The waves will wash us away

This is my friend Brandi, raised by lesbians, who has “come out” against Same Sex Marriage. Here she writes: “I think my mom had a right to be happy and live the best life possible. And I think I had a right to be happy and live the best life possible. So her decision truly was a catch twenty two. Someone was going to get hurt either way, and it just so happens it was me.”

Please follow her, share her posts, and cheer her on!

The Lesbians Daughter

I remember the night Ellen came out on her TV show in front of millions of people. My mom and her girlfriend were big Ellen fans and we watched the show religiously. After the episode went off that night I was left with the sensation of a bomb having just exploded before my eyes and waiting for the fallout. Strangely, it never came. At least, not that I was aware of.

For me it seemed as though that was the beginning of this tidal wave that is currently descending upon society at the present moment. The onslaught of pushing homosexuality and alternative lifestyles into every nook and cranny is suffocating. I think that should speak volumes coming from a child raised by lesbians. From gay pride flags at military celebrations to smut mags at the grocery stores, homosexuality is being thrown up all over the place. While I agree that…

View original post 850 more words

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “The waves will wash us away

  1. Uh…And what was the point of that article? Was she mistreated? Abused? Did she miss a father?

    • From her first post: https://thelesbiansdaughter.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/so-your-moms-a-lesbian-eh/

      It was brought to my attention that a blogger by the name of Jeremy Hooper had written about me. I had no clue whom he was, so of course I googled him. Interesting fella. I would be lying if I didn’t admit that I was a little flattered that little ‘ol me made it on The Gay Blog of All Blogs. Even if I was being bashed to pieces. Admittedly, I didn’t read what Jeremy wrote about me, I was trying to picture him as this nice guy in the Martha Stewart magazine, and I didn’t want to ruin the image, but I did see something about Jeremy that…well, made me sad.

      Jeremy and his partner..er, husband, have a daughter. Upon finding that out it became clear why he would try so hard to dismiss my argument. What I had to say was extremely personal to him for more reasons than one. The fact is, I have no reason to suspect Jeremy isn’t anything but a great dad. Being gay doesn’t make him a bad father. His daughter is probably the apple of his eye and spoiled beyond all measure. And for Jeremy’s sake I hope that little girl never wants for a mother the way that I wanted for a daddy. I hope she doesn’t get sad when she sees her girlfriends shopping with their moms and doing mommy/daughter stuff. I hope that the day she walks down the aisle she doesn’t sit in her dressing room, staring into the mirror and wonder what it would be like to have a mother there to help her zip her gown and fix her veil.

      Because all of those things suck. Really bad. And to be purposely forced into that situation sucks even more. What’s even worse than all of that is longing for those things and being told you shouldn’t, and you’re ungrateful for doing so. I also hope she never grows up confused about her own self-identity, and angry about the way she was raised. Because that’s going to suck for Jeremy and his husband. I wonder how Jeremy would take it if she grew up and spoke out against being raised by two gay men, and a gay blogger bashed her to bits for the whole world to see. Hmm.

      • Katie, I think you’re being too generous to Hooper. When someone is so quick to libel those who disagree with him as the scum of the earth, as Hooper regularly does, it brings into doubt a) if he is a good person b) if someone so vindictive can be a good parent and unconditionally loves his children. His “journalism” offends and angers me, someone who is actually educated to be a member of the Fourth Estate.

        • Those aren’t my words, they are Brandi’s. I’ve had my own run-ins with Hooper. He is quick to take offence and slander. Defensiveness seems to be his default. I’m wouldn’t doubt that he is an involved father, but genuine parental sacrifice involves recognizing a child’s basic rights to her mother. I agree with Brandi, will his daughter be free to voice her desire for a mother? Or will he tell her that she is perfectly happy with two dads? Many kids with LGBT parents feel like they are “bad” for not being delighted in having two moms or two dads like the kids on TV. No, he is not a journalist. He’s a (probably wounded) gay activist.

          • What I’ve witnessed and read about him from Professor Lopez is that he’s essentially an online enforcer for HRC or GLAAD, cruising the Internet to troll and or find people he can libel. He attacks people’s characters with no intent to actually understand what they’re argue, which I would say is actual malice. Those who serially resort to calumny are probably not what we call “decent human beings.”

    • The point is exactly that, the indifference that can’t see and lacks empathy–imagine having to grow up like that. The self-centeredness is unable to read between the lines of the pain the children feel having to curry favor and play homage to their parents constant sexual identity–The kids know something is profoundly wrong early. It sometimes takes a long time to even start to describe that pain that was inflicted daily in the home.

      People outside the LGBT community realize thatLGBT does not own the kids forever. Our real lived experience is more often than not in direct conflict with the image LGBT wants to present. I think it great so many COGs are speaking up. Even if those who have zero knowledge or experience find that our truth conflicts with or discredits the narrative of fabricated happiness that is marketed by pop culture.

      More and more adult children of LGBT are saying over and over, and across a range of experience that they were harmed by self centered adults and a creepy ideology that forces children into situations. Moving forward into the future, that right side of history, it will be for a new class of honest committed researchers to document and describe the exact nature of the damages. But if so many are saying it,it might behoove people to listen. I think people are listening and more COGs are coming forward every week. It is amazing and really wonderful that they can be there for each other.

      • More and more adult children huh? Or the same 4 people over and over again?

        Also here’s a challenge: Find me an atheist or even non-Christian child of a gay couple who is both (a) upset that they were raised by gay parents, and (b) wishes for gays to not be able to marry or adopt due to these experiences.

        If your side is correct and these aren’t religious objections but due to the efficacy of gays as parents, then surely there will be some non-religious children of gays out there willing to tell their story. I’ve searched for a while and it seems all the children of gays who use their childhood history as reason to deny gays the right to adopt or marry are devout Evangelical Christians, and I can’t help but draw the connection between the two

        • Non Christian There are several of us–Millie is one and I am another. I do not know all but I think there is one named June and others have made themselves known. Nobody is denying Gays anything. Equality does not include the right over other peoples children. Children have rights, basic human rights. It seems other countries understand this better than the West. I’m not sure why.

          Adoption is not right. I think this country is due to have a wider dialogue about these topics. And LBGT trying to silence, threaten, bully, shame and stalk COGs may not look so much like civil rights. Now what are you going to do claim I am really a Christian because LBGT never never allows COG to speak–we are your slaves for every and always.

        • I’m sure you don’t intend it to come across the airwaves this way ZZed, but your denial of reported childhood experiences of COGs ranging from psychological abuses to out right child-abuse is not helpful to anyone, least of all the LGBT community.

          It sounds a lot like the people who spent so many years denying homosexuality based on their own lack of experience, literally baiting LGBT people to identify themselves. Or those initially denying that clergy can commit abuses–“it’s only four cases … ”

          What exactly is the incentive for the adult survivor of any child abuse to “go public,” especially if it involves a parent’s sexuality?”

          Your repeated “counting” of victims comes across as an attempt to isolate them or to bully others into silence.

          Is that really what you’re trying to communicate?

          • O’B,
            I am betting that is exactly how he wants to come across. I have seen no indication otherwise– the typical pattern. Child abuse is very serious problem in LGBT community. The victims are cut off from any help because on the “light” side people like ZZ deny and cover up–very often unreported and undocumented. On the more serious side the victims are physically isolated and punished if they ever speak out because the reputation and image of the LGBT community is the only thing that matters.

            To this end LGBT adults will close ranks around the victim to silence them. They will go to the schools and give the schools a story that the child is being treated for drugs and lying and is not to be trusted. They will only use LGBT doctors–who do not document anything that will reflect badly on LGBT. They will enlist the support of many adults other to bully the child–they are called liars, and told over and over nobody will believe them, so they better be very nice to the abusers. They will get other kids in the comity to turn against them.

            This is why COG suicide and suicide attempts are much higher. And it is why their is no public awareness. Yes he trying to silence. And he is mild. I do think some COGs who are in fact the children of well known LGBT figures are planning to write somethings. Of course people like ZZ will dismiss it and say they are some rare exception and give them kids. The are armed with missives, deflections and denials up the wazzoo. Now because of the political climate and their power it is far worse for COGs than it was before. And remember in most cases these are not even their children–so the “but herosexual get to be abusers why can’t we too” Yep civil rights.

          • Domestic abuse, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide and other mental/emotional illnesses are rampant (at much higher/more significant proportion than in hetero couplings) in the LBGTQ community.

            That data, unlike the LBTQ-driven social data, is indisputable (as is any honest observers- in or out of the LBGTQ community – testimony).

            How is it this is a good environment in which to encourage third party child ‘creation’ or rearing?

          • Because if this is as widespread as is being claimed, that the children of gays are the reasons to be against gay adoption or gay marriage, then I demand they prove it in more than anecdotal stories from people who clearly have political or religious motivation. When they go public with these stories then I want some proof to back them up beyond religion or politics, and I can’t help but see people like Katy and like Heather Barwick for the political and religious agents that they are. They have goals against the LGBT movement and I want proof, actual proof, that the children of gays not only wish that their parents weren’t allowed to be married but that they also wish they were raised by others.

            These people are doing real damage and I don’t think they can just get away with it by claiming a large group of children of gays when I have seen no evidence of such. Because I look at groups like COLAGE, which are far bigger than Katy’s quartet, and I see that the vast majority of children of gays feel no ill will whatsoever for their parents, or if they do feel some sort of discontent then they temper that with the fact that no one has a perfect childhood, everyone has detriments to get through and they commend their parents efforts beyond reproach. Only a select few of these children seem to favor removing the rights of people in their parents circumstances and if that is in fact the common thread in chilidren of gays then surely they all don’t have religious and political motivation for feeling that way.

            I’m not discrediting Katy or any of her quartet, but surely I can point out her allegiances to anti-gay causes and groups. That’s perfectly fair right?

          • @IMHO

            Your aspersions are nonsensical as always. I am doing nothing but requiring more evidence that people like Katy and her ilk claim exist constantly but have yet to show in any meaningful way. If it were as widespread as she claims then surely there would be more than just people with obvious political motivation. I’m not “silencing” them or “shaming” them or “covering them up,” I am asking where are they? People like bobby Lopez make their living claiming they are only one of thousands but they have done absolutely nothing to show that this is a truthful statement, because there are actually are hundreds of thousands of accounts of children of gays on the internet, and the overwhelming majority have been positive. So if these negative accounts exist, as you people constantly claim (and I don’t doubt they’re out there, but you claim it to be pathological among children of gays) then surely there would be some non-political or religious individuals willing to tell their story.

            But alas, there are only the 4 that have distinct political motivation.

            So you can keep claiming until the sun goes down that gays make terrible parents, but I require more than anecdotal evidence, sorry.

          • Thanks for the clarification ZZed. I understand your position better now.

            But I think the kind of evidence you request is more at the population level than the kind that will be obtained by baiting or asking individual COGs to “come out” in public and share more uncomfortable or painful personal details.

            Politely asking a person to share once is probably enough to have an answer of yes or no. Demanding a survivor of any child abuse “prove ” the abuse to your satisfaction is unhelpful.

            Just as you feel unconvinced now by the individual “anecdotal” stories that of been shared so far by adult COGs, perhaps any more details or specifics would be fulfilling to you for the same reasons?

            I think we could agree that the total number of independent adult children of LGBT parents remains small. But doesn’t that make their life experiences an important “scarce resource ” in any honest, societal discussion of same-sex parenting? Whether you choose to extrapolate those experiences to a wider population or not?

          • ” Demanding a survivor of any child abuse “prove ” the abuse to your satisfaction is unhelpful.”

            You’re not getting it. I do not deny individual abuse, anyone can abuse a child regardless of gender or sex, but these people are advocating for the removal of adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples only, so they need to prove that gay and lesbian parenting is disadvantageous through more than anecdotal dtories. Especially when many of the stories, including Katy and Heather barwick’s, include no mention of child abuse whatsoever. Katy doesn’t claim her parents intentionally abused her, neither do Heather, they claim other hardships that I absolutely think they have the right to express, but when they use those hardships as reasons that gays should de facto be prevented from raising children then I’m going to take a stance and demand evidence to support their claims. And I have seen none.

            This isn’t about me denying their individual abuse, but instead it comes down to their demands that gays shouldn’t have the right to raise children, which I think are wholly inaccurate and not supported by the actual data and evidence.

            When Katy and bobby and her gang filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court, they filed 4 cases of anti-LGBT parenting beliefs, whereas the other side of the same case provided hundreds, if not thousands of signatures from children of gays supporting their parents unions, so clearly Katy and Bobby’s insistence that children of gays are suppressed is nonsensical. The vast majority just disagree with them

          • ZZed: I really do understand your strong emotions on this topic and appreciate the time you took to make some of your earlier posted exchanges more clear.

            Think about what you’re asking of these individual survivors– to convince you at some quantitative mathematical or scientific level that their experiences are valid and not “political or religious.” How is that possible?

            Or for individuals to share more private details or become “openly public” with their bad experiences. Wouldn’t that be just as unsatisfying and unconvincing for you as the few that are out there now? Your comment about positive-experience SCOTUS briefs is interesting but isn’t it also a small, biased sample size? It’s easier to please parents than it is to displease or criticize them openly; that’s a pretty strong selective factor in child abuse reporting.

            Ask your own question the other way around: What if society had demanded your high level of statistical evidence about childhood outcomes before letting any lesbian couple adopt or keep custody? Isn’t that unfair?

            Most of the COGs I read on this blog are sharing personal experiences that may be representative and instructive. There are also a few rock-solid population factors, like a much higher CSA risk factor for male-male parents regardless of orientation, but mostly I read individual perspectives. I’m glad that you clarified our agreement that these individuals must not be denied or dismissed.

          • @OBoyle

            They’ve never shown any evidence whatsoever for an increased risk of sexual abuse for children of two men than children of opposite sex parents, and you’re playing right into their hands by not demanding any evidence or data to support those assertions and believing them blindly. That’s the problem here, you see me demand the evidence that they claim exists and build their arguments on, but somehow you think they shouldn’t have to provide such evidence. I’m not saying that they don’t have their own stories of their childhood, but they’re attempting to use these experiences to remove rights for others, and I have a problem with that and demand more than stories and anecdote. THEY NEED FACTS. THEY HAVE NONE.

      • Can’t miss the irony of <1.6-2.0% of the overall/total population demanding documentation of the numbers of unhappy COGs, or decrying the unfounded claimed 'low numbers'.

        If 1.6-2.0% of the population can force its will on 98.0-98.4% of the of the dominant population, why shouldn't a similar proportion of unhappy (aka abused) COGs drive the COG dialogue?

        Wouldn't that be oppressive to this minority segment of our population- where are their equal rights?

        If the SSM issue was anything but an ideologically-driven debate, you'd see better treatment of these suffering individuals. But, as we all know, alas- this issue is all about a leftist (secularist, paganist, atheist, socialist/communist) ideology, hence, the constant attacks on Christians and other perceived non-leftists, and nothing else.

        Leftist ideology is thought by LBGTQ to be good for humanity. Just ask all those happy folks in North Korea, Cuba, and China.

        • You have to actually prove all the nonsense that you spout, and you cannot. While it is true that the LGBT community faces higher drug and alcohol abuse, so do most minority communities in the US, but we don’t prevent blacks from raising children now do we? And only a simpleton would think that the cause of their depression and drug abuse comes intrinsically from homosexuality, it clearly comes at least in great part from societal and familial reaction to homosexuality.

          nobody is forcing their will on you to have the Federal Government recognize marriage rights. Please stop spouting this idiocy, you can be free to continue going online and shouting at people who are different than you, and your church is free to recognize whatever marriages it wants to. This is about federal rights, benefits and protections, period.

          Oh poor you, you Christians are so oppressed it’s just insane. How on earth do you live through each dark day of gays being allowed to marry? Here’s a tip: if you want to be taken seriously then don’t start falling back to the “Christians are oppressed” nonsense. No one believes it, no one takes it seriously, and it just makes oyu look foolish

          • ZZ,

            You prove COGs point. Any sane reader can extrapolate, without much effort the abusive level of distortion and manipulation that children have to endure as a matter of course growing up LGBT. You hit all the notes of the pathology and do not even see it. You are seeped in your own grandiose demands.
            Gays do not have a right to raise children. Pay attention here, Other people are not a right we hand over because people demand it. That is slavery or taking a captive which is what it is like growing up in LGBT–being held captive. Children are humans and other humans are NOT a right. No other group demands society provide them with live humans. Objectifying children is not a good sign and people reading you should see red flags and hear alarms sounding.

            As it stands and is becoming increasingly more apparent to people that we are the the experts on what it is like to grow up in same sex homes because we have the lived experience. And you and all of LGBT have nothing over that–nothing. So, your attitude highlights the abusive mentality of ownership and objectification of children in LGBT communities and maybe the ideological root of all the parenting dysfunction, denial, and abusive parenting strategies based in control, ownership and punishment. I do hope readers pay attention and see exactly what so many of us are saying. Now of course all you can attempt to do is mock us or dismiss and discredit.

            I must say you exhibit you are a particular jack ass today and over and over : “Because if this is as widespread as is being claimed, that the children of gays are the reasons to be against gay adoption or gay marriage, then I demand they prove it in more than anecdotal stories from people who clearly have political or religious motivation.” You do not get to demand your majesty–get over yourself.

            You can hardly imagine that “because I say so” is going to be taken as a winning argument.
            Yet, you “demand”? Really. On what basis do you demand anything? The days of LGBT jerks demanding the children dance to their song are over. The children are have broken free from the abusive distortion and pathological control that we were raised in and that you exhibited so perfectly. You get what we want to put out and you get in the form we choose. So if you think anyone is going verbally-fellate you think again. You have to disprove us. We get to tell our stories and speak about our experience. And there is nothing you do or demand of us. What we state stands in the grand repository of human experience. You and LGBT at large do not get to weight in on our lived experience. Sorry it does not work that way.

            You are full of errors. COGS did not present 4 cases. There 6 as I recall and within the text of those they covered over 70 cases all cited and documented in the briefs. Some of the attacks by LGBT activist against COGs were also documented which explains why people are afraid to come forward and are asking for protection. It does not reflect well on the warm and loving claim to parenthood to attack the children that speak out. Yet, despite the threats in the last months more COGS have come out on 3 different contents all saying that same sex parenting is harmful and unfair to children. There are a wide range some the children of uber famous LGBT Icons. And more are coming down the pike.

            As and now there are all highly critical of same sex parenting. That’s the fact Jack. Consider who should people give credence to–LGBT adults who “demand” society hand over other peoples children or the children themselves who are saying this little social experiment damages children is unfair and has been supported by unethical and unsound research. BTW You did hear SCOTUS say all the social science that supports LGBT parenting was unreliable and garbage and would not be considered. There is not a single same sex couple that can reproduce themselves and there is not a single adult on the planet that has the “right” to other humans. I highly doubt that people will forget the claim that marriage is not reproductive. So enjoy marriage but do not expect to be getting other peoples children they are not a right. I would not count on dismissing us or threatening us into silence and I really would not count on people signing on to any leg elation that has caused documented harm to children because people “demand their right” to harm children. Good luck with that argument.

          • That response gave me the biggest headache. I honestly cannot believe someone can be SO ignorant. Wow!

          • @IMHO
            No one is objectifying children, I just think when a STRAIGHT COUPLE HAS AN UNWANTED CHILD then they go into adoption and a gay couple should have the freedom to raise the UNWANTED CHILD that the STRAIGHT PARENTS had. Maybe if STRAIGHT PARENTS stop having so many goddamned UNWANTED CHILDREN then there wouldn’t be any need for adoption and you would actually have an argument. As it stands now however, all you have is ignorance and bigotry. You have no facts that show that being raised by gay couples is de facto negative for the child. You have your own personal experiences, and that’s fine, I can’t take that away from you, but you’re an ANONYMOUS commenter on a blog, and you have never chosen to elaborate exactly on what was so wrong about your childhood, so I simply just take your experience as one of many. And I know plenty of people raised in “perfect” straight households who had terrible abusive childhoods, the difference between you and me is that I don’t ascribe that to all straight households.

            And again you bring up more assertions that you’re mentioning and not proving. What famous sons or daughters of gay icons?

            “You do not get to demand your majesty–get over yourself. ”
            -If this is your best response then I’ll just continue to ignore you and people like you.

            Your entire argument about “demanding children” becomes ludicrous when you actually assess the situation and see that gays are going through THE EXACT SAME PROCESS as straights to adopt. WHY IS IT THAT GAYS ARE “DEMANDING CHILDREN” BY ADOPTING BUT STRAIGHTS ARE NOT? You have no answer to that and it shows how dishonest and bigoted you are toward this one community. Gays are not “demanding” children by adopting and raising unwanted ones. Maybe you should tell straight couples to stop having unwanted children that need to be raised by others

          • I’m really glad you made an amazing defensive argument to this. Good for you. I randomly came across this blog and I swear I threw up in my mouth. I am just completely appalled people are truly this ignorant!

        • Jae,

          I think the reason the 2% or so percentage of LGBT’s in the population is misleading is that it is not a concentrated, but a dispersed, population. For any large, extended family, there’s likely to be a gay person or two in it. So the number of families in the population who have gay people in them is quite high.

          Once gay people started to come out in droves, families, even very conservative ones, did what families tend to do — support their members. Thus the sea change we’ve witnessed in cultural attitudes in a relatively short amount of time.

  2. “And I think I had a right to be happy and live the best life possible. So her decision truly was a catch twenty two. Someone was going to get hurt either way, and it just so happens it was me.”

    Ah, those are such powerful words. That is the conundrum that many children face, we love our parents and want them to be happy, but when our parent’s happiness takes precedence over our own and we are forced to choose between them and our own selves, there is a problem. That is an unfair position to put a child in, it forces the child to become the parent, the one making the sacrifices.

  3. Pingback: Tuesday, 6/23/15 | Tipsy Teetotaler

  4. ZZ

    Here is a plain truth: Adults have have no rights to other peoples’ children. And LGBT not realizing this simple fact makes them dangerous and predatory to all woman and all children.

    Most straight couples do not put unplanned children up for adoption. They parent them. The adoption scenerio, almost always this happens to young single mothers and many of them do not put those babies up willingly. Adoption is full of corruption and is often another form of human trafficking. The orphan in need of parents is very rare. In their attempt to appear to be self sacrificing and heroic The Gay lobby pushes the misogynistic “whore mother”, “junkie mother” “abusive, junkie whore” (because it is not enough to be misogynistic the LGBT lobby also traffics in racism and classism). Along a similar line, the expletive behavior of surrogacy is proportionally much higher by Gays. Only a minuscule number of heterosexuals use surrogates. This is huge business for the Gay owners of the largest surrogacy –selling women and children to other gay men. This is not “family” and never will be. Most importantly as far as adoption goes Heterosexuals can provide a mother and a father and children that have suffered a natural loss have the right not be used as political pawns so adults “feel good” . Gay men enter expecting poverty stricken women and their children to be provided to them. What a social cause, how progressive-Do you honestly think this is going to fly?

    When heterosexuals have sex they very often create life–planned and unplanned. That’s what makes heterosexual sex so very important and so charged because every society has a vested interest in it. This is not true for for SS sex. That is a biological fact. This is not and an equality issue, social justice or societies problem, not impoverished women’s problem and certainly not their children’s problem.

    Contrary to what men imagine children and women do exits to make the Gay male feel important or good about themselves. There still is no reason in the world that society will have much at stake with what LGBT do because they can’t reproduce. The difference is reality based–Straight people who are infertile have a medical problem. They entered marriage with a reasonable expectation of pregnancy and less than 3% are aware of any fertility issue until after they are actively trying to have a child. Gay couples have no expectation in any reality of reproducing so even comparing them to infertile heterosexuals is manipulative and inaccurate. There is reality and everybody knows two men are not the parents and it is just unfair and selfish adults trying to play act “family” it is a Charade a show like the gay pride parade except it needs other people forced into a kind of bondage against their will. None of these behaviors deserve anything other than societies contempt.

    There is a network of many many kids that grew up in same sex homes who all as. Except for Collage and about 3 others who do get paid a lot to sing the praises for LGBT . The kids are not all right . Are you so foolish to think that now that there an organization of us that they will not come out.

    Yes yes those sloppy straights get all knocked up and having babies and breeding. And that is what you can’t stand–something you can never have or understand or respect. The fact is that a straight one night stand is something that carries with it the potential for human life and regardless of anything else that is powerful. Conversely same sex relations are always sterile. And on a kind of primordial level have no mythical potential and will never have any reproductive status and power in any culture–There is no corrective for this. And biological reality is not a something social justice takes up as a cause–men can’t make babies with other men–not a civil rights issue. And I have not even touched on how horrific the gay community is to the children. The little myth of LGBT serving society as wonderful parents is a lie. The selfish nature of the movement is rather clear and not easy to disguise. The predatory nature is becoming increasing more apparent. SSM is easy to support because it is between two adults. The demand for other peoples children and the creation of reproductive slaves is not something that most societies are going to accept because it degrades all women and all children. And remember the court is all about respect. Go buy a T Shirt that says–Breeders Lives Matter. Not that anyone in gay community believes it. The rest of the world might.

  5. Why is your so obsessed with this issue. Your ignorant, I know you don’t see it now but I’m assuming you like being this type of person. I also assume you live your life sad and alone. Sad….sad life indeed 🙂

    • Okay Dokey. Here we have a small slice of exactly what I point out and what I call–LGBT abusive personality disorder. Which is more the norm actually of the LGBT community.

      People can read for themselves you sound so loving and nurturing. You come off like a great Mommy Dearest. Let me count the insults–Ignorant, live a sad life alone=looser. As opposed to someone like you Mom, who goes out of her way trolling to be abusive. And you think that’s normal? This is very simple– abusive is not normal but it is rampant in LGBT parenting. It is not even second nature it is first nature. Yep LGBT are great parents. Save your sob story.

      • I can no longer waste my time bickering back and fourth with someone who is clearly missing a few brain cells. Have an amazing weekend my friend. I’m very sorry your views are so corrupt.

        • Correction: Not my “views” my lived experience growing up in a “same sex family” and in the LGBT community and ideology. See, you can’t control yourself. You are seeped in abusive reactions. If people do not mirror the lies back at you you de-compensate and devolved into the mode that is most familiar which happens to be abusive and manipulative. It is not the way normal people interact. Children forced to endure that in the home and the culture day in and day out are victims. You are not a victim.

          I am honest people have been fed years of TV sit coms about the cutie pie LGBT and or been cowed by the nasty threats. I am, as Bob Dylan said,–beyond your command. I am not rare, none of us are. I have known many COGs in my life and not a single one thinks it is fair to children and all say children are used–that is not parenting but part of the pathology is some kind of self centeredness hereto wit unknown. People should be afraid be very afraid of a movement and a group that is willing to strip children of their basic human rights–and that is just the beginning.

          • Okay…so you run around “correcting” people and I’m clearly abusive. Problem solved. Get help, I truly think you are in need of a mental evaluation. We are on two completely different spectrums….CLEARLY!

          • Another dismissive, lets see we have had the usual name calling. That fell flat. Now an attempt to discredit. If you can’t claim I am “ignorant” because I am rather well versed in all the LGBT tactics you try to claim I am “crazy” and not reliable. Yes we are on two different poles. Mine is knowing all the LGBT lies and false narratives and calling them what they are. Sooner or later people know who is a reliable narrator and who isn’t. Yes you are very abusive–gaslight is abusive and you pretend you don’t see it. Chilling. The notion of children trapped in that is chilling.

        • Also, i read on your blog that your children were born from anonymous sperm donors, are you in any concern of how this will affect your sons later down the line being they can never know their fathers, now because of you and your wife’s decisions? Or do you not care… To be honest, I’m not in agreement with anti-same-sex marriage campaign, but it is disturbing how some infertile people or gay people shop for their children’s genes from catalogers, and think of their children’s own fathers/mothers are mere raw material… or vials of buyable baby making potion, no different than plant fertilizer.

          Why aren’t you concerned that your kids could end of up like these people in the videos bellow? Especially coming from the fact that same-sex parenting has only been around for 30 years, and throughout most human history people were raised with knowledge of their biological families?

          http://anonymousus.podomatic.com/entry/2015-07-06T21_32_12-07_00

          Answer back when you can.

          • Well you read wrong, we did NOT use anonymous sperm donors, and even if we had it wouldn’t have been anyone’s business. We didn’t shop around for sperm…but trust me there are plenty of infertile straight couples that do the same thing. Also, I am not going to watch your videos or be bothered by this anymore. There are millions of screwed up people in this world, wether they be straight, gay, white, black, yellow, brown, disabled, widowed, poor, rich. I was raised by straight people and lived things that only you would read about. I don’t classify all straight people as being this evil….it was just how it ended up. Now please leave me alone. I’m finished with this!

          • It would be people’s business as children are not property. The way you treat a car is your business, or even the way you keep your house. Children aren’t people’s ‘business’, we must leave that mindset. And you didn’t read all that I had to say. Read again I said “infertile people AND gay people” I didn’t single out just gay people. If you read my blog post you would know that I think straight people are just as guilty or more guilty for participating in closed adoptions and anonymous gamete donors than gays since gays as a community have fewer children maybe you’re on-edge because I misread your blog and misjudged you and for that I apologize. It looked like you wrote “I don’t know who gave us our sons”. I did put videos of sperm donor children being raised by lesbians because that’s relatable to your circumstance, not that I don’t think that straight people participate in the same practices and damage their children just as much, clearly they do—->

            If you don’t want to watch the videos then fine, it’s just the gay community needs to be wary that are a lot of children of gays who are starting to speak up about this, especially those conceived with ‘donated’ gametes. And more than likely they are going to get support from cryo kids of infertile people and singles-by-choice, and those who were taken up in closed adoptions.

          • You probably didn’t take the time to read what I actually said, which is very unfortunate. Have a good weekend too, but please don’t wander on blog posts that talk about issues such as same-sex parenting and artificial reproductive technology if you aren’t willing to hear people express their opinions.

      • The repertoire between Gaymom and IMHO should seriously frighten anybody not familiar with being under the control of ‘gaydom’ , and who supports gay ‘parenting’.

        All other human pathologies being equal (although these pathologies occur far more frequently in LBGTQ populations), the best parents are those parents that, together within a committed mutually-beneficial life long pair-bond, created the biological child with the intent and desire to raise that child and contribute to subsequent generations of their union, until their natural death.

        Nothing less than that natural, biologically mandated commitment is optimal for raising fit children (incl. subsequent generations), and therefore, perpetuating fit societies.

        LBGTQ, by their own definition of themselves (because only incredibly flawed humans could construct such an unnatural system within which to live), are incapable of being any of those things required to bear and raise fit children- as is so clearly evidenced here by Gaymom- Exhibit 1.

