Kids as Pawns in the Gay Agenda

by Pink Sherbet Photography

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

California Actively Promotes Gay Adoption Agenda at the Expense of Children

What is California doing handing children out as legitimacy prizes for gay agenda promos?  Shouldn’t they be more concerned with giving children a chance at being a part of real families?

Gender matters in child raising.  Homes with single parents or same-sex parents are not equipped to give a child the same things homes with a loving mother and father could.

The American College of Pediatricians says that homosexual parenting is sadly less than ideal for children:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

So, if there’s no equal substitute for a real family, why are we giving children away to gay couples?  And why is California pushing the issue and giving money it doesn’t have to promote the gay agenda?

Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions

hrccampaign1

SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

In April 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed John Wagner as director of the Department of Social Services. Wagner is openly “gay” and is an advisory member of the Human Rights Campaign.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.

“At a time when the state doesn’t have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it’s a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda,” he said.

The Campaign for Children and Families cited a 2001 University of Southern California “study of studies” on raising children in same-sex families titled, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The campaign includes the following discoveries by sociology professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Blibarz on its website:

  • A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
  • Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
  • Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Thomasson said children are more likely to experience healthy childhoods when they are raised by loving heterosexual parents.

“When the facts confirm that children do best with a married father and mother, there is no reason other than selfishness for anyone to advocate placing vulnerable children into these sexually confused and sexually charged environments.”

Kids deserve a home with a mom and a dad and a chance at normalcy.  Children are not prizes or pawns in to be used in pushing the gay agenda on society, so why is our government exposing children to social experimentation?

–Beetle Blogger

42 Comments

  1. jonolan said,

    February 9, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    While I agree that a heterosexual family is much better for the children than a homosexual family would be, I wonder about whether a permanent homosexual family might be better for the children than a series of orphanages – oh sorry, group homes – or foster families.

    If you include minority children, we have more – many more actually – children up for adoption than we have heterosexual adoptive couples.

    Is “not as good” so bad when compared to real-world alternatives?

  2. beetlebabee said,

    February 9, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    That’s a good question, but if homosexual parenting becomes an accepted norm, those “families” would be given equal footing with real families. That does two things, first, it legitimizes the gay agenda and blurs the line even further between what constitutes a real family and what doesn’t. It also takes away the opportunity for those children to be given to real families. You can imagine a scenario where a child would be given to a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual couple based on some idea of equality for the parents instead of equality for the children, and that isn’t right.

    There are many problems with the child welfare system, but handing children out to homosexuals is not the answer.

  3. jonolan said,

    February 9, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    “There are many problems with the child welfare system, but handing children out to homosexuals is not the answer.”

    Maybe, maybe not – to my mind at least. A Homosexual permanent family seems better to me than no family or stability. Yet, not favoring heterosexual families seems wrong as well.

  4. February 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    Have you read the metastudy? It’s an interesting read. An appropriate quote:

    Thus, while we disagree with those who claim that there are no differences between the children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbigay parents, we unequivocally endorse their conclusion that social
    science research provides no grounds for taking sexual orientation into account in the political distribution of family rights and responsibilities.

    And, with no hint of sarcasm, I provide the following, virtually prophetic quote:

    We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity. In a homophobic world,
    anti-gay forces deploy such results to deny parents custody of their own children and to fuel backlash movements opposed to gay rights.

    The study is here. If you want to, you can turn it into a drinking game. Take a shot every time some variant on the term “heterosexist” is used.

  5. February 10, 2009 at 3:53 am

    modus:

    In a homophobic world, anti-gay forces deploy such results to deny parents custody of their own children and to fuel backlash movements opposed to gay rights.

    This is an interesting quote for several reasons. 1) It presupposes a “homophobic” world that does not exist. If it did, we would not have gay leaders of state, country, and business, all without public outcry or derision. We may not like their choice of sexuality, but we still see them as people, capable of doing their jobs. The term “anti-gay” reinforces this false stereotype. 2) This quote suggests a scenario that exist only in the minds of fear-mongering gay activists: I know of exactly NO instances of people trying to remove children from their natural-born parents that are gay, and especially NONE where the motive is the sexuality of the parent. 3) Gays are currently asserting “rights” that have been hitherto nonexistent, and that, in light of reams of social and scientific evidence, is harmful to individuals and society. No wonder there’s a backlash.

