Garth McVicar links gay marriage to crime rise in NZ’—and he’s right—select committee shockingly biased

Finally, someone connects the dots; the Stuff article below reports on a submission to the same-sex-marriage select committee made by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. In part, the article says:

‘Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.’

And to be expected we get the usual biased, brain-dead liberal reporting on it. In part, this came from TV3:

“The submission sparked comments on social media, many of which poked fun.

"I was sold this marriage equality thing on the grounds that it would reduce crime - fashion crime that is," Labour MP Grant Robertson tweeted.

"The sensible sentencing trust should be banned from using the word `sensible'," another twitter user called Stu said.”

These kinds of comments are predictable coming from liberal children who simply don’t have enough grey matter to connect the dots. Well I am sorry, my dear children; not only is McVicar seldom wrong about anything regarding crime, he is right on the mark here as well. McVicar is not saying there is a direct correlation between gay marriage and murder or bank robbery, for example; he is not saying if two homosexuals get married they will automatically kill people or rob banks; he is simply saying that gay marriage will add to the existing deterioration of morality that causes crime—and he is 100% correct about that.

McVicar is simply alluding to the fact that homosexuals have emotional, instability, and infidelity issues that are not conducive for marriage and raising children. In other words, homosexual marriages serve no purpose for the enhancement of family structures. In fact they would do the opposite; they would only add to the existing crime-related problems induced by liberal policies such as no-fault divorce, solo mothers, welfare, no corporal punishment at schools, and no parental discipline at home, etc.—more on the link between homosexual marriage and crime is given in a review of the Regnerus study cited below.

Before discussing the Stuff article below, I would first like to draw your attention to just how radically biased and undemocratic the select committee is, or should I say the select commie is? It is a forgone conclusion that gay marriage will pass the select committee favourably, and gays are openly and mockingly laughing all the way to the bank on this one. Have a look at what I found on GayNZ yesterday:

“Who is on the committee?

Ruth Dyson will Chair the select committee and gay Labour MP Charles Chauvel will “sub in”, as will gay Green MP Kevin Hague – so there will be plenty of our friends on the panel!

National MP Chris Auchivinvole, who voted for the Bill in its first reading is also a sitting member of the Select Committee, as are his colleagues Eric Roy and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who voted against it.”

To have gays, who have a vested interest in gay marriage, on the select committee is abominable. I question how this is even possible.

Moving on to the Stuff article; I have highlighted parts that deserve attention and will comment on them below the article.

Stuff Article:

Lobbyist links gay marriage to crime rise in NZ’

Crime will rise if gay couples are allowed to marry, says the head of the country's victim lobby group.

Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.

"The marriage amendment bill will not benefit society at all and will ultimately have detremetal (sic) effect on crime at all levels," the submission read.

Labour MP Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is currently before a select committee, which will report to Parliament on February 28. If passed, it could see gay marriage legal by May next year.

The committee has received over 20,000 submissions on the bill.

Green MP Kevin Hague, who sits on the select committee, said after reading the vast majority of submissions, McVicar's was the only one linking crime to gay marriage.

"Although it echoes a number of submissions that say marriage has been the same way for a long time and that if you tamper with it there will be lots of unforeseen circumstances," Hague said.

He said he had not read any evidence to suggest that allowing gay people to marry would create a dysfunctional society or increase crime. "I suspect that underlying this submission is a prejudice against gay people. If you break the argument down, it is manifestly nonsensical."

McVicar's statement said that he considered the bill would be a further erosion of what he considered to be essential basic values and morals that have "stood the test of time for centuries".

"Furthermore, the bill represents a further decay and erosion of the traditional family that society has been founded on."

He said while much good work has been done recently to reduce crime and ensure better treatment of victims, the bill had the ability to destroy that good work.

Criminologist Dr James Oleson, from Auckland University, an expert in deviance, said he was not familiar with any research that would suggest homosexuals would be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

For McVicar's argument to be plausible, he said, it would have to be proved that allowing homosexuals to marry degraded morality, and that this produced more crime. "But I'm not sure that's true." The more common drivers of crime were economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction, Oleson said.

Comment:

Keven Hague: First a look at what this homosexual said: "I suspect that underlying this submission is a prejudice against gay people. If you break the argument down, it is manifestly nonsensical."

What else would you expect a homosexual to say? Would you expect him to say ‘Oh, yes, there is a lot of non-prejudiced, rational common-sense there?’

To give you an insight into just how biased this homosexual is, GayNZ reported him saying the following in response to calls for Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to be removed from the select committee:

"I believe those who are opposed to the bill are entitled to have someone on the committee who comes to it from their perspective."

Keven, how democratic of you to allow us to have ‘someone’ on the committee!

Dr James Oleson: Now look at what this guy from Auckland University, the liberal indoctrination centre of New Zealand, said: For McVicar's argument to be plausible, he said, it would have to be proved that allowing homosexuals to marry degraded morality, and that this produced more crime. "But I'm not sure that's true." The more common drivers of crime were economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction.”

Well, hello, Dr. Oleson, it has been proven. The most recent and robust peer-reviewed study of 3000 adults by Dr. Mark Regnerus “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the NewFamilyStucturesStudy” clearly highlights the link between children raised by homosexuals and lesbians and ‘the more common drivers of crime: economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction.’

Read the review; the essential points from the study:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children of homosexual parents:

• Are much more likely to have received welfare (intact biological families 17%; lesbian mothers 69%; gay fathers 57%)
• Have lower educational attainment
• Report less safety and security in their family of origin
• Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
• Are more likely to suffer from depression
• Have been arrested more often
• If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the intact biological families children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

• Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
• Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
• Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
• Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
• Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
• Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
• Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
• Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
• Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
• Use marijuana more frequently
• Smoke more frequently
• Watch TV for long periods more frequently
• Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% intact biological families; 31% lesbian mothers; 10% gay fathers). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of intact biological families, but 3 times as many of the lesbian mothers (46%) and gay fathers (52%).