Souped-Up Agenda


Campbell Soup Company Embraces Homosexual Agenda

This information is from the American Family Association —–Beetle Blogger

Send an email to Campbell Soup Company President Douglas Conant. Tell him you want his company to stop supporting the gay agenda.

December 19, 2008

Dear Friend,

In the December, 2008 and January, 2009 issues, Campbell Soup Company bought two, two-page advertisements in the latest issues of the nation’s largest homosexual magazine, “The Advocate.” The ads promote their Swanson line of broth.

In one of the December ads, the Campbell Soup Company highlighted the lives of two lesbians (according to their website, they are married) with their son. The others feature New York City chefs. See the ads here.

Campbell Soup Company has openly begun helping homosexual activists push their agenda. Not only did the ads cost Campbell’s a chunk of money, but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support. They also gave their approval to the entire homosexual agenda.

Take Action!

  • Send an email to Campbell Soup Company President Douglas Conant. Tell him you want his company to stop supporting the gay agenda.
  • After sending your email, please call Campbell Soup Company (800-257-8443) and their Swanson division (1-800-442-7684) and ask the company to remain neutral in the culture war.
  • Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Campbell’s support of the gay agenda.



  1. December 20, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Thanks Beetle

    I’ve sent my email.

    I’ll link to you.

    Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent. Reference

  2. { Lisa } said,

    December 20, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Yes thanks I sent one out as well and I will also link to you.

  3. December 21, 2008 at 1:34 am

    LOL – keep paying our federal taxes. I sincerely hope everyone who is AGAINST Marriage Equality will enjoy paying my federal taxes from now on; I stopped in 2005.

    Two American Myths:
    * Equal Protection Under the Law
    * Separation of Church & State

    The National Equality Tax Protest will be on Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

  4. rubyeliot said,

    December 21, 2008 at 1:39 am

    This is my favorite part of the ad:

    This holiday season, serve a special meal no matter the size and structure of your family. The secret is Swanson.

    Since when do we use the word “structure” when discussing family christmas traditions?

  5. liberty belle said,

    December 21, 2008 at 5:46 am

    It’s surprising how many companies are willing to set aside their customer base in order to appeal to the fringe few.

  6. James R. said,

    December 21, 2008 at 5:48 am

    It’s because they think the masses won’t care. If they did care, Campbells’ Soup might pull a McDonald’s and retreat.

  7. beetlebabee said,

    December 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

    John, how does that help?

  8. Rick said,

    December 21, 2008 at 10:23 am

    I used your email link to send my protest. It was easy enough. For those who haven’t done it yet there is a form letter that you can change the words if you wish.

  9. Zoey said,

    December 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Great post Beetle.

    And John: this post has nothing to do with separation of church and state but just to be clear- The 1st Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
    Note: No mention of a ‘separation of church and state’. That phrase originated from an 1803 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that the United States would never declare a state religion.

  10. rubyeliot said,

    December 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    BB– I hope you put the link to your blog post in your email

  11. Lori said,

    December 21, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    This is absolutely amazing. But I suppose nothing should be surprising anymore. Beetle, thank you for posting this. I will comment further on my own blog… and the beat goes on, and on, and on!

  12. December 21, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    […] We can not sit back and be hushed, even with these large companies joining the war. Thank you to Beetle Blogger for posting this vital information and link to write to Campbell’s Soup Co. and ask them to […]

  13. beetlebabee said,

    December 22, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Pomegranate Apple wrote about this also, her post is here:

    Who cares about a soup company? Why write about this?

    The idea that is being put forth by Campbell’s Soup about families being any random sex and count of people who proclaim love—is one that is not accepted by society at large, as is evidenced by the proposition 8 win in California recently. Random numbers and sexes of adults are not the accepted definition of marriage. One man, one woman is.

    If the majority of citizens sits back and allows this kind of redefinition to take place in the corporate world unimpeded, the perceived normal for society will change, and laws with it. That is what we’re working against for the precise reason that families with a mom and a dad are the ideal situation for raising children—and no other.

  14. cwredden said,

    December 23, 2008 at 6:52 am

    Wow, I’m glad I stumbled upon this – I’ll have to make sure I send Campbell’s a letter telling them how POSITIVE I think their contribution is and how I’ll be sure to purchase their brands in the future. Need to get this out to those interested in the OTHER side of the argument =)

    You folks that think the majority should decide on the rights of minorities would do well to re-think that stance. Would Nazi era Germans have voted for equal rights for Jews? How about antebellum Southerners voting to free their African slaves? Yeah not so much. I DO believe everyone is entitled to their opinions but said opinions should not be used to legislate the equal rights afforded by the Constitution.