    …virtually prophetic…

    Sounds like a false prophet to me.

  6. February 10, 2009 at 5:19 am

    D. Rolling Kearney “1) It presupposes a “homophobic” world that does not exist.”
    I assume that John Hagee is only talking to himself, then. How about Pat Robertson? How about any number of other small people in big houses who say similar and worse?

    “If it did, we would not have gay leaders of state, country, and business, all without public outcry or derision.”
    You’re cute. Try running for the Republican nomination for the next president.

    “We may not like their choice of sexuality, but we still see them as people, capable of doing their jobs.”
    Which jobs?

    “2) This quote suggests a scenario that exist only in the minds of fear-mongering gay activists: I know of exactly NO instances of people trying to remove children from their natural-born parents that are gay, and especially NONE where the motive is the sexuality of the parent.”
    Well, a cursory googling of “son of gay parent custody” comes up with this as the first hit.

    “3) Gays are currently asserting “rights” that have been hitherto nonexistent…”
    “Nonexistent” in that they only apply to “us” and not “them”. I spend a couple of decades with the wife before kicking off and she gets covered. If I was a broad, she wouldn’t be.

    “No wonder there’s a backlash.”
    Yes, as a hetero/white male of Anglo-Saxon descent, I can stand with you and shout about how bad it is to be a part of the oppressed minority.

    “Sounds like a false prophet to me.”
    Apparently you haven’t been paying attention.

  7. February 10, 2009 at 6:13 am

    Children should never be given to homosexual couples to adopt. Children need a mother and a father.

  8. February 10, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    modus:

    First, I didn’t say there weren’t people in the world who didn’t like gays, I said we do not live in a homophobic world. There’s an enormous difference.

    Second, the article you linked to contained the following:

    the Court said, “We do not agree with the conclusion of Justice Webb’s dissent that the only basis upon which the trial court changed custody was that the defendant is a ‘practicing homosexual.’ Instead, we conclude that the trial court could and did order a change in custody based in part on proper findings of fact to the effect that defendant-father was regularly engaging in sexual acts with Mr. Tipton in the home while the children were present and upon other improper conduct by these two men.”

    But, of course, this being an article published by homosexual activists, their interpretation is definitely skewed to their own benefit.

    Third, the rights associated with marriage exist because of the benefits the relationship can provide to society that other forms of relationship cannot. Proven by science, end of story.

    Fourth, I am Native American.

    Fifth, I am paying more attention than you think.

  9. February 11, 2009 at 12:52 am

    D. Rolling Kearney “First, I didn’t say there weren’t people in the world who didn’t like gays, I said we do not live in a homophobic world. There’s an enormous difference.”
    Are we playing semantics now?

    “Second, the article you linked to contained the following…But, of course, this being an article published by homosexual activists, their interpretation is definitely skewed to their own benefit.”
    Now read the three paragraphs right after the one that you highlighted.

    “Third, the rights associated with marriage exist because of the benefits the relationship can provide to society that other forms of relationship cannot.”
    Well, all I can say is it sure is a good thing that they never raise kids, because the benefits that automatically come from such a union (no matter what it’s called) would skip them by, and that would be a terrible shame. A tragedy, really.

    “Fourth, I am Native American.”
    Oh. You look paler, in text.

  10. February 11, 2009 at 4:32 am

    modus:

    “Some” vs. “All” is semantics? I thought you were smarter than that.

  11. February 11, 2009 at 4:34 am

    Oh, I almost forgot. I came to this page to provide the following link:

    Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

    An excellent article by a decidedly non-homophobic group of medical professionals.

  12. February 11, 2009 at 11:06 am

    ““Some” vs. “All” is semantics?”
    Yes. Yes, it is. If it weren’t, the world wouldn’t be an anything world.

    “An excellent article by a decidedly non-homophobic group of medical professionals.”
    Actually, it’s an interesting article by a splinter group that formed precisely because of their conservative stance on basically everything.

  13. Tania H. said,

    February 11, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    I think it is very sad that our government is even allowed to advertise for homosexual adoption or any other kinds of adoption. All adoption advertising should be done in the private sector. That is our tax dollars being spent to advertise. Why dont the citizens of our country stand up and make our government be accountable for all of our hard earned tax dollars that they are spending without any say from us.

