with a loving mother and a loving father. Unfortunately, more than half of the children in this country are not being raised in such an environment. Understanding that, I would choose two loving dads or two loving moms over a single parent or two abusive heterosexual parents any day.

    The Legal Effect: “I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. ” Are Catholic Churches required to perform Jewish weddings? Does a Jewish Temple have to perform Christian weddings? This argument is the reddest of red herrings. Having read some of your other posts, I would have expected better from you.

    The Psychological Effect: “Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal…” Says who? As you pointed out, since 1973 the American Psychiatry Association has disagreed with that viewpoint. I know, you claim they were pressured into that viewpoint – a standard response when an actual authority on the subject disagrees with you. It would be helpful if you could point to any reputable scientific study done in the last quarter-century that supports your position.

    I almost forgot: The point of my original comment was to voice my opinion that we would be much better off as a society if our elected officials were willing to see both sides of an issue and not simply have a knee-jerk response to all they are responsible for deciding. I still hold strong to that opinion although I do agree that on some issues, it is hard to find that gray area.

  8. Post

    Alger, Here are my responses too your points:

    “Unfortunately, your view of marriage doesn’t accept that they are even married.”

    I am still entitled to my view as an American citizen who is supposedly guaranteed freedom of religion and speech. And as I said in my article, gay marriage is a step toward no longer allowing my viewpoint. In any event, if my church would not marry a gay couple, other liberal churches still do regardless of the legal status. And so, this is about the Left seeking new laws forcing me to change my definition of marriage.

    On this note, you did not respond to the way children are being taught in schools, a teaching emboldened by gay marriage becoming the law of the land. Should parents be allowed to be in control of what their children are taught? Are these not also important rights? Sometimes rights are in tension with other rights. At that point, we leave it up to a democracy, not the courts, to decide how to find as fair and sensible of a compromise as possible.
    “This is not true especially in the case of Social Security benefits. “ (Regarding civil union identical rights)

    Civil Unions are presently a state by state thing. Social Security gets us into the Federal. I would have no problem with gay couples receiving Social Security benefits as I do not believe it is the government’s business to tell us what we can or cannot do with our own money so for me this is tan gentle. In my article, I was commenting on the state situations. And again, even many gay activists said civil unions were all they needed ten years ago so evidently they themselves saw them as offering equal benefits. Their concerns had to do with hospital visitation rights, etc. Now they have changed their tune.

    “Not to mention that the whole “separate but equal” was taken care of sixty years ago.”

    I find that a disingenuous comparison and one many African-Americans find insulting. African Americans in record numbers helped to vote in Proposition 8 and many African American leaders spoke at Pro Proposition 8 conferences. I had the privilege of interviewing one such pastor on my radio show. He would be the first to remind you that there is a difference between a behavior/lifestyle and a race.

    ”The effect on children: I agree that the ideal environment for a child to be raised would be with a loving mother and a loving father. Unfortunately, more than half of the children in this country are not being raised in such an environment. Understanding that, I would choose two loving dads or two loving moms over a single parent or two abusive heterosexual parents any day.”

    You are bi-passing the point I made. I said we were comparing HEALTHY two parent families. The “abuse wild card” is irrelevant to the argument I offered.

    ”The Legal Effect: “I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. ” Are Catholic Churches required to perform Jewish weddings? Does a Jewish Temple have to perform Christian weddings? This argument is the reddest of red herrings. “

    Not so. Not even close. The lawsuits are already starting to happen, Alger. I gave an example which you did not respond to. As for the idea of predicting it will get worse, I based that upon the militant gay agenda, an agenda that I also authenticated with sources. You did not respond to that either.

    ”The Psychological Effect: “Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal…” Says who? As you pointed out, since 1973 the American Psychiatry Association has disagreed with that viewpoint. I know, you claim they were pressured into that viewpoint – a standard response when an actual authority on the subject disagrees with you.”

    You may want to re-read what I wrote. I mentioned a psychiatrist who was actually there, Dr. Socorades and for the record, gay activist psychiatrists who participated in the 1973 DSM3 admit to just exactly what went on. Dr. Ronald Beyer would be one such example.

    “ It would be helpful if you could point to any reputable scientific study done in the last quarter-century that supports your position.”

    I provided that also. Again, you did not respond to it.

    Alger, my primary point was that this is a free speech issue. Do you want to see the day when thought police tell us what we are allowed to speak or allowed to believe? Even Tami Bruce, a self professed lesbian, wrote a book called The Thought Police, out of concern for this militant gay agenda. Of course she is for gay marriage, but the freedom of speech problem coming from the left is one she fully acknowledges. While relishing her own freedom, she does not want to see freedom taken away from others.

    I take a break from writing on Tuesdays and I have new articles to write so feel free to respond but I will have to get back to you when I can. When I find myself doing this much writing in a comment section I feel I could just as easily have spent that time creating a whole new article. That is why I generally prefer oral and not literary debate. I made an exception with you because of the importance of this issue. Again, you are welcome to come on the radio to discuss this with me any time. That is not meant as any kind of provocative challenge, merely a sincere invitation.

  9. Bob,

    Your overriding point seems to be that there is a militant homosexual agenda and if we don’t stop it here, it will eventually corrupt our children and make being heterosexual or at least Christian, into the equivalent a crime. I won’t deny that there are some who might want that, but just because LA Raza exists does not give us the right to discriminate against Hispanics. The existence of the Black Panthers did not make the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s any less legitimate. And the fact that there is a Playboy channel doesn’t mean those who think that is pornographic should try to ban all cable t.v.

    As for the free speech issue, you have the right to say and believe anything you want. However, I don’t believe you should have the right to force others to live in a way that conforms to your beliefs. The Jewish people believe that eating pork is wrong. No Jews that I know are trying to deny you your bacon and eggs breakfast. Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast commercials do not seem to be corrupting their children. Mormons don’t drink alcohol or caffeine. Again, I have never had a Mormon tell me to throw away my cocktail. I also haven’t heard any complaints about the beer commercials corrupting their children.

    If you are really only against the “militant” part of gay rights, then you should fight that battle. Your church should, and does, have the right to not marry any couple you want. “Mommy” and “Daddy” are certainly still acceptable words in the public school my children go to. But if you are worried about those issues, then fight them.

    I will know you are sincere when I see you write article in favor of civil unions and demanding that gay couples receive Social Security benefits. Until then, we are too far apart on this issue to find much common ground although I think we found some. I appreciate your invitation to go on your show, but my weekends are jealously guarded for spending time with my children so I will simply let you have the last word. Thank you for allowing me this much space to express my views.

  10. Post
  11. What I am picking up from Alger is that he thinks that gay marriage rights are a matter of civil rights and they are being unfairly with-held. Did I state that correctly? If so, I will be glad to respond.

  12. Well, equal rights imply a few things. So let’s start here: Marriage is not being withheld from gay people, they simply must marry heterosexually. Do you think that is unfair? What makes a woman or man gay anyway? How can you tell they are truly gay? IE, what distinguishes them as a class of people discriminated against? I know the question sounds rather stupid, but it is important to our discussion.

  13. Ms. Paulk:

    Your calm, reasoned posts are a fresh breeze.

    The repeated analogy to the 1960s Civil Rights
    struggle rightly infuriated many Black voters in
    California, who then provided the margin of Prop.
    8’s victory in 2008.

    There is NO analogy between 3 centuries of slavery,
    and the marriage law’s effect on a class of citizens
    with above-average income and education levels.

  14. So the next series of questions are really relevant to our discussion too.

    But as an aside, no one in the gay rights movement has truly defined who exactly is a homosexual. Don’t you think that is kind of strange? It seems a simple thing to me, but that’s my view. I could give you my definition, but what theirs is really important.

    Okay, moving on whether Alger answers those questions or not … even if we knew exactly what defined a gay person, does it matter if it is changeable or not? Although it seems that the gay rights movement is banking on it mattering and that they can shut down dissenters to that voice, they have not produced convincing evidence. Instead, they label others who say something they don’t like. And, I’m not even talking about with the ex-gay community, but within their own. If a gay writer discusses the potential of change and is even mourning it, they are shunned. It doesn’t fit with a winning political message, so the communicator is abandoned. Interesting. But there has been evidence that the gay community has disparate views on changeability. (OUT editorials, etc.)

    We could go on in that vein, but there is something much more important to consider. Even if gay people were born that way, is a gay relationship a good building block for US society? Is it desirable? Is it a good goal and something to shoot for?

    Alger suggested that a gay couple would be a better choice than say a single parent. An interesting assertion that must mean he doesn’t know many single parents. I have known many single parents–both men and women–who have become single for a couple of reasons, death of a spouse or divorce. In either case, they are incredible, self-sacrificing, credible (worn-out) single parents that I can respect. But what is the ideal–single parenthood?

    Afterall, isn’t it clear that children originate very naturally out of a committed male-female love relationship, usually called marriage for the first 200+ years of our country? Is it just old fashioned to call that the gold standard of relationship? I think not. It is the standard and there is something quite beautiful about it, not cave-like (breeders), but majestic along the lines of Gone with the Wind or Pride and Prejudice. I know those are just movies, but they make the heart soar because they appeal to what we know is wonderful.

    Why are so many ready to trash it for a way of life that just 20 years ago, men and women proclaimed, “I didn’t want to be like this, but I couldn’t fight the gay feelings anymore. Who would choose to be gay?” Is that our standard for human relationships? Do we choose the lesser?

    No offense to any particular person in a homosexual relationship or who desires a homosexual relationship. It’s not about that, but if we chose to redefine marriage, it will certainly impact our and the next generations in the US and around the world. It already has impacted our country. Because of civil unions between gay partners, a little 7-year old girl has been court ordered in Vermont to a former gay partner’s custody. No, not for lack of competence of the biological mother. No, not because of long-landing relationship with her ex-mother(?). Instead, because of the biological mother not following orders for unsupervised visitation.

    When we mess with marriage, we create a HUGE mess. Let’s stick with the gold standard. And all of this from a former homosexual. We know what is right, let’s stick with it.

  15. The appropriate analogy is to inter-racial marriage. As recently as 60 years ago, everyone was allowed to marry as long as they married someone from their own race. Then, like now, the majority of the people believed the law to be fair and reasonable and the arguments for maintaining those laws were chillingly familiar to the arguments being used now to deny many homosexuals the right to marry the person they love.

  16. Dear Alger,

    If inter-racial marriage is the “right” analogy–in your mind–what is the definitive definition of homosexuals? Each race clearly has demarkations, a geneological line that is followed. And, in this case, races involve one woman and one man from different races. Let’s take this down to the simple understanding versus sound bites intended to sway the middle vote. Prove it. Be convincing. I will gladly read it.

  17. Anne,

    Actually races do not have clear demarkations although we used to consider anyone who had any non-caucasian lineage whatsoever to be “colored.” Since my wife is hispanic and I am caucasian, what race would you assign to my children? This is the problem with trying to put labels on people, but since you asked I will try to answer your question: A homosexual is someone who is romantically and sexually attracted to members of the same gender.

  18. Alger,

    Just wondering, if you are calling me a “racist,” because of not agreeing with gay marriage. It’s kind of a jump that is hard to follow. Races do not have … I’m not talking about physical characteristics, but unique qualities. Generational heritage, cultural heritage that was passed down the generations. That’s an aside really to your inter-racial marriage comments through out this dialogue. Homosexuals are just another race? How do they compare?

    You defined homosexual. Does that include Anne Heche’s type of experience? Is she a homosexual? She was involved with Ellen Degeneres, but left her for a man. What about men involved with other men because of sex addiction? You see there are such a variety of people who are involved with someone of the same gender sexually for a variety of reasons. Do they qualify or does it matter? If it doesn’t matter what the season, reason or pattern of behavior that qualifies for marriage, marriage becomes nothing at all culturally. Is that what our nation wants? Is that what you want?

    A study in New England was published a while back, initiated by gay researchers about the gay community. They sought to answer the perception that gay relationships were transient in nature with a more solid and hopeful answer. But what they found was that instead of the long-term committed relationships they wanted to show, the best long-term average was 5 years. They had to add the caveat of an inexclusive sexually long-term relationship. Shall we downgrade marriage to that?

  19. Anne,

    Please cite that study. I would be interested in reading it. I do wonder though whether homosexual relationships would have a better chance of lasting if they were legally accepted the same as a heterosexual relationship.

    I can’t even begin to understand your point about Anne Heche. Yes, there are people that are bi-sexual (attracted sexually and romantically to people of both genders). So what?

    Are you saying that a gay person should not be allowed to make a life-time committment to the person they love with all the same rights and responsibilities (including the title) that came with the committment I made when I married my wife or I assume you made when you married your husband?

  20. Just curious, why do you compare interracial with the bonding of two people of the same gender? There are very different elements that build very different outcomes.

    I’m saying it is not okay to change marriage. Male-female marriage is very different from same-sex sexual relationships. Period. They are not the same. No one stops a gay person from their relationship, but to redefine marriage is beyond belief. It is not acceptable. Our country does not accept that change by and large either.

    Obviously this is of personal importance to you. I have shared that I came out of homosexuality and am married now. What is your bias?

  21. My bias is simply one of a person who believes in equal rights. I am straight, have always been straight and I don’t expect that to change.

    You are correct that allowing gay marriage would change the definition of marriage, but the definition of marriage has been changed repeatedly through the years. As I have pointed out, it was only recently (from a historical perspective), that it became legal for a man of one race to marry a woman of another. Before that, marriage was reserved (or at least socially accepted) as a union of a man and a woman of the same socio-economic class. Before that, only if arranged by the parents, before that only from the same tribe, etc. Many of the arranged marriages were nothing more than a family using a young daughter as a payment of a debt.

    I only use the inter-racial example to point out that the arguments made to ban those marriages are very similar to the arguments made to ban gay marriage. “It is unnatural.” “It will be harmful to the children.” “Our Church will be sued if we refuse to perform the ceremony.” “It is against the teachings of the bible.”

    To your credit, I haven’t heard you make those arguments, but I wonder why you can’t take the next step and allow homosexuals to have the same freedoms that heterosexuals do. I hope your argument is not based on an ability to procreate. If that were the case, we would have to ban anyone past the age of child-bearing years from marrying as well as anyone found to be infertile.

    Perhaps just like the person who quit smoking is usually the worst critic of smokers, you also have a reason to be the homosexuals’ worst critic. I would hope you could re-think the pain your position causes to others.

  22. Well, I am not using those arguments, though some of them are excellent if clearly communicated, but I don’t think you realize the significant error in your own argument.

    I don’t think there is any way what so ever to equate inter-racial marriage that may have been frowned or prohibited earlier with same gender marriage. Male-female relationships are so very different, than same-gender relationships (homosexual). I am not convinced you have any real argument that homosexual relationships are a desirable addition to marriage.

    As I said before, heterosexual marriage has been the “gold standard” for love relationships for the history of our nation and most, if not all other nations up until now. The two relationship types cannot have “equal rights” because they themselves are not equal. And I am causing pain to others? That is ridiculous to me. Arguing for what is good and valuable? They can argue for themselves, I am entitled to speak my mind as well. They are a well-funded, powerful group of people. I am not worried that I am hurting their feelings.

    This is not a personal argument. This is about what is good for our country. I know of many gay people and have friends that are gay, but it’s not about them. Marriage is between two opposite gendered people and is of value to more than the two individuals themselves. This is a big issue and our positions are simply at odds. Apparently, you think there is room to adjust the essense of marriage. I do not.


    Anne Paulk

  23. Alger,

    You asked for the reference to the study I mentioned. Dr. David McWhirter, who was gay himself, co-authored the study about gay couples. I believe it was published in 1984. I bet you could find everything you want to know by googling his name. Since then much has been studied and written about homosexuality, I cover a great deal of the major studies in the second chapter of my book, Restoring Sexual Identity. Good luck with your own research. I hope you can keep an open mind too.

    Sincerely and signing out,

    Anne Paulk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.