    And really, let’s get over the whole, ‘marriage has ALWAYS been about 1 man and 1 woman’ – Just look at Abraham, he slept with his servant when he found out that his beloved wife Sarah was not capable of bearing children. Or how about Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon as well as the kings of Judah and Israel—all these were polygamists – so it really is hard to swallow that marriage has ALWAYS been 1 man, 1 woman….don’tcha think?

    Even Jesus was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. His apostle Paul, who was also single, saw marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to control their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says Paul, which has to be one of, if not THE, most lukewarm endorsements of marriage ever uttered.

    So, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no intelligent, modern person wants marriage, theirs or anyone’s, to look anything like what the Bible describes.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone!!

    Side note: A running joke in the gay/lesbian community is the constant use of the term “Gay AGENDA”….most of us don’t have a copy of said agenda and we really appreciate you telling us what’s in the document. Thanks!

  15. rubyeliot said,

    December 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Crwedden, you are welcome to support any company you want. for whatever reason.

    Campbell’s soup is not about rights. Campbell’s soup has no influence on government recognition of any kind of marriage.

    The concern (the AFA’s goal is to send letters, it says nothing about boycott) is with the normalization of a family “structure” which is not the best for children.

    I don’t think any one on this forum wants discrimination against same-gender couples. The concern is for children. And the rights you listed on the other post, may be inconvenient, but they are not essential (or fundamental). The purposes of these benefits for married couples is to encourage children having a mom and a dad.

    I think something should be done to protect alternative families, either to make access to some of the benefits easier or to provide more benefits in the first place, but I think marriage has privileges for a reason: it’s the best situation for children, and thus for the society they belong to.

  16. cwredden said,

    December 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm


    Thank you for your response. Do you really want to get into the semantics behind ANY number of AFA’s “goals” – we can split hairs *shrug* I don’t mind.

    As far as children go, you would be happy to know that I’m a proud father and grandfather =) but, I do not believe that heterosexual couples have the market cornered on what is/is not healthy for children.

    Can you give me any examples where same sex parent(s) have murdered, abused or neglected their children? I couldn’t find any when I did some research for that post – I’m always up for looking at both sides of the issue. I mean adoption agencies/orphanages around the country – nay the world would argue that children are being given up or taken away – are you saying that some unwanted child would be better of living without ANY family than a same sex couple that could provide love, security, etc for that child? (Not to put words in your mouth or anything)

  17. { Lisa } said,

    December 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm


    all the examples given in the bible are of male and female being together in relation to marriage, the only story with gays is the one where the whole city is destroyed for the homosexual acts they were involved in.

    ps. the real reason gays hate themslves is not because everyone else hates them but because deep down they know its wrong. otherwise murderers, rapists and pedophiles would hate themselves too.

  18. rubyeliot said,

    December 23, 2008 at 8:54 pm


    Thanks also for your reply. It’s not good logic to conclude that same-gender parents are equal to married opposite gender parents because you haven’t found anything in your research to show that same-gender parents kill or abuse their children. (the link you give is only opinion and web-based search. however, the results are expected because same-gender parents haven’t been around long and represent a tiny tiny sample of the population.)

    I didn’t say anything about same-gender couples adopting older orphaned children. (Although, I don’t think they should adopt infants. This may offend you, but I don’t want to strip a child of a right to a mom and a dad when there are plenty of opposite-sex married couples available for adoption.)

    Married, opposite sex parents are the best for children. They do have the market cornered on their children developing the best socially, emotionally, etc. There are TONS of studies to prove this. (go here to start

    Kids need a mom and dad. Both contribute in special ways to a child’s development. The dangers of children growing up without dads has become more apparent as more and more children suffer the results of divorce, out of wedlock marriage etc.

    I understand frustration from an adult same-gender parent. They say, why can’t I have a baby? But a child’s natural and biological right to a mom and a dad is more important to me as a voting citizen (and a consumer…p.s. i don’t know about the AFA’s “goals,” but the letter says nothing about not buying campbell’s soup)

    The focus of the campbell soup ad is not to explain how the couple adopted (did they even adopt their son?), the focus is to portray an untraditional family as normal. I object. Children need a mom and a dad. Society should do everything they can to encourage this situation.

    you may also be interested in this conversation over at opine editorials, they discuss this issue in greater depth.
    there are several interesting threads (look at the comments):
    fathers and divorce
    Same gender parenting v opposite gender parenting
    donor dads discussion which leads to same-gender parenting discussion

  19. cwredden said,

    December 24, 2008 at 5:22 pm


    I just have to address your comments.

    “all the examples given in the bible are of male and female being together in relation to marriage,” So with regards to ‘what the Bible says’ that would lead, I’m hoping incorrectly, one to believe that you were also in favor of adultery, incest and polygamy. This based on the examples of Abraham – sleeping with his wife’s servant; Jacob sleeping with not only his wife and her sister but, their servants as well; and the various men referenced in the Bible that had MULTIPLE wives.

    “the only story with gays is the one where the whole city is destroyed for the homosexual acts they were involved in.” I would encourage you to look into the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, the one between David and Jonathan, as well as the Centurian and his Pais. I’ll be happy to provide you with the Book/Chapter/Verse information if you need it.

    “ps. the real reason gays hate themslves is not because everyone else hates them but because deep down they know its wrong. otherwise murderers, rapists and pedophiles would hate themselves too.” I’m sorry this was a bit left field for me – I assure you, I do not hate myself, quite the contrary actually. I am very proud of coming from an abusive family (both my parents were and are still married) and making my own way in the world. I am also proud that my 13 year monogamous, same-sex relationship has out lasted my two sisters multiple marriages and that I am a good human/father/friend/grandfather/co-worker. But, thank you so much for comparing me to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles – which, if you did a bit of research, you would realize are typically heterosexual men.

  20. cwredden said,

    December 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm


    Did a bit of research too. I was looking for a bit more than linkage to a single source and it seems from reading the Opine Editorials that they have a leaning towards anti SSM or SS Adoption. I was really looking for more indpendent type of info sort of like this:

    1976-SEP: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a policy statement on child custody or placement which said: “The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases.”

    1998: The Child Welfare League of America: Their Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states:
    “Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation.” Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted ‘on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.’ ”

    1998-AUG-16: American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a statement titled “Legal Benefits for Same – Sex Couples” which said, in part:
    “Whereas the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination…”;

    “Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households…”

    “Therefore, be it resolved, That APA supports the provision to same-sex couples of the legal benefits that typically accrue as a result of marriage to same-sex couples who desire and seek the legal benefits;…”

    1998-MAR-14: North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC): The NACAC issued a policy statement which states: “Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care and adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration regardless of sexual orientation or differing life style or physical appearance.”

    2000-MAY: American Psychiatric Association (APA): In their FactSHEET on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, they write:
    “Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. children raised in gay or lesbian household do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems.”

    2001-APR: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) NARTH is a very small association of therapists, social workers, religious leaders, teachers, and anyone else who is interested in supporting NARTH, regardless of whether they have academic qualifications. Unlike all of the other mental-heath association in the U.S., they promote the concept that homosexuality abnormal, unnatural and changeable. It is regarded as a “failure to function according to design.” 7 They believe that “Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex.” Consistent with this stand, they take a dim view of same-sex marriage and parenting, stating that: “[Homosexuality]… threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage–a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.” They also stated: “And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families.”

    2002-FEB-4: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The Dr. Ellen Perrin, led the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health at the AAP. They studied adoption by same-sex parents. Her prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: “We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is ‘no.’ ” Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Perrin said: “We — meaning basically the Academy of Pediatrics — felt that the research was conclusive enough when taken in its totality to support this policy.”

    An AAP news release of 2002-FEB-4 states:
    “…there is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.”

    “Coparent or second-parent adoption protects a child’s right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents in a same-sex relationship. Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning coparent or second parent adoption by partners of the same sex. But other states have not yet considered legislative action, while at least one state bans adoptions altogether by the second parent or coparent in a same sex relationship.”

    They published a technical report in the 2002-FEB issue of Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. The abstract reads:

    ABSTRACT. “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

    2002-JUN: The American Psychoanalytic Association endorsed same-sex parenting. It is the smallest of the three APA’s which also include the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. According to Focus on the Family, they have “given unqualified endorsement to homosexual adoption and parenting. The group says sexual orientation shouldn’t even be considered in legal decisions concerning parenting.” The Association’s statement says, in part: “Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child….[They should be] afforded the same rights and….responsibilities as heterosexual parents.”
    Chairperson Gary Grossman headed the committee which prepared the statement. He commented that it should “help judges, who may have their own biases for whatever reasons, to look at the evidence and listen to the professionals…”Optimally, children do better with two parents, but the gender of the parents is really not so relevant.”

    In the end though, I think this will need to be one of those ‘Agree to Disagree’ type of things as neither of us will likely agree with the other.

    I do know coming from traditional family of two parents, where I was physically abused by my father that I will never say that is preferable to a same-sex couple who never abuses their child(ren). Our son, Ian, grew up to be a wonderful human being and has a lovely wife and daughter who think the world of us.

    Merry Christmas (yeah I hate that whole PC ‘Happy Holidays’ thing) and a healthy and Happy New Year to you and your families – almost time for mine to get here for dinner!!


  21. { Lisa } said,

    December 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm


    I do know coming from traditional family of two parents, where I was physically abused by my father that I will never say that is preferable to a same-sex couple who never abuses their child(ren).

    I think you might do a bit of your own digging and look into the realtioship between gay men and having been abused by their father… There are psychological reasons why people are gay not genetic ones and there is usually trauma of some sort in their lives that makes them turn to that lifestyle.

  22. rubyeliot said,

    December 25, 2008 at 5:49 am

    Chuck, I also wish you a merry Christmas.

    Thank you for all the info. The studies those decisions are based on are still flawed (based on small sample sizes, comparing lesbian single moms to straight single moms). The APA is slightly biased, since they dropped homosexuality from its list of disorders based on a vote that did not represent a majority of its members (and pressure from gay activists).

    There are many sources that disagree with the conclusions you provided. It’s Christmas eve, so I’ll only provide two:

    1. William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005)
    “We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”

    According to this source from a magazine devoted to same-gender parenting…no one knows. I don’t want to encourage a situation in which we don’t know the outcome.

    2. American college of Pediatrics

    3. Bonus Problems with the studies

    “Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted. At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.

    Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.

    Nock concluded:
    Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that

    1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
    flaw of design or execution;

    2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

    a. No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”
    b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers
    are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).
    c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her
    parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
    d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.”

    My concern with same-gender parenting is not that children will grow up to be gay. I don’t care if people are gay.
    My concern is that children need the influence of a male and a female–preferably ones who are married and live in the same house. I would be interested to know how your son feels about the situation. Did he know his mom? Were you married and then divorced? Was he raised exclusively with you and your partner?

    It doesn’t surprise me that your son grew up to be awesome (or that he and his family adore you!). You seem like a pretty cool person. I just don’t think that your experience with your situation and your son represents the whole issue.

    I also agree that children should not be in abusive homes.

    Some abusive fathers/mothers does not equal a reason to encourage same-gender parenting (especially when the outcomes are so unknown).

  23. Troy said,

    December 25, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Good job looking things up. I haven’t had time to go through all of it so I’ll just start with what I know and discuss them one by one. I hope to find time to go through all of the data that you posted.
    The APA: I don’t trust data from the APA for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, they VOTED to determine if homosexuality was abnormal and with 1/3 voting to remove the abnormal status while under considerable duress from homosexual groups they applied one test to homosexual behavior and a different test to every other behavior so that homosexuals would not be classified as abnormal. It’s difficult for me to take a “scientific” group seriously that votes on what truth is.
    Second, they don’t post the sources of their data. There is no way to find the original data that they used to come to their conclusions. The little data that I have seen is again not scientific but contains quite a bit more interpretation that I’m comfortable with. You can find more information in some books written by folks who were involved in the 1973 decision and in a summary post by Beetle. Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

    Dr. Charles Socarides also wrote about how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

    Beetle’s post is here:

    Lastly, policy statements are necessarily an interpretation of how a group sees the world, they don’t have to be based on data, they can just be an expression of someone’s world view. I’m going to focus on the data rather than the interpretation of the data so I’ll skip the policy statements.
    1976-SEP: Policy statement, no supporting data.
    1998: The Child Welfare League of America: Their Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services: policy statement, no supporting data.
    1998-AUG-16: Policy statement, no supporting data – in this case they mention that their statement is based on data, do you have a link to the source so that I can see if they have supporting data?
    1998-MAR-14: Policy statement, no supporting data
    2000-MAY: What studies? Is there a reference to the numerous studies mentioned here?
    2001-APR: NARTH recently posted a study on the data used by the APA and others to affect public policy that debunks the idea that it is based on fact:

    I still need to look up the American Academy of Pediatrics information that you have posted. I’ll post again soon.

  24. cwredden said,

    December 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Well, I guess to each their own. But, I can safely say that I knew I was gay BEFORE my father started the abusive behavior that took place in my mid to later teens. Not to mention that homosexual behavior is very prevalent in nature – animals have no way of ‘turning gay’ by psychological reasons.

    Many gays and lesbians believe that their orientation is caused by their genes; it is normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. With the exception of one small religious association of therapists, the vast majority of human sexuality researchers and mental health therapists accept that the root cause of homosexual orientation is genetic. The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

    My apologies to the Beetle for this getting so off topic – if anyone wishes to carry this conversation further, we should probably do it off list so we don’t keep derailing the thread.