  14. Chairm said,

    February 11, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Modusoperandi, if the difference between a “homophobic world” and a non-homophobic world is a trivial quibble over semantics, then, you have just negated the quote you offered earlier.

  15. February 12, 2009 at 2:29 am

    Chairm “Modusoperandi, if the difference between a “homophobic world” and a non-homophobic world is a trivial quibble over semantics, then, you have just negated the quote you offered earlier.”
    “…First, I didn’t say there weren’t people in the world who didn’t like gays, I said we do not live in a homophobic world. There’s an enormous difference…“Some” vs. “All” is semantics? I thought you were smarter than that.”
    If there are enough X’s that are Y-ophobes, then Y lives in a Y-ophobic world. Quibbling over the percentage of X’s that need to be anti-Y for it to be so is, um, quibbling over semantics (iIn the very least, less than 100% is required to make it a Y-ophobic world).

  16. February 12, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    modus:

    If there are enough X’s that are Y-ophobes, then Y lives in a Y-ophobic world.

    So, because someone out there hates me, then everyone hates me. Now I understand why it was so easy for the social agitators to get gays out on the streets after Prop 8. They’ve been told that they’re victims of a world that hates them, despite the facts around them in their daily lives that would attest to the contrary that most people accept and embrace gay people (but not necessarily their practices) in their daily lives. True, some people hate gays but you are delusional if you believe that it is justifiable to therefore apply that to the world at large. It is also disingenuous to lump together people who actually hate gays, with those who are simply opposed to the practice and want to protect children from the negative effects of a homosexuality that is being summarily thrust upon them by activists who continually ignore the scientific consensus that it is harmful in a multitude of ways.

    BTW, a rudimentary understanding of Venn diagrams, which are frequently used to visualize categorizations like this to determine their logical validity, would quickly disprove your theory that some and all are conflatable.

    Also, in reference to your earlier comments:

    Actually, it’s an interesting article by a splinter group that formed precisely because of their conservative stance on basically everything.

    Right, and Lambda Legal is “a splinter group that formed precisely because of their [homosexual slant] on basically everything.” However, the American College of Pediatrics chooses to stand in support of the results of current science on homosexuality instead of catering to gay activists and revisionists, as some other groups have *cough*theamericanpsychologicalassociation*cough*.

    Also, your earlier implication that people are out to arbitrarily remove children from gay parents is misleading. While this is what agitators like Lambda Legal would have gays believe, it is far from the truth. It is far less inflammatory to see instances like the one in the article you linked to for what they really are: a custody battle between parents. If the courts decide that, based on the best available science, that children are better off with their non-gay parent, then your real disagreement is with science, in which case you are chasing a dream because facts are facts. Gay activists are using instances like this to play up a “victimization” of gays, that doesn’t actually exist. Kind of like the gay activist group (Bash Back?) that was storming into churches and disrupting services immediately following the passage of Prop 8. Their website states that they will continue to terrorize Christians, etc, “while their people continue to be killed in the streets.” This, of course, is a reference to the death of Matthew Shepard more than 10 years ago. While his death was publicly characterized as an anti-gay hate crime, it was, in fact a botched robbery attempt for drug money. But, of course, the more sensational aspect of “homophobia” can be a useful tool for bringing about “social change!” Even if it isn’t true.

  17. February 13, 2009 at 8:04 am

    D. Rolling Kearney “So, because someone out there hates me, then everyone hates me.”
    No, dagnabit, that’s not what I’m saying. It doesn’t have to be all, and it doesn’t have to be one. It just has to be enough. It’s a saying, not literal.

    “Now I understand why it was so easy for the social agitators to get gays out on the streets after Prop 8.”
    Yes. I, for one, am outraged that they got so uppity once they got something, then other people tried, and succeeded, to take it away.

    “True, some people hate gays but you are delusional if you believe that it is justifiable to therefore apply that to the world at large.”
    When the structures of a supposedly egalitarian society are tilted to disadvantage an unpopular minority, then yes, it’s a “homophobic world”.

    “It is also disingenuous to lump together people who actually hate gays, with those who are simply opposed to the practice and want to protect children from the negative effects of a homosexuality that is being summarily thrust upon them by activists who continually ignore the scientific consensus that it is harmful in a multitude of ways.”
    Consensus? Hardly. When Florida will let “them” as as Foster parents but <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html”.not let them adopt, that’s a mixed message.

    “BTW, a rudimentary understanding of Venn diagrams, which are frequently used to visualize categorizations like this to determine their logical validity, would quickly disprove your theory that some and all are conflatable.”
    Sigh.

    “However, the American College of Pediatrics chooses to stand in support of the results of current science on homosexuality instead of catering to gay activists and revisionists, as some other groups have *cough*theamericanpsychologicalassociation*cough*.”
    Again, your version of the results doesn’t match the actual version of the results (which range from incomplete, for children under gay males, to pretty much like us, for ones under gay females).

    “Also, your earlier implication that people are out to arbitrarily remove children from gay parents is misleading.”
    You said “I know of exactly NO instances of people trying to remove children from their natural-born parents that are gay, and especially NONE where the motive is the sexuality of the parent.”, and I did a cursory googling, quickly showing that your lack of knowledge of such things in no way reflects how things really are.

    “If the courts decide that, based on the best available science, that children are better off with their non-gay parent, then your real disagreement is with science, in which case you are chasing a dream because facts are facts.”
    Does this sound like the best available science?:

    The Court also disapproved of the fact that Smith and Tipton kissed each other in the presence of the children and that, although always keeping their bedroom door closed and locked if they were having sex, the couple allowed the children into the bedroom when simply in bed together. It cited these facts in support of the decision to remove custody from Smith.
    “Sadly, this decision means that two kids have been torn away from a great father only because that father is gay,” said Stephen Scarborough, staff attorney in Lambda’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta. “That’s not the ‘best interest standard,’ at work. That’s prejudice, pure and simple,” he said.
    Dohrn added, “Although professing not to, the Court applied a double standard to the gay men in this case. Non-gay parents are not judged negatively for showing affection in front of their children or for being honest with them. For any parents, those are healthy examples to model to children.”

    “Gay activists are using instances like this to play up a “victimization” of gays, that doesn’t actually exist.”
    Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi & Utah all ban gay couples from adopting. Technically, most only ban “unmarried, cohabitating couples” from adopting, but if it’s really about children deserving a mother and a father, how come single people (including, oddly, single homosexuals) can adopt?

    “Kind of like the gay activist group (Bash Back?) that was storming into churches and disrupting services immediately following the passage of Prop 8.”
    They sound like kooks. Commie anarchist anti-statists? Madness! They’re even against gay marriage. It’s odd that they’ll stand in solidarity (and vandalism) for something that’s “heteronormative assimilation”.

    “While his death was publicly characterized as an anti-gay hate crime, it was, in fact a botched robbery attempt for drug money.”
    I’d never heard of him, but you’re right. They can always latch on to one of these. Perhaps Jimmy Swaggart would be willing to testify for the defense.

  18. Chairm said,

    February 13, 2009 at 8:29 am

    Modusoperandi said: When the structures of a supposedly egalitarian society are tilted to disadvantage an unpopular minority, then yes, it’s a “homophobic world”.

    “A suppsedly egalitarian society” means what?

    What minority is disadvantaged in California’s marriage laws?

    Marriage unites the sexes and there is no sexual orientation criterion.

    On the other hand, if an arrangement lacks one sex or the other, then, it cannot provide sex equality within it; nor can it provide for sexual orientation equality within it.

    So what’s your actual beef with the marriage amendment?

  19. February 13, 2009 at 8:43 am

    Chairm ““A suppsedly egalitarian society” means what?”
    Start at All men are created equal.

    “So what’s your actual beef with the marriage amendment?”
    It’s society saying “You don’t count”, “Your relationship doesn’t count” and “Your family is not a real family”, but…
    I don’t actually care on the status of gay marriage. I did before, but came to the realization that I’m far more concerned with the protection of their partners and their children than whatever the umbrella title is. Marriage, civil union, lemonbread…it doesn’t matter as long as their families get most if not all of these.

  20. Chairm said,

    February 13, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Modusoperandi, it appears that you have no actual beef with the marriage amendment which does not say those things.

    If you can plainly state the meaning of “gay marriage” then perhaps you can find a way to explain the laundry list you would like society to use.