        LBGTQ should be satisfied having the freedoms granted by western civilization to live their chosen lifestyle (which is only all about the practice of biologically-defined aberrant sex since that is singularly how they choose to self-identify) and leave the biologically-mandated demands of parenthood to those nature has deemed fit to do so.

        • Correction: ‘repartee’ for ‘repertoire’ (the auto-correct ‘NAZI’ sometimes wins the battle, but, is seldom actually correct)-

        • Not/never to be construed as ‘picking on’ Gaymom- after having read her story or by continuing to cite her family as the reason for not supporting gay parenting would be cruel. That die is cast and we all hope it all works out for her and those innocent kids.

          But, for the other LBGTQ out there that have not yet decided to take the long hard road to SS ‘parenthood’, please consider the burden, as you attempt to realize your own dream to be ‘accepted’ and feel ‘loved’, you put on the children you love. I never doubted that LBGTQ could love anybody-including their children, however acquired, but, no one can deny the incredible additional burden, in an already burdened world, these children will have to bear.

          It is not a lost irony that those most damaged by a dysfunctional family and parenting, freely, and with full consent of their ‘intellects’ [mostly very damaged and over-emotionalized = undeveloped], choose the same highly dysfunctional family fate for the children they love. We see this same pathology with kids from physically or sexually abusive households burdening their own children, similarly. The vicious cycle tends to repeat itself, sadly.

          Fixing the pathologies within natural, biologically-ordained unions and families cannot/should not include adding to these pathologies by introducing another wholly unacceptable and unnatural pathology into the mix. And, this is what SS ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’ expressly does- it adds another entirely different and supremely toxic pathology for children to their already heavy burden. It’s akin to claiming to cure diabetes by given the patient cancer.

          • Let’s scour the globe to find children that are dissatisfied with their same sex upbringing.

            I understand that all hetero couples produce children that were thrilled with the way that they were raised (obvious sarcasm)

            Katy chose to push forth a study produced by the American College of Pediatricians to further promote her agenda.

            Really?

            Manipulation and dishonest tactics are not admirable qualities.

            1 Corinthians 13:4-5 
            Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

            1 John 4:20

            If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

            I am sorry your childhood was not ideal. Welcome to the club.

  6. Let’s scour the globe to find children that are dissatisfied with their same sex upbringing.

    I understand that all hetero couples produce children that were thrilled with the way that they were raised (obvious sarcasm)

    Katy chose to push forth a study produced by the American College of Pediatricians to further promote her agenda.

    Really?

    Manipulation and dishonest tactics are not admirable qualities.

    1 Corinthians 13:4-5 
    Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

    1 John 4:20

    If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

    I am sorry your childhood was not ideal. Welcome to the club.

    • Sorry about the duplicate post.

      The fact is that only time will tell about the outcome of these children.

      Courts have studied the research and pretty much dismissed the nonsense put forth by the American College of Pediatricians.

      This is a conservative, right. Christian based group which also promotes abstinence in lieu of sex education. (And we all pretty much understand how that works out….more children for gays to adopt…lol)

      The end all beat all is that your beliefs are in contrast to public opinion. 70% of the general pop is in favor of same sex marriage.

      On a moral basis that may not mean anything to you in your pick and choose scripture world. However, it’s over, put a fork in it and no matter how much you, blog, yell or promote pseudo science it will never change a thing.

      Christ loved all of mankind. I suggest you take the hint.

      Quit judging.

      • Still battling the religious-based argument against SSM/parenting? While it is a force with which you must contend- for all religions, not just Christianity, you seem to dodge the biological argument against SSM/parenting-why is that? Is it because we all know, by virtue of our own senses and ability to reason that there is no homosexuality, as practiced by 2% of humans, occurring in nature? Therefore, it is unnatural. Why we propose to raise children, our future generations in unnatural circumstances? The health (fitness) of children was and still is an afterthought for the LBGTQ activist community- their first quest to gain “equality” so they could get the same financial incentives given to natural families.

        The majority of the German citizens were OK with Hitler- did it make them right? No- they were lied to and believed him, and look at where that got all of us. History and current affairs are replete with examples of a populace lied to for nefarious forces to gain footholds.

        That Germany thing only cost about 12 millions or so lives. The lies about abortion have led to billions of dead babies. What will SSM/parenting lead to, about which we are being lied to, but, will eventually (and is currently) come out?

        What is logical about SS ‘marriage’? Authentic (not your cheap knock-off) marriage evolved to support the monogamous relationship between a male and a female to form the natural biological family- how do you square that circle with your illogic? LBGTQ, as a lifestyle, were not designed (by man – not by nature) to accommodate children- their entire lifestyle bespeaks one of selfish pursuits. How is that good for children?

      • IV: The problem with your argument based on popular opinion or professional clubs of sociologists is recent history.

        As a long-standing LGBT supporter I recall vividly how the same people and clubs characterized homosexuality as a form of “sexual deviance.” They made it a crime and fired people over it.

        Making the argument that same-sex parenting should be permitted and promoted because “more people support it” seems to me just be the same argument that was used for most of my life to keep LGBT people in a “closet” or unfairly fire them from their jobs.

        A few questions: Were you raised by your natural mother and father to the best of their ability? Why would you deprive other children of that human right? What is the evidence that male-male same-sex parenting is safer for children are better for society than traditional family structure? Is it ethical to put children into an experimental situation without proper controls, rigorous safety monitoring or, at some age, informed consent?

        It’s hard to take someone seriously who quotes the Bible while advocating against the human rights of children.

      • “Quit Judging” Uh? Me think not.

        COGS like all other humans have the right to

        Make Judgments

        A full range of human emotions including love and hate

        Speak about our experience in LGBT in ways LGBT may not like

        Critique any ideology or group we wish

        Live free of threats and harassment from abusive LGBT people

        Why is so hard for LGBT to get this simple ideas: LGBT doesn’t own us, or control us, or speak for us. We owe nothing. Our lived experience is ours and LGBT does not get to silence us.

        How many other groups have to live with a bunch disordered people stalking them and harassing their families? Yeah real normal. 100% Love makes a family. If a catholic comes out and says his parents were abusive and it was an abusive culture of cover up and protecting the perpetrators does anyone doubt them? Or threaten them and their families? No only the sociopathic movement called “Equality” does. That should be a big red flag. While I might agree there is a certain lack of finess and sophistication to many of the more conservative types they are right and all all their bigoted claims about LGBT are correct in my experience. So now what? Keep the propaganda machine going and silence people, hand over more kids? Look for the “rare exception” wake up please. Or not, but do not tell us what to do. Keep thinking your saw it on TV–“The Kids Are Alright” TV told you so and so did some fraudulent research created by LGBT. Great–The Nazi’s had 1000’s of pieces of research and laws too.

        I am not a Christian–I do not care what Jesus would do, or wear, or eat, or what kind of furniture he would get. Public opinion shifts as other voices that had been silenced get heard. Pop culture has a very short attention span. The public has no deep investment in this–easy come easy go. People are already bored and annoyed even theTV shows are being cancelled.

        And most important, it is far from over. The issues of children’s rights to a mother and father and to be born free and not be bought or sold are still under discussion. As I never care much about the SSM issue aside from its impact on children I would say the issue is just starting. So the UN voted to uphold children’s rights. LGBT is the only group in the world currently advocating turning women into reproductive slaves and human trafficking. The fact they lobby for human rights violations is the reason this is far from over. This is just the beginning.

        • You lost.

          That’s the end of it. Sucks to be you.

          Your antiquated and hateful views will be soon swept away.

          On this type of forum your misguided ideas and thoughts are protected and applauded.

          In an open debate you would be destroyed.

          You bring the study from American College of Pediatricians to an honest and moderated debate and you be mocked for your lack of integrity and bias.

          You lost.

          No one cares about a handful of disgruntled people who are upset about what was lacking in their childhood.

          Katy is the product of divorce. Her anger and disillusioned views most likely stem from this.

          What is more important and pleasurable is that you lost.

          You now are no different than the gays you so detest. Which is awesome!!

          You lost and rightfully so.

          • Lost? No loss. I wake up to wonderful kids my eyes and their fathers hair. “legally” married has been around a decade where I come from–nothing changed, great. But here’s the crux, it does not change reality and the fact that most people have real biological ties of creating children together. This takes relationships into a much deeper and powerful level that two unrelated adults can not even scratch the surface off. I mean sure I agree that people should get tax breaks–and now tax breaks across the land. But what has really changed? Are you going to pretend that now men can make babies with men. Nothing has changed in reality. A piece of paper means nothing when the reality of never ever being able to create life with the person you claim to love is the reality and that’s never changing–that’s beyond the scope of media and SCOTUS. And it is that people instinctual respect–creating life together. Do you imagine that now people are all pretending that dry humping or simultaneous mastribation is the same? Fine maybe people will pretend–but they are just pretending and that is kind of sad and boring. It feels kind of empty and hollow to me. And that is why they turn to abuse and we will continue to protect kids. UN is with us 49 Nations.

          • Only the kids lost- but, LBGTQ never cared about the kids- that is why thy choose sterile lives. They only care to ‘reproduce’ (such a sad biological joke) enough, by using others lives (this is known as parasitism), to get their tax breaks and other social goodies. It’s all about the money, and the appearance of ‘fitting in’ with the normal segment of society. Whether we pay the freight for them via the ‘marriage’ incentives or pick it up via their unusually vast health care bills for their off-the-charts physical and emotional health issues, doesn’t really matter to the taxpayer- the fruitful and productive segment of society will have to pay for the LBGTQ biologically disordered lifestyle one way or another.

            Roe V. Wade was a ‘loss’, too; how’s that partial-birth abortion procedure working out for the majority LBGTQ “choice” folks? All OK with dismembering live babies as they’re being born, just to appease the desires of selfish adults? Yet, still claiming to be ‘fit’ for parenthood?

            Roe-v Wade is no different from the child-victims perspective than is Obergefell v. Hodges- both decisions will be scorned, via historical perspective, just as was NAZI and Communist atrocities that sacrificed innocent lives in order to serve the selfish needs and wants of the elite. Pagans and other pre-Christian cults, tribes and clans – many of these societies (think Roman Emperors here, ‘bright lights’) headed by sexual deviants, historically, ritually sacrificed children- you’d best get yourself an education before making your ridiculous comment contributions. Only biological parents will ever, optimally, have the best interest of their child in the forefront of their lives. LBGTQ wont even make it in to the top ten choices for parenting if the child’s natural, biological family is not capable of parenting their own child.

            Don’t you know that you can’t force acceptance- it has to be earned? Other SCOTUS decision have been rejected/overturned – don’t be so cocky about this one sticking too long. Normal people (heteros; 98% of the population) have a funny way of actually caring about kids, and, that is not something to which LBGTQ can typically relate (by definition-right?).

            Does Unintelligence have a response to the biological argument against SS ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’, yet?
            (Hint: reading and comprehension is a virtue, too.)

            Or, is Unintelligence going to keep repeating the same inane mantra “we won, you lost” because Unintelligence isn’t capable of developing a rational argument to defend ‘it’s’ illogical position?

  7. Intelligence not your virtue, yes the irony is delicious. You are not smart enough to see that you are the exact type of abusive I have described. Take a bow sweetie you also prove our point. Haha going through life pretending to be straight–it is rich.

      • Life,
        I think the abusive nature has been clearly described and evidenced here. There is nothing to agree with. You don’t get to agree with our lived experience–that is ours not yours to weigh in on. The fact is we know the manipulations. We are the kids raised in same sex homes and in the abusive sickness that is the loving LGBT community.

        • Not every home is like the one you Grew up in. I am very sorry you had to grow up in a bad situation. I am honestly sorry, but everyhome isn’t like that. Just like straight families, not every home is bad. Get over your childhood and do something more productive. Let it go, free yourself of whatever you went through and find peace in it. Just from reading your comments, I can see you’ve carried this with you your entire life. Not every lesbian/same sex home is that bad.

          • Home? I grew up in the community surrounded by many many activist and adults–not in some isolated island. Hell I should be a historian for the LGBT movement. I disagree, No not like “straight families”. Straight families do not have an entire ideology that is in fact based in being abusive and manipulative either do single mothers or adoptive parents–LGBT does. That ideology right down to fake history is only something maybe cults do and LGBT. I realize that there maybe be some homes that are not horrific but they are not in the community and they do not socialize or even identify with the community. The community is dangerous to kids. Anyone or anything that threatens their fragile narrative they will attack and they will do so forever. And I am not even touching on the sexualization of children and the boundary issues. They have had years to clean house, to turn in abusers, to decide that children’s lives mattered they have done nothing. You find me one person–just one that turned in another LGBT person for abuse. Instead they silence the victim. And this behavior if not sanctioned in never condemned, not ever. I will you what I think every lesbian has been complicit because they are so busy playing handmaiden to big gay that they have thrown women and children under the bus in 100 different ways. LGBT as a movement is right now the biggest threat to poor women and children in the west. I think they are dangerous and pathological. Maybe there is sanity but it aint talking and telling us to be quiet is not talking. I did not grow up in a tiny bubble there were other kids.

          • Well call me in 18 years when my boys grow up and I’ll let them interview with you:) let you in on the great life ahead of them. There’s so much love in this house you wouldn’t know what to do with it. My boys know their donor, it’s not some swept under the rug secret. We don’t tell lies and abuse in OUR home. I can speak for other lgbt homes, but ours is safe. My boys are well rounded individuals and I’m proud of what we have created and contributed to the world. I can’t speak for all straight homes, I’m sure the abuse rate in these homes are much worse. The divorce rate for LGBT is also much, much lower than in straight homes! Jus sayin

          • Hi Gay Mom,

            First, welcome. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my blog. I am totally failing as a blogger this summer- not that I excel at it during other seasons. Finding time to really sit and write anything worth reading is tough when all the kids are home all the time, and sometimes I have to choose between responding to comments and making sure everyone has clean underwear for the morning. I bet you get that. It sounds like you are a good mom, totally into your kids and letting all that maternal awesomeness blossom in you. It is wondrous, the way these littles change us.

            Yesterday, I had a chance to read through several posts on your blog. Thank you for sharing yourself with the blogging world because it gives me a chance to kind of get to know you, Cherish, and your adorable boys. They are truly beautiful. I have no doubt, none, that you are giving your whole self to your kids- something about carrying them for 9 months and sustaining them in their infancy just does that to a woman. And I don’t doubt your commitment to Cherish either. The objections that I have center on the fact that children want their missing fathers- or their missing mothers as the case may be. They tend to long for them in different ways but persistently throughout their life, even into adulthood. And I haven’t yet found a child for whom that wasn’t true. Even in a situation where there is a tragedy, such as abandonment, and the child is placed in an adoptive home that may be “ideal”, at the very least the child is curious about their birth parents and at most devastated at the lost relationship which can spur pilgrimages and life-long searches for birth parents.

            Not only that, but men and women are different and bring critical and complimentary aspects to childrearing, and children benefit from both. This is not to say that neither you nor Cherish are good mothers, it’s saying that neither of you are fathers. And there will be a time where you kids will want their father- hopefully you will cultivate the kind of relationship with them where they can be honest with you about it. And hopefully their donors will be willing to have as much involvement in their lives as the kid’s want- which may be quite a bit come adolescence. That’s when children tend to need more guidance, correction, and involvement from Dad. They tend to want his involvement because they are made for it- as evidenced by the fact that they cannot be “made” with him.

            That being said, I would be glad to know you more. If you ever find yourself in Seattle, for whatever reason, please drop me a line. I know all the hot kid-friendly spots and tips for getting into the museums around here for cheap. AND I have built-in baby sitters at the ready.

            Again, thank for stopping in and being willing to share your thoughts with us.

            Take care, Katy

      • Hey GAyMom- suppose someone tried to convince you that your miserable childhood was a figment of your imagination and that you were being bigoted and hateful by expressing the misery and torture you experienced?

        I would think that someone with your terrible childhood would be more empathetic with others who suffered.

        Are you more interested in protecting adults rights (homo or hetero) or children’s rights? You wish that your children shared the DNA of your partner, well, can’t you see why that may also be a problem for your kids, eventually? Are you attempting to deny that your two boys will one day look for their biological father and wonder why he didn’t want to raise them as his own children?

        Stop thinking of life from the adults perspective and try getting into your/the kids psyche, and needs.

        You didn’t seem to have trouble doing that when it was to garner sympathy for your own plight as an abused or neglected child. The irony of your dual position is rich.

        • I’m not trying to convince her that her childhood was a figment of her imagination. I just think that it goes both ways, sometimes people are put in horrid situations. It doesn’t mean that every single lgbt home is similar. I sympathize to a certain degree, I think that she’s using this as a life long crutch towards the entire lgbt population which is horrid in itself. My children will know their donors, they are very close to our family. It doesn’t matter, the U.S. Legalized this for a reason. With over 70 percent of our population in agreement with the Supreme Court. Justice was served 🙂

          • No it is not “sometimes” people are put in horrible situations. It “just doesn’t happen” . It is the LGBT movement that demands other peoples children be put into these situations. You demonstrate what I am talking about–never ever take responsibility, trivialize, deflect–it just happens and it is the rare exception are lies. We are the kids we are saying so. We are not paid by GLAD or forced to march with the friken rainbow flag any more–we defected, escaped.

            COGS are a new movement all with a different range of experience. We all agree it is bad for kids–how bad? Well if you have to even ask the question then there’s the answer. One COG had their father arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Some are willing to take this to the mat. Major national organizations support human rights violations against women and children and child trafficking. Do you know of any organizations other than GLAD and the HRC in support of human rights violations against women and children. Any? Please name it. I most certainly add them to the list.

            70% may have agreed on marriage. LGBT said, “Marriage is not for reproduction”, and “between two adults” and “not hurting anyone else” –LGBT said all of that over and over and over. Demanding other peoples children is a whole different issue. Look we know what’s what. We were raised in it. People that develop and adhere to a distorted narrative and ideology that de facto is seeped in all the characteristics are out for themselves. It is the hallmark of the pathology–the engine that drives the train. Getting away is freedom to no longer be under their control and to realize there are people in the world that are not narasscitic and pathological, people that do not harass, and threaten, people that do not stalk or try to blackmail, that do not sexualize children, that do push their sexual interest and urges on to kids. The rest of the world is nothing like that.

            Morally and ethically and knowing what we know we can’t turn a blind eye to what LGBT does to kids–that isn’t happening. They had more than enough time and they proved they are dangerous. . Who knows maybe 70% will sign on to give other peoples up to the cause maybe not. I don’t know. All be have to think is what if we have a point–that is all we are asking and if they think we do then they will assert children’s basic human rights.

          • GayMom- 70% of the US population was lied to – deceived – with biased reporting and extremely faulty and manipulated data- just as were many populations throughout history, for nefarious reasons. Please don’t cite that as the rationale or logic supporting LBGTQ ‘marriage’. If it was so popular why did it have to get forced on the US via one activist branch of our government? Why not have it go to a referendum?

            Justice was served for LBGTQ adults, only, it was not served for children, or for a free society- formerly known as western civilization.

          • The same reason why slavery didn’t go through our referendum. As Elsa from our favorite movie Frozen would say “let it goooo, let it gooooo”. Try and enjoy your Sunday

          • So, slavery is the same as LBGTQ not being incentivized by society to promote their unnatural (please do cite these ‘natural’ same sex monogamous bonding and offspring producing and rearing relationships in nature) relationships with each other?

            Would that also be true of the white slavery practices that enslave women and children across the globe, presently- to which gay men will contribute significantly in order to acquire their families?

            And, that Civil War that tore the US apart, and which led to the 13th Amendment – an entirely democratic and Constitutional process (unlike the SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges hi-jacking of the Constitution) is being compared to what the LBGTQ lobby did regarding setting bad precedent for good US government?

            Thanks to your lobby’s inglorious and dangerous precedent- another sole branch of government can now usurp the other two and also the peoples will and do whatever a misguided (constitutionally and morally) justice, or president wants to do- not democratic, no longer a republican form of government.

            Please, do compare your ‘struggles’ to ‘marry’ with blacks struggles for their freedom at one of their “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” demonstrations/riots – bring a camera and be sure to dress the kids in their full LBGTQ regalia.

            “Let it go, let it go” must apply to your apparent lack of education and knowledge of your world.

          • Let it go…let it goo was me having fun. I hope you reach more than you have on this forum. I wish
            You all the best in your arguing endeavors:)
            Truly!

  8. http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/gay-parents-or-straight-parents-kids-are-equally-screwed-study/

    “…The objections that I have center on the fact that children want their missing fathers- or their missing mothers as the case may be. They tend to long for them in different ways but persistently throughout their life, even into adulthood. And I haven’t yet found a child for whom that wasn’t true. Even in a situation where there is a tragedy, such as abandonment, and the child is placed in an adoptive home that may be “ideal”, at the very least the child is curious about their birth parents and at most devastated at the lost relationship which can spur pilgrimages and life-long searches for birth parents….”

    Katy, please refrain from making blanket statements without providing some sort of a reasonable study to back it up.

    Please, if at all possible, avoid citing the American College of Pediatricians. It is dishonest and it is beneath you.

    Katy, absolutes are always wrong. You have yet to meet a single child?

    Maybe you should start looking for children that are not Christian nut bags.

    The majority of adoptive children will express some curiosity about their birth parents. Your Chinese daughter will most likely experience the same.

    However, if raised in a loving household by supportive parents, that curiosity will be something that comes from a healthy place, not something potentially destructive. This will be no different for children raised by a gay couple.

    Katy, you seem very sweet, but your methodology as well as your absolute statements are misleading, disingenuous and, quite frankly, dishonest.

    with the majority of the people who participate out here on attack mode, it is hard to have a reasonable conversation.

    So much for judging others, but the bible, for far too many, is often relied upon when only convenient.

    Your speak about UN resolutions, The College of Pediatricians and how you have never met one child that hasn’t persistently sought out their biological parents.

    The first two are fairly ridiculous and the last can be deeply mitigated by the care of loving parents no matter their sex.

    The studies prove it…unless you rely on The American College of Pediatricians.

    Your case can be fairly easily dismantled.

    I consider my time out here fairly wasted. I hope, but I doubt you feel the same.

    Maybe taking the serenity prayer to heart right now might be a good step in the right direction.

    Only time will tell if any of your assertions are correct. So far, the overwhelming amount of studies suggest that you are wrong.

    I hope to hear from you.

    Lastly, Brandi is certainly within her right to offer up her opinions, but, as someone before me already acknowledged, it would be refreshing to hear those same shared views expressed by someone not so deeply steeped (and possibly blinded) by their Christian beliefs.

    Take care and I do wish you and your family well.
    Where are those folks?

    • “Dishonest” peoples lived experience is not dishonest it is factual. The cognitive disconnect you display is stunning you have no experience come and spew a bunch of memorized dishonest platitudes and then call peoples lived experience “dishonest” Priceless. All people have to is look over your practiced BS and they got the take away–and then they imagine a child in that. You people need help–stick to trashing your own lives and leave other peoples children alone.

      • No. It is an opinion and not necessarily factual. Is that so hard to understand? They could be honest interpretations of what transpired or completely unfounded.

        Fairly straightforward concept. Try and follow along.

        Where are the stories of discontent from non-christian children raised by gay parents?

        Something else is kind of bugging me. Do you know how many single women are now adopting children?

        Might want to Google it up.

        All of these kids will grow up without fathers. In fact, this has to be harder on children due to there only being one parent available.

        If Katy is so concerned about the welfare of children why hasn’t she attacked these women?

        Doesn’t that strike anyone as being a bit odd?

        Apparently, according to her profile, Katy has. If she ever turned in a paper citing the American College of Pediatricians as a reference she would be incredibly dissatisfied with it’s reception.

        It’s all fairly embarrassing that most of you are unable to understand any of this.

        I would love to debate Katy in a moderated forum.

        It would be

          • Notice how Katy ignores my posts. It is not by accident.

            She knows that I have her number and that I will dismantle her opinions.

          • There are quite a few Millie Fontana Foxx, B.N. Klein are two. One of the commenters left a list here on ATB. Those two I mentioned are not Christians–you use the whole Christian thing as a deflection. It worked in the past. I was raised in LGBT and there were other kids in the communty–NONE are Christian and NONE are in favor of same sex parenting. Yes, Christians. It would be very neat and clean to pretend that is the issue. I mean with your logic do women just cry rape because they are women, or only Christina women?

            And again I hope people are paying attention. This is another reason why LGBT is so DANGEROUS to children. They could be abused and abused in the community and LGBT will never even admit it, never stop it and never protect the children. Because It is all about the adults and protecting the lies. That’s dangerous really very dangerous. The facade has to be protected at all costs.

            Again the pathology of adult self centered added to the fact that children are just items to own, like a new outfit. It has nothing to do with family or what children need. In LGBT children are possessions and props used in the daily Rocky Horror Picture Show called the LGBT family that they play act to all the straights. You people are still terrifying.

          • You “got her number” and “feeble mind”. Really you should find some fresher language if you are trying to show, I dunno, that you’re smart or something. You keep digging yourself in deeper.

          • Imagine the arrogance and narcissism that calls itself “intelligence is a virtue” and then berates others contributions as “…please stop addressing me…..your feeble mind is no match” , yet, still being observably incapable of logically developing an opposing argument, based in reality, to support the redefinition of marriage, while also simultaneously contending that, with no evidence, children raised by LBGTQ will magically be more fit than how they’ve been raised to date.

            The only retort the radical leftist activists ever have to support their ‘wishful, magical thinking” is to cite bad behavior by non LBGTQ.

            And, they think this is to be classified as ‘intelligent’ debate.

            Sound like Chicago-style politicking to me-

        • “Fairly straightforward concept. Try and follow along”

          If only you would follow your own advice.

          Here is the objection to the definition of marriage being changed, again:

          Marriage, since its inception as derived out of the practice of monogamy in nature, adapted as ‘marriage’ by humans, to foster the most fit environment in which to propagate the species, should not be redefined or incentivized by society to promote or support anything but the most optimal conditions for such propagation, which is forming the family unit of one male and one female monogamously pair bonded for life, to produce the natural by-product of their unique union, their own biological offspring, to form the natural family, which is the foundation for western civilization.

          Every other formation of family is secondary, or lesser to that which is the natural, biological family, which is the foundation for fit individuals and for a fit species.

          That is the gold standard family that society should incentivize, optimally. All other varieties of families are suboptimal, and as such, are borne out of biological or social dysfunction that should not be incentivized by society; such as divorce (not incentivized by society, but, did not redefine the optimal family structure), single-parenting (should not be incentivized by society, but, did not redefine the optimal family structure), adoption (resulting from either the unintentional (tragedy) or intentional but, did not redefine the optimal family structure), and all other forms of reproductive technology that form ‘families’.

          Try to follow along, again; only LBGTQ have redefined marriage for western civilization. It’s the redefinition that is bad, not LBGTQ. LBGTQ are just fine- but, they should have left the natural family marriage structure alone. Now, they’re in the cross-hairs of a necessary cultural debate. It doesn’t matter who ‘won’ a legal battle, legal decisions are wrong all the time, and turned over, all the time.

          If the radical LBGTQ lobby and their supporters have a principled (rational, logical) scientific, moral and ethical position to support their position (not a legal distortion of law), they should state it. Their emotional argument, which won the day in court, isn’t going to hold any water when held up against the rights and needs of children, or a free, fit society.

          Game on. Bring all those big brains we keep hearing about, but, seldom see, to the party.

  9. IMHO just referred to herself in the 3rd person and then went on to tell her own story in the 1st. She essentially counted herself twice to give the illusion of numbers.

    Intelligence is a Virtue and LifeasaGayMom, I wouldn’t bother trying to debate these people. It is a handful of antigay activists who collude and then agree with each other on a public forum using distorted misinformation to give the illusion of rational consensus.

    • You can’t trust IMHO. Most likely is a liar, but is far too stupid to further engage.

      IMHO on July 12, 2015 at 6:54 pm

      ““Dishonest” peoples lived experience is not dishonest it is factual”

      Anyone who would say this is too dumb to further engage.

      Did anyone actually read the study conducted by Mark Regnerus?

      His study was thrown out by a judge. He is just another Christian nut job trying to twist numbers to fit an already predetermined outcome.

      His study included ONE (1) ONE (1) ONE (1) LESBIAN COUPLE WITH AN INTACT RELATIONSHIP AND RAISING A CHILD.

      ONE.

      ONE.

      ONE.

      You are all too dumb, too blind and filled with hate to continue.

      You lost. You lost. You lost.

      THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE KIDS.

      THIS IS ABOUT KATY’S HATRED FOR GAYS AND THE FACT THAT SHE WILL CITE ANY STUDY NO MATTER HOW FLAWED. AS LONG AS IT SUPPORTS HER AGENDA AND HATRED. SHE WILL LISTEN TO ANY PERSON NO MATTER HOW FLAWED THEY MIGHT BE AS LONG AS IT SUPPORTS HER AGENDA AND HATRED.

      Katy talks all sweet, but is just another nutbag Christian that will feel the wrath of God when it comes time to explain how she treats her fellow man.

      ALL OF YOU DESERVE EACH OTHER.

      AND, DON’T YOU EVER FORGET, YOU LOST!

      AND LOST BIG!

      YOU LOST. YOU LOST. YOU LOST.

      GET OVER IT.

      • “…And again I hope people are paying attention. This is another reason why LGBT is so DANGEROUS to children. They could be abused and abused in the community and LGBT will never even admit it, never stop it and never protect the children. Because It is all about the adults and protecting the lies. That’s dangerous really very dangerous. The facade has to be protected at all costs.”

        You mean like the Catholic church?

        You are too dumb to further address.

        Take all of your meaningless “coulds” and place them where the sun don’t shine.

        No one gives a damn about all of your biased and hateful opinions.

        The SCOTUS rejected them, the majority of people reject them and God thinks you are all a bunch of A-holes.

        You lost.

        • So funny when that “Catholic Church” house cleaning is cited by LBGTQ activists: has anybody bothered to inform our oh-so-wise LBGTQ brethren that over 90% of the abuse claims reportedly committed by Catholic clergy were committed by homosexual pederasts? It wasn’t a collapse of Catholic philosophy or theology that victimized those minors, it was homosexual men, ignoring their vows of celibacy, at a minimum, preying on ‘twinks’.

          Probably shouldn’t go ‘there’ to defend LBGT ‘parenting’ – d’ya think?

          Wash, rinse, repeat- “You Lost” seems to be the only ‘logical’ response to the ongoing debate surrounding the Obergefell decision on risk to children, and society. Not a very diversified intellect, is it?