    Oh yeah IT’S CHRISTMAS!!!! Woot!!!

  25. { Lisa } said,

    December 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    I think the topic is homosexuality.

    Animals and humans are nothing alike. Animals also eat their young and the male seahorse gives birth as apposed to the mother so what? We are human beings with a soul and God gave us commandments, not animals.

    Let me ask you this. What if secular researchers and scientists said that it’s not genetic? Then what would you base it on? Because that is already happening. Its not just “one small religious association of therapists”.

    You say it’s unchangeable? What about all those that were cured from it? Would you say that it’s fake?

    One thing for sure is that God created all humans and He says that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion so why would he then make it impossible to avoid? He wouldn’t. He would not make people gay then say it is sin. People choose this behavior through whatver reasoning they need to believe.

    We are just going to have to say that you are going to believe what you want to believe and what fits your needs and wants at the moment and call it a day on this convo:)

    Merry Christmas!

  26. rubyeliot said,

    December 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Woot Woot! Thanks Chuck. Merry Christmas.

    Nobody knows what causes homosexuality. People have theories. But that’s it.

    Regardless Chuck, you are good person. No one on this earth is perfect. We all have issues. Everyone is in need of Christ. You have a merry Christmas and enjoy your family.

    We are agreed to disagree and hopefully we have both learned something in this discussion.


  27. rubyeliot said,

    December 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Speaking of Christmas!

    Merry Christmas: La Sagrada Familia

    Thanks for the discussion BB! Merry Christmas to you too! Hope you are having fun with your family also!

  28. a. mcewen said,

    December 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    I see the same thing happening here that happens on many so-called pro-family cites – bad studies about the lgbt community.

    Someone made a claim about gay parents exposing their children to AIDS and the like. This is simply not true. And the citation the person linked to shows no studies that prove this – only his opinion.

    I also read someone citing NARTH – a discredited group that also uses bad research techniques and the words of another discredited researcher (i.e. Paul Cameron).

    There is nothing wrong wiht believing that homosexuality is a sin. But there is something VERY wrong with using bad research to quantify the theory that gay parents are harmful for children.

  29. ruby said,

    December 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm


    There have been many studies submitted here. you do what many anti-traditional marriage people do: attempt to discredit through distraction. It would be helpful if you addressed the comments you take issue with by name (or number), so you can specifically address your concerns (and constructively participate).

    Someone made a claim about gay parents exposing their children to AIDS and the like. This is simply not true. And the citation the person linked to shows no studies that prove this – only his opinion.

    I believe you are referencing comment #1 (Secular Heretic):
    Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent.

    Secular Heretic does not say anything about “exposing children to AIDS.” He says that AIDS shortens the life span of a parent–opening a child to the “increased likelihood of early loss of a parent” etc.

    What he does claim is that children in same-gender households are more likely to be abused. He does not provide a reference, you are correct…perhaps you could ask him for one. He’s a regular commenter. He’ll probably respond.

    The NARTH reference was from Cwredden (comment 21). He was arguing for same gender parenting.

    Troy addressed his reference in comment 24:
    2001-APR: NARTH recently posted a study on the data used by the APA and others to affect public policy that debunks the idea that it is based on fact:

    What do you have to say about all the other research in this comment thread?

    It appears as if you weren’t really paying attention.

  30. beetlebabee said,

    December 29, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Ruby, you are completely on the ball, I am totally impressed!

  31. Pearl said,

    December 29, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Bravo, Ruby!! Thank you for clarifying misleading distractions.

  32. rubyeliot said,

    December 29, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    wow! thanks! any time.

  33. a. mcewen said,

    January 16, 2009 at 9:51 pm


    Sorry for posting so late. But it’s not distraction to point out that the majority of studies you all push about the so-called dangers of homosexuality are inaccurate.

    Also, you really didn’t address anything I said on a specific basis. What you did was throw out accusations make totally silly comments about me “not paying attention.”

  34. rubyeliot said,

    January 17, 2009 at 6:59 am


    1. You weren’t paying attention (again). I specifically addressed your misunderstanding with secular’s comment. I also specifically addressed the only studies for which you posted concerns.

    2. You’re still sticking to your “distraction” tactic. (because you don’t want to say: forgive me for interrupting the conversation so carelessly).

    3. The majority of this discussion was spent discussing the merits of children having a mom and a dad. It wasn’t the dangers of homosexuality that we were discussing, it was concerns with same-gender parenting.

    4. You need to be more specific about the inaccuracy of the studies. I asked you before: What do you have to say about the other research in this thread?

    Again, you weren’t paying attention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: