The good folks at the Tennessean have put together a spread with varying opinions on the issue of adoption in the state of Tennessee.  The debate centers on legislation offered by Sen. Paul Stanley and Rep. John DeBerry.  

You can read my piece here and if you look to the right, you’ll see links to opposing views as well as reader views that were published as part of the debate.

Forsaking the best interest of children, not only have we culturally caved to the desires of adults but we’ve enshrined such narcissism in law.

Sen. Paul Stanley and Rep. John DeBerry seek to undo damaging policies by wisely offering to restrict adoption to married couples.

Again, you can read the rest here.

Limiting me to 500 words was a challenge!  Thanks to the Tennessean for the opportunity to express my opinion!   I encourage you to thank them as well for including a host of perspectives.  

Senator Stanley’s website is here.

If you agree with Senator Stanley and Rep. DeBerry’s legislation as I do, be sure to write or call your them or your own State Rep. or Senator.

 

**Below are some of the links for resource materials I used, though not all.  I will try to go back and retrieve the links from some of the information that I printed out and some from my NFI sourcebook.  

 

Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, and A., Wadsworth, J., Sexual Behaviour in Britain: The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, London: Penguin Books, 1994, p. 116; Steinhaiser, J., ‘No marriage, no apologies’, New York Times, 6 July 1995.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs04.pdf

Marital status was the strongest predictor of abuse—ahead of race, 

age, education or housing conditions—to emerge from data examined 

by an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services in 

1994. This revealed how unmarried women were three to four times 

more likely to be physically abused by their boyfriends while pregnant 

than married women by their husbands.19 Confirming earlier findings, 

the US National Family Violence Resurvey showed that almost 35 out 

of every 100 cohabiting couples experienced a physical assault during 

the previous year, compared to 15 per 100 married couples and 20 per 

100 dating couples. Moreover, cohabiting couples had the highest rates 

for each of the three specific types of violence, involving women only, 

men only and both partners. For example, in 18 out of every 100 

cohabiting couples, both were violent, double the rate for dating and 

married couples.

 

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=175008

 

The findings show that there are proportionally more offenders coming from families of cohabiting couples than from families of married couples. Also, there are proportionately more offenders who become recidivists coming from families of cohabiting couples than of married couples. Finally, the family environments of the majority of offenders were marked by instability, low integration, hostile parental attitudes, domestic violence, parental conflicts, and parental indifference. 8 tables and 41 references

 

 

 

• Cohabitation provides far less benefits than Marriage

    Although cohabitation is now becoming the main trend and is accepted in most social groups in Britain, a careful review of the available social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good way to prepare for a happy life. What’s more, it shows that the rise in cohabitation is not a positive family trend. Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose clear dangers for the society. Specifically, the research indicates that:

1. Living together before marriage increases the risk of divorce. One study found an increased risk of 46%.
2. Living together outside marriage increases the risk of domestic violence for women and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children. One study found that the risk of domestic violence for women in cohabiting relationships was double that in married relationships; the risk is even greater for child abuse. The chart below shows the bad effect it has on cohabiters’ children.⁹

^{http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:iLsmLy2NGR4J:www1.gdufs.edu.cn/jwc/bestcourse/kecheng/11/shijian/class9paper/0911%25B3%25C2%25CF%25FE%25C1%25E1.doc+Berthoud,+R.+and+Gershuny,+J.,+editors,+Seven+Years+in+the+Lives+of+British+Families,+London:+The+Policy+Press,+2000,+p.+40.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari}

 

 

 

Source: Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J., editors, Seven Years in the Lives of British Families, London: The Policy Press, 2000, p. 40.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php

 

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm

 

Cohabiting couples were nearly eight times more likely to separate due to discord than married couples in the first year of a relationship. Cohabiting couples were nearly four times more likely to separate in the second year and three times more likely to separate in the third year. Cohabiting couples had a separation rate five times that of married couples, and following separation, cohabiting couples had a rate of reconciliation that was one-third that of married couples.
Sample or Data Description
Data come from the Intergenerational Panel Study of Parents and Children. The mothers in the study were interviewed eight times between 1962 and 1992. The children were interviewed between 1985 and 1993, when they were aged 18, 23, and 31. The analytic sample consists of 800 children from the study who were cohabiting or married by age 31 in 1993.
Source
“Separations, Reconciliations, and Living Apart in Cohabiting and Marital Unions”
Binstock, Georgina
Thornton, Arland
Journal of Marriage and Family Vol. 65, Number 2. May, 2003. Page(s) 432-443.
FindingID: 5327

 

http://www.familyfacts.org/findingdetail.cfm?finding=5327

 

http://www.familyfacts.org/topten/topten_0702.cfm

 

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/2/5/6/p242562_index.html

 

Strohm, C. Q. , 2008-07-31 “A Longitudinal Analysis of Same-Sex and Other-Sex Unions Throughout Young Adulthood” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA Online <PDF>. 2009-02-02 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p242562_index.html

 

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: Goals. Same-sex unions are the subject of vigorous debate, but demographic research on these couples is sparse and largely consists of static comparisons. In this paper, I study the formation and dissolution of same-sex cohabiting unions, other-sex unmarried cohabiting unions, and other-sex marriages in a dynamic perspective. I compare the incidence, timing, and duration among union types. I also assess the relationships among socioeconomic position, family background, and the probability of entering and exiting each union type.   Data and Methods. I analyze data from the 1970 British Cohort Study (n = 11,520), a prospective cohort study that contains complete relationship histories from ages 16-34. I create life tables and conduct event history analysis to describe differences in the demography among the couple types.   Results. By age 34, just over one percent of the cohort had ever entered a same-sex union, whereas about half the cohort had ever married and about three-fourths of the cohort had ever cohabited with a partner of the other sex. Similar factors, such as high levels of education and not being enrolled in school, predicted entry into all unions. Marriage was the most stable union type: compared to marriages, the risk of dissolution was 7.5 times higher for other-sex cohabiting couples, 6.8 times higher for male same-sex cohabiting couples, and 5.0 times higher for female same-sex cohabiting couples. Interestingly, male same-sex cohabiting couples had a dissolution risk that was 1.6 times greater than the risk for female same-sex cohabiting couples.

 

http://www.niu.edu/lgbt/resourcecenter/awards/josephharry/index.shtml

 

 

Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984) 

 

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/lovemarriage/love4.htm

 

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/NMP2008CohabitationReport.pdf

 

A recent article that reviewed long-term studies from Sweden, Israel, and the U.K. 

as well as the United States, and published in a Scandinavian pediatric journal, con- 

cluded that children who lived with both a mother and a father had significantly 

fewer behavioral and psychological problems than those who lived with their mother 

only.49on child wellbeing

 

 

Anna Sarkadi, R. Kristiansson, F. Overklaid, S. Bremberg, “Fathers’ involvement and 

children’s development al outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies,” Acta 

Paediatrica 92-2 (2008): 153-158 

 

 

 

Anna Sarkadi, R. Kristiansson, F. Overklaid, S. Bremberg, “Fathers’ involvement and 

children’s development al outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies,” Acta 

Paediatrica 92-2 (2008): 153-158 

 

 

http://www.narth.com/docs/byrdtestimony.pdf  Testimony re: the need for both Mother AND Father

 

http://www.divorcedex.com/divorce/Cohabitation-191.shtml

http://research.lawyers.com/Tennessee/Divorce-in-Tennessee.html

 

These individuals were followed for mortality through use of the National Death Index for the years 1979 through 1989. RESULTS. Higher mortality was found in Blacks than in Whites less than 65 years of age; in persons not in the labor force, with lower incomes, with less education, and in service and other lower level occupations; and in persons not married and living alone. With occasional exceptions, in specific sex and age groups, these relationships were reduced but remained strong and statistically significant when each variable was adjusted for all of the other characteristics.

 

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/7/949