      • Intell: Are you down to the very bottom of your bag of brilliant tricks–Caps? How did you think of that. How convincing. good tactic they make you so much more right and articulate and such a great cover for the fact that you did not make it past some LGBT internet attempt to discredit Professor Regenrus–tenured faculty still researching and publishing. What a waste of money.

        Yes it is about kids. In fact it is about other peoples kids. Children that LGBT wants to buy and sell and trade so adults can feel like adults, like they reproduced with all the real grown ups. LGBT non reproductive marriages are not poor women’s or their children’s problem.

        Same sex marriages are not going to be a tool by which rich mostly white western men take children away from their mothers and use women like barn yard animals for breeding because LGBT is seeped in misogyny, classism and racism. If you think the world does notice this your nuts. You think that whole “civil rights” crap flies in It is a virtual lock down world wide on LGBT because of all the human rights violations they have done to women and children.

        The only group in human history that advocates the sale of children and turning women into commercial breeders. I am sure the whole victim, oppression narrative work real well on the streets of Kenya–yeah they really believe all the bull about civil rights. Don’t count on it. They see it and they know it wealthy western LGBT violate the human rights of poor women and children. Another pack of roving predators looking to profit. The new export humans. Kinda reminds them of the slave trade–yeah “the new civil rights” sure the world is so convinced. SCOTUS has no power over the UN or all the countries that are slamming shut the door LGBT schemes for profit commercial human breeding and reproductive slavery.

    • Wrong again, D-Crock; it’s about protecting children and society from those advocating the destruction of marriage, and western civilization. It just happened to be LBGTQ that were ‘dumb’ enough to take the lead on the ideological lefts advances to destroy western civilization. We reject your socialist-communist “utopia’ where the state determines what a family is, and what it does, and not naturally-formed families dictating to the state (you know, that annoying “..of…by…for the people….). Polyamorists and incest advocates would have gotten exactly the same response for exactly the same reasons: human nature, which requires freedom to pursue optimal fitness, opposes all of these aberrant family conditions.

      Now, take the intellectual ‘heat’ you’ve earned for being so naïve. Only radical leftist ideological LBGTQ and others similarly politically disposed support your lobby’s agenda; normal, rational LBGTQ do not. Are they ‘antigay activists’, too?

      Think Roe v. Wade. It isn’t going way because you ‘won’. It’s only just begun.

      • The distortions include every manner of disconnect and manipulation. I think people need to look at the basic examples. The case all over the news now–cakes. The idea of civil rights has been transformed into aggrieved shoppers and service demanders. $135, 000 because of a cake—rich white people had their fee fee’s hurt and were forced to take to there beds for weeks and be attended to by a retinue of devotees.

        No wonder they can commodity children and women. This is the consumer rights paradigm. Born out of corporate culture and profiteering. It is this fake social justice language and pop culture entitlement that camouflages the rampant human rights violations of LGBT and misogynistic organizations such as GLADD and HRC —Discrimination is not getting served cake and forcing Christians to take part in acts against their conscience. And at the same time Gay Right demand human trafficking and reproductive slavery. The right to other people’s children and women’s bodies—just like civil rights. It looks more like Massa’s rights to me. Just sayin.

  10. IntaVirt: Your posts of July 12 make very clear that, for you, this is merely an argument “to win.” I find in the posts of COG survivors a different intent; one that is directed towards preventing future children from losing what past COGs already have lost.

    Your statements demanding “studies ” that will resolve this question are naïve. How exactly would you go about controlling all the nonexperimental variables for the duration of a human childhood in order to isolate sexual orientation of the parents and test the hypothesis? It simply is folly. Even if an experiment were to be designed, funded and carried out by objective robots, there would be serious ethical implications.

    The best we can do in terms of data is to provide parents and families with the statistical population-level risk factors that are well known for certain human behavior. But like every other risk in life, parents may choose to deny or ignore population risk factors; some of those individuals in denial may be among the “lucky ones ” who get away with risky behavior.

    Adults who are bringing up children in homes where they deliberately deprive the child of a mother or father, regardless of the parent’s current sexual orientation, might ask themselves whether the experience of adult COG’s can help to understand important limitations of their own parenting? Perhaps they can listen and learn from the shortcomings of past LGBT parents as opposed to constantly goading, stereotyping, and trying to win a pyrrhic victory? Believe me, it’s a life-long process. How children respond to LGBT parenting at age 12 is completely different than how they may respond to past parental choices when they are 50 and the parents are 75 or 80.

    The experiences of adult COGs who are brave enough, independent or sufficiently close with their parents to speak out, are a scarce resource in the same-sex marriage/ parenting discussion. There were relatively few such children raised in the 1970s and 80s who are now adults and independent. Moreover, don’t you think most people reserve childhood abuse discussions for therapists or family intimates, as opposed to strangers on an Internet forum?

    • Lets see–do we see anything that even resembles nurturing parenting characteristics in these people words. Anything?

      Call me crazy but I see evidence of abusive people that will damage children. Look at their abnormal and viscous reactions. Look at the deflections and attempt to blame or shame or humiliate and threaten. They take huge pleasure in this. They “get off” on it. And It is a pleasure for them, make no mistake about that.

      For children in these homes the smallest infraction will trigger these exact responses and the abuse will be outsourced to the entire community. It is some kind of pathology and it is accepted and common. They in fact encourage it–this is their version of normal.

      They are I have no doubt about it dangerous to children who are all but hostage cut off and controlled because the entire movement will never protect the child–will never admit any wrong doing. The will do exactly what people see being done here–attempt to discredit, silence, shame, deflect, attack with rage driven campaigns call in reinforcements. Yeah “Love Makes A Family” . No arrogance, entailment, manipulation, callousness force children to endure.

      Look over what they are doing. Name it. And think if that is something children should be forced to endure. Is that how any people you know parent? Is it even remotely this side of normal. I do not think it is. There is a culture of cruelty that camouflages itself in talk of social justice and civil rights when it is in realty the exact opposite.

      • IMHO- just the fact that they seek out the opposition here at ATB to spew their hateful and destructive rhetoric is all the evidence anyone should need to see through the ‘loving, harmless’ façade of the radical LBGTQ lobby.

        And, this is their ‘happy’ behavior after having ‘won’ all the marbles (for now). What would their vitriol look like if they had lost?

        And, we think this disordered psyche raising children to be fruitful, healthy, productive citizens for western society is ‘good’? We can see from their comments that they only want to raise vicious little anarchists, falling in line with, and pushing their own distorted world views. After all- activist LBGTQ should be able to now ‘produce’ that many more activist LBGTQ, for what – to take over the world? Talk about an evolutionary dead end.

        Sure, it’s as ‘good’ for society as marijuana is for the brain/intellect and as ‘good’ as illegal, open border invasions by drug cartels and terrorists are for the country. It’s all just really, really ‘good’.

        • It would not be worse if they had lost. They would have been all over the victim act. Win or loose no real difference. The essential nature of the movement and the distortions remains the same.

    • Then let’s get more opinions from COG who experienced a wide range of parenting styles and see how the numbers pan out. How did they feel about growing up in a nonsecular, a single mother, a different religion or a single father household?

      The end result is that all of your’s, as well as my own beliefs, are meaningless.

      Now that gays can get married and that marriage recognized by every state will undoubtedly strengthen those unions and provide even more stability for the children involved.

      40% of the children in this country are born out of wedlock. How many of those are going to gays? How many are intentionally being brought into straight single parent homes?

      My background, adopted, raised by loving christian parents, straight, college educated, (attended a religious affiliated university) male who lives in Chicago. (Of course, I could be lying)

      I haven’t lost God. I love the teachings of Christ and wish that more people would follow them.

      I don’t begrudge anyone happiness, within the scope of the law, and realize that for the majority of people that their sexual orientation is not a choice.

      You refer to the SCOTUS decision as a pyrrhic victory without having proof that there is a true detrimental cost to this decision. The courts reviewed the studies and rendered their decision.

      A handful of opinions from disgruntled COG’s is not proof. (I hope you can understand my point)

      Children’s lives do hang in the balance. I believe that gay relationships are strengthened and solidified under this decision and will bear fruit accordingly. You believe otherwise. I get it.

      As far as Regenrus, well, he is kind of a dope.

      I should have posted it, but I’m too lazy.(there is an audio recording of his statement)q He said, (paraphrasing)

      “Since homosexual male couples are now recognized their sexual practice of anal sex will now make it onto the bedrooms of hetero couples.”

      How horrible! This deviant behavior must be stopped …lol!

      Everyone has their bias, but Regnerus wears his on his sleeve, and this is just one reason, aside from who funds his studies and the lack of a substantial pool, that his studies have been pretty much rejected by others.

      Only time will tell what becomes of these children. God willing, let’s check back in twenty or thirty years from now and look at the results. I believe we will see miraculous results from these children. I know you disagree.

      I’ve been a tad bit of a dick on this blog and I do apologize. It’s very difficult to undertake a meaningful debate when so few are willing to have an open and honest dialogue.

      The opinions of a handful of COG means little without a much more thorough investigation of their beliefs. What if they view homosexuality as some sort of sin? It’s rather difficult to get an accurate view of their childhood coming from this angle. Maybe they had crappy parents? It happens.

      I really do wish you all well. I hope at some point you are able to open your minds and learn to love all of God’s creations. Life will be much richer for you if you take this path.

      • Lastly, Katy mentions she is the product of divorce (age 8 or 9?) and was raised at a relatively young age by a lesbian couple.

        No mention of her father. Did he fly the coop? What happened? Is this not relevant to the discussion at hand? Abandonment can way heavy on the psyche of a child. Is this the case?

        • “I believe we will see miraculous results from these children”

          Without citing any social study pro or con gay parenting (let them cancel each other out), explain why you believe this to be true. Rationalize it (as no advocate before you has been capable)-

      • IntelliVert: Thanks for the clarification. By “pyrrhic victory,” I wasn’t referring to SCOTUS specifically in my last post.

        But I don’t agree with the majority opinion in O. v. H. and tend to side with Roberts who expressed SCOTUS “stole” something from the States and people by concocting a “marriage right” in the Constitution. The SCOTUS decision was not based on sociology survey studies, including the one you critiqued. It was based on a legal assessment of marriage laws, long-standing political alliances, and public opinion. That approach is not unusual and quite consistent with the history of the Supreme Court on many social issues for a couple hundred years.

        I think the States, people (and corporations) were moving progressively toward a relatively swift resolution to the SSM question; thus, there was no need to resolve it with a federal power grab. And in fairness, DOMA was no better than O v H for the same reasons.

        Compared with the federal government, individual States and counties are in a much better position to take the necessary due diligence and implement proper controls for children being brought into these largely experimental male-male marriages. County Child protection is really not ” one size fits all.” I would have preferred to see the child welfare aspects worked out more thoroughly at local levels, before moving to extend status, tax and other financial benefits for the adults that will come from the decision.

        But only time will tell whether that decision ultimately creates more or less angst for LGBT families. As an optimist I would tend to side with you that stability may help, especially for female-female parents. Homosexual females have about a two- or three-fold higher lifetime rate of suicide ideation/actual attempts than do heterosexual females. That has an impact on the rates for their children because suicidal parents are a risk factor for suicide. So I certainly can see the potential positive outcome of SSM for some of those lesbian couples, many of whom are committed to raising fatherless, biological children regardless of the State or SCOTUS decision. Now they may feel more accepted and integrated into society; if we believe Durkheim that should lower their suicide rates compared to status quo.

        But I think it’s speculative to assume that the well-documented benefits of traditional marriage stability for children all will automatically transfer to COGs when they’re raised in a “legal” same-sex marriage. Because I think we are, as a society, intentionally turning a blind eye to some very brilliant work that was done on human psychology for the past 100 years that points to the crucial importance of opposite sex-role attachment, as well as same-sex role models.

        And yes, that last concern goes far beyond SSM to include the explosion of single parenting by choice, resignation, divorce, abandonment or economic forcing function.

      • Speaking of Gods creations, how many of them are long-term monogamously-bonded same sex pairs for the intent of producing and rearing offspring?

        See, if God, or nature, wanted LBGTQ people to reproduce and raise children, He/it would have made LBGTQ heteronormative, not made them ‘oriented’ (not ‘born that way’ ) to sterile sexuality. Which, in and of itself is just fine- but, not fine for any kiddies being forced to be raised by them. Kiddies need to be raised in normal male-female homes, all other things being equal (so, save your usual ‘dysfunctional hetero’ stories, there are far more dysfunctional homos, per capita).

        Confused, need answers and not sure about, or, reject God? That’s OK- nature provides the answers to your questions. What nature doesn’t do is incentivize or encourage aberrant behavior- especially behavior that will undoubtedly lead to unfit offspring, unfit species and an unfit society. Nature has no bad laws or dishonest politicians, its spits out aberrant behavior via natural selection-and, often times, in not such a pretty way (….like if a fit male lion tries to mount another fit male lion… better get yourself out there before the blood, bone and fur begins to fly….) . There are no “1500 species exhibiting homosexual behavior”, that’s an intentional and politicized distortion of observations (aka the ‘unicorn’ of trumped- up ‘poly-sci’) of animals exhibiting aberrant behavior- same as those that aberrantly eat their own young or kill their own mates. It is an aberrant behavior that is disadvantageous to the species. Citing those few highly politicized reports (thoroughly rejected by the scientific community) to suggest that homosexuality is normal is akin to citing the fact that because violent rape occurs, it is advantageous to our species. It is not- it is aberrant behavior.

        By the way- abortion is no good for kids, either (in case your jury was still out on that judicial fiat targeting innocent children), and the ‘Jim Crow’ and Dred Scott decisions really weren’t very good for black folks, either.

        Bad SCOTUS decisions come and go all the time. Too bad kids will be made to suffer for this LBGTQ fiasco.

      • The irony of the statement that “the opinion of only a handful of COGs means so little”, when put within the context of 1.6-2.0% of the LBGTQ minority population dictating its terms about what normal, natural, traditional marriage will mean to the majority ~98% of the overall population, is just so very, very ‘rich’ – isn’t it?

        The opponents of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision only cite their concerns about adverse effects of the decision on children, while the proponents and supporters of this political decision only cite the benefits of the decision to themselves.

        And, that is all any of us really needs to know, isn’t it?

  11. It doesn’t get any better than winning within your words. Well said intelligence is a virtue. Let them be at misery. It’s now just about winning which clearly your point has won. There’s a reason they are writing within a blog and not in front of a judicial system. This crap would get thrown out like last nights dinner scraps!

    • GayMom- a little maturity in your responses would be nice- don’t you think – as the mother of two kids?

      The people opposing the SCOTUS decision aren’t ‘haters, bigots and phobes’- as you’ve been led to believe (or want to believe to make your life choices easier ). Many opponents of the decision disagree with it because of the very bad legal precedent it sets- LBGTQ ‘rights’ and ‘love’ aside. Most disagree with it out of concern for kids getting caught up in the brutality of a radicalized ideology or used as pawns in a political battle, or to gain financial incentives, only.

      The concern isn’t about ‘winning’- this isn’t a damned contest between idiots on some imbecile reality show.

      Why is you ID as “gaymom”? Why isn’t just ‘loving’ mom, or ‘devoted’ or ‘happy’ mom enough to self- identify? Who cares who you sleep with or what tools or props you need to use to satisfy your partner, or about your selfish indulgences and insecurities? Why is it that your world revolves around you and your chosen sexual orientation? Aren’t you being just as selfish as your own neglectful parents?

      You’re a “real” mom now- two kids depend on you to make every decision you make to maximize/optimize THEIR fitness to survive in this miserable world. You’re not a “gay” anything so far as your kids are concerned, you’re a female, a woman, and a mother with two children. They could care less about your childhood or your insecurities about your lover or your chosen sexuality. They’re going to have to survive in the real world- where men brutalize each other just for the fun of it.

      Time to grow up, little girl.

      Put your kids first, let go of the rebellion against your lousy parents. Move on.

      Talk about ‘letting it go’….

      • Do you ever smile? Rather than pushing people around on a blog, try and make more of your day. Food for thought.

        • “Let them be at misery.”

          Do you ever smile? If that’s what makes you sleep at night?

          “It’s now just about winning which clearly your point has won.”

          Rather than pushing people around on a blog?

          “There’s a reason they are writing within a blog and not in front of a judicial system.”

          Try and make more of your day.

          “This crap would get thrown out like last nights dinner scraps!”

          Some of your food for thought?

          Are you seeing the hypocrisy of your comments, and your so-called life?

          Are you seeing that it is you who is the hater and bigot in this dialogue?

          You came here to ATB to attack those opposed to the SCOTUS decision, we didn’t go to your blog to attack or insinuate ourselves into your weird ‘otherworld’.

          Get a clue.

          • I NEVER came here to attack. I follow lgbt blogs and this showed up on one, I was baffled at the subject line so I gave it a peek and here we have you! Oh beautiful, you!

          • “I NEVER came here to attack.”

            Sure you did, that’s all you’ve done since your arrival. I see no nice response back to Katy’s public welcoming of you to her site, or to Seattle. I see no rationale or logic to your strictly emotional position. I see only hate all wrapped up in the rainbow flag of ‘love and tolerance’.

            ” I follow lgbt blogs and this showed up on one, I was baffled at the subject line so I gave it a peek and here we have you!”

            Why isn’t a ‘mom’ (if she’s a ‘mom’ before she’s a ‘lesbian’, that is) of two small kids too busy to follow LBGT blogs, or even following kiddie blogs- ya’ know, for the benefit of the kiddies? Why does one’s aberrant (so deemed by nature, not by me) sexual orientation get prioritized over one’s children? You’re kinda proving our point….

            “Oh beautiful, you!”

            Why, thank you. But, I am positive we’re aren’t each others ‘type’.

        • O’Boyle, nice response. There are obviously more potholes in the path of a same sex couple. Time will tell.

          On the otherhand Jae wrote…

          Speaking of Gods creations, how many of them are long-term monogamously-bonded same sex pairs for the intent of producing and rearing offspring?

          I really don’t have time for you.

          Plenty of hetero couples and straight women are not “breeders.” However, we don’t limit their access to obtain children. And, yeah, hetero couples go through the exact same channels to obtain their kids as them dang gays.

          Your nature argument is dumb.

          If you and Katy are actually concerned about the welfare of children why haven’t you focused your angst on single mothers?

          Children of gay couples make up less than 1% of the “kiddies” out there.

          40% of all of this Country’s children are born out of wedlock.

          I wonder, who is better off, a child raised by a single mother or a child raised by two gay parents?

          Do these kids not miss both parents? Do they not have serious regrets about their upbringings? Do they not have issues over abandonment, living in poverty and potential mental issues/scars that might follow them for years?

          Why have you focused on the 1% while intentionally ignoring the 15 million kids that reside in single parent homes?

          If you are really concerned about the welfare of the kiddies, why not put your resources and time into addressing this larger issue?

          It couldn’t be because they’re not gay, right?

          If one single mom is a problem, then two moms have to be better even if they are homos. It only makes sense. I know you object.

          I understand that you have zero intent on having a rationale discussion.

          I would kind of enjoy it if marriage was partially based upon a couple’s ability/desire to breed.

          Nothing is more disgusting than watching two old geezers going down the aisle 🙂

          Take care.

          • Sorry, couldn’t let this slide.

            Jae wrote…
            “…Most disagree with it out of concern for kids getting caught up in the brutality of a radicalized ideology or used as pawns in a political battle, or to gain financial incentives, only.”

            Quit with the unsubstantiated sweeping statements. I cannot think of one gay couple who are placing children within their home as pawns in a political battle l, to make a point or who are subjecting their children to the brutality of a radicalized ideology. That would mostly come from the likes of you and Katy.

            Having children for financial gain is something that both heteros and I imagine some gay couples take part in and is fairly irrelevant to this conversation. If you would like to research it feel free.

            I would start with families around/below the poverty line with 3 or more kiddies.

            I already have a pretty strong idea of the outcome of this query.

          • Nothing is unsubstantiated in my statement that LBGTQ only care about their rights, while their opposition care about the rights of children- just look at the arguments pro-con that made it to SCOTUS, and here at ATB, and everywhere the issue is still being debated (and will continue to divide as does Roe v Wade). That’s obvious to anyone who can read.

            The fact that heteros act badly is no defense for homos acting badly- but, you know that, right?

            The issue is with society underwriting bad behavior, behavior that leads to a sick society. Welfare is an evil that should not encourage more dependency- but, at least welfare is decided at a state level, by elected officials. There is no ‘jury-rigged’ Federal law now demanding that the states offer up more welfare so as to produce even more dependents- well, not at least until the Obergefell decision.

            There is plenty of bad hetero behavior, except for the leftist ideologues version of ‘charity’ (with others tax money), welfare, which is nothing more than ensuring a political slave subculture- no one is celebrating that we incentivize it- until the radicalized (not all, to be sure) LBGTQ lobby came along.

            What else have you got?

            Dig anything of interest up on that biological, natural, evolutionary front?

    • Regnerus was thrown out of court like last YEAR’S dinner scraps. In March 2014 Michigan Federal Judge Friedman wrote about Regnerus’ study and testimony in court:

      “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

      It is wholly dishonest to present Regnerus like Ms. Faust did in her “study the studies” post recently given what has already been said about this mockery of science.

      • So, shall we judge the merits of all scientific endeavors by their funding sources?

        Shall we start with anything funded by the Obama Administration over the past ~7 years or anything by the leftist, liberal US and European university systems, or how about anything out of a leftist think tank (rather the oxymoron, there, isn’t it?)?

        Is that a road you’re prepared to travel with this logic?

        Toss out all the social studies- they are to easily biased by unethical researchers.

        Take a walk in the woods, or a jungle or a swim in the ocean, or a lake- observe nature- then, get back to us-

  12. “Nothing is more disgusting than watching two old geezers going down the aisle”

    But, that’s not ‘hate’ or ‘bigotry’-right?

    You don’t have time to find out why nature denies SS anything? Are you all comfy in your blissful ignorance?

    Cant handle the biological argument against SS ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting, there, Unintelligent? Nothing left to do but dismiss it without actually arguing your rebuttal. No logical recourse? No rebuttal? Of course not- there is none.

    After all, the world and nature is ‘what it is’ well, just because you say so, it’s here to serve you-yes?

    No great philosophers or other intellects ever thought to look to nature for insights about humans about life, death, or even the theory of evolution- the god of the secular-progressive-humanist-atheist. Was Darwin wrong to study nature to determine our origins, or possibly our future? Is nature wrong?

    Hypocrites.

    • Can you read? What is your malfunction?

      Fine. Get it so that only couples who are able and interested in breeding can marry and I’ll support it.

      Until then please shut your mouth.

      Did you notice the 🙂 thingy?

      That usually indicates “humor.”

      You are not very bright.

      • Unintelligence and gaymom and a few others that comment here, do so only to attack anyone, who for any reason opposes changing the definition of marriage, which among other things would possibly put children at risk, and are not interested in engaging in honest debate on the merits of this new definition for marriage. They are only interested in calling others names and disparaging their reputation, and even criticizing their families.

        We can read, we’re honest about our concerns, we don’t resort to name-calling when debating the principles of our positions, and we don’t need to use emoticons to weasel out of untenable positions and dubious claims.

        So far, no advocate of changing the definition of marriage has been capable of logically responding to the oppositions well-stated and reasoned concerns with anything more than personal attacks.

        Why is it you come to ATB to post your nasty comments and attack other commenters if not for the sole purpose of disparaging those with whom you have already determined are haters, bigots and phobes?

        You cant be honest about anything else, maybe you can be honest to yourselves about that. Is there a silly emoticon for ‘that’?

        • “Your nature argument is dumb.”

          This is their only response to the indisputable fact that nature, via biological fact, necessity and evolution, has already determined the environment provides the optimal conditions in which to bear and raise offspring-and, it isn’t within the LBGTQ ‘community’.

          How can the left, who worship “Mother Earth” and demands that we put the needs of nature before the needs of humans, talk out of both sides of their two faces?

          While they tell us that overpopulation, global warming, and deforestation is going to kill the planet, they simultaneously tell us to ignore the same nature that informs us of the unique and critical role opposite sex and monogamously bonded parents have in raising fit offspring. Fit offspring leads to fit societies, and fit species.

          While they tell us that there is a right to dismember babies as they’re being born, they also tell us there is a right for humans to ‘create’ designer babies, and generate baby ‘garbage’, via man-made technology.

          The contradictions in their logic are astounding.

          But, no where in their argument do we ever the witness their concern for the well-being of children-at any stage of development. Their selfish focus on the wants of the adult (so long as its in line with a certain radical ideology) is equally astounding – in it’s inhumanity- the greatest offense against nature.

  13. Intel and GayMom,

    You have now met the two angriest commenters on this blog, Jae and IMHO. Some seemingly calmer voices like O’Boyle may chime in, and you may even see a compassionate Christian response from Ms. Faust herself. Please be aware that this dialogue resembling varied opinions in debate reaching a consensus is a charade. Most of these commenters all work and correspond with Ms Faust outside of this blog to coordinate their response to you two, i.e. “Good Cop, Bad Cop” They probably all hold the same hate in their hearts, they are just playing roles.

    They cannot admit that their beliefs are rooted in their religion, so they make a show of logical debate, sing the praises of a handful of flawed biased studies, or talk about self evident truths of “nature”

    You should not bother subjecting yourself to these abusive and defamatory arguments, because nobody is changing their mind on this blog. Rest assured the real American consensus has been reached. Love won, hate lost. The discussion on this blog since 6/26/15 is largely an expression of impotent rage. There is nothing they can do about it but complain on the internet.

    Intel, thank you for being a fair minded straight ally. GayMom, keep loving your babies and don’t ever let Ms. Faust question you and your partner’s abilities to raise them right. Time will tell how the next generation turns out, and I am reasonably confident things will turn out just fine.

    • What’s ‘angry’ about the natural, biological argument against SS’M’ and ‘parenting? Is nature ‘angry’?

      There is no religious argument imbedded in biological facts- laws of nature dictate who should be parents, not an errant ideology, or one’s religious convictions.

      Where in human history have ‘gays’ been incentivized or underwritten by any society to form ‘families’ and ‘raise’ children? Where are those children and where are those societies?

      Why are you ‘confident things will turn out just fine’- from what historical or natural, biological source do you draw that wishful thinking ‘conclusion’?

      Answer the questions and stop personalizing your attacks against those presenting logical arguments in defense of natural marriage. Unfortunately, all you have is wishful thinking on your side, we have millions of years of observable biology and evolution on ours. Our position is reasoned, yours is emotional.

      And last, I will defend myself and others, as I see fit or as permitted by the Bigot, on this blog from your radical lobby’s consistent vicious attacks on those who oppose your agenda by using the very same tactics you use to defame your opposition. How is that ‘feeling’ for you? Your lobby was spoiled by the typical peaceful, gentle and accommodating ‘turn the other cheek’ Christian responses to your vile attacks. I don’t have that mandate moderating my behavior- nature is brutal, and so will be my responses your vile lies and tactics.

      • If marriage is intended for breeding then why allow the elderly to marry?

        They can’t reproduce. That pretty much ends your argument.

        Our “attacks” are based on logic and reason. While Katy and others have no problem trotting out Regnerus who has admitted that his study cannot be used to discredit gay marriage.

        Have you no decency?

        • Unintel- because a few unimportant/irrelevant misuses of authentic marriage slip through the cracks, like an elderly couple getting married (which under the current US entitlements system, can entail incurring an additional cost to that couple), that does not threaten the very fabric of the institution itself. Neither does divorce nor single parenthood threaten the institution – although neither of those human failings are good for children.

          ‘Decency’ is arguing from a position, logically and honestly, in which you believe.

          Here’s what I believe, which also happens to be totally supported by/in nature, and supported by empirical data (as well as easily observed, anecdotally):

          1. Monogamous pair bonding, which emanates from nature, is that bond between a male and a female that generally/usually leads to the production of the bonded pairs own biological offspring/progeny.

          2. Marriage is the human version of the monogamy practiced in nature by some species (those it benefits).

          3. Marriage, the definition of which should not be changed by anybody (LBGTQ, polyamorists, incest supporters, ‘otherkins’, bestiality supporters, etc.) for any reason, is the smallest social unit which forms the foundation for societies.

          4. Monogamous male-female pair-bonding for life, and producing biologically-related offspring ensures the fitness of the species, and the fitness of our western civilization. It provides the fittest environment for the male, for the female and for the offspring. If there are no offspring, it still provides the ‘fittest’ environment for the male and the female.

          5. Only authentic marriage should be underwritten/incentivized by society for all the reasons above. Redefining marriage, which will lead to the collapse of authentic marriage, and therefore, undermine the fitness of the individuals, the species and the species society, should not be underwritten or incentivized by society.

          My straight-line logic, based in biology, is that the male-female bond formed within natural marriage is the very foundation for western civilization, the most ‘fit’ environment ever established for humans.

          That’s the ‘decency’ of my position.

          Now, let’s see your ‘decency’-

    • Rocki: Do you really believe that people who disagree with you about the risks or benefits of same-sex marriage to children, or to broader society in general must all be motivated by religion, conspiracy or animus?

      Does that conspiracy include the LGBT people who disagree with you, or just their immediate family members like Katy F.?

      It seems to me that you’re making an unfair presumption about why people might disagree with you on this complex question. I point this out because we do live in a kind of “tipping point ” on the marriage institution, and where there are still more than 30 states with voters who did not select SSM. In fact SSM was nationalized by a bare SCOTUS majority, viz. a 78-year-old political appointee with warrant and cloister.

      In that kind of environment, I don’t see how it’s helpful to make public policy into a de facto religious question, as you seem to be doing in your posts, or to disparage open discussion in fora where some might disagree?

      • It is a black and white thought process that can’t tolerate any nuance. I think he uses animus because it has become a buzz word and they think it makes them sound more “legal” since they have been getting criticism for over use of “homophobe” and “hater”. Crying bigot and playing victim is the main weapon they use to leverage the public opinion. They also employ peoples need to conform and feel part of group. I highly doubt that this is going to be as squarely situated on the “right side of history” as they imagine.

        I think most reasonable people see past the ad absurdum attempt to frame those of us who were raised and lived in the gay community longer then Rocki has as motivated by bigotry or hate. And we COGs are diverse. But that is a problem for them some only see SSM as a problem when it demands other peoples children or women to become reproductive slaves. Others have religious beliefs but all of us have the experience that no matter what our position is know that it is unfair to children.

        It is a culture in which adults refuse to take any responsibility for the many injustices and injuries that they have committed against children and women. Behaviors that most people would not partake in are sanctioned and applauded. If they even admit that women and children have basic human rights, or that there are deeply serious problems in this community and this culture that evidence that will not protect children they are in deep. Best keep the media crafted image going, and appeal to the superficial conformist.

        The narrative is very brittle. It has taken a ton of money and media to craft it to reflect back the public image they want to project. The do not dare think or say anything different because then the flood gates open. Pop culture will move on from this soon enough when people stop living vicariously through this and find an different persona.

        I think there is a group of people that thought “okay two adults not hurting anyone else” should be able to marry. I think those same people might have some serious questions about children and we need serious questions. There are enough red flags to warrant concern. LGBT has produced self serving biased research that in and of itself is just another violation of children’s human rights. They have threatened and attacked COGs. They have taken part in human trafficking on a large scale. And then all the silencing attacks on people like Bredan Eich–peoples tax returns, threatening researchers and academics. They created a public relations narrative and a marketing campaign and now they have to defend it at all costs. I happen to think people need to speak out first for children and the mothers that give birth to them as well as for religious freedom and intellectual freedom. I mean if you do not believe they think they own the kids look how the try to silence COGs–we are the only group on the landscape that is not allowed (without enduring threats abuse and manipulations) to speak about our experience.

  14. Notice how O’Boyle sets up plausible deniability but stops short of claiming that Ms. Faust and the commenters here have no outside relation. Not really interested in engaging with “Faust and Friends”, just sending a message of support to Intel and GayMom to let them know that there is a real world outside where people’s varied opinions are genuine and not motivated by religion or even worse, money.

    • And, “that” is what you do when you can’t defend your irrational ideological position, or your own deceitful behavior.

      Hmm, if one were to peruse the blogs of SSM proponents that have shared their little gems here at ATB, would one find all these very same LBGTQ activists coordinating among themselves, rather behind the scenes?

      I suppose you don’t need to produce evidence of your claims that we have an ‘outside relationship” anymore than you need to support your contention that SS’M’ and “parenting are ‘good’ for children, and we’re all just a herd unhappy religious zealots that ‘hate’ LBGTQ.

      Do anything, but don’t attempt to answer a direct question or debate a point-

      Not only hypocritical, but, rather cowardly.

      • Still no outright denial of my claims.

        It is dishonest to host a website inviting civil rational debate when the host and moderator maintains an outside relationship with and probably feeds lines to some of the debate participants. Any evidence I produce of outside relationships will immediately prompt condemnation for attacking the privacy of others and will play into the whole victim narrative Ms. Faust portrayed for “Janna Darnelle” and “Rivka Edelman” recently.

        • I’m calling you out D-Crock; produce any evidence that I have an outside relationship with the host and/or moderator or anybody else that submits comments here (isn’t true, impossible to prove) at ATB or rescind your accusations and claims about me, and my comments.

          It’s beyond dishonest to make accusations that you won’t or can’t back up. It’s downright creepy.

          Let’s see it- we all have a right to know if we’re being played here at/by ATB, or by you and your cohorts.

          Time to ante up – man-up, dude.

          • D-Crock- thanks for providing the link back to prove your point.

            I had no idea that commenters and their families and employers were being stalked and abused by LBGTQ radical activists in such a heinous and violent manner.

            Having caught up with the ‘they all coordinate and collaborate offline claim”, I decided that I don’t have a problem if there is a previous or ongoing relationship between the blog operators and commenters, all that matters to me is the logic, rationale and intent (not to harm) of those comments. I will assume, because it is logical, that all blogs have similar dynamics (incl. LBGTQ and SSM advocates).

            I am very disturbed about the tactics used by LBGTQ and SSM supporters to harm (emotionally, professionally, physically) their opposition. I don’t care what a debate is about- nothing should take out to that sick sphere.

            Are you and other SSM advocates here at ATB OK with that tactic?

      • All he can do is to deflect. This is a man who advocates for large scale human rights abuses of women and children. These people are human traffickers. There is nothing moral or ethical about him. He will just keep deflecting. LGBT the new pimps–misogynistic just like the old pimps.

    • Rocki: We both must acknowledge tens of millions of US voters who don’t support changing the definition of civil marriage. That most people in the world have not embraced legal marriage of homosexual people. That those in opposition to your view include LGBT people and their immediate family members.There were many prominent civil leaders, including until very recently President Obama, who opposed national SSM, and arguments in favor of nationally imposed SSM have been rejected by several state legislatures and by four Supreme Court Justices. Concurrently, we must recognize a formidable and growing number of people support SSM.

      From your posts, including the slogan “hate lost, ” there seems to be a false narrative that the millions opposed to SSM legislation are just acting out of hatred or religion?

      Is it so difficult to accept a simpler explanation that complex issues have multiple sides, and not all the valid perspectives may agree with your own?

      The conspiracy theory that the people from all over the world visiting this blog to read or write their opinions are somehow being controlled or coordinated by Katy F., or that they’re all motivated by religion and hatred is better described as undeniably implausible, not “plausible deniability .”

    • “….there is a real world outside where people’s varied opinions are genuine and not motivated by religion or even worse, money.”

      So, the LBGTQ argument for equal rights for the explicitly stated reason that they should also be incentivized by society in their relationships (aka financial gains) is not motivated by money?

      What’s ‘religious’ about my biologically-based argument? Say something, anything besides ‘it’s stupid’. If it’s so ‘stupid’, it should be easily shot down by such a huge brain as yours.

      Does your ‘real world’ ever really extend beyond your 1.6-2.0% minority of the overall population?

      Is your ‘real world’ minority proposing or planning to continue to dictate the terms or definitions of inherently heterosexual institutions much longer?

  15. Doc throws out accusations and hopes something sticks, old tactic.

    As evidenced here he is not known for honesty or integrity. He is an example of the manipulative abusive distortions that are LBGT and the strategies they use less and less successfully to silence and bully COG’s.

    I did not even know Katy had a book–what’s the title I will buy it.

    And all the link proves is that LGBT harassed a COGs family and threatened them–yeah we know that. Did that squirrel in the driveway just keel over and die or was it a message? Those, like sands through the hour glass, are the questions that confound and perplex COGs these days. All about love–that’s LGBT.

    • That book has the stories of maybe 100 COGs. Great read, right, smart honest and classy–Best of all it opens up the entire issue of children’s rights. You have to admit all the COGS are nothing if not very compassionate, smart and knowledgeable on the topic of same sex parenting for the children point of view. I know you believe children are commodities men are entitled to demand society provide them so they “feel” good. Crap people should hope you guys never feel a liver pain within a 1000 mile radius of them. BTW, you either have to get better at knowing the parts of speech (he is the only 3rd person used above ) or less hap hazard with the tossed out accusations. Yes everybody is all just one person and according to LGBT they are all lying because of “animus”. Haven’t you proven my point over and over. Why do insist on demonstrating what I described as damaging to children? Do you imagine people don’t notice? Or do you imagine they do not think it is damaging? You think it passes for normal? It doesn’t. You are abusive sir–and their is no way to discredit any COG because you prove the point. And no we will not be silent or cowed, or bullied by you or GLAD or the HRC or any band of paid thugs deployed to harass and intimidate.

      • If you are willing to engage in an intelligent discussion then please tell me why the Degenerus study is relevant to the discussion of gay marriage.

        Make your case.

        If marriage is about breeding then why should the institution be open to the elderly or those hetero’s unable to reproduce?

        If you are concerned about children then why don’t you go after single mothers? 40% of this Country’s children are born out of wedlock.

        Less than 1% of children are in gay homes.

        why are you not concerned about the 15 million kids instead of the 150,000?

        Care to actually get engaged in an intelligent conversation?

        • Intell, I am a COG so I have the first hand experience. I could ask you why are you all up in every bodies business with Gay Rights to other peoples children and breeder women? Why don’t you go fight for the rights of hen pecked husbands or something? If Regerus study was bad then the academic community not a bunch of Gay male activist harassing and sending 1000’s of false accusations would have covered it and they never did. And LGBT tried to get them to and they found the research sound. On the other hand LGBT research has been found to be fraudulent by Columbia University and UCLA–that’s bad really bad. So it was a lot of pro LGBT BS and they have attacked other academics and other academics have been vindicated–so we know LGBT lies and tries to harm and silence.

          Children born out of wedlock are not de facto denied a mother or a father. It just means the mother and the father are not married. They could get married or have a relationship so that is false analogy used by classist, racist misogynistic LGBT to slut shame women. Single mothers deserve awards. But trashing them is works for LGBT until people hear from COGs who have a different story to tell than the crafted pics of ponies and ice cream cones.

          The individuals purpose in their marriage is different than the governments interest in marriage. According to LGBT arguments made in court marriage is not about reproduction (what you so hatefully call breeding because to you women and children are animals for men to buy) –so they should stop demanding other peoples children and wombs and eggs. But they lie and lie and lie. In my experience single mothers are far far better at parenting their own children than Gay fathers are at parenting ones they took away from their mothers. There is no one as scared and damaged than kids from gay male homes–that is the worst. The difference is economically–rich white men can look better on some very superficial measures. At any rate the children get to weigh in on the children because we are the only ones that have the lived experience and people should hear what we have to say. Don’t you agree?

      • Nice insult and name calling, “incredibly stupid” like you mean super stupid or really really stupid. So don’t deal.

        What’s wrong we are not crumbling at your feet because you were cruel and abusive. You people enjoy and take vast amounts of pleasure in harming people– You can’t counter one single point we make so all you do is name call and manipulate with the same old nonsense and fake platitudes–love make a family. Maybe but never an LGBT family–that is made on harming other people but especially the children.

        • Is it ideal that so many mothers are having children out of wedlock, of course not.

          However, to complete your argument about the welfare of children you are going to have to have a compelling argument that straight hetero couples are not engaging in the exact same practice. Here’s the problem. You can’t.

          Yeah, gay parents cannot procreate, but that holds true for millions of straight couples.

          http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.htm

          “Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 10.9%”

          “Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex with husband): 1.5 million.”

          Every argument you have is meaningless. These hetero couples go through the exact same channels to obtain children as their gay counterparts.

          Why are you so concerned about the lesser of the two evils?

          Since some of you have repeatedly brought out the purpose of marriage is to have children. (Which statics clearly show, due to the number of out of wedlock “kiddies,” is at best only 60% correct.

          If marriage is only for the purpose of having children then why let the infertile or elderly marry?

          The fact is you don’t like gay people. Stop with all the charades and just admit it.

          • Unintel- why do you ignore the other biological factors that support male-female pair-bonding, such as increased fitness of the opposite sex individuals and their/our society?

            Even if the opposite sex individuals cannot reproduce their own biological children, there are huge benefits to them, individually, and to society overall from their marriage commitment. Their pair-bonding also is capable of providing the necessary normal (biological determination) setting in which to raise adopted children or mentor their relatives children.

            How come you ignore my opposition to any redefinition of marriage, such as by polyamorists and the others cited?

            If you’re going to engage my argument, be honest about it- all of it.

  16. I can’t believe all of these nut bags are still at it. I must admit, when this blog came up in my news feed reader I was offended. One week later, and a whole lot of reading I realized that I have nothing to be offended by. This is coming from a miserable group of people that keep claiming abuse, and yadayadayada whatever else comes to ther mind. In the end we’ve already WON & there’s a reason for it. This is why they are sitting here on a blog arguing debates saying the same thing over and over again. Our family is really good friends with two gay men that recently adopted a little boy from a crackhead mother that delivered the baby addicted to drugs. Those men took on the job that the STRAIGHT women couldn’t. Hell, they even dealt with the baby withdrawing when no one else wanted to. Would it have been better if that baby would have wound up in foster care for the duration of his life? The whole preying on poor women and children is a joke. Maybe if poor women would use some sort of conception, or just stop opening their legs so often anyways us gays wouldn’t be adopting so many straight people’s children. Then, theres the issue of surrogacy, ivf with donor sperm ect. The bottom line is the we have the right to reproduce, period, dot end of story. Just because you all are holding onto your childhood, and these grudges for your ENTIRE life doesn’t mean you need to come to some blog and lash out to people for weeks on end on these corupt views. You all need to do some counseling, something to really get well in the head and move forward with life. Stop acting like your in it for the kids, this is CLEARLY a deep rooted hatred for Lgbt. Which. Again is sad. You both are going to write me ten paragraphs on the same thing you have been saying just worded differently and that’s okay. I had to leave this blog with my last words before I block the conversation In lieu of a more positive life 🙂 I am very sorry you have found a tight knit group raised in shitty homes, the scene whatever we’re calling it now. I really feel like you all need to pursue bigger issues at hand. More children are getting abused in foster care than lgbt and straight home combines. Go do something to get more homes for these kids, try and get more kids adopted so when they turn 18 they aren’t being pushed to the streets at wardens of the court with no permanent families. Go pursue poor homeless mothers and help them find shelter, I don’t doubt you all have the power to do a lot more with your life. Make more of a difference to EVERYONE, not just your heated,
    Flared up views. I really wish everyone would stop writing back and forth on this blog and try to really do one thing today that’s more productive. Help a hand, offer help to a neighbor, smile at a stranger. Anything, just get off this damn blog already and be HAppy! Kiss your kids. Your dogs, be grateful for life. Take a walk with your family just do anything and realize that life is short, wasting our time angry battling eachother with words is a waste. When it really comes down to it what does it matter. I know you all have built up such a strong anger agenda and will prob continue this battle for a few more weeks on end, but let it go already. Life is much too short. We aren’t born racist, we are influenced by this. Just remember this.

    • ‘Everything’ but the kitchen sink thrown into yet another overemotional, illogical diatribe.

      Is the only defense of your position dependent upon dragging down heteros? Do you contend that heteros are more dysfunctional than homos, while in the same breath calling us bigots? Do you see the hypocrisy of that position?

      I really could care less if LBGTQ ‘reproduce’ or raise children. That fact of life has been around forever, so no one, sane, objects to good people, of any sexual orientation, raising their own, or trying to help out others kids, or support the more strained elements of society. Is thanks to the lame ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60-70s that brought us incredible social dysfunction that we have so much dysfunction in our society. Only the secular-progressive-humanist-atheists ‘wannabe psychedelic 60s’ rubes think doubling-down on a bad hand is the solution to healing our society.

      The problem I have is forcing society to redefine marriage to incentivize and promote and even increase the dysfunction that leads to broken families- broken families meaning anything, not only LBGTQ, but anything, that intentionally separates children from their biological parents. Only LBGTQ redefined marriage, hence, the focus on your ‘community’. That isn’t ‘bigotry’, it’s a fact.

      If you weren’t so damned bigoted against heteros (reread you own hateful comments) you just might get a clue about what are the SS’M’ oppositions real concerns.

      No one cares about you ‘adults’ – who make your own choices about your own lives. We do care about kids that are abused, enslaved, or murdered, by your selfish ‘choices’. Now, your ‘choices’ are in our cross-hairs because the non-LBGTQ 98% of society will have to pick up the tab, and the pieces of those kids lives, and clean up the mess in our culture that result from your, as well as others, poor life ‘choices’.

      Again, one more time because you seem particularly ‘aloof’- marriage should not have been redefined by anybody, for the purpose of incentivizing and promoting any lifestyle that has an adverse affect on kids, and society, overall.

      See how that 1+1=2 thing works out?

    • Life as: Your assertion that “more kids are getting abused in foster care than in LGBT and straight homes combined” is incorrect.

      You are correct in the underlying assumption that nontraditional homes with biologically unrelated caregivers is one population risk factor for child sexual abuse.

      But having two XY male intimate caregivers who are not related biologically with the child in the absence of the natural mother has multiple risk factors. That would be the case for your two gay men and the boy they took from the drug addicted young woman.

      • Clearly, the young boy taken from the drug addicted mother would have been better off staying with her . Point made

        • No, the young boy would have been better off with his own biological parents that are not separated and/or drug-addicted.

          Instead of adding to the ‘young boys’ of the worlds’ problems by taking them out of one frying pan and putting them into another frying pan- fix the damned social ills that produce frying pans for kids.

          How about instead of chasing down stranger sperm to produce your own child you could have normally (biological determination) paired with a man in the formerly equally normal social institution called marriage and then taken that ‘young boy’ out of his frying pan and brought him into a normal, healthy (fit) loving home?

          What do you want to do with all the drug-addicted (and worse) LBGTQ – got a wee bit more ‘compassion’ there, bigot? Or, is it your contention, by ‘virtue’ of their LBGTQ-ness, they are just ‘naturally’ superior to the despicable heteros?

          Your ‘hate’ slip is showing, dear.

          • Is it ideal that so many mothers are having children out of wedlock, of course not.

            However, to complete your argument about the welfare of children you are going to have to have a compelling argument that straight hetero couples are not engaging in the exact same practice. Here’s the problem. You can’t.

            Yeah, gay parents cannot procreate, but that holds true for millions of straight couples.

            http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.htm

            “Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 10.9%”

            “Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex with husband): 1.5 million.”

            Every argument you have is meaningless. These hetero couples go through the exact same channels to obtain children as their gay counterparts.

            Why are you so concerned about the lesser of the two evils?

            Since some of you have repeatedly brought out the purpose of marriage is to have children. (Which statics clearly show, due to the number of out of wedlock “kiddies,” is at best only 60% correct.

            If marriage is only for the purpose of having children then why let the infertile or elderly marry?

            The fact is you don’t like gay people. Stop with all the charades and just admit it.

          • We’re not talking about my children and me marrying man and making babies in what you call the “right way”. Were talking about the young boy taken from his crack headed mom. What should we do with him? Call his pimp drug dealing father, and encourage him
            To parent the boy with the druggie mom all because a MAN AND A WOMAN PARENTING ARE BETTER FITS?? Clearly, they would be a much better fit than two educated gay men with a stable home and all the love in the world. CLEARLY!! Notice how you wrote “formerly equally social institution” enough said. Formerly for a reason. The world is changing and you guys can preach it being about the children all
            You want but when it comes down to it your debates are getting thrown out like trash. TRASH….did I mention thrown out like trash? :):) am I pissing you guys off yet? Please, oh please write me another seven paragraphs of everything you’ve already mentioned a million times?? Pleaseeeee

          • Well gaymom, there really is only one natural way to make babies, and neither LBGTQ nor non-LBGTQ who bypass nature are doing it ‘right’ so far as I’m concerned- so there goes your “you’re just a bigot” primal scream right out the window.

            I hate the techno-baby industry- it’s nothing more than turning humans into a commodity. Speaking of which, have you seen the Planned Parenthood expose regarding their apparent harvesting and then selling of soon-to-be aborted baby organs? See what you get when you fool mother nature?

            You’ve seen my rationale supporting natural marriage here at ATB multiple times, yet, you have utterly failed to challenge it on its’ own merits.

            You are nothing more than a heterophobe.

          • The natural way….oh what a perfect way to put things. The natural way to get rid of cancer is to ride it out and die, the natural way to dealing with any medical illness wouldn’t be “unnatural medicine” or how about if someone breaks a back and has to have unnatural rods in place. It’s called EVOLUTION honey, not “natural” anymore. Your just behind:)

        • Life as: If your implication is that it’s okay to take children away from biological parents who struggle with addiction or substance abuse problems then be prepared for a very large number of homeless children in the USA.

          My point is that the boy you cited as a positive example now faces well-established risk factors for CSA, and finds himself the unwilling subject of a new social experiment in male-male parenting. I believe that is unethical. How his specific situation will turn out, however, is unknown to all of us

          • “The natural way….oh what a perfect way to put things. The natural way to get rid of cancer is to ride it out and die, the natural way to dealing with any medical illness wouldn’t be “unnatural medicine” or how about if someone breaks a back and has to have unnatural rods in place. It’s called EVOLUTION honey, not “natural” anymore. Your just behind:)”

            Wow- I bet you think you’re the very first one to have such a slam-dunk comeback-huh? You make the same mistake that another commenter here made about my biological position on SS’M’- I am not a luddite, just a naturalist.

            So glad you decided to engage, regardless. it bears repeating for others unfamiliar with the logic behind my position.

            Cancer, like all disease is bad for humans (and nature). It can also be caused by unnatural behaviors, such as smoking- right? Either way, fighting cancer is good for the individual, species and society, overall, so anything that kills cancer is good. The solution to cancer can be manufactured in a laboratory or come out of a bed of wildflowers, so long as it contributes to the heath of the recipient, its all good.

            Medicine, when used ethically (hint: reproducing humans outside the bounds of nature is unethical and immoral) is good for human flourishing.

            Evolution. So surprised you went ‘there’. Since mine is an argument based in evolution, which brutally spits out your choice of lifestyle/sexual orientation, how is it you square your choice (as in “not born that way”) with the biological foundations for evolution? How do the laws of nature support LBGTQ ‘anything”?

            I do believe that you may have just exposed your own ‘behind’ – just a tad-

  17. Intellivirt: One “breeds” livestock, not people.

    Society has a long-standing interest in linking civil marriage with procreation. See for example the SCOTUS majority opinions of Douglas in Skinner v. OK or the Warren Court in Loving v VA. Society must produce sufficiently strong children to defend and continue its very existence; this linkage pre-dates human writing..The cost of the unusually protracted human childhood requires significant societal cooperative investment, thus a corresponding societal interest.

    Married men and women could produce children, at times unexpectedly, throughout most of otheir entire average life expectancy until very recently. Even with today’s unusual longevity, men remain potentially fertile throughout.

    Likewise, infertility is largely invisible and often sporadic or intermittent in humans. Thus, society has had no rational basis to reduce the probability of strong offspring by restricting men and women from marrying and trying to overcome Infertility.

    In summary, society historically and practically has a measurable gain by encouraging both groups of heterosexuals to marry. The flaw in your argument is the unpredictable nature of human fertility.

    Perhaps a better analogy to SSM for your argument would be intentionally infertile heterosexual couples? There are couples in our society who permanently modify their bodies so that the natural function of reproduction is abrogated. Some of them obtain civil marriage licenses to gain the status and financial redistribution of wealth benefits with the full knowledge that they never will procreate.

    Why do you believe society provides a special status (marriage) or redistribution of wealth (tax benefits) to intentionally infertile heterosexual couples ? Does your reason also apply to homosexual couples, and heterosexual same-sex marriages of convenience under the new SSM laws?

  18. It must really suck to believe so deeply into something and nothing is going to ever be done about it. Did you hear me….NOTHING will ever be done with your thoughts that continuously get thrown out. Now, for us we’ve already won this debate. I have two beautiful children and a WIFE! Oh yeah I said it a wife. I know that just eats you alive when I say gay things. We even make out, and have sex together. I bet that really gets under your skin too. We’ve won…enough said. Talk to me when your thoughts become your reality and we can actually go somewhere with a conversation.

    • No, it just really sucks that LBGTQ have endangered children for possibly a generation to come for their own selfish reasons.

      Couldn’t manage any semblance of a logical response to the myriad of reasons in support of natural marriage? Nothing on that ‘evolutionary’ reality thingie? Not quite lining up for you as you hoped? Hey, maybe you can bring another case against nature- nature is obviously ‘bigoted’ against LBGTQ!

      And, no lifeline from any of your defending cohorts here who had to squirm as they witnessed your thorough ‘lashing’?

      Oh, if that ‘gay’ Cali politician has her way, you won’t be able to refer to your ‘other’ as a wife for long, you will be forced to call her your ‘spouse’.

      Just the beginning of the new fascist mandates. Enjoy.

      (query: how come all debates with LBGTQ activists devolve into immature theatrics…? Just saying-)

      • Aww I knew I would see more of you. You just can’t stand that your delusional thoughts keep getting thrown away. As stated above, nothing will be done with your delusions and its for REASON. The bottom line is your thoughts are going NO WHERE. Our family however isn’t going no where. We have progressed and continue to move forward everyday…wish I could say the same for you.

      • Aww your hatred for gays keeps peering out the window for everyone to see… I won’t be able to call her my wife. Well, my dear if this is about the “children” what are you doing referencing the whole marriage issue. And better yet, your encouraging any opponents to come back to the blog and battle you. I’m rolling on the floor laughing at your responses by the way. I must say I love that I’m getting under your skin.

        • GayMom- while this could be construed as nothing more than deteriorating into a battle with an emotional (and very disturbed by your own accounting) ‘child’, I can (and will) still use your unabashed and immeasurable ‘confusion’ to elucidate the facts for others about how LBGTQ were used to advance the leftist cause, which is to put the state smack in the middle of the family, by, creating a pathway to compel the family to exist to serve the state, instead of the other way around.

          See, once the state dictates what a family ‘is’, and how children are ‘procured’ and to ‘whom’ they go, and then the state gets to dictate what those engaged in ‘marriage’ will call each other, it’s pretty much ‘game over’ for the freedoms families once enjoyed within the confines of their own homes (or ‘castles’), and within western civilization.

          Remember, these same leftists turned all your health care over to the state, which already has control of the [re]education of your good little party ‘products” in their ever-failing public schools, and now they want to mandate what you should eat, and if you should even have religion (or, as Obama recently advised: just change those parts of your religion that conflict with the new world reality- ya know, because the state dictates religious doctrine): all anarchist achievements secured under the banner of ‘equality’ and ‘love’?

          Who cares what 1.6-2.0% of a disordered segment of the population does in their ‘spare time”- what could possibly be more mundane (boring) than witnessing that disorder play itself out? The same proportion of the population has incapacitating intestinal disorders, we’re not interested in those details, either. Get over yourselves, grow up.

          I think we insult useful idiots everywhere when we refer to LBGTQ and their supporters in the SS’M’ ‘advancement’ as ‘useful idiots”. You all have managed to take the useful idiocy idiom to whole new heights.

          • Again, you are rewording the same responses over and over again. There is a REASON why all of your theories and insights are being thrown away. There is a REASON why we can now marry anyone we choose, and have the RIGHT to create children however we would like. I’m sorry you lost. You let me know when your ideas become a reality…..

      • Query: The replies become emotional or devolve into ad hominem because the topic is very personal for a homosexual parent. That is understandable.

        The question is whether adults will move beyond the idea of “winning,” whatever that means, and actually try to learn the risks, or benefit from past lessons-learned of COGS? That question is important for the children currently being placed in fatherless or motherless homes intentionally.

        It is encouraging that some of these parents care deeply enough about the outcome to seek out people with more experience and visit blogs like ATB.

        • “It is encouraging that some of these parents care deeply enough about the outcome to seek out people with more experience and visit blogs like ATB.”

          Which is why we just keep pounding away with facts, and logic.

          I’m less optimistic about the intentions of some coming to ATB. I think ATB is being targeted, by former and current ATB SS’M’ advocate commenters for ‘special’ treatment.

          Either way, it’s a dysfunctional way to celebrate your legal (if not factual, moral or ethical) ‘winnings’ –

    • “….and nothing is going to ever be done about it. Did you hear me….NOTHING will ever be done with your thoughts that continuously get thrown out.”

      So said the proponents of Roe.v. Wade granting unfettered abortion back in 1973.

      We all know where that one has gone, and is still going-

      So said the proponents of ‘Jim Crow’ and ‘Dred Scott’. Oops.

      All lies are, eventually, revealed. Nature has no use for lies.

  19. P.s you did it. You succesfuly repeated your self In zillion paragraphs….both of you!

        • O’Boyle. Not to entirely discount the testimony of COG’S, but the chance for bias is evident.

          Much like Regenrus, can you trust someone who has an axe to grind?

          I’ve actually found this discussion to be interesting. I never had even heard of Mark Regenrus until I stumbled upon this blog.

          Then it took all of ten minutes? To determine there were serious flaws in his studies.

          To champion this study, such as Katy has done, proves an entire disconnect for a desired result in lieu of pursuing the truth.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/10/utah-backs-away-from-anti-gay-parenting-study/

          https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/news/7572

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

          http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2014/03/26/regnerus-findings-of-fact-require-clear-action-from-university

          http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-03-29/new-documents-contradict-regnerus-claims-on-gay-parenting-study/

          He had conversations, meetings and emails about how the study should be manipulated to achieve the desired results.

          At this point there is little headway to be made in continuing on with this conversation.

          The courts reviewed the information and rendered their decision.

          Only time will tell if any claims made here will be substantiated. My thinking is that the science thus far lands on the side of gay marriage and their parenting skills.

          O’Boyle have a nice day, it was a pleasure conversing with you.

          To the rest of you knuckleheads. I hope you find solace and comfort in your hate because gay marriage is the law of the land and all of your twisting of words, studies and views is not going to change anything.

          It’s a beautiful sunny day here in Chicago and hopefully I’ll get to enjoy some of it.

          I wish you all well.

          (Also the term “knucklehead” is damn near a term of endearment. I count some of my favorite people to be among them)

          Take care and try and be nice to your neighbors.

          • I can’t defend Regnerus. But I can’t defend much of the sociology published on this highly political topic during the past decade or so, except perhaps to say that all of it does stimulate thought/discussion. It was really sad to see what happened to that one graduate student when he got caught up in the pro-SSM politics and apparently faked survey data.

            It’s reached the point in the sociology literature generally that one journal recently established a policy to limit the use of p-values as a crutch in what are clearly not valid statistical analyses.

            I would prefer if these SSM papers were clearly labeled as “opinion” or “perspective” so we could use them in the discussion as they really should be used. And like every other decent author they should publicly knowledge all funding sources/COIs in the paper itself.

            Go Cubs go. The split with St. Louis at Wrigley bodes well for the pitching to hold up when it counts, but those bats need to come back to life soonest.

  20. Re: Protecting children from abuse–has never been done by any gay person yet.

    Update about Terry Bean founder of HRC and gay activist that fought for same sex marriage and the demand to other peoples children.
    “LGBT and DNC leaders say they don’t believe the accusations against the man who helped found two of the country’s most powerful LGBT political organizations.”
    Proof that LGBT will never protect children from abuse they will always defend and protect the abuser and I am betting the victims are being harassed and threatened by Gay activist. Because they are lying when they say don’t believe–they don’t care and they never will.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-donohue/2015/07/16/huge-media-cover-criminal-charges-against-obama-bundler-gay-leader?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=55a852cfe4b07c1c7947e2fc&fb_ref=Default

    • Correction. It was in fact Beans boy friend who turned him in. So that might be considered protecting in the future. It seems they may have video taped Bean exercising his civil right to children. This guy is going to walk he will never serve a day.

    • Go away. We’re talking about something important here.

      What can the Cubs do to improve their hitting? Aside from the bats of Rizzo and Bryant the rest of the team has been pretty dormant.

      Jae, imho any thoughts?

      • I don’t follow any sports. And baseball–OMG other sports have the consideration to be over in 4 quarters but bb goes on forever.

        • Ha ha….it does tend to drag on a bit. The good news is that, under the Rickets, Wrigley field has extended beer sales until the bottom of the 8th.

          It’s all about the money.

          Another piece of promising news is that the Cubs have once again brought up Kyle Schwarber from the minors.

          A promising young talent who can really swing the bat, but struggles with his defense.

          Go Cubs!

Comments are closed.