    * * *

    Modusoperandi, you won’t explain “supposedly egalitarian society”, then try not to use the phrase so conclusively.

    The wiki page you linked does not include the word, egalitarian, nor the phrase, egalitarian society.

    If you wish to discuss your meaning in light of the Declaration of Independence, then, do so. If not, the link is useless in this discussion.

  21. February 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Chairm “Modusoperandi, it appears that you have no actual beef with the marriage amendment which does not say those things.”
    No more than putting the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse tells the percentage of Americans who are not Protestant or Jewish that they don’t count.

    “If you can plainly state the meaning of “gay marriage” then perhaps you can find a way to explain the laundry list you would like society to use.”
    Their relationship is the same as that of heteros in the same situation. “Marriage is a social, spiritual, or legal union of individuals…Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both” (fm Wikipedia.

    “Modusoperandi, you won’t explain “supposedly egalitarian society”, then try not to use the phrase so conclusively.”
    “Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.” (fm Wikipedia

    “The wiki page you linked does not include the word, egalitarian, nor the phrase, egalitarian society.”
    Wow. And I’ve been accused of taking things too literally.

  22. Chairm said,

    February 14, 2009 at 1:31 am

    Okay, I can’t beat the magical powers of Wikipedia.

    Oye.

    Can you not discuss your own meaning without resort to such weak links?

  23. Chairm said,

    February 14, 2009 at 1:34 am

    By the way, your the example of the Commandment does not say what you imagined it to say.

  24. February 14, 2009 at 2:10 am

    Chairm “Can you not discuss your own meaning without resort to such weak links?”
    I don’t speak real goodly. As such, I defer to others that learned more better.

    “By the way, your the example of the Commandment does not say what you imagined it to say.”
    What does it actually say?

  25. Chairm said,

    February 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Modusoperandi, as I said, you haven’t explained your meaning. Your latest remark concedes the point. Thanks.

    As for your Commandments example, it was your assertion. Back it up or withdraw it. Thanks.

  26. February 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    Chairm “Modusoperandi, as I said, you haven’t explained your meaning. Your latest remark concedes the point. Thanks.”

    I spend a couple of decades with the wife before kicking off and she gets covered. If I was a broad, she wouldn’t be.

    Well, all I can say is it sure is a good thing that they never raise kids, because the benefits that automatically come from such a union (no matter what it’s called) would skip them by, and that would be a terrible shame. A tragedy, really.

    I…came to the realization that I’m far more concerned with the protection of their partners and their children than whatever the umbrella title is.

    I think that the previous explains the concept of egalitarianism rather well. That you disagree with my own flagrantly inaccurate assessment of my own comments is not my fault.

    “As for your Commandments example, it was your assertion. Back it up or withdraw it.”
    So, a Buddhist/animist/atheist/hindu/etc American has his day in court, sees the Justice is blind statue. “Well, that’s nice.” he says to himself. Then he sees a “Constitution” plaque, and takes that as an encouraging sign. Lastly, he sees a giant, granite 10 Commandments monument. “Oh.” he sighs, after reading the first four Commandments (on the almost invariably Protestant-based monument), “Apparently some Americans are more equal than others.”

    “Thanks.”
    No. Thank you.

  27. February 14, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    I should point out that I have little issue (First Amendment aside) for pre-existing non-secular declarations on government sites. New ones, however, fail the Lemon test.

  28. Chairm said,

    February 15, 2009 at 8:22 am

    Modusoperandi, if it is protections, then, that’s already been available and the “supposedly egalitarian society” has long-existed. Same with the various species of rights.

    If your complaint is otherwise just about Social Security, then, I was correct about the uselessness of those links your provided earlier.

    * * *

    You said earlier: “No more than putting the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse tells the percentage of Americans who are not Protestant or Jewish that they don’t count.”

    And now you say that this means that in a courtroom “a Buddhist/animist/atheist/hindu/etc American” will not be treated fairly?

    I think that’s such a big reach that I’m not really interested in going back and forth testing it. It doesn’t pass the plausibility test.

    But if you mean someone somewhere will feel unincluded, then, that someone somewhere hasn’t learned the benefitial significance of the Nohaic Code in the history of American jurisprudence and to the principles that undergrid the rule of law in general.

    Just because that someone somewhere gets the wrong impression, if indeed it is not just another example of theoretical victimhood, does not mean in fct that “some Americans are more equal than others.”

  29. Chairm said,

    February 15, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Anyway, we are straying from the original topic. I’ll leave off now.

  30. February 15, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    “If your complaint is otherwise just about Social Security…”
    Except that it wasn’t. Survivor benefits is just the one that popped to mind.

    “…then, I was correct about the uselessness of those links your provided earlier”
    From that link: Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for.

    “And now you say that this means that in a courtroom “a Buddhist/animist/atheist/hindu/etc American” will not be treated fairly?”
    Not necessarily. It means the perception of not being treated fairly. In matters of the First Amendment, that’s enough (particularly when the people that put them up make the mistake of opening their mouths).

    “I think that’s such a big reach that I’m not really interested in going back and forth testing it. It doesn’t pass the plausibility test.”
    Luckily, it doesn’t pass the Lemon test, so we’re rarely confronted with it.
    “The First Commandment alone makes it obvious why the Ten Commandments may not be posted by government bodies. Dixie County has no business telling citizens which god they must have, how many gods they must have, or that they must have any god at all!” Gaylor said. Making the violation even more egregious is the inscription at the base admonishing citizens to “Love God and keep his commandments.”

    “Anyway, we are straying from the original topic.”
    If a dialogue stays on-topic for more than about ten posts, then you’re surrounded by clones. That’s my hypothesis, anyway.

  31. Chairm said,

    February 16, 2009 at 2:15 am

    Heh, let’s not send in the clones.

    * * *

    Okay, I’ll step back in for this comment — and leave the last word to you, if you would like it.

    As for legal and economic benefits, there are a couple of things to consider. First, some form of registered partnership is not the most effective route to deliver government benefits since the participation rate by adult homosexual people is very, very, very low. So for practical purposes it misses the vast majority of the supposedly target group. Second, a gaycentric approach would exclude the wide range of nonmarital arrangements that merit equal treatment — i.e. protection equality. The protections are not rewards for sexual beahvior nor for sexual attraction nor for gay identity politics. Third, treating nonmarriage as marriage in each and every way — i.e. the list of benefits — is not merited. No one has offered a good reason to merger marriage with nonmarriage or to demote marriage from its special status to a merely protective status. Fourth, whatever the type of relationship or arrangement, its core meaning is what determines the benefits that are accorded it — that agree with it. Just pointing to marriage and crying “me-too!” does not suffice. Marriage has special status because of sex intregration combined with responsible procreation. Nonmarital arrangements are a different thing and so no wholesale equal treament is merited. Fifth, and most importantly, if a set of benefits is sought, then, it ought to be justified with an independant claim rather than doing a copy-past from marriage.

  32. Jester said,

    February 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Would you all just get back to the discussion at hand? Same-sex parenting, remember? I myself was raised by my father and his partner, a short while after he and my mother divorced. Whatever I am like now, that is not his fault. It is my own fault for finding a path without asking any of my parents about the consequences, following my decent upon said path. Children aren’t all innocent, from a certain age. Don’t any of you remember what it was like to be a child?

  33. Jester said,

    February 19, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    If the only way we can discuss this problem is through religion or “studies” (and yes, I have read all studies linked to this site and others, thank you), then it is obvious that you fail to grasp the entire point of this discussion. It’s the welfare of the children that matters most in the discussion, not your constant bickering over recent laws that have just been put into effect.

  34. February 19, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Jester:

    If you think the only way we can discuss this problem is by saying that we have to think about the children, then you fail to grasp the content of the studies that have been linked to on this site.

    I.e.: We ARE thinking about the children. These studies all say that a home with two, married, heterosexual parents is best for children, that homosexual relationships are mentally and physically harmful, and that, if adults want to choose that life for themselves, fine, but it is determinedly unsafe and unfit for children.

    Religion gets mentioned, in part, because every religion, for thousands of years, has already taught us what science is just now proving.

  35. Chairm said,

    February 21, 2009 at 7:28 am

    Jester,

    I take it that “same-sex parenting” is euphemistic for parenting by two gay men or two lesbians, right?

    I mean, it would not include a mother and daughter raising a younger sister or the daughter’s child, right?

    It would not include two brothers raising an adopted child, right? or raising children of their previous marriages, right?

    If gayness and lesbianism is something special so that the sexual aspect would wipe out the differnces between the outcomes for children raised by mom and dad and the lesser outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents, then, where is the proof of this special role of same-sex sexual behavior?

    There is none.

    Okay, so when we look at the scenario in which there are two dads or two moms — and excluding those in which the adults are not sexually involved — what do we know?

    1. That the arrangement segregates motherhood from fatherhood.

    2. That some sort of adoption took place — and that requires a) parental relinquishment and b) government intervention to assign a substitute adult.

    3. That the children were not attained via sexual procreation.

    4. That the children were attained by adoption (see #2) or the use of “donors” (see #2 again). These are not at the core of marriage nor are they at the core of the intact married arrangement where children are raised by mom and dad.

    Now, given these known things, don’t the double-dad or double-mom scenarios point outside of marriage? Yeap.

    And we also know that neither adoption nor third party procreation can esablish parental status based on the sexual aspect of gayness or lesbianism. In fact, that aspect is irrelevant.

    So we can see that even if SSM were imposed or enacted, it could not create the direct child-adult relationship that marriage creates for mom-dad duos.

    The legal marital presumption of paternity is based on the sexual behavior entailed in coitus. This makes marriage a sexual type of relationship. But this is extrinsic to all one-sexed relationships or arrangements — due to the lack of the other sex.

    So the argument that SSMers make based on same-sex parenting is really very removed from the marriage issue.

    For example, the mere presence of a divorced mother’s child does not her second husband the child’s new father. Not without parental relinquishment and adoption — see #2 again.

    Most children living in same-sex households — i.e the same-sex parenting scenairo that Jester obviously emphasizes — were not attained through third party procreation nor by adoption. Most — by far (about 95%) are children of divorce or parental estrangement.

    Okay, so the same-sex arrangement is more closely analogous with divorced, blended, and adoptive family arrangements. And these have all shown to be sub-standard — the benchmark being the intact married husband-wife arrangement.

    We know this. Why do SSMers keep trying to deny this?

  36. Jester said,

    February 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    If, according to the Spanish studies, a child IS at risk of multiple problems in life, then I will take back everything I said about it. But until then, I need substantial proof, not just something written on paper and passed around the courtroom, in a failed attempt to change someone’s mind on an issued that doesn’t need to be pressed right now.

  37. February 23, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    jester:

    How interesting that you attach yourself only to the outcome of the “Spanish studies.” Doesn’t the existing (U.S.) evidence mean anything?

    We have: 1) Unproven scientific theory that says biology may *assist* in causing homosexuality (although only to make a person pre-disposed to homosexuality IF the environmental factors come into play), 2) scientific proof that environment and upbringing cause homosexuality (at least 99% of causality), 3) sociological studies showing children need both parents, 4) psychological studies showing that homosexuals frequently have common environmental factors (such as molestation, distant fathers, overbearing mothers), 5) psychological studies showing that homosexuals can and do change, 6) studies from various fields showing that homosexual households have significant increases in child molestation, domestic violence, suicide, drug abuse, etc… (PS – Notice, this list contains no religious arguments whatsoever.)

    What, pray tell, are you waiting for prior to taking back everything you said?

  38. Jester said,

    March 5, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    :/

  39. Jester said,

    March 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    6) studies from various fields showing that homosexual households have significant increases in child molestation, domestic violence, suicide, drug abuse, etc…

    Really? Have you seen a heterosexual child molester before?

  40. March 6, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    jester:

    Not sure what your question has to do with anything, but the answer is yes. I have known several people who were molested when they were children. The point, however, is that, as horrifyingly commonplace as we are told that molestation is, studies have shown that the number of kids being molested in homosexual homes is disproportionate to the number of said households.

  41. Jester said,

    March 9, 2009 at 10:57 am

    I know I can’t win this arguement. No one really can.

  42. Raytmimer said,

    March 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Jester, the argument indeed has an answer. The data is undisputed that incidences of sexual deviancy increase with homosexuality. The logical reason for this is that homosexuality is sexual deviancy, and leads to sexual addiction. That is where the data leads, whether you want to see it or not.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: