A savvy blogger would have had two post’s written for BOTH possible rulings in the hopper today but, well, nope. Instead I’ve been spending my week at the beach with my kids, my mom, and her partner enjoying lazy mornings, tracking sand EVERYWHERE and damaging our locks with seawater. Heaven really.
I have spent a great amount of time this week reflecting on how blessed I am to have two such quality women in my life. My mom’s partner came into our lives when I was ten and brought with her a tender heart, a passion for new passions and an affinity for good music. I truly love and respect her. I also cannot not repeat enough that most of what I do well as a mother, I do because that’s how my mother parented me. She is an exceptional mother. If her partner would have had children, she would have totally rocked motherhood; it’s evident in every fiber of her being.
Thing is, even though they are all that, they both would have failed at being fathers.
Cue sirens ‘cause when the Bigoted Hater Police hear such statements they now have the word of the highest court in our land to reinforce their misguided ideology.
Some speculate that I must hate my mom to oppose same-sex marriage. But the reality is that my support of traditional marriage stems from the fact that two men, no matter how loving, could never have replaced this mother of mine. N E V E R.
See, most traditional marriage supporters agree that consenting adults should be able to form the relationships that they choose. What they oppose is state-endorsed motherlessness and fatherlessness. Marriage is not just about how adults feel about one another. Marriage serves a social good by connecting parents, especially fathers, to their biological children. Therefore redefining marriage redefines parenthood- in essence making mothers or fathers optional in the life of a child, which is a sociological lie regardless of what 5 justices believe. According to reason, biology and Top Shelf social science, children do not just need “role models,” or “guardians,” or even generic “parents.” Every child is conceived by, desires to be known by, and has a right to their mother and father. Children are incapable of protecting their own rights. That is the purview of adults. It is one of the few things our elected officials, and justices, are supposed to do.
Now that same-sex marriage is a constitutional “right” how will those parent-child bonds be respected and encouraged?
Well, the legal system is out.
While half the country is celebrating this as a victory for individuals they probably don’t realize what this really means. Like the fact that more adoption agencies who prefer to place children in homes where they will have both a mother and father will be closed, or that more states will be changing child birth certificates to reflect “intended” parents rather than the child’s actual heritage. That generally we have taken a gigantic step away from protecting children’s rights in order to cater to the desires of adults.
Next on the LGBT docket? “Reproductive justice”. You know, providing children to those at a “reproductive disadvantage”. Those who cannot make their reproductive organs do the impossible are suffering an injustice that society is required to rectify. Perhaps your vision is short sighted but I can assure you that for many, the “right” to marriage has been one step in a right to parenthood. As one hopeful gay father wrote: “Access to fertility services is critical to the full recognition of LGBT people’s right to build their families in the ways they choose.”
Got that? The “right” to build a family the way “they” choose- which will include denying “their” child a relationship with her mother. So now rather than telling every adult, gay or straight, that they should arrange their life in such a way so that children’s rights and well-being are protected, increasingly children will be commodified to suit adult desires. Today we have shifted away from the rights of children toward a “right to children.”
SCOTUS has ruled but we are far from finished with this one folks. Now begins the fight to terminate children’s rights to a father AND mother. It shouldn’t surprise me. It is the same court that ruled that adults have a right to terminate the life of an unborn child so the mother/father bit is a no-brainer.
So, the time has come for civil disobedience because fighting for children’s rights has just become unconstitutional.
391 thoughts on “SCOTUS moves away from the Rights of Children towards a “Right to Children””
The fight for and against same sex marriage is far from over….the fact that two of the judges FOR same sex marriage should not have voted, which would have changed the vote from FOR same sex marriage to AGAINST same sex marriage shows how close the ruling is. This is far from a unanimous vote…and it reflects the divided nature of our nation on the issue.
Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, those who support same sex marriage will continue to marry and those who are against same sex marriage will continue to fight for the right of every child to know and be loved by mother and father. It will play out in people’s lives…..not in the courts.
Also two of the judges AGAINST same sex marriage should not have voted, because of their connection with anti-gay organizations.
Well when you run the world as you seem to think your both qualified and entitled to you can have your very own authoritarian dictatorship and we will not need any Judges that do not agree with you.
I am sorry but that is BS no member of the court has any affiliation with any anti-gay organizations that is just a plain lie. The truth is the recusal notices had a strange disappearing reappearing act that hit the papers a few days ago when it was reported the paper for for Kagan and Ginsberg recusals despite being sent by hand in April did show up until a few days ago. This shows tampering with the judicial process….
Leaving that aside what we have is a illegal unconstitutional ruling that wasn’t so kinda as to use even one rule of or to but it bluntly he made it all up and the Chief Justice called him on it.
“it was reported the paper for for Kagan and Ginsberg recusals despite being sent by hand in April did show up until a few days ago.”
“There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” Justice Kagan in her confirmation as solicitor general in 2009.
Well if there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage I bet there is even less of right to demand a breeding industry to provide gay couples the bodies of two women and a baby. I somehow do not think 3rd and 4th and 5th parties all stripped of basic human rights is going to be a civil right.
This sentence of yours was brilliant: “…we have taken a gigantic step away from protecting children’s rights in order to cater to the desires of adults.”
In response to Katy:
“Thing is, even though they are all that, they both would have failed at being fathers.”
I understand that your biological parents divorced at some time in your childhood, and he was “replaced” by your mother’s lesbian partner.
My question to you Katy is; Why did your father refuse to be a part of your life?
Glebo. Hi. I believe in my previous response to you that I included a video with my backstory. In essence I say that both my parents did a good job of remaining involved in my life after the divorce. I talk about that in detail in my brief as well as briefly in my short bio in the Page above. I have never said that my moms partner “replaced my father”. I have always maintained that I have respected her and there has been no conflict between the two of us throughout her entire time in my life.
Children don’t have any say in whether or not their biological parents will raise them to adulthood. The bio-parents could put their child up for adoption (for whatever reason) — or the state could take the child away if the parents are harmful to the child. The bio-parents could also get divorced, which would guarantee that the child won’t be raised in a home with both bio-parents. One could easily say that allowing biological parents to divorce is the equivalent of “state-endorsed motherlessness and fatherlessness.” — Unless you consider a child jumping back and forth between two different homes to be a proper upbringing?
As for the gay couple trying to raise money for surrogacy, they’d be doing the exact same thing if they weren’t legally married. Marriage has nothing to do with that situation. Personally, I think straight or gay couples should look into adoption first, since there are countless children that are waiting to be placed into loving homes.
“Children don’t have any say in whether or not their biological parents will raise them to adulthood.”
Yes, but they should. Heredity plays a key role in a lot of people’s identity, and having a relationship with your biological relatives helps you come to conclusions about yourself.
“As for the gay couple trying to raise money for surrogacy, they’d be doing the exact same thing if they weren’t legally married. Marriage has nothing to do with that situation. Personally, I think straight or gay couples should look into adoption first, since there are countless children that are waiting to be placed into loving homes.”
Completely agree. What trips me out, is that there are many gay couples who agree with Ms. Faust’s opinion and think that biology is important, so they have open adoption arrangements with their children’s biological parents.
My issue with this whole thing is that so many conservatives talk about their anti-marriage equality issue as if their primary concern is the child, but ignore single-parents-by-choice who have children via surrogacy/gamete-selling , and married heterosexual couples who have children the same way. Both cases, denying the child the right to have a relationship with their biological parents. They even ignore that domestic partnerships (what they advocate) also allows lesbian/gay couples to be considered the legal parents of any child they wish to have. I mean, why can’t they be honest and admit their issue with gay marriage is their religious convictions? Or even prejudices that they have against LGTB people, since so many of them are openly hateful towards them.
I hate to say the anti-gay marriage campaign has silly arguments, but they do. Hopefully CR advocacy groups will change their focus.
“My issue with this whole thing is that so many conservatives talk about their anti-marriage equality issue as if their primary concern is the child, but ignore single-parents-by-choice who have children via surrogacy/gamete-selling , and married heterosexual couples who have children the same way.” The difference is that those arrangements are “permitted.” Redefinition of marriage “promotes” one of those broken family structures which involves brokenness for kids. But the conservatives that I follow/read are concerned with all of it. And have been writing specifically about the detrimental aspects of single parenting for ages. Many of them are also actively working/writing against the fertility industry as well. But they rightly see that parental rights and the definition of marriage are interconnected. As we have discussed previously, I believe, biological parents have no more claim over their children than non-biological parents in Canada if the state deems those adults as “legal” parents.
But in their critiques, they are disregarding that their marriage certificates allow them to forge their signiture on their children’s birth certificates, just as it does for same-sex couples…
Same-sex marriage doesn’t promote the brokenness at all. Again, Ive read articles about married gay men in open adoptions with their adopted children’s biological moms, and married lesbians talking about why they are choosing to parent with their GBF.
In response to your other critiques about co-parenting, yes, there are unmarried platonic co-parents who live with each other under the same roof, and for many it works very well. There was one co-parent-by-choice advocate named Rachel Hope, who said that the lack of marriage/relationship made raising her child less stressful because she didn’t have to worry about the ups/downs of coupledom and both her and her parent-partner could focus their energy on raising their son. He’s a college graduate now. It worked out so well with her that She has another kid the same way via IVF (a daughter) and is living as housemates with the child’s father. She’s planning for baby #3 and is hoping he’ll be a gay man. She bases her partner-picking on his financial assets and how much of a role-model and a nurturer he’ll be for her kids.
Many people who take this route to parenthood, spend years and years getting to know their future co-parent partner. They talk strictly about their views on raising their children, and how to execute it. They write out ‘co-parenting plans’, to talk about specific details on how they are to raise the kid (school, discipline, religion, diet, ect.), custody settlements and what to do in case of any scenario, including death of one partner, or loss of job, or if the partner finds a romantic interest.
Most married couples do not take child-rearing to this fine detail, they don’t make parental plans. Some barely prepare for a new life, and make sure they’re financially and emotionally equipped. In fact, my own mom didn’t even bother to ask my father his views on parenting. And with their parenting clouded by their romantic affiliations, their focus will not always be as clear, and may not always be whats best for the kid.
Those who have more than 2 people in the parenting mix have a financial advantage and a childcare advantage. If they spend as much time getting to know one another, writing co-parent plans, and share the same parental views, then I can’t imagine how this could be messy or any more messier than the current divorce rate.
Some fair points there. However, having more than 2 people in the parenting mix also raises the prospects for disagreement amongst them. And the disagreements are not always over minor matters. Sometimes it turns into court battles, especially when the adults who don’t have the child living with them, find themselves shut out.
There is a family on my daughter’s softball team whose hetero relationship fell apart and who have been co-parenting for about five years. But when a new woman enter’s dad’s life, things change. They are now in custody battle number two and desperately trying remain amicable, sending out emails so that people won’t “side” with the other spouse. The adults are going in different directions. And it has been absolutely grueling, with both wanting to just give up at times. What happens if gay BFF get a job out of town? Does mom and her partner pick up and move too, leaving their jobs? Unlikely. Marriage tends to keep parents on the same page, working together and cooperating. And you get the side benefit of delighting your child by letting them see you love their father. Kids want the two people they love most in their life, their mother and father, to love each other.
And you are right, many hetero couple don’t plan everything out in advance. But when that little girl is sitting in your arms a lot of things can change pretty quick for both mother and father. Parenthood can mature you beautifully, if you let it.
On the birth certificate issue, it should always reflect bio parents because it is about the child’s story, not the adults. I have several friends who are working hard to allow adopted children access to their original birth certificates and that certainly means making sure that the system accurately reflects parentage for all children. It’s a noble task, and on that will impact kids in various situations.
“Many people who take this route to parenthood, spend years and years getting to know their future co-parent partner. They talk strictly about their views on raising their children, and how to execute it. They write out ‘co-parenting plans’, to talk about specific details on how they are to raise the kid (school, discipline, religion, diet, ect.), custody settlements and what to do in case of any scenario, including death of one partner, or loss of job, or if the partner finds a romantic interest.”
This makes parenting sound like a business relationship. Again, the focus is on the desire of the adults, not what’s best for the child. I am not an expert on this stuff, but I know that children need stability and need to feel safe, and that comes from having parents who are totally committed to each other and to the family. In this co-parent situation you describe, things could change at the drop of a hat – someone gets a romantic partner, or gets married and has to move. And most importantly, in this co-parent scenario, the child is still lacking a family based on the foundation of love and self-sacrifice.
Hi Sarah!! Thanks for your comments. And welcome to asktheBigot!!
—“This makes parenting sound like a business relationship.”
I don’t think that planning ahead in case of disaster treats child-rearing like a business relationship, I think it simply makes the parents more responsible and thoughtful. I’ve read stories from co-parents who thought the partner they were raising a child with, was their platonic soulmate and best friend. There is a chemistry it’s simply not the chemistry you have with a romantic partner. Why do you think that preparing for the worse, and making sure that you and your partner have the same values when deciding to raise a child together, makes parenting sound like a business relationship? Explain.
—“Again, the focus is on the desire of the adults, not what’s best for the child.”
That’s not true. In my opinion, it’s quite reverse. Having a child with someone because you value the romantic attention the partner give you, I think is much more selfish than having a child with someone because you value the love and attention they will give to the child.
You should follow Rachel Hope. She had chosen her co-parent partner, not because she likes his friendship (well, of course there was that element too), but because he was really good with kids and he had a lot of qualities that made him a good father figure. How is that not best for the kids? 😕
—“I am not an expert on this stuff, but I know that children need stability and need to feel safe, and that comes from having parents who are totally committed to each other and to the family.”
They are committed to one another like life-partners but not as lovers. I don’t understand why the romantic chemistry is important to you. May you explain? Many times it falls apart 50% of the time, and isn’t always practical to keep the family together.
I guess we will need to wait to see how these “arrangements” pan out? It really sounds to be sterile and just business like. Is love even mentioned in the “contracts?”
My god. When does planning = no love? Would it be better if the mom just decided to have kids with someone who mad her happy, but had no plan for college or incase of a emergency, or no financial backup plan, so when the dad loses his job or dies, the mom can be stranded
Says they’re soulmates and complete each other in a beautiful way. They even had a proposal where Fabian the father, went to his friend, with a horse-drawn carriage and flowers asking her to be his “baby-mama”. Yep, completely sterile, no chemistry or connection whatsoever.
Please read into these things and investigate before coming to these conclusions.
My reply ended up in the wrong place, not sure how that happened. Someone’s comment seemed to be so sterile with no love involved. I wanted it to go there.
–“There is a family on my daughter’s softball team whose hetero relationship fell apart and who have been co-parenting for about five years.”
That’s a post-divorce co-parenting scenario, which will be messy because no one ever plans to have a divorce. The fantasy is that the couple will be together for ever and ever, and what to do with the child’s custody is irrelevant because their marriage will survive. That’s the mentality of most married couples until reality hits them.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. If you know anyone who has tried intentional platonic co-parenting but it ended up as a failure, I would listen more.
–“What happens if gay BFF get a job out of town? Does mom and her partner pick up and move too, leaving their jobs?”
I just explained that most intentional co-parents write up agreements and decisions on what to do in various scenarios, including job situations, and if one of the partners’ finds a romantic interest.
Here is a layout on what most co-parenting plans look like.
Click to access FBD-Co-Parenting-Agreement.pdf
Yes, they go through this much preparation years before having children. Its enough to make people question whether romantic partners should do the same thing before having kids, and be legally required to do so: http://vitaminw.co/society/should-we-license-parents
–“And you are right, many hetero couple don’t plan everything out in advance. But when that little girl is sitting in your arms a lot of things can change pretty quick for both mother and father. Parenthood can mature you beautifully, if you let it.”
Our dad use to leave us in hot cars, with no AC for hours while he went shopping. My aunt planned to have a child in her late 30’s ‘s who she ignores on the regular basis. My cousin has had 3 – 4 children with men she barely knows, and is barely able to recall any of her children’s fathers. She (nor the children’s fathers) are raising their biological children. Instead a relative has legally adopted them all, and is taking care of them by herself. Their mom has no objection, and continues to live her life doing drugs and being promiscuous. Yes, those boys are going to have questions about their fathers, and why their own mother didn’t want them. Yes, its going to hurt. Yes, they may turn to drugs/delinquency to deal with their issues. But who’s fault is that? The relative who took them in when she could have dumped them to the state, or the children’s heterosexual biological parents?
The assumption that people will automatically change and become responsible when given the privilege of raising another human being, is very irrational… We have foster care and CPS to prove that this is incredible false.
Also, the assumption doesn’t really add up with the many other of your issues you talk about. If all people turned into adults when raising kids and always put their children first, then you wouldn’t need to speak out against divorces since so many women wouldn’t be divorcing their children’s fathers and putting their children through that turmoil because they simply become bored with the partner.
There is a lot of crap happening in this world, but does that mean we give up and stop striving for the ideal? Who can honestly deny that any child isn’t better off with their own married mother and father who have made choices to provide their children with a stable, loving home? Do we just give up in that, or try to encourage it?
Of course not, but we shouldn’t be open to regenerated ideas we’ve already had, like non-biological individuals raising children, and people who are not romantically affectionate towards each other raising kids either. There’s all different types of love in the world, sexual love is not better or more valid than the rest.
Brenda- stop talking such nonsense!
The secular-progressive-humanist ‘movement’ spent the last 40+ years destroying the biologically-based culture, which included gains by radical feminism that taught women to hate men and taught women to hate their natural, biological bodies and their own children; that taught men that pornography was the norm and taught men and women that marriage was ‘bondage’, and that children were simple ‘options’ easily dispatched prior to their birth (for now restricted to preborn), in accordance with their ‘choice’.
Now that they’ve torn away at the very roots of our freedom-based western culture, you want to reintroduce logic?
Their logic would have you believe that if something is bad or failing in the natural, biological marriage-rather than fix it, it should be dissolved – while promoting the thoroughly unnatural and abnormal concept that that same “marriage’ should accommodate same sex or ‘genderless’ individuals so that they can ‘make believe’ they are as ‘good’ as the real thing- which recall, they criticize as ‘failed’ and have sought to demolish.
It’s the logic that says there is no real difference between the hetero male and female sexes out of one side of their many faces, while trying to convince us that sex only matters, and requires full accommodation and support by the majority heterosexual population, when its same sex individuals citing and/or exploiting it. It’s the logic that says a transsexual is as much a ‘woman’ as an XX female, while still telling us there is no discernable difference between the hetero sexes regarding marriage of parenting of children.
The problem we’ve got is developing a way to reason, logically, with a segment of the population that is both intentionally (dishonest) and unintentionally (ignorant) irrational. Unfortunately, the dishonest segment of this minority population has coopted the ignorant segment of this population, and now we have the incredibly negative fallout on the greater society with which to contend.
It’ll take a generation or two to turn it all back around to some logical society. Meanwhile, let’s hope the wolves at the door stumble along their own irrational roadblocks-
This is really in response to Miss Alternative. She wrote:
“They are committed to one another like life-partners but not as lovers. I don’t understand why the romantic chemistry is important to you. May you explain? Many times it falls apart 50% of the time, and isn’t always practical to keep the family together. ”
Being married is more than just being lovers. It’s about self-sacrifice, putting another’s interests ahead of your own, lifting another person up, and forging an eternal companionship. When a heterosexual couple marries, there is a reasonable expectation of them staying together and reasonable expectation that they will be able to reproduce. Just because sometimes it falls apart is no reason to welcome other, less ideal, parenting situations. It’s like saying, “Hey, there are already broken families out there, so it’s ok to add more!”
Also, the co-parenting situation sounds like an arrangement where the parents’ focus is 100% on the child and not on each other. Read this article:
Two co-parents, while they may express support for each other, do not have the same level of commitment to one another as two married people.
Your article was an opinion piece, and to be honest its rather ridiculous. Children are happiest when their parents are focusing their energy on them, and not when they’re spending more time gushing up at one another, while ignoring their kids http://globalnews.ca/news/452770/parents-who-put-their-kids-needs-above-their-own-are-happier-finds-study/
If you’re saying that its best to put children’s needs second, and its better for them for you to seek a partner to fulfill your romantic needs while compromising their needs I can hardly imagine that your politics are based on children’s well-being or maintaining old dogmas you aren’t letting go of.
Marriages are subjective and based on culture and opinion. But the reality of what they are, is just labels. The term ‘wife’ is no different from female partner. They’re both intangible terminologies used to address a sexual companion.
“Just because sometimes it falls apart is no reason to welcome other, less ideal, parenting situations”
It didn’t “just fall apart”- it was intentionally driven apart. It took two generations of lies by politicians, media and other leftist elites that convinced women and men that marriage was a ‘prison’ and children were ‘worthless’ in/to society. Isn’t it funny how only hetero marriage and reproduction is bad, but, homo ‘marriage and ‘reproduction’ are somehow ‘good’?
And, these same fools, products of the 60s and 70s ‘wasted by-design’ generation, were similarly lied to by the same S-P-H anarchists about environmental hazards, such as overpopulation and carbon footprints, all meant to ‘transform’ western civilization from a free, capitalist economy and democratic government to socialist-communist-totalitarian rule.
It isn’t too hard to identify the ideological underpinnings of the radicalized LBGTQ movement, and their cohorts. It’s about as anti-American, anti-Western (especially hostile to Judeo-Christianity) and anti-freedom as possible. They’re open and proud about their hatred and bigotry. Hate and intolerance has a new color scheme- it’s rainbow.
But even children who come into the world this way have problems. They still want to know who their bio parents are and how they got here. Why did people think that would stop when adopted kids have had those feelings forever. It’s not like this would be new even if the way the kids got here are new.
Your slick commercial video paints a rosy picture of “open adoption.” In fact, the birth mother surrenders all rights to her baby, and can remain in contact only with the sufferance of the adopted parents. (I don’t think that joint custody arrangements are a good solution, by the way.) The commercial adoption agencies get paid if they can persuade a young mother to give up her baby. Their incentives are not to look after the best interest of the child.
The vast majority of social conservative activists that oppose gay marriage are critical of third-party reproduction. The focus was on same-sex marriage, because that was the current controversy. You’ll also find criticism of the no-fault divorce laws.
This is not always true of GOP party hacks, and maybe that’s what you’re thinking about.
Exactly what’s involved in a domestic partnership or civil union varies by jurisdiction. This is even true when the same-sex unions are called “marriages.” In the recent Irish referendum, the politicians promised that the children would not be affected. In effect, the “civil unions” that did not include parental rights would now be called “marriages” but would otherwise be the same. The recent Obergefell decision, however, explicitly gives procreation as one of the arguments to mandate same-sex marriage, which of course would be a third-party arrangement.
This continues to be the wrong focus and its almost like beating a dead horse at this point. The flaws with the anti-same-sex marriage campaign continues to be this:
— Domestic partnerships STILL offer lesbians/gays the SAME right to forge their names on their children’s birth certificates, as a marriage certificate does. The only difference between DP and SSM is the NAME
— Straight people also have (as you put it) “the ‘right’ to build a family the way ‘they’ choose- which will include denying ‘their’ child a relationship with her mother.” through gamete-donation/surrogacy. Its the same deal, folks. With single-parents-by-choice, it doesn’t even have to do with marriage at all.
(SIDENOTE: Speaking of “comodification to make children fit the desires of parents” Have you heard of the Baby Gammy case? His ‘parents’ were both straight and in a hetero relationship)
— There are gay couples who marry, but still allow their kids to have a relationship with their biological parents. In California its legal for 3 people to be on the child’s birth certificate. Its called co-parenting. Many lesbians choose their gay friend to be part of their kids lives, because they’re uncomfortable with the prospect of taking their kids’ dad away from them.
>>No one has made a ANY responses to these significant critiques<<
Gay marriage won. I warned you all this would happen. I said it would be best to switch your focus, because you're not going to win this late in the game especially with under-supported arguments. Please do not drive this into the dirt, please switch the focus on the REAL issue which is society's objectifying attitude towards children.
Sounds like you dont read Katy’s posts very carefully?
I do and I’ve personally talked with her in email. I never got any responses for these critiques. If you know something that I don’t and would like to tell me where I am wrong, or where you can answer me, please, feel free. I don’t want to make critiques if I’ve misconstrued what she was talking about.
Towards the middle of her post – “See, most traditional marriage supporters agree that consenting adults should be able to form the relationships that they choose. What they oppose is state-endorsed motherlessness and fatherlessness.”
I never denied that she said that. Again, nothing in your quote answered any of the 3 critiques I made on her stance.
Well Im not claiming that you denied that she said it. It seemed more to me that you didn’t notice she said it, or didn’t consider the implications of what she said.
Your first critique seems to me to be “— Domestic partnerships STILL offer lesbians/gays the SAME right to forge their names on their children’s birth certificates, as a marriage certificate does. The only difference between DP and SSM is the NAME”
Katy’s post seems to me to counter your claim to some degree, when she writes “See, most traditional marriage supporters agree that consenting adults should be able to form the relationships that they choose. What they oppose is state-endorsed motherlessness and fatherlessness.”
State endorsement of DP differs from state endorsement of SSM. This is in part why gays and lesbians have been very reluctant to settle for DPs, because they recognise it as a lesser endorsement, and as a distinction from marriage. State endorsement of SSM is tantamount to saying SSM is equivalent to a natural married family. IE it’s a greater endorsement of motherlessness and fatherlessness, than is endorsement of DPs.
“Katy’s post seems to me to counter your claim to some degree, when she writes “See, most traditional marriage supporters agree that consenting adults should be able to form the relationships that they choose. What they oppose is state-endorsed motherlessness and fatherlessness.””
That has nothing to do with the fact that Domestic Partnership agreements offers gay people the same right to forge their signatures on their children’s birth certificates. Nothing at all.
That’s right. But I was focusing on the last sentence of your critique, rather than the first sentence.
“Straight people also have (as you put it) “the ‘right’ to build a family the way ‘they’ choose- which will include denying ‘their’ child a relationship with her mother.” through gamete-donation/surrogacy. Its the same deal, folks. With single-parents-by-choice, it doesn’t even have to do with marriage at all.”
I can respond to this. When talking about sperm donation and surrogacy, the argument is not just limited to same-sex relationships. I have never supported single-parent-by-choice. No one should, since it also results in children in a motherless or fatherless home. In the case of a hetero couple having a child via surrogate (namely, the father and mother’s sperm and egg carried by another woman), I think this can be acceptable, but under very specific circumstances. Put yourself in the place of the child. Children need to feel loved and wanted. If I were a child brought into existence via surrogacy and raised by my biological parents, I would be curious about the surrogate. After all, without her, I would not exist. Did she care about me? Did she love me? Why did she agree to carry me? If the answer is that she did it for money, then I would feel hurt. I would feel taken advantage of by the surrogate (since she used me for personal gain) and may also feel as though she took advantage of my parents. I would also be angry at my parents, since I would still feel like a commodity. However, if the surrogate was a close family member, one who I could know and have a relationship with, and one who did it out of love, then I would be ok with that. This is because my existence was purely a family affair, the result of my family working together because they love each other and because they loved me, even before I was conceived.
So surrogacy in the case of heterosexual couples is not free game, in my opinion. Also, I feel that children also have the right to a relationship with the surrogate as well, for reasons expressed in the paragraph above. However, this is just my opinion. I think we would need to appeal to those who are the product of surrogacy for a clearer picture.
For your third point:
“There are gay couples who marry, but still allow their kids to have a relationship with their biological parents. In California its legal for 3 people to be on the child’s birth certificate. Its called co-parenting. Many lesbians choose their gay friend to be part of their kids lives, because they’re uncomfortable with the prospect of taking their kids’ dad away from them”
I have addressed the co-parenting idea in my other comments on this post. Search for my username for a response.
They’re not interested in the oppositions responses- no search will happen; they are only interested in engaging in dialogue or debate long enough to try to catch a phrase or concept you might contribute that they can distort or take out of context so that they can label you a hater, bigot or phobe.
No argument ever made by the opposition was ever made based upon logic or honesty- that is why they needed to go for the over-emotional ‘equal rights’ angle and play their sad unrequited ‘love’ and ‘discrimination’ stories out through a willing and compromised media. They have no logical argument and are not interested in logical debate of the merits of their positions.
It isn’t debate or dialogue when one side is engaged honestly and the other side is only out for more blood.
The problem is the “rights of children” argument is and always was a farce. The people who now say they oppose gay marriage because of children are the same ones who said they opposed it because of the “word” marriage. Before that they were openly hostile to lgbt people and lgbt relationships in general. Don’t play the ambiguity card when in reality you oppose homosexuality as a general concept. It’s disingenuous and presumes your readers are fools.
When people take this petri dish approach, they lose their credibility. People see through the political tactics of recruiting the children of gay individuals to give staged testimony- at the expense of their own families and relationships. The path you’re taking is by no means a high road- nor is it considerate, kind, generous or spiritually evolved (for those who like the use of the word spirit.)
It’s petty, it’s disrespectful, it abuses and disregards the lives of people who make considerable contributions to society. I’m asking myself right now about my judgement regarding you, and if it’s possible you might not come anywhere near to the quality of person I presumed you endeavoured to be.
I’m sorry, were you responding to me?
No, to Katy, in a very personal way; But you’re welcomed to weigh in 🙂
My issue with the gay community has always been any form of ‘one-sex parenting’, whether it was straight singles-by-choice or couples of the same sex. Being there were lots of considerate/loving gay dads and papas who form open adoption arrangements with their adopted kids’ bio moms, and some who even co-parent their children with the children’s lesbian mothers, I have never had a issue with marriage equality.
I’ve read articles by married lesbians talking about why they choose a close friend to be their sperm donor, so their children can have a relationship with their dad.
I realize the issues are completely separate. And that the daddy/mommy-issues are more prevalent in the married straight community since there are more infertile straights seeking gamete donation, than there are gays.
I would defend Katy and her blog because I honestly thought her dilemma with gay marriage was a slightly misguided idea that gays would get the right to severe kids from their bio fams, through surrogacy/gamete donation. I thought other than that, her relations with the gay community was supportive, loving and accepting.
I would defend her views about reproductive technology, selfish divorces and even her critiques of the gay parenting studies, but would respectfully disagree with her stance of marriage equality.
I didn’t become conflicted about her true feelings of LGTB people, until she wrote that blog post about Bruce, which came across very hurtful and disrespectful.
I’m still in the middle, though.
The problem for me is it’s not the only dodgy post. There’s the conversion post with the lesbian that’s also questionable.
What upsets me is she’s happy to have a considerate relationship with me, but won’t extend that consideration to other lgbt people.
That’s a very interesting statement. I wonder if you could point my to justification for your statement that I don’t extend myself in relationship to other LGBT people.
Your posts speak for themselves. The Jenner post did that in particular. I even emailed you about it.
Whilst I had posts about you and your church and family online, you were very inclined to compromise and understanding. The minute I decided to to go ‘private’ and remove them from the internet you became belligerent again. To the point of disrespect and cruelty.
This is stunning. To assert that somehow you “changed my tone” by having defamatory posts about my church (including the names/addresses/photo of my friends) on your blog is unreal. Literally- it’s not real. I invite readers to scroll back and see how amicable you were (very) in comments after your manipulative posts were taken down- I never requested it, you volunteered- in May 2014. But it’s just in the last few posts where you’ve become testy. If you feel like you need to stem my “belligerence” by all means put them back up.
You know what? I had peace about the Supreme Court decision. It was disappointing, but not a surprise.
But I barely slept last night. And have felt sickened most of the day during a way-longer-than-it-should-have-been drive home. Because I just cannot make sense of this turn in you. You can say that my “tone” has changed all you like. I’ll let the reader go back and skim my posts for the past year and take a sampling for themselves. But the truth is, something has changed in you. And I am grieved. Because I have loved you and you are funny and smart and you challenged me and I learned from you.
Shame on me, but I let you in. I’ve never sent anyone else from this blog pictures of my children. Or let my kids send them an email (I feel like you were with us on that road trip last summer when my girl was writing you for me). Or shared with them my deepest heart’s desire. When they were studying Europe I told them that my friend in Spain may come to visit sometime so they can ask him questions about its history.
But now all the unfounded accusations are back. The dishonest fishing and baiting have returned. What will you do with all of my private information/pictures now, Marvelous Pink?
I am at a loss as to how to respond. I don’t know why things have changed for you, but I’m not going to pussy-foot around emailing you when you are making outlandish defamatory statements. You are right about only one thing, disrespect and cruelty have made a comeback.
My apologies, which post were you referring to when you said ‘dodgy’? And what were your issues about that post with the lesbian?
I agree with the second half of what you said. Very considerate of some gay people but not all of them. I’m not here to say LGTB people deserve special restrictions from criticism, but I think there’s a threshold of respect that isn’t being considerate of. Like calling Caitlyn Jenner’s transformation a fraud. I understand her issue is that undergoing such a transformation while the children may still need a mom/dad may pose a lot of greif with the kids, but nothing was said about transwomen and transmen who adopt and have children after undergoing the hormonal therapies and surgeries. Wouldn’t that be a great inclusive alternative to advocate, instead of insulting the entire transsexual community?
I enjoyed Millie Foxx’s approach to the issue regarding children’s rights. She was actually raised by lesbians, with a sperm donor dad. She believes she had a right to her father, but her issue WASN’T their sexuality or openly lesbian relationship, but just that they denied her the right to know her biological father. When replying to gay prospective parents who had commented on her video, she was very encouraging for those gay/les couples who co-parented or used known donors, and thought this was a great alternative. She even wrote that kids with 2 moms and 2 dads ‘hit the jackpot’ and were so very lucky to have all those people looking after them at once. I WISH other Children’s Rights Advocates would take this gay-friendly inclusive approach. Maybe it’ll happen. IDK. I hope more voices like Ms. Foxx’s will come out. We will see, Pinkagendist.
If I’m not mistaken, Katy supports that people deny their sexual orientation. That’s what her post/interview with the lesbian ‘convert’ implies.
Calling that view dangerous is being gentle.
Never saw that post. You may have to post it. Sexuality is fluid, so when I hear of convert stories, I honestly believe these people are just latent bisexuals. What I do know is that she thinks that gay men should marry women and have heterosexual relationships. I mean, its that kind of thinking that geared her parents divorce in the first place. Forcing gays into straight marriages. Gay men throughout history who were forced into hetero-relationships had gay lovers on the side. Unless she’s advocating that, I think the idea is very impractical and otherwise demeaning to gay people. If its about the kids, just advocate lesbians to use their gay best friend to be a baby-daddy instead of shopping at a sperm bank. Problem solved. But no one listens to me. Ugh.
You’ll have to ask her about her opinions and why she has them.
https://askthebigot.com/2013/04/04/my-interview-with-a-not-ex-lesbian-child-of-god/. This is thoughts from my same-sex attracted friend. I asked her to share with me how the church could better walk beside her in her journey. This is the path that she has chosen and it’s her story.
As stated in the above post, I don’t have any problems with individuals forming same- sex relationships. No one is saying that gays should be forced into straight marriages and no, that was not the issue with my parents divorce (sorry to disappoint). What I’m saying is that if you want to make a baby, you need to do so in cooperation with that child’s other parent. Permanently. And that’s called marriage. Don’t want a child? Fine. Do what you like. Want a child? Marry their parent. Because they deserved no less. Parenting is not about what’s best for the adults. The first step in good parenting is cooperating with the child’s other parent.
Get pregnant with your gay BFF? Well, I’ll tell you, it’s hard enough to cooperate with the man you are married to when it comes to parenting. Add a few other non-bio partners to the mix (many of whom may not be permanent if the stories of children of gays in any indication), two different houses, dealing with job re-locations for one or both parents and the odds are against that being a long-term win. Not to mention that while it’s good to know who your bio parents are, it’s ideal to have both parents in the home with you, giving daily encouragement and input. If you want your kids to have all their needs met, then you have to do the hard thing and give up what you want. That’s what every parent is called to do- parenting is constantly dying to what you want so that your kids can have what they need. Case in point- it’s summer and I all day long I’m running around getting my kids to where they need to go, intervening in disputes, reading with them, monitoring them at the pool, etc. I’d love to be responding to every comment on this blog, writing, and making videos. But I just can’t if I’m going to parent well during the summer.
Yes. I feel the same way, Pink. Katy has changed and hardened. Either that or her true contempt is really just coming out more and more. To discuss her mother like “See! I’m not hateful. I love my mom. It’s for the children like me whose parents screwed up by being gay and living their truth!” must be so so hurtful to her mom. I can’t imagine since this is her main cause in life. It’s what she’s organized her life around. And as others have said, the lack of focus on anything except for same-sex marriage, despite how harmful those other things are to children, shows what’s really going on. It’s so sad.
Hi Thinker. For a woman with a PhD in psychology you really know how to wield your weapons of guilt and shame, don’t you?
Saying that neither my mom nor her partner would be good fathers translates to “contempt” how exactly?
Tell me, for the short period while you were my Facebook friend (before you unfriended me) how often did I post/write/share articles on gay marriage? The answer is rarely. I have hardly “organized my life” around this. But because of the growing aggression of the LGBT lobby I did decide four years ago that it was time that I spoke up. So I blogged about this anonymously. Then I was outed by gay marriage supporters, in essence forced to write under my own name. So then, since I had nothing to left to lose, I joined the legal fight. And of course you’ve been following this blog long enough to know that I have blogged about many other topics. But your obfuscation and condescension isn’t lost on me.
The “rights of children” has always been my focus, going back to the initial posts of this blog. I began writing because I felt that there was little emphasis on what I considered the most primary issue in this discussion. I am curious as to who are referring to when you speak of “they” being openly hostile to LGBT people.
In nearly every post I seek to straddle that difficult position of reaching out, and encouraging others to reach out, to the LGBT people in their life. I’m sorry you felt that wasn’t the case in the Jenner post, but someone needed to share the immense difficulty that kids with Trans parents face. As I told you by email, that the girls I’ve spoken to in these homes seek to hide their femininity (like strapping down their breasts), change the way they walk so their hips don’t sway, and are in general uncomfortable with their developing bodies. You can show compassion for an individual while being honest about impact of their choices.
There is not difference in the worth, dignity, talent, intellect of LGBT individuals. And I have always maintained that LGBT parents can be great parents. What lesbians cannot be is fathers. What gay men cannot be is mothers. Children have a right to and deserve both whenever possible. Marriage is the venue where LGBT matter, or rather, where gender balance matters.
Tell me about “staged testimony?” And how is anything that I’ve done not been replicated 100 fold my same-sex marriage supporters?
I’m sorry if you feel you’ve “misjudged me.”. We attempted the very difficult, yes? To be diametrically opposed but friendly none the less. I think you are smart, charitable, and clearly more stylish than I. The dinner invitation is always open.
I think you’d rather me not get into your husband’s comments that were pulled from one or another social media site. Or any history. I am indeed stylish enough to leave it at that- at the very least because you’re a wife and mother, and because I respect that; even though you don’t seem capable of respecting my position or contribution to society.
No. By all means post them if you feel something egregious has taken place. But don’t dangle a lure intended to create misgivings and then retract because of “style.” No, sharing the history wouldn’t reflect well on some of us.
Are you saying your husband’s comments weren’t considered hate speech and removed by social media outlets?
Post it. Stop with the sickening misinformation written for the purpose of defamation.
Your church preaches people should not engage in homosexual acts. That’s a fairly straightforward point. Not defamation or an insinuation.
“Your church preaches people should not engage in homosexual acts. That’s a fairly straightforward point. Not defamation or an insinuation.” Well, you are right that’s what we believe. And you’re right that it is now “hate speech.”
Yes. That’s our standard for members, but anyone is invited to attend. It looks like our membership covenant is no longer online (now, why could that be?).
If I had a copy in front of me, I could give you a word-for word answer. But off the top of my head: no member (those who claim to be followers of Jesus and committed to our church) may engage in of sexual immorality of any kind- specifically co-habitation, porn use, and adultery and homosexual acts. We state specifically that sexual behavior is sanctioned within heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, everyone is expected to reign in their sexual appetite. Because why? That’s exactly what the bible teaches. But wait, there’s more! Strangely, just like the bible forbids drunkenness for believers- so do we! And just like the bible forbids suing other Christians- so do we! It’s as if you could read what the bible says about how believers should live and come up with a membership covenant that looks a lot like ours.
When you are a Christian, you do not get to live according to your appetites. You actually have to “lose your life,” sometime literally as our heroic bothers in Muslim-controlled areas have shown us. Here’s my very first post. Ever. https://askthebigot.com/2012/08/11/truechristianity/ Every quote from Jesus in that post is about dying to yourself- many of those I am struggling to obey right now. But real Christianity was never a “God affirms everything you want and feel” kind of deal. It has always been “God affirms your worth” and then He transforms you into someone who resembles Jesus.
I know that this is hard to believe because the western church has not been a stellar example of this (and certainly not the “Christians” that MSM likes to highlight) but being a Christian means giving up what you want, by the power of the Spirit. It even means giving up your rights (but not giving away the rights of others.) It means offering the remainder of this month’s gas money to your friend whose phone was stolen, even though you will have to walk for a week instead of drive. It means, like my friends, opening your home to foster child after foster child though every new round brings upheaval to their marriage and biological children. It means writing and deleting comments several times before you can figure out how to obey, “in your anger, do not sin.” It means working for justice with all your might, even if it looks like you will lose. It means letting homeless people live with you. And mowing your neighbor’s lawn when you would rather, finally, put your feet up. With every command, there is a sacrifice. But the long term gain is glorious.
Now, how do I reconcile this with my honest statement that “consenting adults should be able to form the relationships that they choose” and oppose gay marriage? The same reason why I think that people can have the freedom to get drunk, sue others, and look at porn. Because what adults do is not my business unless it infringes on someone else’s rights, especially an innocent party. And then, as a Christian but also a responsible citizen, we speak up for the most vulnerable.
And that’s the “harm” of SSM. You have the normalization/incentivising of fatherlessness and motherlessness- harming innocent parties. We are about to see the battle for children’s rights face an increasingly uphill battle, especially given that one aspect of Justice Kennedy’s support for redefining marriage had to do specifically with children. So despite yours and Candy’s sighing over how the two are not connected, Kennedy disagrees. And so do all the others on the pro-SSM side who used kids in their arguments. That is, an awful lotta them.
So your answer is, if you are not a Christian I will do whatever I can to share my heart, life and listening ear. It’s not my business to try and change them. But if someone claims to be a Christian, then I will walk beside them (and they’ll need to walk beside me) as we conform our heart, mind, and body to His commands. Because Jesus’ standards are steep. For all of us.
But you have to consider this from the perspective of someone who just stopped by and is reading what you write.
When the average person looks at what you write, they have to ask themselves what’s really going on because some things just don’t follow.
It makes much more sense to the reader that you oppose gay marriage because of your religious beliefs than because of one or another factor that isn’t necessarily affected by the legal marriage contract in and of itself.
I think the spirit of what Justice Kennedy said was that the children of gay people would finally have protections they didn’t have before.
Let’s take your case. Your mother would have had you, and did, independent of any legal contract. At a later date, marriage could have provided her (and your family unit) with a legal and financial framework for stability.
The same would be true for single parent adoptions. They’ve been happening, marriage (of whatever variety) can then provide the family unit with more stability.
In those cases marriage isn’t the precursor to reproduction or child-rearing, rather, it becomes a safety net.
That’s why I’m saying your position doesn’t quite make sense. 99.9% of the children of gay parents in America today were probably born outside of gay marriage. All the authors of the amicus briefs were born to parents who were not gay-married. Gay marriage played no role in any of it. So your opposition to gay marriage doesn’t address your primordial concern which, if I understand correctly, is the importance of two-gender parental households.
The position consistent with that goal is for you to oppose that lgbt people, whether single or in lgbt relationships, have children. That’s the only solution to your concern. I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, each to their own, I’m just showing you how what you think fixes the issues you’re worried about doesn’t actually change anything at all.
And that’s where the trouble comes in, because the average reader will look at what you write and think- well, actually she’s talking about potential problems but then putting all her energy into something that doesn’t change or fix anything. And then they have to decide what’s going on. And they’re left with two options. Either the writer is misguided because her solution doesn’t solve anything at all, or the writer’s actual objective is opposition to gay relationships and this is kind of a smokescreen.
I promise you, that’ll be the view of most outsiders based solely on reading what’s here. That’s the take-away from how you’re formulating your arguments.
Funny. If you were this troubled about how the “average person” might misunderstand my position, why weren’t you objecting prior to this (or the Jenner) post? Because you didn’t seem concerned until now. And then it seems you were “concerned” enough to use strong-arm tactics so that I could be “understood correctly.”
Question, do you think there will be more intentional motherlessness and fatherlessness because of this ruling?
At first your message was something more general. There wasn’t a strict structure to it. Conservative ideas, opinion pieces. There was something interesting about the concept of a place where any idea could be discussed, no matter how un-pc it was.
But then you started to paint yourself into a corner. And I actually was concerned and did warn you several times.
“Don’t align yourself with that loose canon.”
“You need to broaden your focus” and so forth.
Her is far from the only one. What is your point! It sounds like you are simply trying to bully her around. My church preaches the same thing and hundreds of thousands do around the nation. The founders of our nation criminalized sodomy if you happened not to be aware of that.
What philosophy do you follow that guides you to decide what is right and wrong?
Since we all are engaged in the Bigot-Pink/MM ‘discussion’, we need some transparency here. Claims of documented transgressions by either should be posted so we can all see the evidence behind claims, or such claims should be retracted. You decided not to go ‘offline’ with this disagreement, and you have the audience you wanted, and we expect to be treated respectfully- so, provide the evidence to support your claims.
The latest claim was that the Bigots spouse posted public comments that had to be removed because they were somehow inappropriate. The claimant should ante up with the proof or retract that statement since he introduced the claim.
The Bigot may let you off the hook you managed to put yourself on, but, this isn’t a private matter anymore- you brought it out of the closet, intentionally and despicably.
Now, give us all a look so that we may make our own assessment of your claims.
And if you don’t back up your claims, we will then have the evidence that you are actually the fraud, and the liar and master manipulator that you claim all others to be.
Put up or shut up-
And as for staged testimony, are you trying to justify it on any grounds? Because the truly moral and ethical position is that it’s unacceptable, period. Not acceptable on any side.
I don’t even know what you are referring to when you talk about “staged testimony.”. Care to clue me in?
Really? So there’s been no concerted effort to recruit the children of gay individuals to give their testimony of how terrible it is to be the child of a gay parent? Did NOM not put aside $120000 to cover the costs of a coordinator for that purpose?
“In addition to its plan to “drive a wedge” between gays and blacks, the group said it planned to hire outreach workers to recruit children in same-sex families to talk about their unhappiness on video, create a roster of experts ready to speak to the damage caused by gay marriage and spend $2.1 million on a “Pan-American Strategy.”
I have no idea and this is the first time I’ve heard of it. No one that I know has been paid for their testimonies or anything else, other than standard remuneration for an article. But really, your accusations are quite nefarious and I’m surprised, really surprised, at your repeated efforts on this thread to cast doubt. If you are looking for organizations with lots of money who have gotten into this legal fight, I’m sure you are very concerned with COLAGe, HRC, and GLAAD. Do let us know what their budgets are and whether or not those in their videos and publications have been recruited and/or paid.
Interesting. Could you explain how the amicus briefs were organized? The synchronization and interaction between filers doesn’t seem entirely accidental.
Oh. So you will not be reporting back with the budgets of the pro-SSM groups? Why not? Aren’t you equally concerned with the “moral and ethical position” on both sides?
Question, how did your last grand conspiracy theory about me work out? Do you think this round will be any different? But so your distortions are answered on the record, here you go:
I started blogging, anonymously. Because I had NO intention of every doing anything in this legal fight. I thought I was the only one with an LGBT parent who thought that mothers and fathers were critical- thank you selective media representations. After about a year, I found RO Lopez’s blog. He already knew Dawn and Denise (both of whom have published books on the topics) but I didn’t know they existed. Then you took my anonymity. Because I was now blogging under my own name, I was asked to write a brief for the 5th Circuit, along with the other three- all independent (mine can be viewed under the “Gay Marriage” page above). There was NO aid, help or coordination. I had no idea what I was doing, as is evident from the page above.
I was still blogging, and Heather found me- she thought she was the only one as well. Then the SCOTUS case came up. In this great nation, anyone with a lawyer (thank God for ours- a guy by the name of David Boyle who filed his own brief too) can file a brief so the four were joined by a fifth. Then I asked Heather if she wanted to join us- she did- and the six of us had weekly conference calls to try and figure out 1) how to afford it because we would all be paying our own fees and filing a SCOTUS brief is expensive, and 2) should we file jointly or separately. We decided to split it three ways. Then I scrapped around and tried to find anyone with any experience writing a brief that I could get my hands on who could review my drafts for free and Heather and I volleyed our brief back and forth. ADF gave us some feedback, thank God. Each brief is very different as we have diverse backgrounds. So it wasn’t accidental, but it was certainly organic. I’m so sorry to tell you that there was no outside coordination, sorry to disappoint you. It was just six laymen trying figure it out.
Truthfully, the person responsible for my participation in the “interaction” is you, Pink/Marveilleux. I never would have done this if I didn’t have anything to lose. So if you are concerned about someone mining for COGs, I guess you are the one responsible for me.
Heather wrote her Federalist piece. Brandi saw it. She did a video and decided to start writing too. Guess what, when you write about this, other GOCs find you and share their story, usually privately out of fear of what others/their family will say. There are more of us, but many of them need to process privately before they say anything publically. Many never will go public, and you would discourage that anyway because that would be “pitting family members against each other”, right? Most are just glad not to be alone.
So now that you were wrong about that, what other “dodgy” remarks are on your docket?
I didn’t say anyone given their testimony had been paid, btw. I said there was a concerted effort and a coordinator was paid to put this forward. My accusation isn’t some I plucked out of a hat, it’s public knowledge revealed in court documents: https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/04/memos-nom-suit-reveal-anti-gay-marriage-strategies
Sneak in the insinuation and then slide back out. Is that is this is going to go? No you didn’t say “paid” you just mentioned lots of money in connection with recruiting testimony.
I’m going to chime in. If NOM did that, and I’m not sure if they did or didn’t, then I would argue that this political tactic goes both ways. GLAAD has threatened and intimidated kids of LGTB parents who spoke out negatively about being raised by gay parents. In addition, the children they recruit for testimonies are supportive to a fault. It extends to the point of saying their parents were flawless and that they were even better than straight parents. The extent of their supportive attitude leaves them questionable. If you read the book “Fams like Mine” the author (who had gay dads) admitted that there was internal pressure to support her dads, and pretend everything was fine. She had interviewed several other children who felt the same way. One of whom, who was so afraid of telling the truth about her lesbian moms, that she was even afraid to admit that they have normal child-parent fights and sometimes she gets grounded. She doesn’t even talk about this with her friends, because she’s afraid she’ll come off unsupportive.
What’s interesting is that the author of “Fams like Mine” said that her whole fear of admitting things aren’t roses at home, was during the 1980’s, when gay parenting was hardly a discussion. She can only imagine the pressure kids are facing now, when their opinions/experiences are used to validate their parents’ childcare abilities, and legalize their marriages.
Manipulating is wrong no matter who’s doing it. Pitting family members against each other is also terrible.
So, there is no speaking up for children with LGBT parents because it “pits family members against each other?”
Unfortunately, that can be true. I have more than one friend with a lesbian or gay parent who will not talk about their support of traditional marriage on social media because they fear losing the relationship with their parent. And thus the scarcity of COGs who choose to speak out, especially under their own name. Those who do often wait until their parents have died because they understand the implications of dissent.
Thank God that is not true for my mother. It’s only because we have a strong relationship (much to her credit) that I can do this at all.
If NOM did it, I don’t know any of their recruits.
>If NOM did it, I don’t know any of their recruits.
Robert Lopez, Rivka Edelman,… Regnerus with his bogus study
“Manipulating is wrong no matter who’s doing it. Pitting family members against each other is also terrible.”
I completely agree, which is why I have mixed feelings and vague annoyances towards liberals and conservative leaders and their mindless cult.
With both sides, their tactics are invasive, dehumanizing and extreme. Their agendas are usually self-serving and non-inclusive, and their way of reaching the public is usually just emotional manipulation.
With liberals, they pretend the gay marriage issue is about ‘love’, and conservatives who hate gays and don’t want them to love their partner. With conservatives, they pretend that the gay marriage issue is about children, when they know damn well its about their religious convictions. The mindless followers in between don’t have a inclining of a idea that there are in fact, more sides to the story.
If that’s an open letter, you can add my signature to it.
What if a blogger were to tell you that “no one will ever google the name of your church until they have read what I’ve written about it first.” Would you consider that “emotional manipulation?” Would you consider those tactics “invasive”, “dehumanizing” and “extreme”? Does that sound like a “self-serving” agenda? How about “inclusive?”
Be careful about who you trust, friend. Else you may become one of those “mindless followers”.
I’m not good friends with Pink, and I don’t know him well beyond this blog. To be honest, I haven’t trusted anyone besides you with my real identity and if me and pink were in contact it would be the same fake email I account I sent to IMHO.
His agenda doesn’t seem self-serving, but his tactics were invasive, and extreme. Honestly, similar to how I understand IMHO’s hostility towards the LGTB community, I can understand why he did what he did, despite how both him and IMHO were (are?) incredible flawed in their thinking. To his eyes, (and to many) you’re trying to take away his opportunity to have the same equal rights that heterosexual people have. And your motives seem (honestly) questionable.
Its honestly hard to tell if you feel the way you do because you genuinely think that gay marriage harms children, or because you have a issue with gay people in general 😦 I say this because during the time we’ve mingled, I’ve made critiques that haven’t been thoroughly answered but instead danced-around. And you’ve recently called-out people who have nothing to do with same-sex marriage at all.
My frustration is with both parties, liberals and conservatives. Its why I choose not to identify as either or. They both seem incapable of getting along, working out problems like adults, and finding a middle ground that supports everyone. They polarize their views and treat politics like a brutal sport. Its annoying, small-minded and it doesn’t get us anywhere 😕
I really really do think you’re a great person Katy, and you could change the world. I’m just hoping that you’ll count this as a loss and work where we are. That you won’t continue to fight against gay marriage, and instead move on to the crux of the issue that is encompassing more than just kids of the LGTB community.
In response to the “issue with gay people in general” statement: https://askthebigot.com/2015/06/26/scotus-moves-away-from-the-rights-of-children-toward-a-right-to-children/comment-page-1/#comment-7239
Because they use emotional tactics to win things.
Candy: What about those of us who object to the fact that the same-sex marriage movement is building a legal moat around same-sex parenting, especially experimental male male parenting?
What if our real-world experience teaches us that it is naïve to pretend adult marriage laws and child welfare can be compartmentalized apart?
What about the assertion that children have a human right to their biological mother and father that no adult, including lawyers, wealthy pop music stars or parents who want to sell their children, should be permitted to electively abridge?
Those are not religious convictions.
— “What about the assertion that children have a human right to their biological mother and father that no adult, including lawyers, wealthy pop music stars or parents who want to sell their children, should be permitted to electively abridge?”
And I repeat, and I argue, the same legal abilitites would still be permitted to same-sex couples if they were using a domestic partnership. WHY ISN’T THAT GETTING THROUGH YOU ALL’S THICK SKULLS?
The issue of denying a child’s their biological parents ISN’T EXCLUSIVELY A GAY ISSUE. Infertile straight people also strip their children from their biological fathers/mothers, and forge incorrect information on their children’s birth certificates.
If you are going to argue that children of same-sex parenting, are at a worse disadvantage because a lack of a father/mother figure, you would be ignoring the single-parent-by-choice movement, which STRAIGHT women and STRAIGHT men intentionally raise children without their mom/dad.
Hi Candy. I’ve been reading about the “single-parent by choice movement” that you introduced me to with your post. It appears to be as reckless as the rush to implement experimental male-male parenting.
I’m okay with people experimenting on their own bodies or lives– that’s liberty. I’m opposed to creating a situation that deliberately and electively denies a child it’s human rights to mother and father.
Then why can’t you and Katy agree with me with the ‘co-parenting by choice’ movement? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Vmzgnx9MY
Candy: “Co-parenting” is a broad term that covers several qualitatively different arrangements. It certainly has been tried more than once in human history because sociology surveys of marriage in some Stone Age cultures surviving in the 19th and early 20th century included coparent arrangements. Great apes also engage in limited coparenting practices. Lastly, I can think of some modern subcultures that attempted a kind of “commune ” with limited co- parenting.
How does your idea of coparenting envision the role of the male father figure? Groups of female humans are rich with maternal and child rearing skills or instincts. But the father, both in the positive sense of teacher or trusted role model and in the negative sense of constraining natural male behavior/liberty, both seem very important to me and potential limitations of coparenting.
How do successful coparents deal with those “father” aspects and paternity specifically?
In a co-parenting situation the child would have much more father-figures, so I don’t understand what you’re talking about in that regard. In many primitive tribes, the child-rearing system included babies and small children (boys and girls), being communally reared by their mothers, polygamous co-mothers, grandmothers, aunts, older half-sisters, older female cousins and so forth. But around puberty the boys go to be with their fathers, uncles, older male cousins, and so forth, while the girls stay back with their female relatives.
My ideal of co-parenting father would be for him to be as available for his children as much as possible.
Candy: Thanks for the clarification because the term “coparenting” also is used in the context of divorce where the child often moves from house to house. It is inherently less stable for children than a traditional marriage.
It sounds like you’re describing coparenting more like a polyamorous set up with a bunch of open relationships among the adults- is that what you are advocating?
I think it might work better in small, relatively isolated groups where the entire community is composed of extended families of interrelated people working cooperatively with strong tribal rules and consequences, e.g. a small Stone Age human culture versus “coparenting” in a large complex, multicultural Democratic Republic where, outside of the nuclear family unit, the potential role modeling becomes so blurred and confused as to be fairly useless.
Have you read accounts of parenting written by children raised in 1960s communes? One has to weigh the advantages of benign neglect in raising children versus the known disadvantages; when many adults are “responsible” for raising a child it may result that no one is really responsible.
We aren’t that different from cavemen when speaking in terms of our psychology. Humans were never evolved to take the weight of parenting, and devise it between two people. This is why so many people pay for childcare, babysitting, or nanny services. Its not natural. Humans have always divised parenting within a close knit of relatives or sexual partners. I’ve read about children of the 1960s counterculture movement, however, those memoirs have openly stated that the caretakers were usually under the influence of drugs, and other psychoactive drugs. They were also more dedicated to avoiding war, actively participating in the sexual revolution and their anti-establishment causes, than for the well-being of children. Traditional societies are more organized and structured, their main concerns are of the well-being of the children, women, men, and the elderly. So the comparison you gave wasn’t fair.
Thanks Candy. Those are interesting perspectives.
I do see overlap among co-parenting you advocate and the 1960s communal experiences, but we agree that multiple risky behaviors (like recreational drug abuse) came into play for some 1960s communes.
It does make one wonder about the challenges of harmonizing all the different value systems of the adults involved? For example, drug use, or important views of morality, behavior, health practices etc. would probably vary, at times widely, among the adults. So you might end up with a kind of inconsistent “parenting by committee.”
Adults, less attached than a traditional marriage commitment, would likely be coming and going into the collective arrangement? Children would feel each of those losses more acutely than would the other adults.
It sounds like children will be exposed to more different parent’s “boyfriends” if those adult relationships are open, and we both know that generally is not good.
Why not simply find one good man or woman and get married before having children together? If there is a same-sex attachment or other infertility then it’s possible to have what are called “spiritual children, ” students, mentoring relationships, apprentices, as well as the traditional family roles of aunt, uncle, older sibling or cousin, etc.? Those kinds of relationships can be very fulfilling and are important for children.
Adult values vary widely today, in america, even when partners are majority-wise ‘monogamous’, so moral disputes are inevitable whether you have one partner or forty. I don’t see the correlation.
Children are already exposed to different “boyfriends” when their parents are serial monogamists. It seems you’re advocating an idea that because the parents choose to have more than one partner, that they cannot be ‘fidelious’. There is such a thing as polyamorous fidelity, and just as monogamous couples are able to settle down, it doesn’t mean that poyamorous ones aren’t able to do the same thing. In this case, the child is constantly exposed to a consistent number of caretakers for the rest of his/her life, just as it would be if he had only one father and one mother.
And sure, maybe some couples can settle down with one man or woman, but this isn’t for everyone. Communal parenting has much more benefits than duel parenting.
Candy: For the polyamorous parents who choose to be in a plural “marriage” and make vows of fidelity as part of their arrangement, as you describe, questions arise:
Are they faithful to each member of the group as another individual, to selected members of the group, or are they faithful to the idea of the group itself?
When one has a “falling out ” with another and wants to “divorce” just him, does this require a group vote?
When one individual leaves does it dissolve the entire plural “marriage?” Who keeps custody of the biochildren of the departing member(s)? I’m still seeing a higher turnover rate here for the kids based on the larger number of participants, and exposure to more adult males who are not their biological father — even with promises of fidelity.
Will children know their paternity as in strict polygyny, or will it be ambiguous as in strict polyandry of brothers?
Mother will know which children are hers… is that a biological conflict-of-interest with her fidelity to other group females and their offspring?
Finally, in practice, you may find that when the values of a human group permit multiple sexual partners that it’s much more challenging to limit partnerships to just within the group. Especially if societal norms include hedonism.
Forgive me but I don’t see how this has any relation to the points I addressed previously. How does how a polyamorous grouping decide to divorce each other have anything to do with stability and poly-fidelity?
Children in polygamous groupings know their biological parents just as much as kids in monogamous stepparent relationships. Again, what’s your point?
A ‘large number of father figures’? Barely. Most poly-groupings are small and intimate. At most they’ll consist of four adults. I would see your fear if these groupings were of 15 adults consisting of a lover of another lover of another lover, who eventually break up, but this isn’t the case for all poly-groups, and in many cases it IS the case for mono-groups. You never heard of the singled mom with the endless line of ex-boyfriends?
Polyandry isn’t a issue, as in this world we have DNA tests.
Mothers who adopt children know which children are hers, what’s your point? Are you saying that these mothers who are like sisters to one another (if not lovers), won’t bond in such a way that they can raise each other’s non-biological children as if they are their own? I doubt if they weren’t prepared for that complex, they wouldn’t enter a relationship that directly results from that. However, I will admit your concern for this is slightly validated, but if you are to say that, then you are also going to have prepare an argument in defense of adoption.
And as for your last critique, no not really. Most poly-groups say that spending that much time bonding and emotionally committing to more than one partner, is draining. Therefor, they usually stop at two. Also with the financial challenges of raising many children, that would additionally put a damper on things.
Don’t put quotation marks around “marriages” especially with a country with a divorce rate of 50%. Polyamory is timeless, and poly-marriages are as old as dirt.
Candy: On 6/29@941 you asked me if I could support the “coparenting by choice movement,” by which you mean a variable, polyamorous arrangement of adults that includes a collection of children. Based on the information you provided and the books I’ve read on similar arrangements from the global 1950-70s commune or kibutzim movements, several of which were free from by illegal drug use, my answer is “no.”
But I’ll keep an open mind to new information and appreciate your efforts to inform me.
I don’t see that it provides the stability and predictability for young children to thrive. I think it will expose children to more adult male intimates coming or going compared with traditional marriage. I also think that if we have such a high divorce rate when two people try to marry their lives together in our society, then expanding the number of adults will likely increase the interpersonal conflicts on important family issues as well as “divorces” in the cooperative and, therefore, the adult turnover rate.
While I do appreciate the efficiency of human poly-parenting relationships for some Hunter-gatherers, I believe success depends upon the cultural homogeneity, biological interrelatedness and isolation of the group; it will unravel in our modern, multicultural Gesellschaft just as similar utopian attempts from the USA and Europe have failed during the past century.
I put “marriage” in quotes because plural marriage remains illegal in the USA since the late 19th century when it was rejected as one of the ” twin pillars of barbarism,” along with human slavery. Problems identified back then included that plural marriage can facilitate abusive polygyny, sexual abuse of girls by “co-fathers,” and others well-documented cultlike practices.
kibutzim is not co-parenting. To me the situation was comparable to children being taken care of by boarding school directors, something like of the book Brave New World. Co-parenting involves having intimate personal bonds with a few offsprings, that you and a partner had created together. The kibutz scenario treated children like liabilities, being reared by workers. No compariosn.
Conflicts are inevitable if the parties are two, or three. If everyone has similar parenting values, beliefs, and organized participation then the chances of disagreement is cut at a minimum. You act as if strangers are going to come together and raise a child, not that these are adults who haven’t gotten a chance to know each other or discussed parental roles before having kids.
There is no evidence to prove that poly-parenting couldn’t work in today’s society. None at all. Seeing how parenting for two parents, has often been considered stressful and overwhelming, extra parents would serve as a benefit. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, and after having to work 12 hour shifts, tending to small children who need love and attention is that much more challenging and almost impossible. Again, no responses to how much American parents have to spend on childcare.
Let’s be honest, you put marriage into quotation marks because you have an irrational prejudice against anything that challenges your views of love and a family. And please, polygamy was rejected because of religious reasons. Slavery, female oppression, and later Jim Crow were all practiced institutions during the prohibition of polygamous marriages. And again, assertions with no back up. The most likely candidates of child molestation are close blood-related family members, not non-biological family. Stop the nonsense. There is nothing wrong with these alternative families.
Sorry, but your opposition is irrational and not supported.
Candy: You told me that your idea of coparenting could involve “up to 30” (posted 7/3@613), and compared it to African tribal practices. That sounds like a modern commune or kibutz arrangement, or perhaps outlier sects of some religions. Those indeed often do involve collective parenting. Mostly they have been relatively short-lived failures for modern societies.
Have you taken the time to study the way women are treated in those primitive cultures that you cited as examples of successful coparenting? No thanks.
Then you told me it actually meant a only a few polyamorous adults. That sounds very like the 1960s small hippie groups and “families ,” or some multi-family “utopian” experiments. Again, pretty much all failures.
CSA and neglect of children were documented adverse outcomes of 1960 hippie commune co-parent arrangements. Read the accounts of progressive authors to convince yourself it is not part of a religious conspiracy. See, for example, author Sarah Beach. Don’t similar patterns of CSA, as well as treating young women or girls as concubines also appear frequently in poly-parent cults?
We agree that single mothers face tough challenges. That always has been the case and today it’s exacerbated by the large number of single mothers and the cultural context. But jumping into polygamy is going from the frying pan to the fire.
Have you ever noticed how polyamorous coparenting sects historically include polygyny, using women as concubines, or trading daughters, or marrying off young women from one father to second older fathers within the same “family?” How would you protect against that historical trend in your system?
I never said that coparents could “go up to thirty” in a literal manner. In Rural African/Aboriginal and Amazonian tribal societies, there are not that many people in villages to begin with. A tribe total, has around 30 or less people, therefor it’d be impossible for their poly-marital arrangements to group up to 30 people.
Here are your cited examples of the positive effects of communal child-rearing.
Sir, I’m open to discussion but not senseless arguments based on ridiculous claims. Most societies through history have practiced communal parenting. Even you admitted that early human ancestors had more than likely engaged in the same practices. So if we had been raising children with multiple parental figures for tens of thousands of years, how is this practice experimental? Oh, it’s not. We already discussed the issue with the 1960’s comparisons. So again, why are you bringing it up?
The practice of using women as concubines and side lovers is done in monogamous parenting and has been done in monogamous marriages for many years. Even your bible character Father Abraham slept extramaritally with his slave. So again, what are you talking about? You’re making irrational claims based on stereotypical media representations of polygamy. It’s factually no different from when conservatives claim gays are bad for children because all gay men are pedophiles. You don’t have any proof to say that poly-arrangements will encourage adults to molest small children. You only have proof that Christian religious cult leaders out on the fringes of society will abuse their power to molest children.
There is no proof that polyamory will dump us in the frying pan. In fact there are women/mothers who could disagree and who have rationally come to the same conclusions that this is both a financially, emotionally supportive environment to start a family in.
Again why do you willingly choose stupidity and ignorance to hold up your flimsily argument, when you know better? In Greek societies where monogamy was most common, women were beat, treated like property, bought on dowry payments, married off at aged between 11 – 13, and were forbidden to leave the house. In most societies regardless of mono or poly parenting/marriages, women were married off at young ages, and treated poorly. Living in a society where women can choose and consent to relationships, your argument again has no weigh at all.
And yet you’ve yet to answer about the bit about how American parents pay for childcare. Sigh…
Please just say that you have a personal distaste to coparenting and communal parenting, but don’t argue for the sake of arguing.
And their family is just as real as any other. Stop the prejudice
I’m not against polygamists but I think they are making a mistake. Based on my limited reading of attempts during the past century, I don’t think it works very well in modern societies. It is a step backward for women toward something like Stone Age cultures that anthropologists observed during the late 19th and early 20th century. Today, polygamy tends to increase crimes, that includes mistreatment of women and also financial crimes like state welfare abuse. It also frequently leads to unstable homes with multiple adults coming and going and, in documented cases, child neglect, CSA and those cultlike behaviors I described above which do have negative consequences for the children. It was replaced by traditional marriage because the latter is better for the individuals (especially women) and society in general.
There also is some evidence to support the idea that, by imbalancing the number of males and females involved in mating, polygamy may fuel crime and violence in general in a society. Simplified, the argument is that if one male can take five females then there are about three or four man who have no stable wife and a great deal of resentment. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm
As I said earlier I keep an open mind if you can provide real positive examples where it is worked? But, no, I don’t think the Hare Krishna cult called you cited in the link above is a positive role model. The only thing positive in that article was higher social IQ and we find that in most children raised in orphanages and a range of domestic violence situations – – they grow up earlier. Your article pointed out the higher stress on children and the risk of CSA.
BTW you’re distorting my disagreement as “religious.” Please don’t go on a “Ghostbusters” hunt like MM. Polygamy was actually opposed in the late 19th century as a violation of “natural law” and marriage contract law, whereas polygamy was defended on the grounds of “religious freedom.”
I enjoy your posts Candy so perhaps we should just leave this one as “agree to disagree?” Unless you can provide something more convincing in support of polygamy ?
Candy: Sorry. My para. 3 above is unclear as dictated. I am trying to agree with you that being raised in a group is better than being raised in isolation (e.g., some orphanages and extreme abuse) where social skills may not develop until much later.
Candy: Here is a citation documenting widespread child sexual abuse within the very same Hare Krishna cult that you cited in the link above as a positive example of co-parenting:
If you do go in for this coparenting/polyamorous movement then please be careful of anything that looks like a cult.
Here’s another survey-based case report of a different coparenting/communal movement, Centrepoint, that resulted in criminal neglect and CSA:
It is interesting that, like the report you posted, the sociologists suggest that some of these co-parented children have good development of peer social skills, resilience and awareness of adult behaviors– they grow up earlier socially. But many of the same negative behaviors and outcomes appear as well.
I am glad it is over. Now we can focus on children and women. We can push for their rights. We can push for real unbiased research and we can demand the right to speak and write and protection from this movement.
Just so that we don’t have to keep reading the same mundane and ignorant responses to the Bigot and O’Boyle and anyone else who doesn’t fall in lock-step (more like goose-step) with the LBGTQ rationale for stealing children away from their biological parents, here it is, again:
It isn’t just about LBGTQ separating children from their biology, its about anyone demanding society incentivize, underwrite, promote or compel separating children from their biology.
It just happens to be LBGTQ that forced the redefinition of marriage to accommodate the separation of children, legal and incentivized, from their biology.
No one cares, really, what an individuals sexual practice is behind their closed doors. Although, it is notable that only LBGTQ feel the need to primarily identify themselves by their sexual proclivities, unlike all other practitioners of sex. But, the fact is if it were polyamorists or incest-uants asking to redefine marriage, they would have elicited the very same response from child advocates. No one ‘came after’ LBGTQ, but, LBGTQ came after our children.
Here it is, again, because while noting others ‘thick skull’, you seem to present a perfect working example of that trait- no one, including but not limited to LGBTQ, should be incentivized to separate children from their biological parents.
Keep repeating it to yourself, for all our benefit.
Maybe less ‘candy’ and more protein for the brain?
I fear that ‘it’ has only just begun. Since the fight for SSM was never about equal rights, the forces behind the LBGTQ, who were thoroughly used (albeit not totally innocent) by far more expansive and powerful forces (lets admit it, 1.6-2.0% of the population didn’t pull this cultural coup off all by themselves) are after much more than ‘equal rights’ for LBGTQ.
There will be no more (or less) unbiased research in this venue than there was in the ‘preborn children are not human’ debate that preceded that other judicial fiat.
The opposition to those who would destroy our civilization will need to learn to first fight the language battle. Permitting and even adopting redefinitions used to weight the argument in favor of the western culture enemies has to be the first step in this battle.
Taking back our language, and definitions is crucial to putting the debate back in the realm of reality- and facts.
Using science, especially biology, to define reality/truth is a good step forward.
“I am a strange… mind, with a short temper, and even shorter intellect, and an irrational opinion. I don’t like the way our world is set up and until I have 4 trillion dollars worth of lottery or anybody else’s money, because I am incapable of earning my own living, to fix it and a ‘consentingly given dictatorship role’ (huh?), just like Hugo Chavez had and drove Venezuela into the dirt, I will whine and kvetch about it, ad nauseum, but, will do absolutely nothing to fix anything.
My biggest fear is someone understanding me, or being clear about my motives. To be perfectly unclear, I’m neither conservative, liberal, feminist, or of any party or anything remotely resembling a logical, rational human being. They all have things they stand for that I agree with (presuming I understand anything), and then they also have things they stand up for that makes absolutely no sense and I mean, no sense, as I, and I alone, do, so, shut up.
I’m here to fight the power, which is generally white conservative and traditional men who I despise, rock the sinking boat to facilitate the end of western civilization, and tick people off no matter what their position is because I suffer from a raging case of opposition disorder. Any one care to join me in my distorted, relativist parallel universe comprised of unicorns, fairies and gnomes, feel free – well, until I am granted that ‘dictatorship’ thingie by you dolts so I can fix ‘all you stupid peoples’ problems!”
Also, I’m vegan. Which might explain the inability of my brain to function- but, hey, who cares, I am against that white guy ‘machine’, and that’s all it takes to become president these days. Elect me, I will ‘transform’ America for good! ”
There, I think we’ve got it tweaked perfectly, now.
Gee, weren’t we led to believe (aka- lied to) that SSM would not necessarily lead to opening up marriage to ‘other’ disordered behaviors and/or relationships, such as polyamory, incest, pederasty, bestiality or pedophilia- that the SSM oppositions [now founded] objections to redefining marriage was an imaginary ‘slippery slope’ that we need not be concerned about?
Yet, here we are, only two weeks out from the SCOTUS decision and we’re having to witness the illogical debate on the ‘merits’ of communal parenting.
Let’s distort and contort the whole of western civilization (as was predicted) to accommodate the desires of LBGTQ and a few other of their similarly disordered alliances, while we’re supposed to ignore the needs of the children (and the species and society).
Natural marriage and the normal, natural nuclear family structure led to the greatest civilization humans have ever established- one entirely consistent with our species biological needs. Let’s toss it all out the window to indulge the aberrant sexual appetites of a few miscreants.
Very ‘logical’, indeed-
So much anti-Christian rhetoric by LBGTQ, and such cognitive dissonance in their positions.
Are there ‘good’ Christians vs. “bad” Christians, all narrowly-dependent upon the ‘religious’ teachings in just one small ‘social justice’ area? Is there a ‘good’ Christian ‘god’ that has defeated the ‘bad’ Christian God? Aren’t all deities bad, or just the one with whom you disagree? Is there a ‘bible’, aka ‘dusty old tome’, that comes with this new ‘christianity’? Is your ‘god’ a ‘silly old myth of a man in a funny hat, living in the sky’, too?
What say you- LBGTQ atheist, secular-humanist-progressive, Christophobes?
Here you come claiming that “rights of children” are a farce, priceless–because we all really are out for you. Because it is all about you. And you do not see how that is exactly the point. The height of the ego.The indifference is stunning. The height of the male arrogance–what a surprise. Now marriage is a moot point. And I think we have an opening to demand, honest unbiased research, long term studies and the right to get these threatening rage driven men to out of our lives . I have never passed myself as kind or generous. Nobody would ever accuse me of offering up my “love” of anyone who had not worked damn hard to get it. But people like the Bigot a whole lot better than me I bet. Yes women who are against men turning women into breeders and using . You seriously don’t think the stories that will be coming out of many of these “families” are not going to horror prime time. They will need a new diagnostic code book to name the new disorders inflicted on kids.
Is English your second language? You don’t seem to have a good grasp on what you read.
I said the children angle is nothing but a tactic to continue to demonize the gay population, even those of us who don’t have or want children.
There was never a campaign to stop single-parent adoption, or to protest single-parenthood. The campaigns have always been directed at members of the lgbt community-period.
THANK YOU. And no freakin’ protests to stop straight people from using reproductive technologies either.
Yes is my 2nd language. I have a visual impairment. Not many single people adopt and that’s not a great idea either. And there is no campaign for them to adopt enmass. Very few straight singles are adopting and LBGT single that adopt are often in fact coupled. They have screwed with the paperwork and documentation records so “single adoptions” look higher when they are in fact LGBT couple adoptions. How about children only go to people that can provide a mother and father–hell they could be brother and sister for all I care if they can be a mom and a dad. And no singles unless they are biologically related or designated by birth parents. And get the records and paperwork to reflect correct reality.
There’s no campaign for gays to adopt en-masse either, my dear. Or for gays to have children, for that matter. Most of those I know aren’t interested in either thing.
hi katy! love your blog! Let’s keep the faith! Christianity has been around for 2000 years and overcome situations far worse than this!
Thanks for stopping in, friend!
Great post. Thanks for your honesty and for being willing to speak.
Yes having sex with the same sex is a reproductive injustice. Candy Girl–this is a huge exaggeration and one sided. Gay men were forced into relationships? Not quite. They wanted the perks of marriage and exploited women to get those social perks. I am not crying them river. There have been single unmarried people throughout all of history. You can be sure that most of the marriages gay men entered into were not “shot gun” and to save “her honor.” They were by and large self serving for the man and marriage provided them with things they wanted– . Few men ever have trouble using and exploiting women in so many way. And gay men–they are men. They also feel they have the right over women and the children they bear. Welcome in the new Patriarchy.
In ancient times (which is what I was referring to in the first place) most men were socially pressured into marriages with women, and were often killed and exiled if found having sexual relationships with people of their same gender. Since the 50’s many christian communities, gays are taught to loathe their sexual orientation and that their ‘illness’ can be fixed with prayer. This has lead to many, many, many, many, suicides. I know you think all gays are dishonest, but I doubt the extent of their dishonesty would go to taking their own life. No, they were miserable. In countries like Uganda, openly gay men can be killed by the community. I doubt they would be getting any benefits from marriages, unless they marry for wealth, but most people (including gay people to this day) are not wealthy.
Having sex with people of your gender is not reproductive injustice, no more than wearing a condom.
I was in agreement with your earlier statement that now this anti-gay marriage nonsense is out the way, we can focus on how gay AND straight couples are exploiting surrogate women in India, as well as children.
Why oh why can’t people use the words sex and gender correctly? More Good Speak–I have a sex not a gender. Oddly the guys here think I am a man–no matter how many times I correct that notion–wonder what that’s about. Gender is a social and cultural construct a verb has a gender in some languages. Sex is biological–male or female for 99.5% of the population. The concept of sexual orientation is recent and introduced by Psychology. In many cultures the notion of “sexual identity” has not taken hold. So there is not “identity” only behaviors. This is true of both heterosexual and Homosexual. Reality check, In Uganda more women are killed in a month than Gay men in a decade–ditto for Iran, Syria, India. I pretty much think anyone caught having any sex outside of a marriage is at risk of death in some places. In ancient times it seems many peoples had a certain level of acceptance of homosexuality–pre Bible and post Bible. The “Biblical” prohibition says something like do not do these things like the other nations. So the other nations accepted and practiced the behaviors. The Biblical prohibition at the time only meant Jews could not do those things–other people could. Christianity was later and Islam after that. I really have no idea what Christians do or say. I have literally never even glanced at a new testament. Both Greeks and Romans had an acceptance of same sex sex. History is often a political narrative and used to reinforce a much later ideology. 1950’s–There is a book I read recently I think it was called Gay Berlin–about pre WWII Berlin. You might find it interesting. my family had quite the collection of Gay Lit from the 1920’s on. Hahah what a hoot if I could sell some of the books for something. Maybe I should go and try to dig up the first edition of Durrell, Brooks,Stein. Suicide is interesting. I have always wondered why is it that people who lives were made exceedingly horrible did not kill themselves–Jews in the Holocaust, Toosty or Hutu in Rwanda, the comfort women down through the ages. I am not sure I buy the social argument for any suicide in the west. The highest rate is straight white men over 45. The driven to suicide I think is pretty rare but is a good narrative for exerting pressure and extracting compliance. Yep. Now the kids.
There are statistics on teen suicide in relation to their LGTB identity. The conclusion is that LGTB people kill themselves more often and are more susceptible to depression due to their sexuality. The catch-22 is that gay marriage has shown to have no effect on LBTG youth suicide, despite campaigns that said that SSM would stop it.
Again, I say, on to the children’s rights issue. Now would be a great time for you IMHO, to finally speak publicly about your experiences, and your issues with the gay rights movement in relation to children. You already said your opinions about gay marriage was indifferent, and that you already knew this anti-same-sex marriage campaign was going to eventually be a bust.
I am unfamiliar with the NT. The OT never uses the word homosexual and had no concept of the “identity”. It just forbids an act, a behavior. In Hebrew the word abomination is a verb rather than a nominalization The act is mentioned 2xs. You are correct it is not supported by any major religion. I wonder why and if each had different motivations.
Yes I knew the marriage would bust because too much of it is based in some notion to preserve an institution or a tradition and why should people up hold other peoples traditions. Funny how there are no statistic on the number of COGS suicides. I would look at any stats that are not for NIMH very very very carefully. I will speak or write of my experience but COGs need some protections against GLAD and other organizations that have targeted COS and their families.
” I will speak or write of my experience”
Yay! But please go on about speaking publicly before its too late 😦
Just fyi, the New Testament repeats the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality, though without any specific method of punishment for cases of. What I find more ironic is that when I read a book to see what the other religions said on homosexuality, I could not find one major religion that supports it. The closest a religion reached was Buddhism which takes a neutral stance on the subject. That is, unless you’re trying to reach Enlightenment, at that point it becomes a distraction.
Most major religions base their social prohibitions in their observations of nature- just as did all the great philosophers.
There isn’t any place you or anyone else can go with this debate that doesn’t lead back to nature, and biology.
The answers found in nature, however troublesome to some, are the truth. The truth is observable and measurable, as is any long-settled scientific truth. The answer to the LBGTQ agenda is a resounding NO.
“No” doesn’t have to be a bad thing, for LBGTQ or anyone else. Telling an obese person not to eat a gallon of Rocky Road every night is a good “no”- for them, personally, their families and society, overall. Telling a smoker with COPD not to continue smoking a pack of Camels a day is a good “no”. Telling a pederast to stay away from adolescents is a good “no”.
Telling LBGTQ that raising children in any household specifically and intentionally designed to exclude the biological parents of those children will be a bad thing for children- and is a good “no” – for the children.
Children’s needs are the priority- and, typically, usually, only the biological parents are willing to undertake the sacrifices required to put the children first.
I have no problem saying “no” to anyone who deigns to undermine the biological laws that dictate the health of our species-
I enjoy Katy’s blogs because they are written from the compassionate perspective of somebody who has lived same sex parenting as a child, and who is secure enough in her family relationships as an adult to speak publicly about the serious limitations. That obviously is advocacy for the LGBT community, especially for that tiny sliver of lesbians and gays most impacted by this national SSM conflagration.
No caring couple wants to make choices that are ultimately gonna blow up on their children and family relationships–so what is wrong with pointing out the negative experiences, deficiencies, risk factors, and downright experimental nature of expanding same-sex parenting so quickly and under pretense of “equality?”
Why are advocates on both sides of SSM pushing to make this a referendum or “loyalty test” on homosexuality? Perhaps it’s just another manifestation of the binary thinking virus that has invaded the USA in the past 25 years?
I’m curious by your last sentence. Perhaps you could expound upon it?
Sam: Public discourse grows binary on complex, multi-faceted issues. The choices are often shaped by two opposing for-profit political parties, or contrived by PR specialists to appear as simple “for-against” questions. The irony is this “brain virus” or “dumbing down” of complex issues is expanding despite the fact that, on paper anyway, Americans are more educated.
Just read some of the negative responses to Katy’s blogs– bashing someone who is part of a lesbian family just for recognizing there’s more than two sides to this SSM question. Or take a look at the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts. He has correctly figured out that the method of SCOTUS “stealing” choice from people actually may do harm to what had been an otherwise rapidly expanding acceptance of the LGBT minority. Such nuanced viewpoints are lost or reflexively labeled as “for-against” LGBT.
you seem rational. I like you. Were you the person who said we needed a middle ground?
Agreed on Roberts’ opinion, but I was more curious about the 25 years bit. Is there a particular incident you were thinking of?
I wish I could say I was surprised I wish. I could’ve watched my nation take a step away from dysfunction. I wish we could’ve avoided all of the harm this will bring.
Instead, history is rhyming again. Instead of abortion, now it’s same-sex marriage. By making it a court decision, we can’t even claim to be following the European pattern. The only other nation to do it this way is Brazil. Instead of trying to win people over little by little and creating a smoother transition, the five justices of the Court have now deepened the same divide, just like abortion.
*sigh* It is with great irony that this ‘victory’ comes with long-term consequences that may defeat this very cause. We’re seeing one possible future play out in Europe. It is neither pretty or hopeful for survival.
As that one Linkin Park song rightfully posts, in the end, it doesn’t matter. There is no universal law that requires this nation or that to survive. The hopeless will do what they will, while the hope-filled will realize victory is already theirs.
We’re just stuck…..supporters of gay marriage insist you can’t love homosexuals if you don’t love gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage insist that, no matter how much they love you, they don’t support what they don’t support. Maybe the emphasis should be on learning to love in difference. Learning to say, “I don’t love your position, but I do love YOU”.
The closeness of the vote shows that not just judges but the nation is very divided on this issue and is likely to remain so. Opponents of gay marriage are not likely to regain a traditional definition of marriage….at least not as pertains to legal status. Supporters of gay marriage are not likely to change the minds of those who disagree. So, maybe the emphasis should shift to how to love in difference.
That’s a very good, mature and generous position; One I fully endorse. The good functioning of society is precisely about people being able to respect each other’s differences. I disagree with parents forcing a religion onto their children at an early age- but I understand each person does what they feel is best for their family unit. So I don’t try to interfere with personal ideological decisions.
Just sterilize all the gay people. Take away their ability to have children then make it illegal for them to adopt. Would that fix the problem?
Hi Jason. Have we met? If not, welcome.
Sterilize gay people? Nope. Because I know several gay people who are parenting kids well- married to that child’s mother or father. They’ve decided to put their children’s well-being ahead of their own desires. I’ve got a secret for you- everyone has to sacrifice to be a good parent. There are a million things that come naturally to me that I have to squelch so that my kids can thrive. I know gay and lesbian parents who are naturally more patient than I am. And who like to play board games with their kids (my kids love it, I hate it). Who do a better job at allowing them to help with projects around the house. And who listen better instead of just trying to solve their kids problems. They have strengths that I don’t. But we all have to rise to the occasion when it comes to raising kids.
My position on adoption is that those responsible for placing a child should be able to evaluate all the factors involved in that specific situation: reunification with kin whenever possible, desires of the child, keeping them child with siblings, location concerns, special/specific needs, already been fostered by that adult, etc, and then find the best home for that child given the available potential parents. Marital status and sex of the parents should always be one of the factors that agencies/social workers should be able to consider when making a placement. I once traveled overseas with a lesbian couple adopting a special needs girl. There were no married heterosexual couples who were willing to adopt her. That placement was a vast improvement for this little one, despite my belief that she will miss out on having a dad. Another single friend of mine adopted an infant out of the foster care situation- again, a vast improvement over her previous living situation. While there are situations where the married mother/father home is not available, agencies should have to ability to screen adults according to the child’s needs.
There are many heterosexual couples who would like to re-couple or divorce who have to choose to stay in their marriage so that their kids don’t have to deal with heartache. That’s how this whole adult thing is supposed to work.
What would “fix the problem” is expecting adults, hetero or homo, to sacrifice so kids don’t have to.
And yet your primordial focus is on singling out the lgbt community. No campaign to stop single parent adoptions. No long diatribes on single-parenthood. Very little on divorce. What’s your posting ratio on gay-related matters versus anything else you mention?
That’s why I’m terribly disappointed. I genuinely believed our interaction was a step towards progress. This tone is not progress.
If I had to guess (which is really to “assume” and we all know what that means), I would say that Katy speaks out on her feelings about gay marriage because that is what has impacted her the to the greatest degree, or that with which she has had more experience. If I were to blog, it would be on the rights of the mentally ill to have sole custody of their children. Particularly those who are not well-medicated. My mother was mentally ill and she loved me dearly. And she broke me terribly in ways that will never be fixed….at least not until I come to what I believe and pray awaits me after death. Again, controversial….how could I be so bigoted as to deny those with a mental illness their “right” to parent? Yet this is what I would blog on, despite the fact that there were many other factors in my life and in society that I think were harmful and I could blog on.
Do I think traditional marriage supporters in general and Christians specifically could do a better job at addressing the issues of single parenting and divorce and re-marriage? Yes, I very much do. But in both single parenting and step-families, there is not a request to legally change their status to something that hasn’t been present prior. Single parents are not demanding to have their legal status changed to mother and father of their child. Step-families are not demanding to have their legal status change to biological family. Maybe that’s why the emphasis has fallen so heavily on gay marriage….not sure. Or maybe critics are right and we have developed a level of comfort with single parenting and divorce/re-marriage that is indicative of a little bit of spiritual sloth that isn’t present yet for gay marriage.
Whatever way you slice it or dice it, it boils down to this: We are ALL following the path we believe will bring us fulfillment (happiness, riches, respect, prestige, whatever). I can look at you and say “That is not a path I would choose or would encourage my children (whose education I am responsible for) to choose because ________________, but I will love you as you follow this path”. And I would ask for the same respect.
The decision of gay parenting is, ultimately, out of our hands (legal mandate or no legal mandate there will always be gay parenting) and all we can do is love and pray for those children. Just as we love and pray for all children raised in situations we wouldn’t choose for them. And yes, that includes children of single parents and those in step-families.
The thing is, as Katy’s very existence proves, the decision was never really related to gay marriage.
She and I are the same age. Back in the 70’s when we were born there were already gay people who had biological children. Single parent adoption was also legal in much of the world.
Gay marriage doesn’t really change any of that. Reproduction occurs outside of marriage- quite a lot, I hear.
As issues go, less than 1 in 10 lgbt people have children at all. The percentage of adoption is even smaller. This isn’t a ‘gay’ issue.
If the objective is to protect children then the path isn’t protesting gay marriage, it’s proposing legislation that protects children. I’m all for toughening up children’s rights; but that has to be done fairly, not by marginalizing a whole group. I’m sure you’ll agree the same would apply to your mental illness argument. Someone who has schizophrenia is not the same as someone who once had postpartum depression. That’s why a generalized ‘ban’ would be unreasonable and unfair.
What this looks like to me is bait & switch, opposition to homosexuality disguised as something else. And if that’s the case, I’m just asking that people be honest about.
OK. So *this* slight of hand dig is you suggesting that I don’t really care about children. That I’m being “dishonest” because I’m really just anti-gay. Did I read between your barbed lines correctly?
Here’s my very first post on this issue, way back when I thought I could blog anonymously about my thoughts. Golly, there sure is a lot there on the risks of single-parent families… (But I’m “marginalizing” gays somehow, right?) Here’s a sampling. Tell me about my “opposition to homosexuality” in this post and if I haven’t modeled that first paragraph in relation to you and Mike: https://askthebigot.com/2012/08/20/alternative-families/
And unfortunately for your assertion, I have regularly posted about my efforts to reach out to my gay friends/individuals without trying to change them. Here are the ones that I wrote *after* you outed me and after you took your manipulative posts down from your blog which you claim kept me from being “cruel” “belligerent” “dodgy” and “contrived”.
https://askthebigot.com/2014/10/27/the-power-of-soup-and-a-listening-ear/ (how’s the “tone” on this one? Belligerent?)
https://askthebigot.com/2014/08/02/psa-and-fyi/ (how about this one? Cruel?)
https://askthebigot.com/2015/05/04/remember-that-one-time-i-bumped-into-the-lesbian-couple-while-holding-my-march4marriage-sign/ (what about this one? Contrived?)
How about this one where I agree with an openly gay legislator: https://askthebigot.com/2015/01/30/patricia-todd-is-right-why-conservatives-need-to-get-their-act-together/ (Does this read as “dodgy” to you?)
Well, if what I’ve written and how I’ve conducted myself via your first hand experience with me (do you still have the post-card I send you?) is to be believed, it looks like I am not the dishonest one.
The problem with what you’re doing is you’re pretending your goal is one thing, when actually you’re aiming at another. It’s unclear to me what your heartfelt intention is, but it just doesn’t add up to me.
The problem as I see it is the conservative religious opposition to homosexuality is a blanket ban. In all these years there was never room made for anything but social marginalization. Even in the days of the AIDS crisis, conservatives were against any sort of legislation whatsoever that gave gay partners basic rights, like hospital visitation. At any point, conservatives could have come together and said let’s all sit down and find a solution whereby lgbt individuals and their families have legal protections.
What actually happened and still happens today is the opposite of that. There’s a deep seated antagonism that just gets worse and worse- and that’s part of my complaint to you.
Gay people are singled out. The way you’re presenting studies implies lgbt people are the ones responsible for the difficulties children face when in reality, most of those statistics apply to heterosexual families. There is something dodgy about presenting information that way, even if it’s not your intention.
You have quite a few responses to get to. May I request that you stick only to the information at hand instead of trying to overgeneralize or introduce things that have nothing to do with me? For example what “conservatives“ did 20 years ago. I’ve honestly had enough of your obfuscation. And I’m going to call out every single distortion from here on out. It’s unclear to you with my heart felt intention is? That’s only because you don’t believe anything I’ve written and you don’t believe how I have behaved with you personally. So what is it that you are believing? Do try to stick to the subject at hand please.
That’s not true at all. Of course I believe how you behave to me. I’ve read all your responses, and I thought that last one I sent would clarify my position to you.
I’m asking you to clarify your position, that’s all.
And I’m not talking just about what conservatives did 20 years ago, the process continues. It’s just mutated. I mean, is it not a complicated position for you if you’re part of a church that speaks out against homosexuality, to then say you think consenting adults can do whatever they want?
And btw, I’m not going anywhere. Just because we disagree on certain things doesn’t mean we have to suddenly hate each other.
You’re so right Tisha. I can understand that Mr. Merveilleux and others may unfortunately feel victimised by a blog site that tends to focus on problems of gay marriage. But the reality is that if your average blogger wants to provide a quality, cutting-edge blog, the author has to keep a narrow focus. The cultural discourse on gay marriage is so voluminous that keeping up with it, wouldn’t leave much time for thinking about or writing about much else.
Criticism of those who regularly critique same-sex marriage, reminds me of the old disparagement that such people are ‘obsessed’. But I notice that I never hear such accusations cast towards those who work hard to advocate for same-sex marriage. Apparently you are only ‘obsessed’ if you support the wrong side.
M.M.: The risk factors are definitely higher for child abuse for kids of single-parent moms and cohabitation compared with traditional families. It’s not the mother. Rather, single moms generally have an economic forcing function that reduces child supervision. They also have multiple male partners/ higher promiscuity rates compared with married women. However adoption agencies evaluate prospective homes partly on the basis of the fact that a parent is single in finding the best fit.
But the pending disaster related to SSM is the expanding placement of children into custody of male-male parents where they will have much higher rates of incest rape and child sexual assault compared with traditional families. And now adoption agencies must work in the context of a politically active pro-SSM legal system that will cry foul based on discrimination.
1. Again you’re making the mistake of not understanding how to read statistics. Causality and incidence are two very different things. Just because 93% of sex offenders in America are Christian doesn’t mean a child is necessarily at risk if adopted by a Christian family.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever of increased violence in the homes of gay males, as opposed to a home with a heterosexual male.
3. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with adoption or even having biological children. Reproduction exists outside marriage. Always has, always will.
“Candy: Agreed completely that SSM will be a minority of total abusers if you smear it out to entire global or U.S. population level.
But would you set up a situation that leads to a small percentage of victims just because they are a minority? “Overblown?” We both know better than to characterize real kids’ CSA experience that way.”
That’s straight forward fraud. Are you trying to give the impression that all children of gay couples will be victims of abuse? That’s the certainly the impression you’re giving. If anyone is to use your flawed model, we could say violent crime statistics are higher in America than in Western Europe, so Americans shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. The vast majority of child abuse occurs at the hands of biological parents, so people who have biological children shouldn’t be allowed to adopt.
It’s very easy to abuse statistics and their meaning. You’re almost an expert at this point. Funny, you only seem to care about statistics regarding gay people.
0.374% is not a epidemic, and to add it isn’t even definite that all of these children were product of artificial reproduction/ anonymous gamete donor. I read in Robert Lopez’s book that only 1/16 kids of gay-identified parents actually has ‘same-sex parents’. Meaning if you cut the numbers accurately you get 0.16711229946% of all children in the US are growing up with two moms, or two dads, and STILL you cannot insure that these kids were product of artificial reproduction.
So let’s move along to the straight community, shall we? 1/3 ( 33%) of all children in the U.S in STRAIGHT households do not live / know who their biological fathers are. No, no, not in lesbian homes, STRAIGHT homes. So what’s the real problem? Straights who’ve successfully damaged 33% of the population with their failure to take responsibility for their own children yet still are blaming gay people for ruining America, or gays who are raising LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the US’s youth population?
Its not to say that gays aren’t contributing when they engage in surrogacy, and gamete donation. But c’mon. 6% of the US population is infertile, and only 1.7% of the country is gay or straight. Clearly there are more straights supporting the commodification of children through these unethical dehumanizing practices than there are gays. Most gays cannot even afford these procedures as many are living in poverty.
Be fair. Hate to say it but Pink is right. If one-sex parenting was accurately addressed, the focus would lean overwhelming on the straight community. Not on gays.
You’re so right about how overblown this issue with LGTB parenting is. The percentage of gay/lesbian people who have kids is about 22%, less than a half, barely over a quarter. And of that percentage, only 1.7% of the US population, identifies as gay or lesbian. So 22% of 1.7% that’s literally 0.374% of all kids in the US being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Most of them are products of divorces/breakups and not artificial insemination.
Oh but all adopted kids are doomed to agencies favoring gay couples over traditional families, right? Wrong. Gays make up 4% of all US adoptions. Oh, but all gays will exploit women and children through artificial insemination, right? Wrong again! Most gays and lesbians live in poverty and could never afford these services. And going overseas is more challenging. India banned gay couples surrogacy services, along with Thailand, and several other homophobic countries. So guess who’s mostly using impoverished slum-dwelling women to carry their unborn babies? STRAIGHT COUPLES!
The fact that so many conservatives overlook this boggles my mind. My goodness.
However, I wanted to point out that I enjoyed your comment here “I’m all for toughening up children’s rights; but that has to be done fairly, not by marginalizing a whole group”. Bravo, and thank you. Could you tell me your views about children’s rights? I’m curious.
I’m very rigid, actually. I think anyone having a child at all should be forced by law to have classes on child welfare, psychology etc. Especially those at most risk. I think people should be educated about the importance of a family unit in high-school, and more so that a child isn’t a plaything.
I know enough people who had children on a whim, because their friends were doing it, or just because they forgot the birth-control on their trip to Aruba.
I think if Katy is genuinely interested in child welfare, she should concentrate her efforts on coming up with ideas that will ensure children have the best lives they can, and if she’s concerned about gender roles, then focus on a solution to that concern- a practical one. You’ve mentioned a couple of interesting ideas regarding that.
I wouldn’t dream of denying that biology is important, but a safe, stable home environment could be much more important in many cases. Concern for those issues is actually much more important than anything related to a legal contract that doesn’t necessarily involve children at all.
I’m gay married and we don’t want children- and you know what, we only did it because if something happened to either one of us, the surviving partner would be hit with 60% inheritance tax. That would mean we didn’t just lose our partner, but the survivor would have to sell our house.
“I think if Katy is genuinely interested in child welfare, she should concentrate her efforts on coming up with ideas that will ensure children have the best lives they can…”
Yep. That generally involves growing up with your married mother and father. It’s the one thing that reduces nearly every other likelihood of social ill that kids are facing today. Here’s an analysis of 351 studies done by a sociologist in Mexico. It’s in Spanish so you can read the entire finding easily, MM/Pink. The researcher analyzed data 351 academic studies in 13 countries on five continents which included some 3,318 statistical analyses of data on health, education, poverty, access to basic services, family violence, sexual violence, suicide or addictions rates, etc., comparing various family structures. http://www.tiposdefamilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tipos-de-Familia.pdf
For those who don’t have the kind of time that you have on your hands, or fluency in Espanol, here’s a summary:
“Nearly all studies demonstrate that where a father and mother are living together with their natural or adopted children there are tremendous benefits. The members of these traditional families enjoy better physical health, less mental illness, higher incomes, and steadier employment. They and their children live in better housing, enjoy more loving and cooperative relationships, and report less physical or sexual violence. Moreover, when the bonds between parents and children are more positive, drug, alcohol and tobacco use is lower, children are better socialized and cooperative, they commit fewer crimes, and they perform better in school.”
And there is no arrangement which is a “death sentence” for kids, they can claw their way out of a horrible situation and find success despite the deck being stacked against them. There is no silver bullet in parenting, obviously kids can struggle even in the intact biological family. But there is no other arrangement beside the IBF that can accomplish wide-spread results such as those.
Now if only we could find a “practical solution” which would encourage more men to commit to women before making a family. Maybe if we could incentivize that relationship somehow, or elevate it so that fathers know that they are not optional fixtures in a child’s life. Hmmm… that’s a tough one.
Candy: Agreed completely that SSM will be a minority of total abusers if you smear it out to entire global or U.S. population level.
But would you set up a situation that leads to a small percentage of victims just because they are a minority? “Overblown?” We both know better than to characterize real kids’ CSA experience that way.
Why not take action to protect those kids as well? I don’t hear heterosexuals denying that male abusers outnumber female by more than ten to one.
I often mention divorce and single parenthood as well as general adoption and third party reproduction too. But you know that, because you have been one of my top commenters for a while now.
Here’s some recent ones in case something has suddenly clouded your memory.
Single parenthood: https://askthebigot.com/2014/11/25/dear-ferguson-protestor/ (You really liked this post, if your comments after it were “honest.”)
Exploitation of little girls: https://askthebigot.com/2014/10/24/fckh8-are-haters-adults-cheer-as-girls-are-exploited/
Here’s one where I offer coffee and babysitting to a hostile blogger (not divorce or single-parenthood but seems relevant to your comments below, yes?) https://askthebigot.com/2014/10/21/welcome-g-a-y-readers-some-context-on-my-exhange-with-jeremy-hooper/
Adoption: https://askthebigot.com/2014/10/16/adoption-its-for-the-children-really/ (followed by your supportive comments)
We found great common ground on these three completely-unrelated-to-marriage-at-all posts (what was that about a primordial focus?) https://askthebigot.com/2014/07/20/church-rules-stalin-drools-how-the-first-christians-made-communism-work/ and https://askthebigot.com/2014/07/05/hobby-lobby-and-the-real-war-on-women/ and https://askthebigot.com/2014/08/12/im-more-like-jonah-that-i-care-to-admit/
I am going to miss that Pink. God knows I need all the blogging and hair advice that I can get.
I know you’re an educated and smart woman, so I don’t see how you don’t see that there’s an error of undistributed middle in your reasoning.
Gay marriage played no role whatsoever in your childhood or any of the lives of children of gay parents. It still won’t because confused lgbt people may still have children heterosexually whether in or out of marriage. Straight or gay people will still be able to use artificial methods of insemination, as they have in the past, independent of being married or not. Single people, gay and straight, are able to adopt children- no marriage contract necessary.
So you have to ask yourself what exactly you think you’re achieving by conflating the two issues?
You think I’m trying to get at you, I’m not. I’m trying to show you how your proposal doesn’t accomplish what you hope it will. Once that’s clear you have to ask yourself what path to take to reach your goal of protecting children- a goal I believe is sincere.
RESPONSE TO: “I’m very rigid, actually. I think anyone having a child at all should be forced by law to have classes on child welfare, psychology etc…etc.…etc.…”
First, congrats for being hitched. Hope you threw a nice wedding party.
Second, I agree full-heartedly that parenting should be taken more seriously. There are so many dehumanizing and inconsiderate things and ways we handle children, I could write a book about it.
I understand that we’ve always viewed children like property since ancient times, but it’s really time to start treating children like ‘temporarily-handicapped people’ instead of ‘inferior subhuman pets’. It’s a new era, gays are getting hitched, a biracial man is president, women are running for political positions, people are going vegan, children need protection and rights too.
I’ve personally proposed that parenthood should be licensed, and that prospective parents should be screened for any psychological illnesses, criminal records, or fanatic dogmatic tendencies that may impair their judgement. I really believe that children have the right to parents, and not the other way around.
To my honest shock, the “Marriage is about Children” camp (including Katy) said licensing and screening potential parents was a terrible idea, and that marriage contracts are enough to insure that kids can be safe. I hate to say “Are you freakin’ kidding me” but I must say Are you freakin kidding me??? Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers could marry and reproduce. How does the contract protect the kids?
I agree with what you said about Katy. I think her intentions are well-meaning, but her (and many other conservatives) have put marriage on this irrational pedestal. It stills confuses me. Marriage contracts talk of nothing about child-rearing besides custody. If anything marriages have always, always treated child-rearing like property settlements.
When I bring up these concerns- that simply reproducing a child after marrying the child’s mom/dad doesn’t necessarily make you responsible or safe parent, her response is always >>“But when that little girl is sitting in your arms a lot of things can change pretty quick for both mother and father” despite the overwhelming evidence that abuse and molestation still happens in married homes.
And again, I was shocked when Katy didn’t like the gay-friendly gender-inclusive parenting idea either, especially since she doted on about how her mom and her partner were awesome parents, and their sexuality had nothing to do with it, but the lack of a father hurt. Ok, what if a married lesbian couple were raising their children with their married gay friends who lived across the street? Then the kids would have two moms and two dads. But still, she takes issue with that because the couples aren’t in a heterosexual married relationship. My question then becomes, sooo are you saying that gay parents are at fault because they’re gayness, or the lack of an opposite-gendered parent? Never got a full response.
Oh well. You’re fun to chat with. You should run your own blog 😀
I think the licensing idea is brilliant.
I don’t mean it as a complaint (maybe a little), but my life has been turned upside down, more than once, because of heterosexual family members and friends whose children were thrust into our lives when those people were going through problems.
I had to change absolutely everything I did in 2013 when a friend’s two daughters came to live with us during an acrimonious divorce. We were the only people the parents agreed on, because we decided not to take sides. Really great people, just nowhere near mature enough to have children. Suddenly gay, drinking, smoking, working 12 hour days me has to stop everything and look after a 2 year old who’s going around my house, picking things up and announcing everything there is hers. The first day was not easy.
She’d say “mine”. I’d say “no, mine.” Then she’d move onto something bigger and it would start all over again. By day three I’d given up and was ready to sign everything I owned over to her.
And the five year old never stopped asking me when her mummy and daddy were coming. At least once a day she’d ask that.
Anyway, I think the supreme court decision should be a learning moment. There are endless options of positive, constructive things Katy can do to help and protect children. She just needs to get back up, dust herself off and have a real think of what the best way to do that may be from now on.
“Well to be honest, I don’t really have an issue with communism. I don’t think it’s the best political system, but I don’t think capitalism is any better.”
Well, except for that whole ‘freedom’ thingie.
Can anyone help me out here, when was the last time a refugee flotilla from a/any free western society arrived at the shores of a Communist country?
And if it ever happened (let me help you out here, it didn’t), was it loaded with LBGTQ fleeing the oppressions of western culture to enjoy the freedoms of Communism?
This commenter is really the gift that just keeps on giving….
Probably because I never said I agreed with communism, just that its no worse than capitalism. The mistreatment is displaced. With communism, the government rules everything, gets most of the riches, while the citizens get nothing. With capitalism, the rich rules and controls everything, while the poor struggle to get by, and those who are used by corporations in other countries are treated like slaves. Its just the displacement of abuse and human rights violations, really. With capitalism its swept under the rug, with communism its in your face.
I’m in favor of any system outside of the money-system.
— “Suddenly gay, drinking, smoking, working 12 hour days me has to stop everything and look after a 2 year old who’s going around my house, picking things up and announcing everything there is hers. The first day was not easy.”
I have to say, I’m trying to feel bad but I found the entire situation with you looking after a 2-year-old girl, with a ‘mine’ obsession, very hilarious. I’ve seen a few lesbians, and gay people looking after nieces and nephews when their straight brothers and sisters failed as parents. Hardly discussed.
Also, apparently, conservatives were afraid of the same-sex marriage bill passing because it would open the doors to state licensing for parenthood: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/15-reasons-marriage-equality-is-about-neither-marriage-nor-equality/#.VY2YQk4rxaE.twitter (Katy posted this article on her twitter) I’m so confused. If republicans and conservatives were genuinely concerned about the well-being of children I can hardly imagine why screening people before they decide to raise other human beings to be considered apocalyptic. I don’t get this. It puts me in a place of wondering if Katy is truly concerned abt the kids, or is it just a cover up. 😦
— “She just needs to get back up, dust herself off and have a real think of what the best way to do that may be from now on.”
Hopefully she will! This would be really awesome! 😀
Licensing parents. Sounds like China at the height, and even after, the Cultural Revolution. Taking your “户口” to your local fertility magistrate so they can check the box and grant permission. Do you think that, with the invasiveness of that government, that someone might have a hard time getting permission to get pregnant if they didn’t agree with communist doctrine? Or if that official had a beef with one of their parents? You bet they did. And who gets to decide what income is appropriate? One of the sweetest families in our church, with the most loving and well-behaved children may live below the poverty line- they have 5 children and live on one income in a house that you might mistake for a large shed. You will never meet happier children. I don’t know if they would have made the “cut off” for child number four or five. And would these classes include promises to vaccinate? No spanking? Mandatory public education? Vows to never let your child walk to the park alone? Would those classes and that screening be done by our US Department of Education? You know, the one who had this image for their facebook profile yesterday? https://www.facebook.com/ED.gov/photos/a.446966159319.240450.119446064319/10153399653974320/?type=1
Hmmm, only “correct thinking couples need to apply I bet…”
And what happens when a couple in China has a child without permission? Because there is punishment for such brazenness. Sometimes they are fined. Sometimes forced abortion, sometimes losing their job.
No, licensing parents is just one more expansion of state power. And how arrogant to think that they would know better how to raise my own children than I do. I’m the one who is responsible for them in the long run, the one who spends hours researching home remedies, and checking food labels, and calling to get details on immunizations, and evaluating whether or not they are responsible enough to stay home alone. And I know them best.
There is no system, no changes, that you can propose which will eliminate every risk that children will face. (Though 50 years ago, when 95% of kids were born to in-tact families that sure took the risk factors way down.) For that, you would need to change people’s hearts. And that is not a job for government.
–“ to your local fertility magistrate so they can check the box and grant permission. Do you think that, with the invasiveness of that government, that someone might have a hard time getting permission to get pregnant if they didn’t agree with communist doctrine?”
— “Hmmm, only “correct thinking couples need to apply I bet…”
Well to be honest, I don’t really have an issue with communism. I don’t think it’s the best political system, but I don’t think capitalism is any better.
Second, I’d be able to agree with this assertion in your quote, if the same thing had already happened to those who registered for adoption, or if CPS started taking children away from their American parents because they didn’t agree with mainstream political morals. None of that has happened.
It sounds like scare tactics, Katy. And it leaves a few questions open.
1) How do marriages insure that the children’s parents are safe, mature, or equipped to take care of a child, if quite literally anyone can register for a marriage license, and it be legally validated?
2) If you believe there shouldn’t be any oversight on who gets to raises children, why are you against gay parenting?
3) If you believe that children aren’t rights, why are you frightened of the prospect of insuring their caretakers are safe? Why do you think parenting licenses take away ‘rights’ from the parents?
A license would basically screen potential parents to insure that they don’t have a dangerous criminal record, or that they don’t have any psychological problems or fanatic views that may impair their judgement as parents, and if they have a suitable income to provide for another human being what’s wrong with that??? Do you know how many children suffer because their parents have bi-polar disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder? Do you know how many children were killed by curable illnesses because their parents had an irrationally opposition to medical pharmaceuticals? Do you know how many children are morbidly obese and have life expectancies cut in half, because their parents aren’t taking responsibility for their nutritional health?
–“ One of the sweetest families in our church, with the most loving and well-behaved children may live below the poverty line- they have 5 children and live on one income in a house that you might mistake for a large shed.”
Like you wrote in twt chat, they are the minority and you very well know that. Most families that are living below the poverty line, are deeply associated with delinquency, high high-school dropout rates, drugs, and lots of government money. And the children suffer. Do you think those kids enjoy living in a house you may mistake for a large shed? Their opportunities at school may be cut, because they may have to work a job to support their family. Or their parents may not be able to support them with extra academic help, like tutoring. Food may be very skimpy and scares affecting their growing bodies. The parents may not even be able to support their kids emotionally as a ‘mom’ and ‘dad’, because they’re too busy working outside of home to make ends meet, and are too tired and irritated to deal with their children when they come home. Why do you think this environment is better for children, than, let’s say, a rich older lesbian couple adopting a child from a third world country? I’m not saying even that the lesbian home will not have issues, but it’s important to address the issues in BOTH scenarios.
–“ And what happens when a couple in China has a child without permission? Because there is punishment for such brazenness. Sometimes they are fined. Sometimes forced abortion, sometimes losing their job.”
If we embraced licensed parenthood, it is not written into the stone that we would take China’s approach. What if people were just given ridiculous fines for intentionally not applying by the rules, despite many warning? What if birth control were free to the public, and women can store their eggs in banks for free. What if those who were pregnant by accident, were given a mercy agreement where they have to apply for classes on child psychology and raising kids, while the government temporarily paid their bills? What if family planning with a romantic or aromanitc partner, was taught in school? What if through culture-engineering, the task of raising children was considered ‘sacred’, and ‘selfless’ and ‘honorable’, instead of a pick ‘n mix free-for-all, and nothing but mere accessories to people’s marriages of life-plan?
We don’t have to embrace China’s approach.
–“ There is no system, no changes, that you can propose which will eliminate every risk that children will face. (Though 50 years ago, when 95% of kids were born to in-tact families that sure took the risk factors way down.) For that, you would need to change people’s hearts.”
50 years ago, blacks were segregated, women had no access to birth control, and children were regarded as property. Times are a’changing. And “changing people’s heart” is not a practical solution, it sounds religious based.
So what would you define as a “fanatic view?” And what if the State decided that eating Vegan was “fanatic”?
Most children living in poverty are in single parent homes. Not black homes, or latino homes, but single parent homes. My example was to illustrate that their lives aren’t glamorous, and they probably are above the poverty level if they only had three kids. But this mom is thrifty, creative and resourceful, which stretches their dollars way beyond what their income would reveal to a parental-approving officer. My point is that whatever boundaries the state might set up, good potential parents would be barred in some cases.
We are conditioned creatures. We gravitate toward behavior and that is rewarded and avoid behavior which is uncomfortable. (Which is why many traditional marriage supporters won’t speak up- it has become too painful.) What you incentive, people will do. Why was it that 50 years ago 75% of black children were born to in-tact biological families. But today less that 30% are? Because we have “incentivize” single motherhood. There are more benefits for women to remain single with children than there are if they get married. Another emotionally-drive, well-intentioned policy, which has brought about social ruin.
On communism, there was a time that I thought it was pretty great. Utopia! But then I read several biographies by those who lived under communist rule (those that lived to tell about it.). Check out “Stay Alive, My Son” (Cambodia) and Life and Death in Shanghai. If you don’t want to read, watch “To Live”. It’s banned in China because it so accurately tells the hardships that those people had to face because of a century of dictatorship, most recently Communism. Do you know that the world is 30% less poor today than it was when I was a kid? Because capitalism has found its way to many spots in Asia and Africa. Capitalism is the most effective vehicle for lifting people out of poverty.
“What if through culture-engineering, the task of raising children was considered ‘sacred’, and ‘selfless’ and ‘honorable’, instead of a pick ‘n mix free-for-all, and nothing but mere accessories to people’s marriages of life-plan?”. On that we wholeheartedly agree!!
Fanatic view — “Refusing your child to seek medical care and taking it to a witch doctor”
I’m not sure what single-parent households have to do with the fact that many parents choose to have kids even when they’re not financially prepared.
I don’t like communism, I never said I did. I find both capitalism and communism, failures because they incorporate money. I have very radical views about the money system that I won’t go into. The point is, I don’t see any reason not to go ahead with a system because some communist countries are doing it. It seems irrational. It would be best to see where their tactics have been too extreme, and where their policies can be applicable.
Capitalism is very exploitative, and has many problems that very few people (especially conservatives) are willing to talk about. Many of it benefits from exploiting the poor and natural resources for the benefit of a few corporations. Study the prison industrial complex, or how how terrible Indian surrogates are treated, or how oil industries steal land from native american tribes, clear-cut their lands, killing millions of animals for money. Its corrupted.
Africa (as it is a continent and not a country) is not doing economically better because of capitalism.
Insuring that parents do not have mental disorders or aren’t incapable of making care-taking decisions will not ‘bare off good parents’. I think this just paranio.
Listen, if you had the choice of placing your mother in the care of a relative who was clumsy, irresponsible, and selfish, or someone who was organized, responsible and loving, who would you choose to put your mother in the care of? That’s all parenting licenses are trying to do. I’m sorry Katy, but jumping to the assumption that people are going to automatically become responsible when given the demands of taking care of children, is statistically untrue.
It would be me making the best decision for my mother, because I know her and I am ultimately responsible for her. It would be me conducting interviews and calling references. Because I have the long-term interest in her.
No, parenthood does not magically transform people into great parents. But marriage itself often matures men, and motherhood tends to do the same for women. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/02/dont-be-a-bachelor-why-married-men-work-harder-and-smarter-and-make-more-money/
I believe I said many part of Asia and Africa, because both vast and diverse. Asia has done better because governance has been, in general less corrupt. Despite that, capitalism has had a positive effect on Africa. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/capitalism-will-eliminate-poverty-Africa
Again, that’s your definition of a “fanatic” view. What if the state decided it was “fanatic” to raise kids in treehouses? That’s kind of a thing around here.
My point it, ideological measures will be imposed. And those in power will use those “licenses” to reward those who fall in line.
The first article was mostly anecdotal, and the conclusions seemed quite obvious. Of course married men would make more, they’re providing for both them and their partners. But even married men who work less than their female partners provide less for the family when it comes to childcare and housework –> http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/01/06/gender_and_housework_even_men_who_don_t_work_do_less_than_women.html
The article was just an opinion piece. With so many post-colonial conflict affecting most countries in the continent of Africa, its impossible to tell if capitalism will save them.
I didn’t want to talk about my views of money. the subject
There is not much proof that ideological measures will be imposed. None at all. In fact, if American citizens are the ones who propose it (I would imagine the main proposers will be survivors of abuse, incest, and neglect) they would undoubtedly take full control of who could qualify to get a license. If that’s the case then its up to the people’s vote to decide and not the government,
Also “And would these classes include promises to vaccinate? No spanking? Mandatory public education?”
Don’t tell me you’re against vaccinations and believe in beating children. 😦
I’m telling you that well-educated, well-off, strongly involved parents disagree on vaccines, discipline, homeschool/private school/public school, nutrition, etc. I have strong opinions on all of them, and we talk about it in our community, but every mom is making choices using the best information they have and the specific needs of her children. When the state is given power, it tends to want more and more. Your idea is well-intentioned, now doubt. But Parents are the experts on their children, not the state.
“But Parents are the experts on their children, not the state.”
Like these parents? –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uolWPMw3LOg
Please ignore the vlogger’s vulgarity. He’s the only guy I could find who was talking about this issue.
Sometimes parents are stupid and the state needs to step in. If you continue to push that parents deserve complete dictatorship over their children, even when proven with evidence that their care-taking goes against the child’s well-being, then you aren’t fully in agreement when you say that children aren’t property to their parents.
I’m not talking about dictatorship. Of course there are times when the state needs to step in, such as abuse and neglect. That is why we have CPS. But that too, is the story of give a little power- and government takes a whole lot more. Now stories of parents being investigated because they let their child walk to the part alone are unfortunately common. Or for publically spanking them (which even many social workers agree that an “open-handed swat to the bottom is not abuse) they are being scrutinized. My neighbors at our previous home- white mom, black dad- were subjected to intense, somewhat secretive questioning because someone thought that the dad was too callous when he was telling his daughter to get in the car one day. “Suspected abuse.”. It was horrifying to watch. We served as character witnesses for them. It was gut-wrenching to watch. To know that if something didn’t sound just right, THEIR KIDS COULD BE TAKEN!!! Do not give powers to the State unless absolutely necessary.
Hitting a child is never acceptable. Ever. And again, Katy, you’re confusing me with your views again. How can someone who says she values children like human beings, stand on the side of saying that parents have a right to children and a right to raise them however they want regardless of their emotional /health/ physical well-being, unless it gets to the point of near death or outward sexual abuse (when CPS steps in, but by that time the damage has already been done.)
You support a parent’s choice to withhold basic medicine to curable illnesses, even if these choices may put their child in danger? And for them to beat their own children despite how research has shown that this is both emotionally bad for kids and ineffective?
The issue with the children who were walking unattended had nothing to do with ‘government control’ but social paranoia. People were misinformed about the statistics of child safety, and reacted. Media reaction and new-age ‘paranoid parents’ have even been socially criticized and were put to blame for our obesity epidemic. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/paranoid-parents-are-a-bi_b_1582737.html
The same could be said about over-policing parents about ‘suspected abuse’. Its not encouraged and its socially criticized.
However, a parenting license would merely insure that the parents aren’t suffering for mental illnesses or any other issues that could impair their judgement. I think you’re blowing this a bit out of proportions.
It seems conservatives have a issue with government, YET seem to hate the ‘anti-capitalist anarchist type’.
PS: Whats with so much racial identification going on, I know I’m black, but sheesh.
Do you understand that many experts do not agree with your view of spanking? But you would use that as one of your requirements for licensing, if you were the decider? I am not saying I’m for or against, but an “open handed swat to the bottom” is not child abuse.
I think that when parents withhold life-saving treatment for children then that is absolutely a case for investigation. But again, where do you draw the line? I rarely give my children antibiotics. I always try everything else first. Some might consider that if most doctors recommend antibiotics for, say, ear infections and yet I “wait and see” that I might be harming my child. But I know that after a round of antibiotics it takes the gut 6 months to fully recover its flora. And 60% of immunity comes from the gut. That’s why kids who take antibiotics tend to need them again and again, because it weakens their immune system. But for some people, my views might seem “fanatical”. Because why wouldn’t I do everything I can to ease my child’s immediate discomfort? But even more common is over-medication of children. How much Ritalin is too much? What kinds of measures would your “parenting test” put in place for those situations. Again, who gets to decide? And if your answer is “the government” then they will not stop with a few little guidelines, they’ll take more and more and more.
What kind of mental illness would you find unacceptable? Depression? Because I know several wonderful moms who have bouts of that.
And if you think that ideological criteria would not certainly be one of the qualifications for parenthood you are being naive. Would you deny that adherence to LGBT doctrine is becoming a criteria for employment:
Presidentially-recognized Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired last year for writing a book for his church with references to homosexuality being sinful. (BTW, he had permission from his employer ahead of time and was fired regardless.) http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/…/5-answers…/
Brendan Eich lost his job at the company he founded when it was discovered that he made a contribution to Prop 8, many years before. http://www.theatlantic.com/…/mozillas-gay…/360156/
Many of the women I work with on marriage issues only use their maiden name for their work, because their *husbands* could lose their job is their employer knew what their wives were doing.
Many supportive commenters on my blog use an alias because there are codes at their work that would not look favorably on their “discriminatory” viewpoints.
Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. None would be involved in brief submitted for SCOTUS on the side of traditional marriage. http://www.nytimes.com/…/the-case-against-gay-marriage… Because it would be professional suicide. (They understand the power of mob rule.)
I know that you have many examples of marriage gone wrong and bad parenting in your world. And I saw some of that as a kid too. But now I am in the opposite place because good ideas about marriage and parenthood are informing adult behavior- I’m surrounded by great marriages, strong families, involved fathers and strong mothers. Healthy marriages tend to influence others to improve their marriages too. That is not to say that we don’t struggle- many do. I do. But the struggles have yet to cause one family to crumble.
Licensing is not the way. It gives the government too much power in an area where they should not tread.
Of course a swat on the butt isn’t child abuse, but its still not respectful. If you’re endorsing in the idea that children are full human beings who deserve respect, a relationship with their biological parents, and are not to be be treated like property, I cannot see why you still believe their parents should hit them, withhold them from medicine for personal beliefs, and raise them ‘however they want’.
The latest research discourages spanking http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211103958.htm
The reason why so many people post as aliases on your blog is because a lot of their comments are abusive towards those who identify as ‘queer’. I was tolerant of it, but many a’times I wanted to email all of them and tell them “how dare you”. Such views included calling trans people mentally ill, homosexuals narcissists who are part of a huge conspiracy to abuse women and children, and gay marriage an abomination to god’s eyes. Yes, anyone who would spend three seconds on your blog’s commentary would come to the quick conclusion that these people hate gays.
The reason why so many people are not going to associate with the anti-ssm camp anymore because it has very little to do with the greater scope of children’s rights, and senseless denies gays the same rights as heterosexuals. Even adoptees who are AGNST donor-conception (bc it splits kids from mom and dad) understand this, and support marriage equality and gay adoption.
DP offer gays to do the same thing. So even if DP won, same-sex couples buying kids and forging birth certificate signatures would still be a problem. With that said, if every gay person in the world had a child through gamete-donation, only 1.7 kids would be affected. Infertile straight people (6% of the population) would have created much more damage. Your issues have to do with ‘heritage equality’, which is prevalent in the adoptee and donor conceived community, regardless if their married parents are straight or gay. ALL marriages allow the intended parents to forge incorrect parentage information on their children’s birth certificates.
If you want to stick up for children’s rights and not be publicly humiliated or called hateful, or anti-equality, you’re going to have to let this argument about traditional marriage go. Its inconsistent, and it has nothing to do with the greater scope of the children’s rights / heritage equality movement. In fact, this association, can indeed stigmatize those who are fighting for heritage/bio justice.
Marriages are social traditions, and it bewilders me how you haven’t even recognized that how they are carried out varies by culture to culture. Polygamous marriages, polyandrious marriages are also traditional social institutes that are thousands of years old, but polygamous marriages have often be argued to be very misogynistic. The ability of a father to be a good parent has nothing to do with if he calls his female partner wife/girlfriend but how committed he is to raising his kids and setting a good example for them. You seem to have this idea that ‘marriages’ are a magical formula that will make fathers behave and turn everyone responsible, but that isn’t true… You’re missing the part that marriages are just names, and ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ are labels. They’re not tangible, they’re mental concepts.
If you Katy, Heather, and so many COGs stood together to talk about the importance of fathers and why lesbians should not be separating children from their biological fathers, I believe people will listen (of course there would be resistance, but not nearly as much since there are many lesbians open to the idea of having a known donor/ involved father). But you all took your longing for a father and used it as an attack on gay marriage. What did you expect to happen? Of course they were going to bite back.
There was some ccommentators on Heather’s story, who even called her mom “selfish” for splitting her from her dad, but kept with the idea “Ok, her mom is sh*tty mom, and she took her away from her dad, what does this have to do with gay marriage?” What’s sad is, this kind of climate you and other COGs are creating might stigmatize kids who aren’t against gay marriage, or gay parenting, but would like to talk about how fathers/mothers are important and should be included in any family setup whether LGTB or straight. How will they speak up now?
You and many other COGs, and children’s rights advocates are going to have to change your approach to be heard at this point. I never really pushed you all to because I thought it would be a natural conclusion when the traditional marriage movement didn’t win, but it seems as if you’re still going to push traditional marriage even if this will continue to hurt your reputation and dodge the real issues with heritage equality and children’s rights.
“If republicans and conservatives were genuinely concerned about the well-being of children I can hardly imagine why screening people before they decide to raise other human beings to be considered apocalyptic. I don’t get this. It puts me in a place of wondering if Katy is truly concerned abt the kids, or is it just a cover up. :(”
Well, that’s because you also believe that capitalism and communism are really no different; perhaps one of the most inane and insane comments- ever. Even hard-core capitalists and communists agree- there are vast differences.
But, more importantly, this ‘thinking’ goes miles in revealing the true ideology behind the whole SSM push. As I, and so many others, have claimed all along (you want proof, read anything honestly reporting on the current geo-political situation), the SSM issue had/has nothing to do with gay rights. This community was used, and will be abused, as the master plan unfolds over the ensuing years.
“Duped” is an understatement. The forces behind this global anarchist movement knew their quarry well- all emotion, no logic. The perfect dupes-
Nothing about the fact that you have deluded yourself into thinking that marriage is about children (to cover up your rabid homophobia and deep intolerance towards gay people) has to do with your misguided and naive ideas about capitalism (which is really just a Plutocracy).
SSM has everything to do with gay rights, and conservatives admitted it because their push for DP or CU offer the identical benefits, and rights to children, with an exclusion of the name. Get over it.
Even if DP or CU won, gays would still be pushing for ‘reproductive justice’, and would still be granted the same privileges they would have otherwise had if they were married.
This major flaw in your bad logic, has been addressed T-minus 0 times. And it feels as if you’re intentionally avoiding it because you know its so incredible true.
Just admit it, you hate ‘f@gs’ and this is really what its about.
It’s all very funny in hindsight. I’d never had to take care of little children before, so at first I just kept going as if they were adults. The children themselves thought it was all hilarious. It led to things like, “What do you mean it’s bath time? What does your bath time have to do with me?” or “Why do I have to braid your hair? You braid your hair”. The biggest issues were however property rights. Sienna, the little one, was a blond haired, blue eyed terrorist. She could see how possessive I was of my things and tortured me with it. She seemed to think it was the most fun game of all time.
It was difficult but I don’t regret the experience at all. To be honest, I even think it was a very good experience for the children. The parents weren’t/aren’t the most structured people.
At my house they had to sit at the table to eat, not in front of the television. They learnt how to use a knife and fork. They learnt how to behave when guests came to the house. And the house we had at that point was a paradise for them. There was a huge garden where they could play in total safety, and they loved the dogs as well.
At the end of that year, when the children left, I can’t say I wasn’t concerned. Their heterosexually married parents were still an emotional mess. They just didn’t have the tools or capabilities to put the interest of the children first. And their genders and hetero-sexual-orientation just can’t make up for that. That’s the real tragedy of what’s being proposed here. There’s no such thing as a perfect family model except in fairytale books. In real life we have imperfect people. Some are generous, some are selfish, some are violent, some are charming, some are alcoholics, others are obsessed with how they look, others still work too much. We just can’t single out any one thing and say it’s the only one that matters. It’s a complicated equation that no one should try to oversimplify.
This would make a good memoir. Personally, I think the gender-related issues didn’t arise because the kids already knew who their biological parents were. But again, I see your point, when you say “biology isn’t always everything”. I do think that having a safe household is sometimes more important than biology, but pushing it to the extent that the reproduction industry has, I think is unacceptable. Because, while you’ll have kids with responsible parents, they’ll now have identity issues. Does that make sense?
Also, you were concerned because you bonded with them, and now you were starting to see them as your kids. Why haven’t you and your husband considered having kids of your own? Just curious. 😕
I’m afraid my answer is going to make me look very bad… and before anyone says anything, yes, I know it’s selfish, and yes, I do feel guilty.
I feel guilty every time I see those children in need commercials. I feel guilty I have 10 bedrooms, 9 of which spend most of the year empty. I feel guilty people think my house is so big it must be a hotel.
I’d love to be someone like Katy who’s made the time and effort and has the generosity of spirit to adopt a child. But the truth is I just can’t bring myself to take on that sort of responsibility. Having children would mean having to dedicate my life to them and that scares the hell out of me- because there’s no end. It’s a lifetime thing.
To be honest I’m on the same boat, and I’m female so its expected for me to want kids. I figured if I were to be a mom and not half-assed it (like it feels like so many people do), and actual commit to their education, awareness of the world, nutritional health, and emotional well-being, it would take a lot out of me. Plus, I have no patience for children, so I can’t imagine answering to their every whims 24/7. I asked because you sounded worried about the kids, and that you actually enjoyed taking care of them.
You don’t look bad, you sound responsible. I wish other people would be honest with themselves and do the same thing, instead of having kids because ‘society says so’.
Thanks for that. It actually means a lot because what I usually get is people telling me I’m horrible for not putting my effort into children. Which is a bit surreal because then there are people on blogs like this saying I should be kept away from children.
I just decided to ignore everyone and do what feels right for me, and that’s no children 🙂
Party on, my childfree friend. The world needs more people strong enough to say “I don’t want no babies”.
It good for the environment (seriously) http://elitedaily.com/life/why-science-says-having-kids-may-be-a-bad-idea/
Oh my goodness! I think we’re both in trouble! Serious trouble. I’m still trying to figure out if it’s because we have no children, or because we agree with each other- either way, I’ve got lots of spare bedrooms, so you can come hide out here 😀
Great, I’ll bring the cat!
“With capitalism, the rich rules and controls everything, while the poor struggle to get by, and those who are used by corporations in other countries are treated like slaves”.
Typical anarchist. At least under capitalist governance- you wont be executed or re-educated for your silly political leanings.
With capitalism LBGTQ have rights, black men become president, women do anything their little hearts desire, children thrive, there actually is a middle class (which is created and sustained by the poorer classes upward mobility), and our borders are under constant pressure to accommodate refugees from non/un capitalist societies. The ‘poor’ in capitalist societies live longer, healthier and better lives than all others in all non-capitalist nations, except for the communist party members themselves (it’s good to be ‘king’- heh?).
All Facts. Same as those Facts about the biological requirements of humans. All facts.
I’m not an anarchist. I’m a zeitgeist. Anarchism doesn’t work, we have the ‘free market’ to prove that letting rich people do whatever they want as long as they get money in return system is very exploitative and silly.
Actually if you weren’t the conservative idiot with outdated rhetoric, you would know that the educational system is also for-profit, and has a beautiful way of skewing history to demonize anything that goes against their for-profit way of thinking.
With capitalism rich white LGTBQ people get rights, while the poor are continuously left out of the party, A biracial president is used to avert attention to the prison industrial complex and many other racial based injustices, women are objectified and are socially told their role is to be a man’s sex toy, children are treated like property and will (in the future) continue to be commodified by the for-profit reproduction industry, and there’s scarcely a middle class. Furthermore, natural resources will continue to be exploited until we run out, destitute people will continue to be used as slave labor for rich corporations, and ‘The American Dream’ is used as a dog treat dangling before our faces to keep us running on a treadmill to power up the 1%.
Rags to riches stories are scare. Small businesses do not stand a chance against corporate powers, and most people cannot afford to start up a service/business to better their financial circumstance, indeed indicating that the captilaistic system is not fair for everyone.
Refuges come from communist countries? You have got to be kidding me. Do you realize some of the most starved misogynistic and exploitative countries in the world like Brazil, and India, are capitalist nations?
Get your head out of the cloud and stop choking up your naive brainless conservative rhetoric.
Your position seems to be that those who have children who raise them the way you would like are superior people to those who don’t parent or don’t parent them the way you would. That seems to be a very elitist way of thinking, would you agree?
“Actually if you weren’t the conservative idiot with outdated rhetoric, you would know that the educational system is also for-profit, and has a beautiful way of skewing history to demonize anything that goes against their for-profit way of thinking”
Aww, name calling, my ‘feelings’ are so hurt. Can I claim that I am now a victim of a ‘hate ‘crime based upon your ‘hate speech’?
And what free and honest educational system educated you? North Korea? China? Cuba?
You did the typical Alinsky- model thing, you branded me a ‘detestable thing’; a bigot, a conservative, etc., and then you targeted me, personally. Your scheme is old, played out and is no longer working. You are ‘outing’ yourself with every word you submit, poor thing.
Answer the biological argument against SSM and parenting. We’ve got your politics and bankrupt ideology down, we need to assess your level of logic, now.
Its not name-calling if its true. You made assertions that most our immigrants are refugees from communist nations, when our immigrants are coming from Latin America and Mexico, which are all capitalists nations. You’re either uneducated or you’re stupid. One of the two.
The educational systems in both economic set ups are failures. They hide the truth, to make themselves look better. In The united states its progressively getting worse. Have you heard the new attempts to censure out (already censured) American history?
There’s a lot of history and facts about the united states, that aren’t really taught in class, already. These books are to just name a few –>
I never targeted you. Stop playing the victim-mentality. I was talking to Katy, YOU INTRUDED YOUR UNWANTED OPINION, I corrected you, and now you’re throwing a hiss-fit. Grow up.
I think many people have just absorbed the “Alinsky model” from the culture around them. It is now a kind of default mode and they have no idea about Alinsky at all. I would bet dollars to donuts that they have no idea where their arguments come from and that the strategies that they deployed by reflex even have an origin. She is 100% correct and honest when she says she is the zeitgeist–she is. And there are many many more. She in fact is one of the brighter ones and more open minded ones.
Remember the educational system has been over 20 years of garbage in and garbage out, compounded by indifference save a few pet causes–and the media constant droning on. She is correct about some things and seeing past what has been presented to her. She says:”With capitalism rich white LGTBQ people get rights, while the poor are continuously left out of the party, A biracial president is used to avert attention to the prison industrial complex and many other racial based injustices, women are objectified and are socially told their role is to be a man’s sex toy, children are treated like property and will (in the future) continue to be commodified by the for-profit reproduction industry, and there’s scarcely a middle class.” The fact is the money that created this was conservative money–Paul Singer over 40 million to get gay marriage. Then there was the blackmailing and threats. The academy has been totally corrupted.
Remember many many people have been schooled to imagine LGBT as the “new civil rights” she see’s it is really a product of wealth and corruption and a kind of cultural narscissim that is anti-family. The tactics which are Alinsky all the way are not the content. The content gives me some hope. She is the zeitgeist.
There should be no same sex parenting that ever involves other peoples children as far as I am concerned, and if a women gets pregnant she has the same right I do to give birth although I do not happen to think in my experience any same sex parenting works anywhere near as well as two parents or even a single biological parent. I honestly do not know what it will take for people to realize giving these people other peoples children or wombs is a huge and tragic mistake–they are a very sick movement, ideology and culture. And their supports and champions are fools.
My, what a small scope your world encompasses. Western civilization encompasses far more than the US- have a map handy? Immigration into western nations outpaces emigration from those nations. Get the math, now? You incorrectly/erroneously phrased my contention- go back and reread my statements on western civilization vs. non-western civilization. I wont play the ‘language ‘ game with you- your tactics are tiresome.
I am no victim of yours or anybody else’s – never claimed it, never will. You have the social justice chip on your shoulder, not me- I am happy and successful in my world, and my skin. Apparently, that isn’t the case for you.
If you needed to ‘talk to Katy’ , you should have taken you BS ‘offline”. Anything posted publicly is or public consumption and comment. Do you emit a beeping sound as you back-peddle?
I have no interest in your social propaganda. It’s quite enough to know that you equate Communism with Western civilization, which is based upon a capitalist-driven (there is a spectrum there- do your homework) economy and democratically-elected representative government. Again, seems to me, call me crazy, that the non-westernized nations are emptying out (as permitted- wonder what those poor NKs, Cubans, Chinese would do, if permitted?) into the westernized nations that offer a higher standard of living, and more freedoms. Because South and Central American and Mexicans can cross US borders unencumbered (at will) means little to the principle of my position- stop the inane nit-picking, be adult enough to concede the point, if any credibility is to be gained for your positions.
And, so back to my position- let me restate it in case you missed it the first hundred times: the M-F bond forms the family; the family forms the foundation for society. Society provides the ‘fittest’ environment for the species. A ‘Fit’ family equates with a ‘Fit’ society. A “Fit” society equates with a “Fit” species. Connecting those dots, yet? It’s like math- use logic.
If you disagree, tell me why. if you agree, good- buy yourself a beer as a reward for getting a “A” in Reading Comprehension and Logic.
Meanwhile, since you two made your attacks on the Bigot’s character (when you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger- so easy, lazy, cheap), in a very public forum, you owe her an equally public apology.
Learn to disagree without the ad hominem attacks. As you can see, we’re all capable of stooping down to the dirty games and poor form that can so easily drag down the dialogue.
Some of us may be more ‘gifted’ there, than others!
Aw, so sweet to see all the kissy-face between the most recent and hateful critics of the Bigot.
See, common ground can be found – even if it is found in shared duplicity – and hatred.
Funny that these two, who want to determine the well-being of others children, don’t happen to have any- or have even the remotest of interests regarding the well-being of the demanding and ungrateful little buggers. I suppose their ‘honesty’, however framed within the context of their own incredible egos, is to be commended. Lone clap.
All that space, all that luxury, money and time, all those self-declared talents and abilities, yet, not a generous bone to be found between them to dedicate to the well-being of children.
Oh, the ‘humanity’ of it all.
But, they’ll tell us what our children need. Yep.
May I ask what you do to help children besides telling others what to do? Taking care of your own doesn’t count, that’s something you’re supposed to do. I’m talking about volunteering or donating.
He harasses internet strangers, insults people who weren’t talking to him, and then tries to play the victim when people snap back.
I’ve found that the ones who say we need to help children are the ones who just advocate others to do the work they can’t be bothered to do.
Or do their best to hide their homophobia
If you’re tired of the senseless arguing, its just best not to respond to his replies. I told him “Have a nice day” and ended the conversation. If he wants to ramble on and on, just let him. Its entertaining.
I do all anyone is expected to do and you may surmise all that is anyone’s business (in other words, anything you like)- but, most of all, I speak biological truths.
My position isn’t based upon what I do or don’t do, it is based upon what science, and specifically, biology, dictates. Biology dictates that biological parents be one male and one female- that isn’t debatable. Biology dictates that it is optimal for the individual, the offspring and the species, and the species society, if the biological parents bear and raise their own offspring within a monogamous lifelong bond (humans call this marriage). Those facts are indisputable, and those are the facts upon which I rest my position that, whenever and wherever possible, society should support, incentivize and promote the bearing and raising of children by the child’s M-F biological parents. Society should not incentivize, support, promote anything else regarding children. I don’t care about relationships among/between consenting adults- not my business, I have zero interest.
SSM advocates do not like that position. Unfortunately, they haven’t been able to contest it with anything but an overused emotional or political argument, and a few light body blows on the ‘strawman’ they constructed to represent me.
Other than that information- let your imagination roam as free as a grazing wild herd of bison when it comes to me, personally. I will not be providing personal information for the ever-so ‘loving’ SSM advocates and activists to chew on. My ‘information’ will be restricted to responding to the (aka my) biological argument against SSM and parenting.
I’ve yet to see a rational argument in support of SSM/parenting. I welcome it- hope you’ve got one (so far, I’ve been wrestling with ghosts)!
“He harasses internet strangers, insults people who weren’t talking to him, and then tries to play the victim when people snap back”
Here’s what “he doesn’t do” (in addition to the pile of lies just claimed) – ‘he’ doesn’t throw his friends under the bus, in the friends own forum, call that friend a liar and imply worse about that ‘friends’ motives or family or church, or turn on that friend like a snake.
CandyGurl and PinkAgendist/MM showed their true colors, neither being very ‘pinkish’ or ‘candy-like’, when they perceived that their [former?] Bigot- friend, who has shown respect for them both and been extremely accommodating of the whacko-ness emanating from both of these “Judas'” during what was until now, respectful debate and agreeable disagreement.
But, then, something evil happened; the SCOTUS decision on gay “marriage” (chuckle, chuckle- cant help myself) happened and the two snakes turned on their friend and made very unseemly accusations against her, and her family, and her church.
The snakes turned into sharks detecting blood in the waters upon rendering of the SCOTUs decision. The SSM advocates and misguided LBGTQ radical agenda advocates got nasty, nastier than usual. How emboldened we feel! How safe it is to slap around a practicing Christian! Not so safe, or brave, or resilient when struck back, though- hey there bullies?
The Bigot is a practicing Christian-she wont strike back at these deceivers in a language they use, in a way that they understand- being the seasoned vipers that they both are. I have no such restrictions placed upon me. These two rattlers thrive in the underbrush, I’m quite at home in all natural environments- it’s time these belly-crawlers were flushed out of their snake pits.
To date, neither of them are capable of providing logical responses or counter-argument to the biological case against SSM/parenting.
Settle down crazy- which part of gay marriage doesn’t lead to having children are you having trouble understanding?
I’m gay married. No children in sight. No adoption. No ivf. No children. Not now and not in the future. My life is nothing to do with children. Not directly, anyway. You need to set your conspiracy theories aside, take off the tin-foil hat and take a very deep breath.
“Settle down crazy- which part of gay marriage doesn’t lead to having children are you having trouble understanding?
I’m gay married. No children in sight. No adoption. No ivf. No children. Not now and not in the future. My life is nothing to do with children. Not directly, anyway. You need to set your conspiracy theories aside, take off the tin-foil hat and take a very deep breath”
You may keep your ‘crazy’ labels for yourself. After all- it isn’t me claiming to be ‘married’ to a person of the same sex or promoting and supporting transsexuals as magically acquiring the full spectrum of sexual characteristics of the trans-to sex. I am also not the ‘crazy’ claiming that same sex individuals, married or not, are capable of providing the same level and quality of parenting that bio-parents provide as is required to produce fit offspring. But, I digress…
I actually wish there was a way LBGTQ could have gotten all the benefits and protections their unions deserve (and no more) since I fully support and have defended LBGTQ all of my life- sometimes risking my life since I was raised in a rough neighborhood at a time when mutant-cretins liked to viciously prey on this community. I don’t need lessons on how to be tolerant of anybody, especially LBGTQ, from those residing in the safe retreats afforded by their wealth, or some otherwise removed status in life. I was there, in the trenches with them – all my life.
But, due to bad advice or lousy social relationships, they went for the gold ring of human relationships- the marriage- which is also the gold standard for rearing children- for all the reasons I previously stated. LBGTQ have put themselves back into the cross-hairs of the culture war that will certainly ensue. I don’t know if that was their intention, but, they are there now, and it will get uglier before it all settles down. I am not sure they will succeed in convincing a populace, before it was mature enough, to accept this brave new world of theirs.
Other than that- you will need to define my ‘conspiracy theories’ within the context of facts. I stand by every claim I’ve made, and every dot I’ve connected, whether it be biological fact, or social fallout theory. It isn’t conspiratorial until you have disproven it. Your opinion on theoretical matters has no more weight than mine- lets permit the evidence and the logic to sort it out.
I wouldn’t be caught dead in a tin foil hat- they are about as passé as your ‘gay camp’ act. You are an interesting creature- you flip back and forth between being a challenging intellect, when we can pull you out of “you” long enough to notice others, and a total bimbo. Find your comfort zone, already- you may find that you actually have something unique (aside from your ‘wealth’ or ‘status’) to offer society.
‘Stopping to breathe’ is how the tortoise caught the rabbit –
“SCOTUS moves away from the Rights of Children towards a “Right to Children”
The “right to children” is a very key phrase there because, as is the proven nature and history of government, when we hand them the power to decide who is and is not entitled to children, they use and abuse it. When a government bestows a right upon people, they also reserve the ability to revoke those rights. Children are now a right, rather then a natural choice resulting from natural law. People have just lost their biological rights to their own children. Those children all now belong to the state. Mothers and fathers both can now be denied access or rights to their own children. Since we have now severed the sanctity of that biological bond, everyone has now lost something precious. We’ve already witnessed the state stepping in to take children they believed should not be allowed to walk to the store alone or homeschooling parents harassed for their beliefs. We’ve seen children taken away for numerous political reasons, because the sanctity of that biological bond is no longer being recognized.
Absolutely there are many adopted children in happy homes, but even in those cases, respecting the sanctity of that biological bond was highly valued, and adoption required some major legal feats and due process. Now children are simply a right bestow upon people by the wisdom of Government.
The lawyers on both “sides,” first through DOMA and now SCOTUS, took what started as a progressive social change spreading across the USA via legitimate ballots and State legislatures and turned it into a new “Federal government mandate” ensuring more social conflict for LGBT families for years to come and, unsurprisingly, plenty of legal fees and limelight to go around.
“Why haven’t you and your husband considered having kids of your own?”
Um, I don’t know, maybe because two males are biologically incapable of reproducing. Maybe because it would require eliminating at least one biological parent from that child’s life, therefore, rendering that child an anomaly, biologically and in its society, since it would be denied the benefits of experiencing the attributes of an opposite sex relationship and parenting?
Then, of course, there is that whole male-male/husband-husband thing. It is a fantastic (as in unbelievable, magical, unrealistic, not factual, a lie) concept borne out of a radical ideology that there is no such thing as sex that differentiates human beings (to swallow this tripe, we must deny nature), and that there is no such thing as biology that differentiates the sexes. All humans are perfectly equal (not true) and the same (not true).
It is as make-believe as a couple of opposite sex toddlers sitting at their little tea party table with a little dolly making believe that they are ‘married’, and are ‘feeding’ their ‘baby’ some cupcakes from their little “Suzy Homemaker” oven. The huge difference is that when those toddlers grow up- they will very likely be able to participate in true, natural, actual marriage and reproduce their own biological children.
‘Growing up’ is the key term here-
I don’t recall ever asking for your bigoted conservative rhetoric or complete distortion of what I just said. Come back when your user name is Pink, ok? Or when you aren’t a troll begging for someone to debate you.
Speaking of usernames- how many are you using now in order to dodge the question that no one seems capable of taking on? D’ya think no one noticed?
I copied and pasted your statement. It is 100% accurate- unlike all of your distortions and paraphrasing of my and others comments, including the Bigot, with whom you disagree. I repeat- I don’t need you to address me for me to make a comment. Repeat it to yourself, s-l-o-w-l-y.
Can you only win an argument, or anything, when you cheat?
How’s the google education coming along- got anything on the biological argument against SSM and parenting, yet?
Why haven’t you figured out that I have been ignoring your incredible stupid attention-seeking, unnecessarily combative, poorly executed, over-the-top, whiny, childish, overly religious, rude, uninvited comments? You must really like me. But unfortunately for you I actually engage in conversation with people who are worth my time. 😉
Ops incredibly* not incredible. Lol. Have a wonderful Tuesday and a ever more pleasant Wednesday!
“Why haven’t you figured out that I have been ignoring your incredible stupid attention-seeking, unnecessarily combative, poorly executed, over-the-top, whiny, childish, overly religious, rude, uninvited comments? You must really like me. But unfortunately for you I actually engage in conversation with people who are worth my time. ;)”
Hey, who are you calling ‘religious’?
Excellent point, Insanity. When Canada legalized SSM ten years ago, there were no longer “biological” parents. Everyone was simply “legal” parents. No distinct relationship or authority over one’s biological children. One of the objections raised by the children of LGBT parents who dissent, is that they would have been greatly distressed if any of their parent’s partners would have been given parental authority over them. In Canada, there is no vetting process as in adoption. Just whether or not the state views what the adults are doing as “caregiving” such as helping with a homework assignment or taking the child to school, no matter how new to the home that adult may be. Sometimes parental authority should be given to non-biological adults. But those situations should be arduous and rare.
Please provide ANY proof, from any of my numerous comments here at ATB, of my “…hatred of ‘f@gs..”, or take yourself the way of the “Pink One”- just another documented fraud all wrapped up in the rainbow flag of tolerance and love- well, until you have to show some of that “love and tolerance” to your opposition. Please do note how the Bigot lovingly handled that farce of a friend (feeling some kinship there?), and how he continued to drag her, her church and her spouse through the mud. If ever there was an obvious case for why LBGTQ should not be parents- there it is- in all its glory.
The only hatred that has been posted on this blog has come from you and your flip-flopping side of this debate. You hate Christians, you hate republicans and conservatives, you hate capitalism and you hate, and hate and hate….
Yet, you are incapable of responding to the argument, based in science, against SSM and SS parenting. You’d rather ‘talk’ about anything else, anything that can be morphed into whatever ‘thing’ you happen to be proposing or claiming (you’ve been all over the map-honey). Respond to the biological argument against SSM and SS parenting, or go away, hypocrite.
Here’s a clue for you- take a position, already, and stand on it.
Meanwhile, I’ll be looking forward to reviewing any comment of mine (cite the date and time, please) that implies or states any hatred, but, especially to, as you so eloquently phrased it, “f@gs” (just a wee-bit of a lowlife, aren’t we?)-
“there is that whole male-male/husband-husband thing. It is a fantastic (as in unbelievable, magical, unrealistic, not factual, a lie)”
” just another documented fraud all wrapped up in the rainbow flag of tolerance and love-”
— Yes, you’re a hateful person, with a irrational prejudice against gay people.
And flip-flopping? I almost died laughing. Are you saying I have to side with your cult, before I can enter my opinion into this debate? Thank god I don’t treat my politics like a religious dogmatic war-zone, with two different ‘sides’ to choose to be loyal too. That would be caveman-like and retrogressive, much as you have demonstrated.
I don’t hate republicans or Christians, but I do hate capitalism. I don’t like the idea of splitting views into political parties, because both sides turn the debate into their own independent tunnel-visioning agenda. And everything, even people’s personal lives and feelings are used as just pawns to win their convictions. It becomes more about their agenda, and less about the people. Christianity? I don’t hate Christians, but I don’t associate with religion because I don’t personally need it. Some people do.
And the same-sex marriage debate? I told you your views were ridiculous because Domestic Partnerships offer the same thing. I told you, you’ve neglected to answer to such a critique because it’ll reveal how your focus is merely your irrational hatred against gays. You don’t need science to talk about semantics.
And finally the gay parenting thing. I’ve left many many comments regarding my views on gay parenting. If you choose to ignore them so you can start up a senseless argument that’s your issue. I don’t want anything to do with a babbling moron.
So thank you for putting words into my mouth, and jumping to conclusions because you’re angry about being wrong. Your legs must be exhausted from all that jumping, right?
Brazil and India (and most other nations throughout South and Central America, Asia and Africa) suffer from corruption, not, from capitalism. Capitalism is an economic philosophy/system, not a form of government, there, oh “Zeitgeist One’ (talk about passé). The US, and other western nations are chock-full of refugees from Brazil and India, but, mostly these refugees are fleeing oppression due to authoritarian regimes found in non-western and non-capitalist societies. Like I said, I am willing to bet you are making your contributions here at ATB from the safety of one of those superior econo-politico environments- aren’t you?
You are still incapable of responding, logically, to the biological argument against SSM or parenting.
But, it helps to know your politics and how they drive your world views (which is a very skewed perception and distortion of reality).
As for my politics and world views, they are shaped by nature, and biology. That is a practice that keeps me grounded in truth- regardless of whichever side of the political aisle you think (without evidence) I reside.
“Brazil and India (and most other nations throughout South and Central America, Asia and Africa) suffer from corruption, not, from capitalism.”
And other communist countries are suffering because of corrupted leaders too, not their communist system. Correct? Oooo, wait. It only works when its in favor of your pro-capitalist rhetoric right?
No those countries are failing because they have stop caring about the people, and started caring more about money through whatever means necessary, which is the capitalist rhetoric.
You’re very, very, very uneducated about immigration in America. And it makes me question whether I should take your inputs seriously. MOST of the immigrants we have in this country are from MEXICO, a CAPITALIST country. How are you denying this? Do you read? Do you pay attention? Are you aware of what you’re talking about?
You’re incapable of making a legitimate argument and are addicted to confrontation.
LISTEN: No ONE asked your opinion about how you felt about my views. I wasn’t even talking to you I was talking TO KATY. I made a simple remark on how I felt about capitalism and now you’re outwardly attacking me. Stay in your lane and mind your own business. Get a life.
Such an authoritarian- you dictate, we all fall in line. Yeah, well, not really.
You and others just like you take advantage of the Christian, benevolent nature of Katy and others who must confine and align their response to your vitriol according to their religious convictions. I don’t have that problem. And neither you nor any of your ideologically-aligned similarly-vicious commenters (mostly on the side of SSM/parenting- isn’t that NOT surprising?) are capable of following your argument through to any logical ends, well, because, there isn’t any such end. I used the very same, vicious tactics against you that you regularly employ against your opposition- how’d that feel to you? I did it intentionally- and will continue to do it so that your oppositions voice is not lost in the debate due to their good manners and your poor manners. When there’ s a gun fight, I don’t bring a knife, I bring a gun. A much bigger gun. I have the truth of science, as expressed via the facts of biology, on my side of the argument, what do you have- some distorted ideology? My biology crushes your ideology- and your only retort has been, and always will be, to try to sideline me, personally, so that my argument (again- based in FACT) gets lost in the bigot/hater/phobe claims. Not happening, not to me, and not by you or your friends here (or anybody, anywhere else)
Again- you made a claim that I hated homosexuals, where is the evidence to back that load of BS up.
Do you have a response to the biological argument against SSM or parenting? Asked repeatedly by me and unanswered by you or anyone one else in support of both ridiculous insults to nature – to this day. Got anything on that front?
Hey, if the LA Times says so, why, it must be true! And, even if it is true, today (a snapshot), that Mexico is contributing most of the (running across the border) immigrants to the US (we’ll ignore the stats on the Central American refugees moving through Mexico to get here, and those poor bastards trying to enter legally), it isn’t capitalism they are escaping from, but crime; historic epidemic crime resulting from a corrupt government, not an economic system. Mexico actually has a pretty good economy. Mexico also happens to have a pretty lousy government. Why don’t these capitalism-haters head down to the freedom and prosperity of the ever-so-progressive zeitgeist socialism of those nations in South America?
You are so blinded by you ideology, you are incapable of detecting or eliciting any truths.
Here’s a suggestion for you; I wont tell you how to or to whom you should respond or on what item you should comment and you wont dictate such to me. I’ll leave that sort of censorship to the ATB moderator. If you don’t like what I submit- don’t read it. You see, in a free society, where parents raise their own children without a permit, and where all ideas, even those with which you disagree are welcome and debated, we have those choices. That may not be very “zeitgeist” but, it works so well that most of the rest of the non- westernized world risk life and limb to participate in such a fit system. Why not take up your argument against it with them?
Meanwhile, back to the biology ……we still wait (tick-tock…)-
Thanks for the senseless wall of annoying garbage. But to be honest, you seem like a babbling victim-minded moron who likes hearing himself talk.
I told you my views on gay parenting and same-sex marriages, I’m not going to repeat the third or fourth time. If you want to see my responses. Read the commenting section. You butted your way into a conversation uninvited and insulted me for disagreeing with you, you’re more than capable of navigating yourself around and finding out my views for yourself.
You don’t live in a free society. Your society has laws and regulations. Even in a Utopian world, nothing is free. Thats the anarchist mentality that you were just criticizing.
Parents already raise their kids without permits, or oversight and you and Katy and many other conservatives are complaining about it. You know why? Because it leads to those divorces, and same-sex households you all loath so passionately. The reason why you’re holding onto this dead and irrelevant argument about gay marriage, is that you want to keep gay people from being parents, right? Wouldn’t that go against the ‘free parenting’ logic, you just defended?
Lets be honest. Its not about children’s rights, its not about what’s best for the kids (at least for you). Its about “I don’t want those perverts into our society, and we should do everything in our legal power to keep them from doing so”. No you didn’t say it, but you already told Mr. Merveilleux that his marriage was a lie, and you have left enough detail about your religious-based convictions that you have a issue with same-sex couples.
And I find it very cute your inability to use “zeitgeist” in a proper sentence. Lol.
And back to the domestic partnership argument… we still wait (tick-tock, tick-tock) Oh wait! There is no argument, because its stupid and it doesn’t make sense, right? Thought so!
Have a nice day.
Yet, you keep engaging me in debate- all the while decrying my ignorance- how foolish of you!
From where did you create your version of my politics or my religious views? Did you make your views up out of the same thin air from which your ideology originates? I am still waiting for your ref to any of my comments that implies hatred for gays- got any? or, is that, just lie all of your opinions, not based in any fact, but, just a distortion to fit your own ideology?
If I’m a babbling moron- how is it I am so capable of navigating around to dig though your incredibly disjointed and contradictory comments?
Zeitgeist is the philosophy of idiots who cant make their minds up about what they believe, and NAZIs and other oppressors who used/use it to justify the means to their horrific ends- I gave it the treatment it deserves.
There is no argument to the fact that nature generally expels the aberrant practice of homosexuality from its ranks (obligate homosexuality is non-existent n nature), and that the only monogamy practiced, anywhere, in nature, is between the opposite sexes? Really- no argument there? Why did you swap out SSM and parenting for domestic partnerships- are you a three-card Monty or shell game player?
You seem to draw from other environmental arguments to support your zeitgeist (did that just to give you another little insecure ‘giggle’) philosophy. After all- responding with “lol” is so very high brow and intellectual. But, what it all really is a failed attempt to marginalize and dehumanize (you are so smart, and we are so dumb- yes?) your opposition. Have you figured out yet, bright lights, that ‘that’ tactic isn’t going to work on me?
Tell me- what parts of nature, or the environment, shall we cite as required in support of human fitness and what parts shall we toss out? Is nature only right when it supports your ideology?
“Refugees” from Brazil? Really? I’m curious as I have family members in Brazil. Are those refugees from the period of the right-wing military regime? That kind of ended thirty years ago. But do amuse us, give us your great political insights into the politics of whichever countries you choose.
And please do enlighten us on your views on biology and nature! Which area was your study focus? Evolutionary biology? Something more specific? I’m a great fan of the work of Scott Forbes. Any thoughts?
Speak to your slithering friend about refugees from Brazil- that isn’t my claim (…if only people would read….).
Are your Brazilian relatives of German descent?
Offering any insider odds on who will pick up the ashes of that great bastion of socialism- Greece? Has anybody woken/sobered them up long enough to tell them to swim since they’re rapidly sinking? Beware the rescue swimmers dilemma!
Speaking of biology- we are still waiting for your or her (or, are you ‘her’ since there now seems to be comments being posted by the same commenters using different profiles- hmm, not-so-artful dodgers-heh?) response to the facts about biology as pertains to the M-F lifelong bond being the foundation for family, and thus, society and our species. Got anything of value to offer up there?
I’m patient, still waiting.
Katy, thank you. This was a nice read, and I always appreciate your views. I wanted to expand on your point “while half the country is celebrating they probably don’t see what this really means”. Your basic premise is beautiful truth – adults need to be the ones sacrificing what we think is right in favor of the natural needs and rights of children. This goes across the board, no matter what our beliefs or identities. This truth is sadly lost because people want what they want, and that is the bottom line. But let’s take a look at where this selfish “I want, therefore it’s ok” logic goes. Let’s follow it to its real conclusion, which doesn’t end with same-sex marriage.
From the SCOTUS bench, polygamists still cannot legally marry multiple partners. First cousins cannot legally marry. Siblings and half-siblings cannot legally marry. For the sake of this argument, I’ll leave out examples involving people who love their pets or inanimate human-sized dolls, but those relationships do exist. And I won’t even go into pedophilia, in which those who lust for children believe that is real, legitimate love. I will simply stick to two consenting adults of any kind. Shouldn’t “marriage equality” include them?
My point – “marriage equality” activists haven’t achieved marriage equality. Not every adult in this country can legally marry consenting adult(s) they choose. So all the gay marriage activists have accomplished is adjusting the legal boundaries of marriage to include only gay people. For a people group that is bent on equality, that seems narrow. Wouldn’t true marriage equality include everyone who wants to marry? And if potential harm to children is used as justification to ban sibling/cousin/blood-relative marriage, doesn’t that cancel out any argument for same-sex unions that deny the natural parent-child bond? And if we say no to anyone, because clearly the line needs to be drawn somewhere, are we being hateful? When you think about it, how can we say no to anyone without being hateful?
Indeed – we as a nation are truly blinded to the contradiction and absurdity of defying God’s original design and intent for marriage. In the name of “I want, therefore it’s ok”, we do not understand what we’ve done. ‘Marriage equality’ proponents need to prepare to do the very thing they say “bigoted Christians” are doing. A lot of people are going to want to want ‘marriage equality’ now that the can has been opened, so to speak. Are we prepared for this? More importantly, are marriage equality proponents prepared to say a whole lot of “no” to others who want the same status? That’s where I see this going.
“First cousins cannot legally marry”
First cousins can legally marry in 21 state.
The civil marriage being a contract that establishes kinship for formerly unrelated persons, marrying siblings and children/parents doesn’t make sense because they’re already kin.
What FyVa? Only 21 of 50 states allow 1st cousins to love each other? Sounds like a violation of the “”marriage equality” slogan. Keeps benefits from 2 loving adults.
Quick, call in Justice Kennedy– concocted Constitutional rights are being violated here.
“marrying siblings and children/parents doesn’t make sense because they’re already kin.”
Why are you trying to limit marriage to unrelated persons? Historically there are certainly many examples of marrying related person’s, even brothers and sisters.
SSM also deosn’t make sense since a person would be marrying a person of the same sex.
Single Mom! Great to see you again. And thank for your comments. Hope all is well with you and your littlest.
Reblogged this on Weighing the Evidence and commented:
When I heard about the SCOTUS ruling, my first instinct was to be happy for those who fought so hard for this victory. Sure, I’m a Bible-believing Christian, and sure, I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality — but, 1) this was by no means a surprise, and 2) I really do love gays, and I’m glad that they’re happy. My personal religious feelings notwithstanding, I’ve long since stopped looking to the civil authorities to validate or uphold my religious convictions — in the world and not of it, you know.
Then I read a post like this one, and I see a perspective that really should be at the foremost of this discussion but that no one seems to be addressing. I say brava.
Did you read any part of SCOTUS’ decision, especially Justice Kennedy’s statement? This is explicitly about marriage, not children.
If you are so concerned with the rights of children to have both a mother and father, why haven’t you been engaging in civil disobedience to protest divorce and single parents?
You are really that convinced that all opposition to same-sex marriage must be based in animus akin to a sort of racial supremacy that you tenuously contrive to find some smoking gun, a glaring inconsistency in our conduct that proves our hypocrisy, malevolence and guilt, huh? Ok, for the sake of argument, let’s say, as you, candygurl and others have strongly implied, that Katy and the rest of us detest and fear gay people so much, we can’t bare the thought of Adam and Steve and Lilith and Eve happily saying “I do” and our recalcitrance to the same-sex marriage cause is out of spite. If that truly is the case, how does it have any bearing on Katy’s alleged claim, “Every child is conceived by, desires to be known by, and has a right to their mother and father” and its place in her greater argument that formal endorsement of same-sex marriage undermines this sacrosanct relationship as being any more or less true, false or logically sound? Does our supposed prejudice make those things any more wrong or right?
I also earnestly ask, did you read any part of Justice Kennedy’s opinion? Did you miss his assertion that “children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser” or how such a sentiment has been wielded as a pretense in both the general and legal case for same-sex marriage? Have you ignored everything our “bigoted” side has argued about how marriage is essentially related to procreation and ipso facto leads to children? Our position is that marriage is intimately tied to childbearing and child rearing, which in actuality is so modest of a contention, it’s been considered commonsense up until about basically 50 years ago. Children have been at the heart of this debate — always in the case of those fighting against “marriage equality” and whenever it suited the purposes of those in favor of it.
If you haven’t gleaned this, then it’s likely you haven’t paid attention to the fact that social conservatives have always expressed concern for the rise in single parenting, divorce and have fought for the fundamental right of every child to live and not be terminated in abortion. But ironically enough, we are often decried as sexist for suggesting that single motherhood generally is not an ideal situation and or abortion is murder. Contrary to your opining, our battle against same-sex marriage is fully consistent with these pro-child movements. Our staunch resistance specifically to “marriage equality” is because of the following dire observation and realization: It isn’t divorcees and single parents but gay activists who are organizing and campaigning to carve into stone public policy that engenders the relegation of biological family ties in law and culture, thereby inscribing the formal epitaph on the tombstone of the traditional family — “Utterly unwanted, unneeded and unimportant.”
“Let my Daddies marry” and the like should have been a major red flag to anyone who has even a passing awareness of children. The children were scripted to say that and woe would have been them if they did not : his assertion that “children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser” or how such a sentiment has been wielded as a pretense in both the general and legal case for same-sex marriage?” What a foolish man.
Read it again. It implies the right to own children. To answer your questions Single parents–women have reproductive freedom to bear children or not. That is an individual right and the law of the land. Many of us do protest no fault divorce. But divorce which indeed damage children does not deny them a mother or a father so that is very faulty analogy–weasel.
M.M.: As a fellow admirer of the work of Maillol, I must respectfully point out that it is you who are confused on what a risk factor means. Or are you obfuscating and deflecting?
Why are you trying to introduce “causality” when I cite risk factors? Are you jumping to the incorrect conclusion that I attribute the ’cause” of higher CSA for male-male parenting to homosexuality?
Establishing any causality, as Democritus noted, is a rare feat for humans. But we don’t need to prove how cigarettes cause cancer or HPV virus subtypes cause cervical cancer to act—we just need really compelling, well measured risk factors based on very large datasets collected worldwide. It’s not empirical science, just applied math. Here are the data-based reasons / risk factors that establish CSA rates will be significantly higher in male-male parenting situations compared with traditional marriage:
1. 2-XY male caregivers each carrying a 10-fold higher risk to commit CSA based on all population level data compared with females;
2. Absence of protective factor of natural mother
3. Not an intact, traditional family structure
4. Typically involves other people’s children (step-children)
5. Male caregivers will have greater time-weighted intimate access to chilren alone
6. Male abuser as head of household increases the abuse incident rates across any given family; in other words, the 2-XY male-male parent risk is likely cooperative, not additive.
7. Measured higher promiscuity rates of male homosexuals suggest more unrelated, male adult intimates compared with traditional marriages
True that we don’t yet have enough documented victims of male-male parenting to confirm what every other study has shown worldwide and linked clearly to risk factors. But we have the wisdom that “two hours in the library can save years in the laboratory or field.” Moreover, in this case, it also can save tremendous human suffering for the child victims in the “experimental group” under custody of male-male homes.
Note: This is in response to your numbered reply of 6/27 9:10 am; your later post moves in my direction. I’d love to be wrong on the facts in this case, but you need to provide more than denial and obfuscation.
I know what a risk factor is. I also know the difference between causality and incidence. There’s more violent crime in African American communities than in caucasian communities, yet no proposal African Americans be barred from marriage or adoption.
There’s more violent crime, prostitution, drug use and abortion in America than in ANY western European country, that means a much higher risk factor, yet no proposal of barring Americans from adoption or procreation.
That’s the crux of the matter, you’re only interested in a risk factor if it applies to people in the lgbt community. That’s the textbook definition of discrimination.
Why dont we go by profession? I’m quite certain there are less abusers who are art-historians, than let’s say, pastors. Should we ban pastors from adoption? From marriage?
There are only two explanations for what you’re doing. One is you don’t understand how to read statistics; The other is intentional deception. Which is it?
There is no law that will be made by man that will deny the reality or truth found in/dictated by nature.
It happened to be LB (do the “B’s get to marry one of each- ya know, to be fully ‘equal’?) GTQ that sought to redefine marriage, and thereby, threaten the fitness of children, that triggered the blowback response from the opposition; but, it could have been anyone proposing anything other than the male-female monogamous life long pairing that optimizes offspring fitness and therefore, family, community, population and species fitness that bore the brunt of that blowback- again, it just happened to be LBGTQ. To reduce the debate to “you just hate me” demonstrates the immaturity of the SSM proponents argument. All those ‘other things’ that separate biological parents from their children is not being underwritten by society, or redefining marriage.
But, the SSM proponents and supporters got what they wanted, however ‘questionable’ the tactics they and their supporters deployed. It is now incumbent upon the opposition to respond, via legislation or other legal avenues (EO, future SCOTUS cases, Amendment, etc.).
Nature will not withstand such distortion of its laws anymore than it will withstand other insults, such as air and water pollution, abortion, euthanasia, strip mining, deforestation, and all the anthropogenic ills that man inflicts upon her. It is no more accurate to claim that Caitlyn Jenner is a female than to say that same sex individuals can marry- it is a total fraud perpetrated upon the individuals and communities involved, and on society, overall.
But, just as western civilization endured all the other polluting agents upon its environment in the name of progress- until the ‘stench’ got so bad action had to be taken- in the US legislation to clean up the soiled environment (CWA, CAA, ESA, etc.) or the soiled society (Civil Rights Acts, and the SCOTUS decisions turning back Dred Scott and Jim Crow, etc.) will be pursued, and so, this, too, shall pass.
The millennials are an interesting bunch. They seem poised to challenge Roe v. Wade soon. You see, once the science revealed the truth about the unborn embryo-fetus not “being just a bunch of lifeless in/subhuman cells” the ‘choice’ tide began to turn. Technological advances did not support that lie. And, abortion did not provide all the wondrous advancements and freedoms promised to (mostly poor and minority) women. All it really did was give men that much more ‘freedom’ to abuse women. And, redefining marriage will have the same negative fallout for women and children. The millennials are also well-connected to their environment. They understand nature, and how it can be distorted and maligned by technology- such as claiming that biological parents can be replaced by just about ‘anything’. You can’t be in tune with nature and ignore the biological facts that ensure the integrity of our species, and our society.
We’ve got our own very ‘Jurassic Park’ brewing up now. But, we should also remember that famous line; “Nature always finds a way….”. That line pertained to procreation – natural procreation. And, it was true. But, as frightening the concept of releasing extinct species into the current environment was, then, it isn’t as devastating as possibly forfeiting a generation or two of our children, and even a free society – which is what the risk is here and now.
Gay unions don’t separate parents from children. Mine certainly doesn’t. I’d be willing to pay NOT to have a child. Less than 1 in 10 gay people have children, and legal contracts between gay people have nothing to do with that.
You’re aiming at one window and shooting into another.
Is there a particular reason you’re dancing around O’Boyle’s argument? Seriously, every point you just listed does not directly counter any of his. You feeling alright? I’m not commenting as much as I use to, but I feel like you’ve changed with this last post.
Which part aren’t you getting? Risk factor is a generalized statement. Adoptions are about individual conditions. Each couple is studied based on their actual life rather than the alleged risk factors. There’s no dancing around that. What I explained to O’Boyle is the risk factor concept isn’t relevant on a system that works on a case by case basis.
I also explained that we can pinpoint risk factors in various groups in society. Certain socio-economic groups have a higher incidence of violence. Others have a higher incidence of alcoholism and so forth.
Why should risk factors as a general measure only be taken into account in cases of same sex unions? Do lesbians get an exclusion because they’re female? According to O’Boyle the risk is two males, so it would follow the children of a lesbian couple are at a lower risk of violence. If we go with that very simplistic reading of statistical analyses.
There will be measurable and observable changes in tactics of the LBGTQ and general secular-humanist agenda to crush western civilization as they march on toward execution of the final phases of their grand plan. The blood is in the water and the sharks will advance on their prey ever-more aggressively.
LBGTQ were ‘used’ (to be polite) to advance a greater and farer reaching world agenda- which is to eliminate Christianity (the foundation for western culture) from the dialogue (haven’t we all been so vigorously ‘advised’ that Christians are bigots?). So, LBGTQ will be continued to be used (mostly willingly) by all others intent on replacing a free capitalist system with secular-humanism socialism. Well, because, it’s doing so well in Europe, right?
Here’s the problem with the whole maghilla; the LBGTQ will be the very first victims of the bigger, far more nefarious actors behind them, and so generously funding them. And, they won’t have the Christians to turn to for help since they will have been sufficiently marginalized. The ‘supremacist’ ideology and tactics of today closely mirror all previous similar ideologies (list them at your will), and will lead to the same ends- an enslaved populace. It’s rather ironic that LBGTQ think they’ll get to sit atop that pyramid- what makes them think they’ll even be invited to the party-never mind host it?
I am not surprised that the Bigot is now being attacked by former ‘supporters’ and ‘friends’. She was ‘used’ when the marriage issue still hung in the air. Now that’s its settled, she needs to be sidelined now so that the s-h agenda can march on. What better way to sideline her than to lie about her and her position? Hasn’t this been the tactic used by the S-H’s all along?
But, not to be lost in the mess created by some humans is the biology. This won’t be the first time man will suffer enslavement- we have plenty of history (not open to revision) to source for lessons. While LBGTQ might envision themselves sitting atop the apex of that pyramid with the breeder class placed well below them (lets be honest, most LBGTQ aren’t interested in having or raising kids- they just need to control the population to keep the slave/servile class going), it will last no longer than anytime in the past because man does not sustain oppression well over time. The biology that drives the bonds between biological parents and their offspring and between all kin will topple that thoroughly unnatural pyramid.
It is the biological argument against the S-H agenda that frightens them most. S-H governance is antithetical to human fitness. Nature provides the answers to and solutions for all of mans ills. It’s this truth, that to this day, to which the secular in-humanists have no response.
That’s just crazy conspiracy theory talk. I can disagree with Katy, and that doesn’t mean I wish her any ill. I think some re-thinking is called for, and I’ve been telling her that for a good long while. Trying to stop legal gay unions has no effect whatsoever on people reproducing. The two issues are just not related.
Kennedy would disagree that marriage and kids are separate issues (read his opinion). And if you really believe that they are, might you present us with the letters and objections that you submitted to HRC, GLAAD, and COLAGe saying that they should not have included children in their arguments for SSM? Because they did a whole lot of it.
Okay, then please tell me how stopping gay unions stops lgbt people having children?
Do you think that elevating gay unions to the legal level of husband-wife unions will lead to more intentional motherlessness and fatherlessness?
I doubt it. I think having children is one of those things that’s either part of a person’s life plan (mindset) or it isn’t. It was never a real consideration for me. Not when I was in a heterosexual relationship and not now. No marriage contract would or could change that.
For the people for who that’s part of their mindset, they’ll find a way to do it.
I can give you a real-life example of a country like Spain (because I know the numbers). The population is just under 47 million. Gay marriage has been legal since 2005. By 2012 the total number of gay marriages was only 22,124. There was no significant impact in the number of gay families with children. The majority profile of the lgbt home with children in Spain is: Lesbian, middle class, unmarried, university education, with children from a previous relationship or by artificial insemination. They account for 73.2% of gay parents in Spain. That goes to show that marriage is by no means the variable that changes the situation.
The supporters who supported her still support her on this page, and those who were skeptical were still skeptical. Katy and I had personally talked, I told her (begged her) to change her focus, and just focus her energy on ART and try to make gay-friendly solutions to the gender parent issue, she refused. I told her that this late in the marriage equality campaign, no one was going to listen. I mean no offense, but prop8’s failure, the Ireland passing of the same-sex marriage legislation despite her speaking up should have foreshadowed what the United States was going to do next. furthermore, (and she still hasn’t answered) there are many, many, many holes in her stance on traditional marriage. Some of the COGs (like IMHO) already knew this was going to be a failure, and were hopping for the marriage equality bill to pass already so we can get to the real issues with children’s rights.
Pink: You’re going off the rails with these wild, unrelated stats about Christians, Americans, African-Americans and Pastors. Think clearly, not emotionally.
The XY males are the overwhelming perpetrators of CSA; by at least a factor of 10-fold. Males will also have comparably higher risk factor than the females to commit incest rape, and male head of household rapes will influence the risk factor for child rape by other males therein (partners, siblings). And the male step-fathers will rape their children at rates incalculably higher than the rates than will the biological mothers. The elevated risk to perpetrate applies to all XY– Europeans, atheists, art historians, and all the 8 categories of homosexual men you list on your website.
I’m not discriminating against LGBT and you know it. The much higher CSA rates will not apply to lesbian couples. I have posted three times that we need to discriminate against ALL male-male parents under same-sex adoption and SSM, not just homosexual ones. Please stop denying irrationally Pink. Use your network and creativity to put in place the due diligence, higher standards and, if necessary discrimination, to protect those kids before it is too late. We both know there are only a tiny, tiny fraction of gay men who want children. But we also have been around enough to know there are too many child predators out there– hetero and CHs.
Sorry, but that’s just silly and simplistic.
You can’t selectively apply risk factors.
You can only take your point forward if you have evidence of violence for gay males. All the statistics you mention will refer primordially to heterosexual males because they make up the vast majority of the sampling.
Sorry, but as of yet I haven’t heard the horror stories of the terribly violent gay interior designers, florists and hair dressers who are attacking their adopted children. In fact, I’ve got a feeling (and I say this from anecdotal evidence alone) that violence levels are significantly lower in the gay male population than in the heterosexual male population.
Pink: Sorry but I base my views on homosexual men in a less stereotyped way than does your post. I draw from the real word experience of knowing many homosexuals. Gay men are restricted to the “interior designers and florists” only in TV-land.
May I suggest you go to PubMed and enter the search terms homosexual and pedophile? Read the later papers first because you’ll find them less offensive; those are the ones that establish, depending upon the definitions of child sexual assault, an overlapping incidence rate with heterosexual men.
But with all the numbers you read Pink, please understand that they are only a fraction of the problem actually happening because many victims are not comfortable reporting CSA. Global estimates by WHO indicate that this is especially the case when boys are abused by men.
That’s another outrageous conflation. Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children. As secondary sexual characteristics are not present the gender is mostly irrelevant. The most important factor happens to be access. Hence priests, coaches et al tend to have access to victims of their same gender.
A homosexual is someone who’s attracted by same-ness. People with the same developed secondary sexual characteristics.
Trying to make those two very different things into one is rather outrageous.
And just so we’re very clear, beyond the point of questioning- the correct way to address the statistics in this particular case would be to go from the precise profile of the potential adoptive parents.
Who are the gay men who adopt? Age range? Professions? Financial status. My joking on hair dressers aside, I think you’ll find adoption isn’t free. The average adoption costs between $8,000 and $40,000. And people have to want it and put themselves through hoops to get there. That’s hardly the profile of the average abuser. Which means your own abuse of statistics is beyond the pale, and totally disregards the actual realities of the situation.
“Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children.”
Exhibit A: Josh Duggar
Pink: I am not conflating. Child sexual assault is perpetrated by adults against children including pre-adolescent children. Pedophilia is defined as sexual feelings toward children. I posted that the rates appear to be overlapping or the same in recent studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual males for pedophilia.
You posted the conflating statement “trying to make these two very different things into one.”
Speaking of priests, why not compare your own behavior right now to that shown by some members of the Catholic clergy a few years ago regarding CSA?
You are denying the higher risk factor and covering it up with gay stereotypes about benign “hairdressers,” or deflecting it by saying “look over there where there are bigger problems.” The approach of denial ended badly for the church and it may end badly for advocates of male-male parenting and adoption. Why not acknowledge the higher risk of two male parents and take the necessary precautions before the tragedy occurs?
I’m stating in no uncertain terms that your statements are false.
Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality can be ‘overlapped’ with paedophilia because we’re talking about entirely different attractions.
The paedophile is attracted to pre-pubescent children. Period.
And I’m not covering anything up. I’m talking about real-life situations. I noticed you ignored that concept. The profile of potential adoptive parents.
Not to mention you still haven’t recognized the fact that none of this has anything to do with same-sex unions. Single parent adoption is legal in much of the world- yet here you are throwing your mother and the kitchen sink at an irrelevant point.
You want to oppose adoptions by single men, or two men together? Have at it. That’s entirely irrelevant to two childless men who don’t have or want children but merit legal protections regarding rights, inheritance and so forth.
Pink: I’m not “having at” anybody. I’m happy if any two consenting adults can find monogamous love and marry their lives together.
My concern is with controlling some very specific well-known risk factors for same-sex parenting. I’d like to have society resolve or mitigate problems before damage is done.
I agree with your point partly that adoption decisions are based on individuals. But we must consider and weight population risk factors in making those individual decisions. And we must be honest about those risks with bio parents thinking about prospective adoptive parents.
I’m also interested in learning more about the individual experience of children raised by same-sex parents.
I think COGs are a scarce resource in understanding the relatively unknown risks and benefits of SSM. It does not mean that every experience they have must be extrapolated to all same-sex parents. But likewise we can’t deny those experiences or pretend that homosexuality somehow magically will protect against real risk factors.
I don’t think you genuinely are interested in learning more. You’ve formed an unsound opinion using faulty readings of risk factors- and then you go on to present that faulty reading as fact.
Disingenuous at best.
Holy concern trolling, Batman! God forbid not all 100% of gays will be 100% perfect parents! It’s so unheard of, that because we cannot be 200% certain that all will be OK, we should not let gays become legal kin!
OK, I would just like to know what’s your opinion on the following questions:
1. Is a kid living with two parents better off that with a single parent?
2. Is a kid living with two parents of same sex better off than with a single parent?
3. Is a kid living with two married parents better off than with two unmarried cohabitating parents?
4. Is a kid living with two married parents of same sex better off than with two unmarried cohabitating parents of same sex?
FyVa: Homosexual men are already recognized as legal kin and have been for years in the USA.
Marriage for anyone living outside the law school cubicle is not just about setting up a new “kinship relationship.” It has broader impacts on families and society. And it is inextricably linked as an institution to child welfare.
Your other questions are too vague to answer in general. Is the “troll” label supposed to be a denial of the established risk factors for CSA that I posted above regarding male-male experimental human parenting? Or is it more of a deflection?
>FyVa: Homosexual men are already recognized as legal kin and have been for years in the USA.
If two gay men are living together, are they recognized as legal kin? Answer: if their names are not David and Jason Benham, no, they’re not, not more than a girlfriend and a boyfriend. To make them legal kin, they can now marry.
“And it is inextricably linked as an institution to child welfare.” Can you enumerate all legal privileges of marriage related to child welfare? Compared to unmarried parents living together, what does marriage give them, regarding childrearing? Presumption of paternity. What else?
See also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
FyVa : “What else?” The right to divorce (no fault) which ipso facto affects the welfare of their children.
I think you actually misused “concern trolling” per the definition you later posted. But I do appreciate learning the new slang term.
“FyVa : “What else?” The right to divorce (no fault) which ipso facto affects the welfare of their children.”
I guess you don’t want to answer the question “how a divorce of married parents is worse than separation of unmarried cohabitating parents” because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. Also would I still like to know your opinion on these 4 questions:
1. Is a kid living with two parents better off that with a single parent?
2. Is a kid living with two parents of same sex better off than with a single parent?
3. Is a kid living with two married parents better off than with two unmarried cohabitating parents?
4. Is a kid living with two married parents of same sex better off than with two unmarried cohabitating parents of same sex?
So far it looks like for question 3 you would say that the kid is better with two unmarried parents, because they cannot divorce.
FyVa: I’m sorry. I would like to answer your vague questions but they seem rather speculative and almost like self-serving rhetoric?
It has been very difficult to establish any population risk factors for CSA globally. Cultures vary on how they treat victims and most experts believe that CSA is grossly under-reported.
We don’t have good population risk factors to objectively address your vague questions.
We do have rock solid global evidence tabulated by our own CDC or internationally by WHO that males have the ten-fold higher risk factor for CSA compared with females that I cite, as well as several other risk factors listed above in my earlier posts.
Come out of denial and deflection mode and admit that male-male parenting is an experimental procedure that will place children at higher risk, much higher than traditional marriage.
8%* of households in America are single-father homes. How does that risk factor play out for you?
“FyVa: I’m sorry. I would like to answer your vague questions but they seem rather speculative and almost like self-serving rhetoric?”
Yep 100%. Manipulative. They never ask anything but a manipulative question–ever. That was the whole mode of so many of our childhoods and young adulthoods and it simply not normal and is aggressive and forces children to either be constantly punished for non compliance or on the defensive. They do not deal in normal exchanges ever and they do not realize it.
Some COGs are seriously coming to the conclusion that decent group homes are a better option than forcing children into these homes. Add to that the ones that want children are the most problematic because they are often driven by personal issues and activism and ideology. So it is no surprise that the most damaged and angry COGs most harmed are seems to be the kids of activists.
And Ms. Fy Va: seems to imagine that she can assert the two parents is as good as a mother and father. I would assert a single mother is much better than a same sex household but they base the studies on money and superficial outcomes and net worth. The worst you are right are the male households and in those girls fare the worst. We need honest unbiased research. I have little doubt that the results of such research and the scales will fall from peoples eyes.
“Come out of denial and deflection mode and admit that male-male parenting is an experimental procedure that will place children at higher risk, much higher than traditional marriage.”
That she even dares advocates this speaks to her own cruel arrogance. What she is going to say 150 COGs are liars. People like her I wish I had a magic wand and could put her in the position she argues for children to be put in.
This is my last post on this blog. Sorry you lost. Goodbye forever.
And, the ‘sour grapes’ flip off is the emotional response, void of any logic, that typifies the radical (not all) LBGTQ and S-H (all) lobby and their agenda. “I got mine, screw you and yours’- isn’t that a great foundation upon which to build a moral, generous, productive and life-sustaining society?
Wouldn’t ‘that person’ make a great parent? Isn’t ‘that’ exactly what we all want raising the future generations for western civilization- at a time when our freedoms are at great risk of being lost?
The marriage debate has NOTHING to do with LBGTQ- open your ears and eyes and shut your whiney mouths long enough to absorb some truths. You’ve been ‘had’. You were used to hijack marriage away from its natural and/or traditional function, which was key (along with the First Amendment- also under assault) in securing the freedoms enjoyed in western civilization. You were used to turn our kids over to the state- a state that very well may become as hostile to LBGTQ in the near future as it is to Christianity, currently.
It isn’t conspiracy talk. Take your head out of the sand and look at your beloved Europe- it’s crumbling. And who is there to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? Russia? China? The new Caliphate being formed? Who will fight for Europe… France? Germany? You tell us – you seem to know everything. I can tell you this much- it won’t be North America or Oceana. You will suffer through a soft tyranny to (an)other authoritarian regime(s)- and I don’t see LBGTQ making out very well in that environment no matter how optimistic you foolishly claim to be.
The US and other western-based societies would do well to take the lessons out of Europe, including its redefinition of marriage- which has led to the import of the next generations of workers (rather Roman Empirish – isn’t it?) and a collapsing economy, never mind the social collapse, and reverse course- fast.
Seriously? You mean the British economic recovery (where gay marriage is legal), has something to do with the Greek financial disaster (where gay marriage isn’t legal)?
Crazy talk doesn’t really add anything to the discussion in any meaningful way. If I were you I’d consider talking to a doctor and explaining whatever it is you’re feeling or hearing.
Re: ZZ One fool gone–I say good. He was so tedious. Now the kids.
No need for that tone.
No one correlated gay marriage in Europe with their economic decline- you’re not as good at distorting others statements as your ego informs you.
The destruction of marriage is correlated with a decline in societies, by every metric. The destruction of free societies is correlated with a decline in standard of living and happiness, by every metric. Get yourself a calculator so you can add the 1+1, Boy Wizard.
You can’t dismiss the ‘crazy talk’ of biology being the foundation for the family, which is the foundation for the community which is the foundation for the population which is the foundation for society- a free society- such as western civilization. The ‘right’ biology ensures the fitness of the species. What is fit about homosexuality? Why in the world would any species or society support/incentivize/promote such an evolutionary dead-end? Let’s stop the nonsense- it is indisputable that species and societies thrive according to their reproductive fitness. You’re way out of your comfort zone here- you can’t distort these facts as easily as you manipulate theories in sociology or psychology.
You are a snob of the first order, and while others may feel the need to assist you with your overzealous self-grooming, the fact is that you still have no logical response to the natural, biological argument against gay ‘marriage’ (a phrase which now comes with a chuckle), nor the unholy alliance between the LBGTQ radical lobby and the S-H anarchist lobby…..do you? Do you deny the overlap and cooperation of these two groups?
And, now, you are showing your true colors to your ‘friend’- the Bigot. You used her to advance your own selfish and egotistical agenda, not the least of which was to pump up the numbers are your own “look at me and how marvelously wonderful I am” blog.
Tell us, Oh Mighty and Exalted Brain- what exactly IS IT that you have contributed to society? Aside from your feigned pomp and circumstance (so very overdone) and oh-so-proper breeding and exemplary manners (however hypocritical- must you actually bend down to consort with the lowly ones here – do you bend at the waist as taught by Madame?)- have you gotten your lily-white and callous-free hands dirty on the poor and disadvantaged? You have no interest in children, and I am willing to bet that your stated disinterest extends to your charitable donations (so little left over after all those braggadocio self-indulgences?), so, why should you weigh in, at all, on the justified concerns of others who put their money, might and muscle (aka “sacrifice”- look it up in the Oxford Dictionary) into children’s welfare?
There is one contribution to society you may have made: you educated the Bigot and others observing your ‘contributions’ here that you and others just like you are not trustworthy- your are the wolves in sheep’s clothing- the very worst of all traitors. And, as a result of your despicable and insincere behavior, you provided just that much more evidence that the COGs and others familiar with your radicalized community have been informing the world about, and its an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with love, and every thing to do with hate.
To O’B 28 June@2:33:
“Speaking of priests, why not compare your own behavior right now to that shown by some members of the Catholic clergy a few years ago regarding CSA?”
Speaking of Catholic clergy, the majority (near 90%) of the claimed (most settled out of court) abuse crimes committed by those (and all other Christian denominations) clergy were committed by pederasts, not pedophiles. These were practicing homosexual men who committed those same crimes both before and after taking their religious vows. I guess they didn’t understand that whole celibacy clause?
If I were advocating for SSA ‘parenting’ being as good for the children as natural, biological parenting, I’d probably stay far away from the Catholic clergy third rail-
O Boyle, Re: “I think COGs are a scarce resource in understanding the relatively unknown risks and benefits of SSM. It does not mean that every experience they have must be extrapolated to all same-sex parents. But likewise we can’t deny those experiences or pretend that homosexuality somehow magically will protect against real risk factors.”
I do not think we will be scares too much longer. Many more have been coming forward and now with marriage over I think that trend will pick up. Yes yes yes to the unknown risk factors. All the research has been dominated by self serving opportunistic careerist pandering to the LBGT adults–none of whom grew up in the monster community they created and under the oppressive distorted ideology. What we need to is to reframe the discussion as child centered and not focused and measured by upper middle class “out comes” compared to the kids of poor single mother. Yes on paper two wealthy white dads can make sure a kid gets higher than average SAT scores. In most of the studies they are looking for the key under the light and not where they dropped it. So I think that is really important because they do not know what they are looking for. The community the community the community has for the most part flown under the radar and isolating a kid in that does damage. It is like a cult of very manipulative people who have no boundaries, no respect for others and just live in this culture of lies they made up to serve them.
Again couples whether same sex or heterosexual and whether they get married has nothing to do with children. You oppose same sex couples raising children, that’s fine. But that has nothing to do with marriage. Not every married couple has a desire to become a parent.
As far as the right to children, that is driven by those people with children who outcast those who lack children. Those with children have created a social stigma in society that you are less valuable if you lack children. Until these stigmas change and childless couples and people are respected things will never change. That has nothing to do with same sex couples being able to marry.
Where and how are childless couples stigmatized in western civilization?
The reality- with evidence, is that couples with multiple children (usually exceeding three) are stigmatized and publicly humiliated.
Marriage evolved throughout multiple ‘higher’ species in Animalia from monogamy as the best possible structure in which humans should raise offspring. It just so happens that when two opposite sex persons ‘marry’, sans reproduction, it is also highly beneficial to the participating individuals (especially the male) as well as society. This is why advanced cultures incentivized marriage between opposite sex participants. There is no such data for SS unions- so far.
Childless couples are stigmatized in our society as being selfish materialistic people who don’t contribute to society.
gsmwc: Are you talking about married couples who are unable medically or biologically to produce children?
Or do you mean couples who marry and collect societal financial benefits that were established based on procreation, but then intentionally do not want to produce or raise children?
I know couples in both groups. I also know one married couple, intentionally infertile, who refuses to take any financial benefits (including on April 15) that are based on marriage. But I think that couple may be unusually honest.
SSM may reawaken the long-standing argument by single Americans, a growing majority, that it is unfair to tax them in order to transfer money into the pockets of any married couple. Why aren’t they correct if, as Justice Kennedy would have us believe, the broader societal interest in marriage is not linked to procreation and raising strong children?
I’m talking about childless by circumstance and choice couples. Circumstances meaning infertility and choice meaning not wanting children.
You do bring up a good point about single people getting the shaft. I think people with kids and to a lesser extent married childless couples get too many breaks at the expense of single people.
Do you claim that childless couples are beyond stigmatized, actually disadvantaged, in our society as a result of their childless status?
Do you think they are stigmatized similar to/more than couples with many/several children? They are certainly portrayed as irresponsible, gluttonous, ignorant and a drain on society by so-called ‘progressives’ (aka secular-humanists; well, until it comes to children, not so humanist, then). I haven’t come across the stigma attached to childless couples.
I suppose, if your overarching point is that all people and groups suffer some level of ‘inequality’ or ‘discrimination’ – I would agree.
There is no such thing as equality in nature. There is no such thing as ideology in nature. The laws of nature are clear (and perfect) – unlike our aberrant human redefinitions that oppose nature.
Which is why SCOTUS was permitted to deny the natural origins of, and redefine, marriage in such a way that only a few egotistical ideologues saw fit to do.
I haven’t seen people with large families stigmatized at all. So I’m not sure where that’s coming from.
The overpopulation chicken-little’s make life miserable for people with large families. They feel as though they have a right to make comments to mostly mothers (they aren’t usually brave enough to take on the Dads) with their >2.5 brood in tow, at supermarkets, at parks, at the beach, or just walking down the street.
Perhaps there’s a SCOTUS decision on the horizon to regulate family size. Bigger families, bigger carbon footprint. The kids gotta go. SCOTUS can use China as their bad precedent. Having a whole nation rather than just a few pretty bad US legal precedents could really win the day for them.
I think you are wrong. They specifically brought cases to SCOTUS that have to do with children. There is no right to other people’s children. Reproductive rights are individual and only extended to another consenting adult and this was self evident and only had exceptions in extreme medical situations. Now that LGBT set up breeding farms and baby mills in the 3rd world we can no longer assume two parents would be parenting together. Kennedy was flowery but murky. The decision luckily was based more on “due process” rather than “equal protection”. Also given some recent cases about EP the rights of the child to their biological mother and father have been asserted.
” Also given some recent cases about EP the rights of the child to their biological mother and father have been asserted.”
Confused, could you further explain?
I think this SCOTUS decision could go very well if issues are addressed carefully. If enough kids of LGTB people speak up about their right to know their biological heritage making it clear how this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and do this with adoptee right activists, and cryo rights activists, we could have a ‘heritage equality’ movement underway. I’ve been googling around. There is a MTV show called ‘Swab Stories’ with kids of donor-conception looking for their half-siblings, there are documentaries in the mainstream that has the liberal youth questioning surrogacy, and there are liberals raising questions about the reproduction industry. If COGs Adoptees and DC offspring started unifying, and do not stand as a threat to the LGTB marriage movement, those who seek to the right to know their biological parents stand a greater chance of receiving support. If they try to relate their suffering to the oppression of LGTB people, they will stand a even greater chance being heard and having their opinions respected.
HOWEVER, (no offense Katy) if they continue to tie ‘heritage equality’ with the traditional marriage movement, then their entire efforts will be associated with anti-LGTB fanatics, at this point.
That’s my take. The issue right now is getting enough kids to speak. If everyone takes the mentality of “other people will do it”, we won’t get anywhere. Its why we haven’t gotten anywhere so far.
Lets the games of division and destruction (as was intended) begin:
And, while we’re distracted by even more internal divisions, heads, literally, are rolling oversees as a result of another warped ideology that operates in direct opposition to nature, and biology.
A divided nation will not be able to stand against these combined forces, internal and external, that threaten all of our freedoms (LBGTQ included).
It took only two generations to dumb us down just enough to pit us against each other.
That’s what the illogic of ‘secular- humanist’ ideology got us.
Thanks for posting the article on single father custody Pink. It would make an interesting blog topic.
Fathers raising the kids after the loss of a mother has been going on for thousands of years. But I agree it is relatively experimental for courts to take so many children, especially small children, away from their living bio-mother and award custody to the bio-father. The explosion of kids in these difficult situations during the past 15 years is a direct function of divorce rates. Loss of mother by divorce is probably only second to death of a parent from a child’s perspective, but I suppose it is necessary in exceptional cases.
On a positive note, many of these bio-fathers awarded “custody” of their own children because of divorce are actually sharing custody with the bio-mother. Significant fraction of the single bio-fathers also will remarry thereby re-creating a more traditional family. Of course, divorce itself is a significant risk factor for another divorce.
Was your question rhetorical? I think you can walk through the CSA population-level risk factors posted and see that single bio-father homes are at lower risk than are SS male-male arrangement.
Made a full response to this blog post –> https://cornerofalternativethought.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/political-commentary-why-gay-marriage-has-very-little-to-do-with-childrens-rights/
Miss A O, Why gay marriage has very little to do with children’s rights. Yes–Because a a gay person says so. Well because I say is not what those of raised in LGBT are very likely to buy. We kinda know how that game works. Just remember adults have NO RIGHT to other peoples children and only their own body reproductive rights. It isn’t that we do not understand you it is that we don’t believe you. And we know how bad it is to grow up in same sex homes in the LGBT community.
Did you actually read what I wrote, IMHO? Also, we’ve discussed in email that you didn’t think that gay marriage played that much of a role in children’s rights. Now I’m confused on your position.
Everyone that does not agree with you is a homophobe. How do you square the COGs then? Are we homophobes? I mean remember that whole song and dance if people got to know LGBT people they would be so accepting them–well that did not work (unless they have very limited exposure) so well for many of us who were forced to grow up under the rule of LGBT.
I don’t recall ever saying that whoever doesn’t agree with me is a homophobe.
I read the court opinion and while it was mostly based on “due process” rather than “discrimination” There is now there is a concerted push–6 states have cases in the courts that involve children. LBGT is not good for women or children–they are not humanitarians. They are ridding rough shod over poor women–the whole junkie whore bad mother legend they peddle for adoption and the poor heterosexual women who loves them so much she want to help them have a baby. They should give up trying to get other peoples kids and wombs. No other group has ever demanded society provide them other live humans. The are seeking to create certificates of lies that they want to pass as birth certificates. Think about what kind of distortion this requires and sense of entitlement and then imagine people that distorted with a kid.
Please read the post I made. The issues you listed as just as applicable in the straight community as well. Its neither a gay or straight issue, its a children’s rights issue.
Miss AO: Thanks. I read your blog. It was witty. The page is colorful too.
Your math stats are reasonable guesses, although you minimize with a percent total US pop., and actually predict tens of thousands of consenting children may be exposed to a deliberate societal experiment of same sex parenting before we have another generation reach independent adulthood going forward.
Then there is the globally strong influence that USA social policy and media has exerted on its cultural satellites– placing more children at risk for the predictably higher CSA rates of male-male SS parenting.
Do you recall the words of Elie Wiesel? I think SCOTUS has the power to violate children’s human rights but we have the responsibility to protest. What percentage of human adults are in slavery today? It is tiny but it matters.
My first concern is with male-male parent households. We are experimenting as a society with the well being of unconsenting children and that violates their human rights. Please consider them in your analysis.
22% of 1.7% and a google calculator. If you have any concerns please just leave responses on my actual blog page. I wrote nothing about male-male experimental parenting. Please check again.
Pay no attention to O’B.
“Then there is the globally strong influence that USA social policy and media has exerted on its cultural satellites– placing more children at risk for the predictably higher CSA rates of male-male SS parenting.”
This is called “concern trolling” – coming with made up concerns to pretend he cares, while he’s just a homophobe.
The sad thing is in some aspects I agree with him. I’m a big supporter of people’s right to know their biological heritage, (including both adoptees and children of sperm donors), I just understand how these issues have nothing to do with gay marriage but faulty government. That was the point of the blog post. I hope others read it and pic that up.
FyVa. Your last post is libel.
I enjoyed Miss AOs post and her percentages are reasonable. But presenting them as a function of total pop. inadvertently makes them seem small. We speak of many thousands of human lives.
Like Miss, I have followed the legal moat being built around the same sex parenting before SSM. I also found the whole “civil union” argument specious.
But it is dangerous to compartmentalize marriage from child welfare, and quite inconsistent with the experience of real children. SSM will impact children’s human rights. It will have an impact on adoption agencies and others. It also nationalized a new standing for same sex parenting, which is an uncontrolled human experiment involving children subjects.
Once again, FyVa, you misuse “concern trolling.” Please read the definition you posted. CT is not synonymous with expressing a concern, even one you disagree with.
So much ‘trans-ing’ going on here, hard to keep up. Have we ‘lost’ CandyGurl2013 and ‘picked up’ Miss Alternative Opinion?
How’d we go from ensuring marriage remains as the foremost institution, ‘run by’ that marriages’ opposite sex lifelong bonded spouses to secure the fitness of that marriages productivity- its’ offspring, to advocating for state-issued permits being required to bear or raise children, in only three short days since the SCOTUS decision? But…but, we were told, promised, that redefining marriage would have no adverse affect on children, or society? Of course the ‘no affect’ argument ignored the reality that the mere act of redefining marriage to accommodate LBGTQ left the newly defined ‘marriage’ open to all other redefinitions (why not?), that will also surely adversely affect children- who, remember now, were historically, typically, usually raised within the confines of the [former] natural institution. I wonder if government will redefine any other natural, biological structures- such as ‘human’ (oh, never mind, we had that already with Roe V Wade). Babies were swapped out for adult ‘choice’. So far, our government doesn’t have the greatest record on looking out for the kiddies!
Yeah, so, about ‘spanking’: “… birds do it, bees do it, even monkeys in the trees do it…”. Controlled, purposed and deliberate spanking is a perfectly acceptable mode of reprimand for offspring and it is wholly different than child abuse- which runs the gamut from excessive, pointless, destructive and intentionally cruel emotional to physical abuse. Only parents, preferably the biological parents with the highest investment in their offspring, should ever get to administer any punishment. It is perfectly natural and acceptable to spank or strike a child. We don’t need flawed and politicized, and otherwise biased humans or their house-of-cards institutions, to tell us how to correct our offspring- just observe any parents of any mammal or bird species and you will see physical correction regularly employed- for the benefit of the offspring, never as a result of impatience or cruelty by the parent (don’t bombard and bore us with those few examples of aberrant behavior in species that cannibalize their young).
Vaccinations for everybody, everywhere, all the time? Ever hear of vaccinosis? Unless you work with animals (multiple species) on a regular basis- you may not be aware of the raging debate in veterinary medicine. It’s real, its deadly, and, to date, the human medical institutions, including those within the US government, don’t want you to know too much about it. They play the numbers game- its better to lose a few hundred or thousand here and there from vaccinosis, than suffer a disease outbreak (just too expensive, bad PR). Unless you are in a high risk category or geographic area- restrict all vaccinations to the bare minimum. And, only the parents should ever make that decision, in consult with their own private MD (not gov’t).
Keep government, all governments, as far out of your life as possible. Only government ever becomes tyrannical- even one as well-constructed and balanced (albeit, recently abused) as ours.
You nailed it!! God bless you.
Pink: Your assertion that SSM is unrelated to the spread of same sex parenting appears inconsistent with the facts. We can look at Western Europe or the USA. Here is a US news report written from a pro SSM perspective :
Can you imagine the outroar if tens of thousands of children were given an experimental medical treatment with no clear benefit all at once?
Experimental devices and medical treatments are only given with a fully informed consent and the testing is done in gradual phases; the first phase might be 20 carefully selected and monitored families and we would not move to the second phase until the data had been fully analyzed and the experimental approach shown to be safe and effective. That can take decades to be phased-in properly for an experimental situation that last as long as male-male parenting.
Shortcuts to experimental treatments that may seriously impact children resulted in the European thalidomide tragedy and 10-20,000 children with terrible birth defects. Advertising played a major role as well. Of course, if one minimizes by expressing those poor kids as percentage of the total population it was “‘ ‘only’ about 0.00…X%…” Thank God the US FDA did not look the other way in that case.
Too many good people are in denial about experimental male-male parenting. Or confounding it as a national referendum or loyalty test on homosexuality, which it certainly is not.
The real numbers don’t bear out your argument. Did you find the numbers I gave Katy difficult to absorb? Gay marriage has been legal in Spain for more than a decade. By 2012 there had only been 22 thousand marriages (in a population of 47 million). Meanwhile the majority profile for gay parent homes (between 72 & 78%) is: Single, lesbian, middle class, university education. The operative word there is single.
That means that what you’re actually doing is perverting the facts to insert anti-gay animus into the discussion. You’re creating a fake scenario, intentionally or not, and then using the fraud you created to attack people.
And your fraud doesn’t stop there, you take it further- because your false presumption relies on the also false assumption that ‘every’ gay adoption (few as they are) is going to end in abuse and disaster.
And that’s why what you’re doing, and other people commenting here are doing is deceptive, dishonest and to be honest, disgusting.
“…deceptive, dishonest….and….disgusting…” is what we all watched you do to your ‘friend’ Katy when you personally attacked her, her family and her church. It’s also what you do to all Christians and anybody else with whom you disagree.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, such a very bad boy.
Biology. Got some?
Yes, I’ve got a whole lot of biology. Apparently all you have is religion.
A second ago weren’t you denying you were a Christian? Did you have a revelation between the last comment and this one?
Please cite anywhere in any of my comments where I claim to be Christian or refer to or use a religious argument to support my strictly biological argument against SSM and parenting?
To save ATB readers the trouble of waiting for you to fabulously fail, you cant- because I have not and am not using a religious argument- of any religion, in my biological argument. I clearly defend Judeo-Christianity as the philosophy that permitted and promoted the establishment of the greatest culture and environment ever witnessed to secure and improve the fitness of humans.
Let’s get back to you- because what you like to do is distort your oppositions views- its the only chance you have of ever appearing to win a debate; 2 separate questions: why do you despise Christianity? And why do you deny the reality of biology that does not support SSM or parenting?
As you repeatedly call those with whom you disagree nasty names and belittle their intellect, faith, philosophy and logic, you happen to be displaying an incredible inability to read or comprehend. or, you are displaying a incredibly wicked dishonesty. Which is it?
All your arguments are infused with Christianity and conspiracy theories.
I despise ignorance and authoritarian regimes, monotheism being a promoter of both.
There’s no biological argument against same sex unions. There could possibly be one against same sex parenting, but no coherent one is made here.
And let’s no play games. You’re the one who is putting forward the ridiculous notion that you defend judeo-christianity, but don’t believe in it. Do you know how idiotic that sounds? It’s like saying you don’t believe in Islam but women should wear veils. You know, for scientific reasons because it protects them from skin cancer. The only person you deceive with that little charade is yourself.
“All your arguments are infused with Christianity and conspiracy theories.”
All my arguments are infused with and dependent upon logic, based in the reality of nature- biology, physics and chemistry, specifically- not religion. That some religions may correlate with nature is not my problem, but, apparently it is yours.
What conspiracy theories?
“I despise ignorance and authoritarian regimes, monotheism being a promoter of both.”
Judeo-Christianity led to western civilization; remind me, isn’t Spain part of that culture – a culture that provided more freedom and the fittest environment for humans than anytime before, or since?
Please provide an example of a superior (from a human fitness perspective) non-monotheistic (pagan, atheist, etc.) system?
“There’s no biological argument against same sex unions”.
Define “union”. Nature abounds with same sex cooperation, usually associated with opposite sex mating or offspring rearing. Nature does not abound with same sex sexual unions.
“There could possibly be one against same sex parenting, but no coherent one is made here.”
Nature, biology, is the coherent argument against same sex parenting. Parents should have contributed the genetic material to their offspring to optimize their investment in securing the survival of that offspring. It all collapses down to fitness- for the family up through the society. That’s the most logical coherent argument against same sex parenting. It isn’t religious, it isn’t cultural (bigotry, hatred, phobic), it is based in the beauty and logic of nature. You just don’t like it.
“And let’s no play games. You’re the one who is putting forward the ridiculous notion that you defend judeo-christianity, but don’t believe in it.”
I never said whether I “believe in it” or not- by belief in a religion, or not, has no bearing on my biological argument. I said, repeatedly, that from a purely biological perspective, Judeo-Christianity has provided the fittest environment for humans. Religion is comprised of both natural, based in philosophy, and supernatural belief systems or components that are based in the acceptance of some divine nature. I can rationalize the philosophical underpinnings of Judeo-Christianity without invoking or accepting the divinity claims of the religion.
“Do you know how idiotic that sounds?”
Well, aside from your inclination to criticize what you either don’t understand or what you purposefully distort to create your ‘strawman’- do you wish you could take that statement back in light of my response above?
“It’s like saying you don’t believe in Islam but women should wear veils.”
I don’t have to ‘believe’ in the religious tenets of Islam to have an appreciation for the non-‘divinic’ elements of a religion, or a philosophical, legal and government system- as is the case with Islam. For the record, I oppose any system, religious or otherwise, that unjustifiably oppresses any human being.
“You know, for scientific reasons because it protects them from skin cancer.”
Well, it may actually have the unintended consequence of doing so, but, that is not the intent, either legally or divinically- it is meant to be oppressive, therefore it is bad.
“The only person you deceive with that little charade is yourself.”
See every response above.
Please, define, explain the charade that I am perpetrating?
Divinically? Seriously? I love it when people give the game away.
Is it divine in a non religious way?
Jae seems to be an attention-seeking internet troll. Its best to just ignore him at this point and let him ramble on like the desperate coward he is. If you ignore his stupidity that gives you more power. I’ve offered this advice to another user and it worked wonders. Just stop responding and allow him to think that he won. I’m sure angrily arguing with strangers on the internet with a alias is probably the most he’ll ever achieve in life.
Idk what it is, but it doesn’t make Jae look like he knows much of what he’s actually talking about. Poor, kid. He’s probably very confused. I wonder if he’s ten. 😕
Did you miss yesterday’s exchange? Absolutely hilarious. The bit about taxes. Doesn’t everyone have to fill out a tax return in America? Here it’s obligatory. Everyone needs to know the difference between a tax exemption and a tax credit.
He probably doesn’t know the difference. With him its all about finding biological (?) reasons to hate gays, by scientifically putting science and divinity in the same sentence. 🙄
That wonderful answer at the bottom of the page- to someone who emailed you. What was that about? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.
IMHO called me rude for the responses I was making to her assertions. Those assertions included that all gay people are part of a cult who’s goals are to exploit women and children, transwomen are pretending to be women and are doing ‘lady face’ (which is ‘black face’) in order to oppress and murder women, and that LGTB people are the only ones who use and promote surrogacy.
In essence, I told her that calling transwomen ‘men who are just pretending to be women to oppress other women’ can come across very insulting to the trans* community. Blaming LGTB people for ART, is not fair as it is mostly straight people who use this technology. And that a lot of her assertions can affect her image (and many other COGs) in a very negative way.
btw, don’t you just love the word ‘divinically’? I think it means: something divine from California 😀
“Divinically? Seriously? I love it when people give the game away.”
Have a response? No? Point conceded by you.
“Is it divine in a non religious way?”
Another clear example of your lack of comprehension, and/or your dishonesty. No response? Point conceded by you.
Have you hit puberty, emotionally or intellectually, yet, there Pete Pan. “LOL”- really? Point conceded simply because your emotional IQ is severely underdeveloped.
These exercises aren’t meant to convince you or your fellow fact-deniers of anything. You are already lost. But, for the ATB on-lookers, you provide the best example of why your advocacy is based upon nothing but lies and distortions of all and any truths. The fact is that the radical LBGTQ lobby, and many of your non-LBGTQ cohorts have absolutely no logical foundation upon which to demand your ‘wants’ from the productive and logical segment of society You are driven by a sick ideology that is defined by pure selfishness and narcissism all wrapped up in lies, and for which no good outcome for society is intended.
You’re really kinda, sorta ‘busted’-in public.
That is the response. You’re a shameless liar trying to pass yourself off as someone interested in biology and then using the word ‘divinically’ which is religious trite and exposes what you’re actually doing- which seems to be very popular around here.
Oh, would I love to be a dung beetle in the pile of PM sh&% flying between Mao and PinkThing as they deploy an embarrassingly transparent tactic dreamed up in middle school.
They must be good at ‘something’, so you would think they could put their oversized heads (not necessarily indicative of brain size) together to come up with one logical response to the biological argument against SSM and parenting.
This ought to be fun to watch.
Pink: I have no animus for gay or homosexual people. In all of my posts, and I’ll repeat it again, my concern is with the risk factors for experimental male-male parenting. It is not about whether those male parents are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or questioning. SSM will not discriminate at the County courthouse based on a man’s sexual preference.
Nothing I have posted is against my homosexual or LGBT friends, colleagues and intimates. Taking care of friends matters to me Pink.
SSM is a factor that will increase the expanding number of children placed unwillingly into experimental male-male parent custody. Arguing that the absolute number of kids put at higher risk intentionally is “small” as a fraction of total kids does nothing to protect those specific kids at risk. Placing children into experimental setups that, by design, deny them a biological mother without proper controls and higher due diligence violates human rights.
You suggested better parent education in an earlier post –I agree. Why not help to educate same-sex parents on their higher risk factors? Let’s discuss it when you’re in a better mood.
Do you know the song José by Dolores Keane?
You’re not helping educate anyone. You’re playing with fear-mongering. No mention in your comments of the considerably larger (8 times larger) percentage of single father households. That’s professional thimblerig.
Pink: I replied to your point on single-parent fathers yesterday in a post (June 29@12:43).
Perhaps if you stop changing the subject away from the higher population risk factors of male-male parenting then our conversation would seem less like thimblerig?
How do you think we can mitigate or address those risk factors I posted (June 27@1100) to protect individual children better?
I’ve answered your question time after time. The alleged risk factor is a red herring because being incidence and causality are different things. Being male doesn’t lead automatically to violence. You know how you mitigate ANY risk factor in an adoption? You treat adoption as a case by case basis exactly as is done already. You investigate the background, temperament, lifestyle and personality of the potential parents. If that’s done even Catholics can adopt without the risk factor of having children abused by priests.
It was a fraud when you did it before and it’s still fraud now. All you’re doing is polluting the debate with selective, ignorant and incorrect readings of statistics. That is the essence of discrimination. Ignore every risk factor except one that applies to a group you hope to vilify.
The higher population risk factors apply to male-male SS adoption, regardless of parent’s orientation. The “vilification” is being done by Pink, perhaps unintentionally, each time he mistakenly projects that they “only” apply to gays.
Pink also confounds a population risk factor with causality, or contorts it to somehow mean “every ” couple will experience the worst outcome.That is incorrect. Not all smokers will develop lung cancer.
We are both opposed to vilifying minorities Pink. Perhaps Justice Alito captured what is wrong with your biased assumption that SSM will not affect individual adoption decisions : “Today’s decision… will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”
Do you know the Dolores Keane song?
You’re creating the implication. If causality doesn’t apply because individual cases will be studied on their own merits then your point is moot.
“All you’re doing is polluting the debate with selective, ignorant and incorrect readings of statistics. That is the essence of discrimination. Ignore every risk factor except one that applies to a group you hope to vilify”
Gee, that sounds familiar, hmmm? Oh yes, there it is- it’s the claim that all those who oppose SSM/parenting based upon nature/biology, or those who claim religious opposition, are vilified by using selective, ignorant and incorrect reading of statistics. Its claiming that the monotheistic cultures are always authoritarian or otherwise unfit for humans- but, especially those Christians.
Got it, now. Thanks!
You don’t know the first thing about nature. Nor do you care about biology or science. Fanatical believers disregard evidence.
People interested in either don’t tie themselves to archaic and ignorant superstitions.
“You don’t know the first thing about nature. Nor do you care about biology or science”
Really? Then, why cant you refute any of my biological (factual- not open to misinterpretation or distortion) claims? You flamed out in your last failed attempt to refute the argument. Forget ‘who’ is presenting these facts of nature (biology, science), provide a response to the argument.
” Fanatical believers disregard evidence.”
Do you meant the sort of “fanatical believers’ that refute science, nature and biology- just chock-full of evidence? See above – respond, please.
” People interested in either don’t tie themselves to archaic and ignorant superstitions”
Are you claiming that the laws of nature, science and biology are ‘archaic and ignorant superstitions’?
You’re contorting yourself into an illogical pretzel figure, again. You may have to rely on one of those merciful Christians to unravel your illogic, again.
I am an adherent of nature. Nature is merciless in it’s efficiency, and it’s finality. No ‘lifeline’ coming from me-
There are 74 studies that support gay parenting, four that do not. Do you understand where science stands on the issue?
The medical/scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a natural variation of the human being. That’s science. That’s biology.
Fraudsters like you disregard all of that and claim it’s all a conspiracy theory to destroy your religion.
Then you turn around and claim to have the “one real study” that counts. It’s ridiculous.
“That is the response. You’re a shameless liar trying to pass yourself off as someone interested in biology and then using the word ‘divinically’ which is religious trite and exposes what you’re actually doing- which seems to be very popular around here”
You’re getting really sloppy. Which is what happens when emotions (illogical) swamp reason.
No response to the biological, scientific, natural logical argument against SSM and parenting. Noted.
What I am or am not has nothing to do with my argument. Stop worrying about who or what I am, and respond to ‘the’ argument- its a ‘thing’, not a ‘who”.
Taking a word, any word, but, let’s use “divinically”, out of the context of its sentence, phrase, paragraph or reasoned position is about as dishonest as any regular purveyor of language distortion can get. You just used the same word, shall I claim that you are religious? When you use the word “Christian” shall I conclude that you are one? The idiocy of your logic is suffocating.
But, this is your only defense tactic. The tactic is never to respond to any of your oppositions claims, but, only to distort their statements enough so that you can appear to be responding, and winning the debate. Don’t you realize that all of these comments are still documented and recoverable and can easily be verified by all of us?
This is why IMHOs and other COGs testimony regarding being raised in such an unhealthy (hostile to thriving) environment as being the worst kind of child abuse is so critical to the discussion-which is also why you keep trying to shut her down with claims of her being ‘crazy’. She’s as ‘crazy’ as is the biological argument against SSM/parenting. While some of you oppose corporal punishment for a child, you simultaneously promote the worst kind of abuse- which is emotional abuse. Promoting the separation of a child from its biological parents (and every benefit that goes with that natural family setting) in order that the child can serve as property for ‘another’ is the height of abuse. Any kid would rather get a slap on the ass than be separated from their natural parents and then emotionally and psychologically manipulated and abused into submission to an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle.
You are incapable of responding to any logical argument against SSM or parenting because you have no such argument. That is why you needed to jury-rig the decision you sought by using the very same distortions in logic presented to SCOTUS. The LBGTQ vipers knew exactly how and when to ‘strike” that highly flawed institution in order to inject their venomous redefinition of marriage into society.
Here’s the probable outcome your happy band of nitwits didn’t think through due to your innate short-sightedness- its called blowback (aka boomerang effect). While most of you may have individually moved on, the next generation of LBGTQ will assuredly be burdened with the fallout of the unnatural environment you forced upon those children. Instead of only a ‘few’ COGs, there will be thousands, or more, to make you account for the incredible injustice done to them. How do you envision that playing out?
You cant rewrite, rewire or dictate to nature. If you knew anything about it at all- you would know that much.
Perhaps, you need to get out into the real world, occasionally.
“There are 74 studies that support gay parenting, four that do not. Do you understand where science stands on the issue?”
Psychological and social “sciences’ (including political science)- the “soft” sciences called so for their malleability (biases) introduced by humans, are incapable of concluding much of anything about human behavior. They are no more reliable sources to cite than are legal decisions similarly corrupted by human biases. Early on in this debate I made a decision, which I declared here at ATB, not include any of those disciplines (not sciences anymore than politics is a ‘science) studies, pro or con, re: SSM and parenting. So far as I am concerned, they must cancel each other out. The investigators involved in these studies are too compromised (politically, financially, ideologically motivated) to eliminate their biases.
You can’t answer the biological science question with any social or psychological study argument. I never proposed to debate the social studies any more than I proposed to debate the legalities of the issue. Give me some hard facts founded in biology (nature) and as confirmed by rigorous scientific validation. Your shell game won’t work on me.
“The medical/scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a natural variation of the human being. That’s science. That’s biology.”
No, its not. The biology of/in nature, unmalleable by humans, dictates that homosexuality is an anomaly, to be considered aberrant; in nature- that makes it unnatural. Politics and ideology forced the medical community (ideologically and politically motivated psychologists and psychiatrists) to reject the facts of the hard (unmalleable) science. No trait or behavior that occurs in only 1.6% of the total population is ever considered “normal”- not ever. No trait that results in the unfitness of, or must conclude with the extinction of the species is ever considered “normal”. Removing homosexuality from the list of disorders from the DSM back in 1973 was a political decision (as are far too many medical decisions), not a medical determination founded in any science. It was no less socially-politically motivated than the recent SCOTUS decision.
Biology, as expressed in/under natural conditions, is unmalleable. We have eons of data to draw firm conclusions that even ideology or politics are incapable of corrupting There is no doubt but that human interpretation via direct in situ or experimental observation has sought to politicize conclusions (as has happened with many male v. female observations suffering anthropogenic interpretation bias), but, the fact that nature, expressed via its biology is observable to all, largely and easily flushes out those biases.
You need to provide examples of fitness regarding the biology and evolution of those species found within Animalia. It is from this source that we have taken our cues to determine our species fitness, and the human condition, overall.
“Fraudsters like you disregard all of that and claim it’s all a conspiracy theory to destroy your religion.
Then you turn around and claim to have the “one real study” that counts. It’s ridiculous.”
I have made no statements about “my religion”, please provide a citation to support that claim. Please provide a citation to any claim I made that referenced “one real study”.
So far, what is ridiculous are your feeble attempts to defend the indefensible. The conundrum you’ve gotten yourself into is that there is no biology, based in nature (‘gay’ penguins in zoos don’t count), that supports the practice (an outcome of the individuals choice- not a genetic mandate) of homosexuality as a ‘good’ for the individual, or the species.
Pink: I think this may be the source of your confusion. We do make individual decisions or choices in life based on population risk factors.
Whether it is choosing not to smoke, choosing not to drive after drinking, choosing to limit numbers of sexual partners because of the HPV or other STD risk, etc. We use population risk factors every time we get into the car and put on a seatbelt, or elect to take a vaccine for a few HPV subtypes. Warning about these elevated risk factors does not mean that everyone who drives without a seatbelt is going to die in a horrible accident. But one step to understanding the right choices and the wrong choices is gathering information, and population risk factors like those posted above for CSA are an important source of information.
Establishing causality is much more difficult and, as I pointed out earlier, a rare feat for human beings in complex systems like biology or behavior. But I don’t need to know how HIV causes death at the molecular level to identify its clear population risk factors, or to take appropriate action.
Did you see that? “Where is your proof?” Hahahah. Yeah that is the level. They actually think that they can obscure and reframe all the horrific things they have done and that none of it is documented and noticed. Their motto “a lie stuck to is as good as the truth.” Then they flood the media with fake studies that get proven bogus. People are growing increasingly wary and now marriage is over very few people are going to be put their careers or reputations on the line to do very large damage to 3rd and 4th parties who are being forced to role play in the LGBT fantasy family. They got their marriage between two people. They have not been promised the ability to purchase other humans. So many countries are seeing them as predatory in their attempts to use women and buy babies that they have been banned from India, Thailand, Russia and several African countries. I really think that it will be a sea change when it comes to children.
This is going to get real interesting, real soon.
I wonder if GLAAD and HRC will show up to this little party?
Meanwhile, NYT refuses to publish cartoon pics of Ol’ Mo’ that led to a radical Muslim attack in Paris, and then again in Texas (actual, real news), while agreeing to publish a piece on ‘art’ depicting Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI covered in condoms. They just loved the “Virgin Mary in Elephant Dung” and “Piss Christ”, too.
Hmm, I’m not getting the difference in ‘not wanting to unnecessarily offend a religion” excuse, there- maybe one of the ‘big head/little brains’ duo can help us out?
I suppose religion is only bad if it’s the Judeo-Christian religion.
I do get the LBGTQ tolerance of Islam- it’s all about keeping your head or making sure you’re not boiled alive. After all, the spineless S-H lobby is not known for either its principles, or its bravery-
“Jae seems to be an attention-seeking internet troll. Its best to just ignore him at this point and let him ramble on like the desperate coward he is. If you ignore his stupidity that gives you more power. I’ve offered this advice to another user and it worked wonders. Just stop responding and allow him to think that he won. I’m sure angrily arguing with strangers on the internet with a alias is probably the most he’ll ever achieve in life”
Yet, you keep referencing me- how odd?
Then, you continued to brow-beat IMHO, a victim of LBGTQ abuse (would you be so understanding, merciful and supportive of a rape victim?) by citing her pm (clue: there’s a reason its called “private”) to you, and then disowning her in view of ATB readers. How very humane.
Speaking of attention-seeking- how’s that ‘Oh, its just all about me and my wonderful and ‘alternative insights’ blog going? Here’s another clue for you; blogging on controversial topics may have the intended consequence of eliciting some “unpleasantness”. Kind of like when you turned on your bud here, the Bigot, by lying and distorting her statements and convictions, as you so eagerly jumped on the Pink-guys hate wagon tirade against her and her family. Its how you deal with dissention that separates the men from the boys (or the unicorns from the horses in your ‘magical’ world).
Let me accurately define for you exactly what it is about me that drives you so stupidly insane; you cant pigeon-hole me like you do so many others. You don’t know anything about me, I’ve shared no personal information upon which you can hitch your slimy tactics to personally vilify me, as you do others of your opposition. Well, doesn’t that just really suck for you. Suck it up.
Consider my anonymity, and my reluctance to be moved off my position (got any biology in that bag of dirty tricks of yours?), a gift from me to you – in honor of your new venture. You do realize that you’re likely to have to disagree with comments and commenters, occassionally; although, I suppose, given your propensity to betray your friends and so readily discard commenters, publicly (how very brave), you may run out of visitors to your blog and have to pack up shop. On the other hand, you could always keep manufacturing different names for yourself- at least that way, you might be assured of actually winning an argument, with yourself.
Oh, I may have missed it (only human!), what is your real name?
Proof that they think adoption and surrogacy are part of the “wedding package. ” NJ governor Christie Vetoed the Surrogacy bill and LBGT are howling because they can’t have the for profit commercial industrial uterus that they planned for
Fact: LBGT seeks to commit the worst human rights violations against women and children since slavery–human trafficking, and reproductive slavery. “Equality” means they get 3rd and 4th parties–so much for just between two adults. They’re dangerous and dishonest and they demean all women and all children.
“Chris Christie: Only GOP Hopeful to Veto Marriage Equality
The newest Republican presidential aspirant holds the distinction of being the only candidate to veto marriage equality.” http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/06/30/chris-christie-only-gop-hopeful-veto-marriage-equality
Interesting, so your view is that LGBT people are intrinsically evil, which just goes to prove my point. Even those of us who want nothing to do with children. Your slip is showing, madam.
And, your view is that Christians and anybody else who opposes your lobby’s radical agenda (also called ‘Christians’ by you because you’re too lazy and dishonest to detect the philosophical differences between your opposition) to transform western civilization into a slave plantation to serve your and other elites disordered pleasures are equally intrinsically evil.
Your pink slip is showing and flapping like a rainbow flag in a hurricane, Madame-
At least IMHO has damned good personal reasons for her position. What’s your excuse?
You should really consult a doctor. Your conspiracy theories are beyond the pale. You cross into crazy cat lady territory.
No it is so noble to demand state supported reproductive slavery and certainly human trafficking must be viewed through “loving” wealthy white male prism.
The vast majority of us don’t want children. Your assertion is a delusion.
Well it is not a delusion give all the crying over at the Gay Advocate and the HRC– they actually said it was “anti-gay” because they do expect to be provide wombs and live humans. Me thinks people are noticing the lies. Me thinks it might just back fire. You should tell the HRC and The Advocate then, and perhaps the LGBT should stop sponsoring bills to promote industrial for profit human breeding programs. LGBT hands are all over it. You think the liberals are going to be signing up to turn poor women into reproductive slaves?
because you’re a sick individual who needs medical attention. I will give you the point that gay parents can do damage, because you’re evidently and seriously a damaged individual. Maybe an orphanage would have been a better place for you. Perhaps that would’ve given you a better, less hateful perspective. Who knows?
Yes an orphanage would have been far better no doubt–Lockwood like Jane Eyer. I at least I came away with an insight into the community and am familiar with the tactics and strategies used to manipulate people. I am betting that since marriage is over, that moving forward what COGs have to say will be of greater interest to a wider audience. The Icarus moment feels at hand. Women and children won New Jersey on surrogacy. And our numbers are growing. LGBT got what they want and what they asserted is their right. Now we have our rights to speak and write about out lived experience. It should not bother you. You do not want children. What do you care if a bunch of the adult children of LGBT think same sex parenting is violation of children humans rights–you obviously don’t agree. But then you did not grow up in LGBT did you?
I don’t think Pink was being manipulative at all, and I don’t think he is upset with what you’re saying, just your delivery. Your relations to gay people comes off a little hateful and toxic. Its very hurtful to be told that you’re inherently a evil person, because what others of your same sexuality are doing with the law (something you have absolutely nothing to do with, any MAY possible not agree with) 😦
Pink’s only point is that most gay people don’t have kids and to expect the numbers to rise is not always reliable, as he has lived in Spain for 10 years of gay marriage yet there hasn’t been a sharp rise in LGTB people getting married or having children.
His other issue is the fact that you and many others keep singling out gay people, and actively ignoring straight people’s (much greater) involvement in the issues you talk about.
Its not rational, and that kind of demonstration will only stigmatize COGs. I know you say your numbers are growing, but to the honest there are more public examples of COGs supporting their parents than those who vehemently hate them. With that, realize your small numbers, and think about your public relations before all COGs who critique the gay community get stigmatized for being hateful damaged people. It might ruin it for everyone.
Your traumatic experience obviously needs medical attention. Whatever you think you’re doing here is only compounding the degree to which you’re a disturbed and unbalanced individual.
Miss AO: It’s a minor correction but, in fact, legal approval of SSM certainly did increase the number of experimental male-male adoptions in Spain; Pink was just obfuscating with absolute numbers of a small nation to shift focus discussion from SCOTUS impact on a larger nation (USA).
Before 2005, SS adoption was legal but rare for homosexuals in Spain due to a published adoption policy/ruling that permitted taking into consideration the homosexuality of a prospective adoptive parent. Even now, the Spanish people are overwhelming in favor of homosexuals marriage in opinion polls but a much smaller percentage support same-sex adoption.
Wasn’t Spain the second largest (after USA) global importer of Russian babies for adoption, including male-male adoption, before Putin banned gay adoption last year?
where is your proof?
There you go proving my point again. Thank you.
Can you tell me the percentage of support for same sex adoption in Spain? Next, I’d love to know the exact number of adoptions per year. And no, the number didn’t go up, in fact, it went DOWN.
Which just goes to show the extent to which this little mafia is prepared to go to push anti gay propaganda. Single adoption has been legal in Spain for a very long time, sexual orientation wasn’t even a question.
Just goes to show what’s behind your intent to manipulate.
Miss: It was illegal for homosexual couples to marry and adopt children in Catalan before April 2005 and the rest of Spain July 2005. The same law that legalized SSM in Spain made it legal for SS male-male couples to adopt. That national experiment is about 10 years old.
As I stated, Spanish Civil Code prior to 2005 did not permit married male-male adoptions. Single homosexuals could and did adopt, but their sexual orientation was used legally as a factor in the determination of placement.
There are relatively few children available for adoption by anyone in Spain and so they are imported from China and Russia; used to come from parts of Africa too but that source became unreliable. The Putin decision I mentioned further decreases the source of children for male-male parents in Spain.
Is there some specific mistake I made or do you just want a source?
That’s ridiculous. Single people (gay and straight) in Spain have always been able to adopt. Sexual orientation wasn’t a factor in the adoption process.
The only thing the 2005 law changed was that it permitted co-adoption.
Pink: You’re wrong to claim on 7/1@4:47 that “sexual orientation wasn’t even a question” for homosexual couples adopting in Spain prior to the 2005 law change. First, the Spanish adoption code did not permit adoption by homosexual couples before the 2005 change because it was illegal for homosexual couples to marry. Second, if one of two co-habiting homosexual men was permitted to adopt, the other was excluded by law from parental adoption rights that are normally given in Spain. Third, even for single prospective parents, the homosexuality of the adopter may be taken into consideration by the Spanish authorities when assessing the suitability to adopt (see EQUIPO JURIDICO DVE, Todo Sobre la Adopción, 1992, p. 59).
As I posted, the overwhelming majority of people in Spain now support SSM in opinion polls. We’ve seen polls in Spain rise from 60-88% in support of SSM since legalization. But the support expressed for same-sex adoption in those polls has consistently and significantly lagged behind support for same-sex marriage by about 15-25%. That gap reflects the tolerance of Spain but it also reflects a different cultural understanding of family compared with the USA.
Likewise, the tiny absolute number of excess children available in Spain for adoption in general reflects important cultural and birth-rate differences between the two great nations. Can I offer you additional reading suggestions on the topic of adoption in Spain before 2005? It is important to understand the cultural dynamic when most of the adopted kids are being brought in from other countries.
Do you know the Dolores Keane song? It is long and slow; it might help you to calm down with all the reflexive accusations this week.
The lengths to which you go really explain a whole lot about what’s going on here. It’s actually a good thing.
Anyone who has the misfortune to see this sort of discussion is going to have to analyze it to figure out what’s going on, and little by little it all becomes clearer.
Religious people masquerading as ‘concerned citizens’, perverting established science, giving absurd interpretations of laws they know nothing about. Btw, Catalan is the language or the people, the region is Catalonia.
You’re on a fishing expedition trying to find anything at all that’ll bolster the religious position, no matter how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion.
Just so we’re clear, a majority of Spaniards approve of gay adoptions: http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2011/05/11/actualidad/1305064811_850215.html
But you don’t care about facts, just pushing your anti-gay religious agenda.
Pink: I’m sorry you feel that disagreement with you must equate with extremism or animus. But it does not change the risk factors or experimental nature of male-male SS parenting, or the real history of Spanish treatment of homosexuals, including the facts about illegal male-male marriage and adoption in Spain before 2005. Are you old enough to understand what Spain and Catalonia were like for LGBT people in the 1970s?
Pink, the ugly stereotypes you post demeaning Christians, “religious people,” Catholic priests, poor people, individual survivors of abuse and African Americans are offensive enough. But when you post stereotypes mocking gays as “interior designers, florists or hairdressers,” followed by a post that denies or minimizes the real-life adoption experiences of homosexual people under the pre-2005 Civil Code changes, it leads one to wonder about your real motives?
Do you really believe what you post of all these different people?
I’m quite finished engaging with this scam you people have put together.
Maybe there are signs that I should stop associating with anti-gay COGs. IMHO, I know you’ve been abused by your lesbian parents, but to assert that all gays are intrinsically evil and wicked is why so many people think that you’re crazy and insane. Remember when you asked me in email why so many people don’t believe COGs and think you’re all crazy and hateful? That’s why. “All gays are part of a conspiracy to violate women and children, and all transsexual women are evil serial killers who want to do lady-face, so they can molest and attack other women” <— does this sound very rational? No, no it doesn't.
Gay people only make 1.7% of the US population, while infertile people make up 6%. There are more straight people by population who utilize reproductive technology than there are gay people. These people include single-moms-by-choice, and single-dads-by-choice.
The recent surrogacy disaster took place when a straight couple left their mentally disabled son in Thailand with the child's surrogate mother, while taking the 'good one' back to Australia. They picked him like puppies out of the litter, they never met their surrogate, and they were angry at the company she worked for because their 'money went to waste' when their promised child that they thought the company would insure them, was a 'damaged good'. Doing a background check, the intended father was a sex-offender, and was restricted adoption privileges for his criminal record. Are you saying that straight people who use the same technologies as gay people, are impervious to being wicked and crooked people? What about the gays who don't have kids and who don't support the practice.
The issue with ART, has to do with anyone who uses these technologies to option a child. It is not a LGTB issue. It has to do with society's views on children. We've come to see them as entitlements and buyable property. Such views have to stop.
IMHO, if possible please consider counseling to work out the issues you have with your moms. You are rightful to loathe the ART industry, but to irrationally displace all your hatred on ART on LGTB people when STRAIGHT people ENGAGE MORE with these practices is very irrational.
No statically straight people do not engage in surrogacy more. It is nearly exclusively gay men world wide. Check the numbers for Israel and England. They come out to about 200 gay–2 Straight. Yes association over.
You’re coming off a bit delusional, especially when making claims that aren’t backed up. India has produced the most surrogate-born children in all of the western world and they haven’t served gay couples in years. How do you explain that? And where is your proof that gay couples outnumber those who seek surrogates when the number of infertile straight people outnumbers the entire gay population in the US?
Look up Nepal. Google it. And then look up what the Israeli gay men did to the Indian birthmothers they smuggled out of India as breeding slaves.
Nothing in the article said that it was specifically gay men who were responsible for the Indian surrogate crises in Nepal. In fact they mentioned straight couples, and singled women who didn’t want to carry a child. When you make attrocious claims like that against gay people and blame them for a issue that encompasses STRAIGHTS COUPLES AND STRAIGHT SINGLES. It makes you come off very delusional, and hateful. You must stop before you stigmatize all COGs.
Actually, only MAO (how quaint, how appropriate) and P/MM and a few more of their radicalized and equally dishonest supporters think IMHO is sick, or delusional. I think she’s a lone honest voice crying out in the wild trying to warn us of the dangers of unnatural parenting, but, especially LBGTQ ‘parenting’ (her particular area of expertise), and the recent redefinition of marriage which will lead to more innocent victims of bad parenting.
Is the perennial ‘fence sitter’ finding enough courage to finally take a position on gay ‘marriage’ and/or ‘parenting’? Bravo.
Too bad for your bad logic that it wasn’t straight promoters of surrogacy deigning to undermine marriage, but, it was the LBGTQ community doing so, which is why they are now- naturally and logically- in the cross-hairs of the whole surrogacy and parenting debate.
Dishonest attempts to put the cross-hairs back onto straight surrogacy- which as reprehensible if selfishly misused, at least increases the odds that the ‘product’ will be raised by two opposite sex parents within the confines of a natural, normal marriage- isn’t going to succeed. That is called a red herring- can you smell it?- it’s all over you and the LBGTQ defense of their position.
We have no problem keeping our eye on the ball, and we also don’t need to distort any truths to support our argument. We also aren’t afraid to actually take a position and then defend it, logically.
IMHO- your voice is being heard and your contributions to the debate as an actual ‘player’- not a confused fence-sitter or gay elite who has no interest in children, are invaluable. Keep up the drum-beat.
All the science is garbage in and garbage out and just a part of the propaganda. Even SCOTUS said the science was trash. The distortions required to keep the popular narrative going are a form of abuse for the children forced to live under this doctrine. It is like growing up in one long huge manipulation. It is authoritarian in nature demands total compliance. If you do not comply with anything it is a threat to the narrative and that threat is silenced, isolated and punished. They are unable to modulate their reactions over periods of time.
There will be 1000’s of COGs. Every week we are contacted by some more. The general public has been fed a steady stream of media generated “good speak” and happy images and platitudes “love makes a family” and “equality” And they have not even an inkling. Many people in the progressive camp think because they had at once or twice same sex partner in high school or college they are “in the know”, or they go out with gay friends or a cousin they have some special insight. It is not that hard to project a benign superficial image of conformity for short periods in under certain circumstances. It is a male run movement. The toxic nature of the culture itself, the ideology and the values inherent in that culture are much harder to discern and in many ways parallel other movements in popular.
The studies that support same sex parenting are just propaganda skewed and with major design flaws. The Nazi’s produced 1000’s of studies that supported the Jew as sub human and the Aryan as uber mensh–. It did not make it true. So “Pinks” assertion that there are 70 studies is questionable—Yes 70 LBGT studies that promote the lie. And again remember what I said is needed to keep the fiction going.
LGBT is like a cult at this point and like a cult it appeals to very simplistic ideas that sound good on a bumper sticker. The movement as a whole seems to share all the destructive personality traits of many of its members. And the culture values and fosters these traits. Nurturing is not one of these traits. Look at how “Pink” or his alter talked about watching the at loose ends heterosexuals children. Count how many times the first person pronoun is used—the subject of most of the sentences—It is all about them. Look at the language used to describe the kids and parents—always negative. They frame everything that way—no matter what. There is a disconnect in interpreting the world. The abusive rhetorical devices, name calling, dismissive, gas lighting. All parenting tactics—think about it.
And while I am not a Christian and have no dog in that race, I have no doubt they are gunning for religious freedoms (all intellectual freedom in fact) and Christians in particular. As a movement LGBT values aggression and manipulation, bullying and distortions, crowd sourcing and shaming, blackmail, extortion and all manner of threats. If you think it is a horror show now wait until they start dabbling in foreign policy. They already have activists from other countries trolling the dating sites to get over here and marry. I have followed two Russian lesbians activist, a couple from outside Moscow. One married a women in NY the other a woman in the Midwest. The two American citizen women here do not know they are being played. Sadly, they both left their husbands and children for the love of their life that they met on the Internet. So they will even do their own dirty. Aren’t they clever?
LGBT is corporate power and the force of the state. In my opinion the fact that marriage is over and they got what they said they wanted is good because that was an easy they had platitudes for it. They spent fortunes on media campaigns and in Hollywood. Now the issues do not lend themselves to platitudes. Enough COGs have come forward with their lived experience—what are they going to do, declare us talking about our lives is hate speech. Much of their support is from a generation that is not going to find a job in this economy and let me promise LGBT is not lending a helping hand to anyone—they are takers not givers. They abhor the poor and women. One concerted effort and one message of lies is one thing. Trying to spread that over several lies that they can’t claim is “just between two people” and all about “love” will not be as easy and will cost much more. I think people should consider how they spend their money. Corporations see support as a marketing strategy maybe if the realize it isn’t that good for the bottom line they will reevaluate what they support and shift it to the poor. No big announcement just don’t buy the Cheerios and if people just very quietly stop buying, and being to put their money in a different bank or whatever that could be a step.
They want people to keep each issue separate because if religious freedom is separate from children’s rights they have a better chance to win things. The want to keep “immigration” really separate from the fact they lobby to cut off aid to pregnant women and children in 3rd world countries—not evil much. The civil rights equality argument falls flat when rich men are suggesting America deny food and medicine to starving refugees because two guys caught having sex in a public area are in jail in Bamako.
Here is how the HRC reported NJ governor veto on allowing women to be turned in gay mens barn yard breeder animals. So next time the cry–but what about “heterosexuals” people can say it seem pretty clear that Gay men are the ones pushing and demanding women be turned into reproductive slaves and they have human trafficking. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/governor-chris-christie-vetoes-important-pro-lgbt-surrogacy-bill
“Proof that they think adoption and surrogacy are part of the “wedding package.”
Of course those who want to have kids think its part of the wedding package, but the issue is that straight people are entitled to do the same amount of abuse too. Straights are entitled to ART tech to have a baby when they can’t conceive with a partner, or when they’re single and don’t want a partner, and gay people feel they are entitled to the same ‘rights’.
The crux that no one is getting is that these technologies SHOULD NOT EXIST AT ALL FOR ANYONE, and if people want to have children they need to do it outside a system that commodifies children or treats their bodies like donatable/tradable objects.
I received your email. I know that you are upset, but to the best of my abilities I was never trying to be rude to you. I am being brutally honest. If you want COGs to stand a chance in public relations you are going to have to come across sensible and fair. Marginalizing all gay people for a issue that involves both gays and straights, is not going to make you look good. Calling all transwomen misogynists who are doing ‘lady face’ in an effort to attack and murder women and children (overlooking the fact that there are also transmen too), doesn’t make you look good. Saying that all gay men are inherently evil for their sexuality, and are part of a elitist conspiracy to exploit women and children, doesn’t make you look good.
You asked me in email why my friends dismiss COGs as hateful bigots who “just hate their parents for no reason” and this is why. I’m trying to help you. Its not your issue with ART, its not your issues with your abuse, its your delivery.
I’m sorry this didn’t work out. Have a nice life.
Watch Google Baby: https://archive.org/details/GOOGLEBABY
“Disturbing and shocking 2009 documentary about the production of human babies on demand, on a for-profit basis, featuring an Israeli middle-man; rich Israelis and Americans who want infants for various reasons; a hillbilly American woman who undergoes drastic procedures to harvest 30 of her eggs, all so that she can BUY some more guns; an Indian physician who recruits Indian women to serve as pregnancy “surrogates” in her clinic; and of course these poor, desperate women who agree or are coerced to serve as mere environments where test-tube babies grow to term before being harvested through CPR-like physical pressure, or by C-section.
Outsourcing and technology have turned “making a baby” into a non-sexual business deal that takes place across several continents. “Doron” is a gay Israeli “entrepreneur” who started a global BABY PRODUCTION” racket. The PROCESS of outsourcing pregnancy involves freezing multiple fertilized embryos, packing them in a thermos full of liquid nitrogen and shipping them to India, where they are implanted into the wombs of poor village women who are kept semi-sedated in a clinic’s dormitory. The rich customers (mostly gay men) arrive only at the end of the nine-month pregnancy to pick up “their” babies.
Yep Love Makes A Family–except not their love. Their love and and “family” makes for the worst human rights violations since the Russians liberated the camps.
I’m not sure if you are talking to me, but if you are yes, this is very disturbing and disgusting. I’ve recently watched a video about a unwanted boy who was left in India by his straight parents: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2015/s4260667.htm
The situation that we are putting men, women, and children in is very dangerous and exploitative, and no this family has nothing to do with “love” you don’t buy “love”. Love comes with respecting people like human beings, not obtaining them to fulfill your emotional desires.
If we don’t focus the attention on straight people too, then singled straight men and straight couples could get away with the same atrocities you’re mentioning that gay people are doing.
Time to revisit the purpose of ATB:
While some dishonest and manipulative commenters would love to be able to change the subject about the possible/potential/likely fallout from SSM/parenting, IMHOs comments and concerns are being aired and discussed in the place, and the space, specifically designed to accommodate them.
Those interested in changing the ATB focus (the sole domain of the Bigot) to opposite sex surrogacy (hey, there you go, your blogs can now be about ‘something’, instead of nothing) should probably start their own blog sites and carry on, accordingly.
Don’t you know you can’t shut down the truth? Think a wicked game of whack-a-mole.
They are very predictable. They are going to start trotting out their “blood diamond children” and flooding media places with images of how cute they all are. They will start the whole taking about their love bla bal bla and what a great families they are–their will be so many staged and saccharine moments the whole country may need anti-nassuae medication. They will try to cover up the misogyny, the racism and the classism with claims of love and push the parenting with more prime time crap. And the COGs will carry on describing our lived experience. When they run out of money to buy off politicians and when the media sees the blush is off the rose and they are just a bunch of boring grifters people will consider how this impacts the weakest in society. Since there are now adult COGs I think it is going to be a game changer. Since most of us are articulate enough to counter whatever they have practiced. You see they were not expecting us and they have no idea what we know or what we have seen or who we know. If you noticed they always try to get personal info–another trap because then they go into either dismissive mode or try to blackmail people. Another issue that they do not consider is that we have children who can also speak to the dysfunction of our parents and the movement, spouses, friends. They will loose control of their fake narrative.
Anyone who has more that 2 exchanges knows their abusive tactics are clear. It is not hard to extrapolate that this is not a movement or an ideology that is good for children. Add to that what they demand demeans all women and all children. That kinda throws a wrench in Kennedy’s whole “dignity” song and dance. We do not need resurrect Clarence Darrow to make the points we just need to keep speaking and leading the conversation. Which means we do not allow for their deflections and gaslights to usurpt the conversation. They have zero right to tell us what our experience was. So we do define the experience. When they try to hijack it with all their fake questions and deflections–just step over the trap, or around it–They have no right to question anyone especially a COG. We know all the questions are stock from a little practiced script. They already know what people will say so it is just a manipulation–sleazy and so boring at this point. They can call us haters, bigots, homophobes all of that is just a scare and shaming tactic. There is nothing they can produce that somehow even remotely shows they have rights to other people’s children or anything else. It is becoming rather obvious that they want to violate women’s and children’s basic human rights and set up human trafficking as a right and a norm. Time to pull back the mask and expose the sleazy truth.
As I said marriage was an easy one. The average person could sign on to rhetoric, “between 2 adults” and “not hurting anyone else”. It sounded reasonable. And everybody loves a wedding. They put out almost 20 years of propaganda, the whole “love story”. Nobody could counter what he or she said because they defined themselves and if people were not LGBT they had no right to weigh in.
We are now presented a totally different situation. LGBT do not define COGs experience being raised in a culture and ideology based not in nurturing but in distortion in which everything had to reflect back what the adults wanted. The APA does not even have even the most basic understanding of the specific damages caused by being raised in such an environment because LGBT has not allowed this. They have not even touched on the damage of being denied a mother or a father.
It was no surprise that SCOTUS ignored a child’s right to have a relationship with both their mother and father. It was an adult centered decision. And this is good because it is glaring. Justice Kennedy waxes hallmark card poetic about love and dignity and asserts that marriage is the most significant relationship in a persons life.
Well those words will haunt him because most people in this era of divorce and single parenthood realize that marriage is not the most significant relationship. He needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Marriage has been trashed and LGBT is eating scraps of out of the waste bin. What most people now recognize as the most important relationship in a person’s life is with their mother and father. People can marry 3 or 4 times but they only have one mother and one father and that is the specific relationship those Gay men in their misogynistic hubris. The have elaborate ways to attempt to deflect all critics but when these do not work they resort to threats.
Two adults decision to be with each other does not give either or both any right to other. There is no to spin the demand for other peoples children as a civil right or a progressive position, human trafficking is not a left position. Children’s rights cuts across many diverse groups—feminists, radical lesbian feminist, adoption activists and human rights activists. There will be no rights to children.
Both of the ‘two consenting adults” and the “right to love” angles were/are based in illogic, which is exactly what S-P-H education ‘dumb-down’, which led to the over-emotionalized culture of the past two generations, gets society.
Two consenting adults have no right to commit crimes on each other- such as murder-even if one consents to it. If its bad for society, its bad for the species; if its bad for the individuals, its bad for the species, and its bad for society- those links are unbreakable. Right to love was/is equally laughable- almost as laughable as calling murdering preborn babies up until the time of and during their birth, “choice” Even the man who phrased/coined that term laughed about the gullibility of the population to accept the illogic of that one.
Logic forces the question: why has western culture decided to permit the most illogical forces within its populace to upend society? The answer lies in the intentional perversion and corruption of its educational and political systems, and of its government.
The illogic will continue until parents either transform the public educational system, or take their children away from the state’s system of indoctrination. Private and home schooling are good options.
Meanwhile, following the current state of illogic, if supporting, promoting and providing for the whims of LBGTQ (as the Trojan Horse to transform the US from a free society to an enslaved populace) to ensure full equality is the goal of society, now, we’re not far away from seeing demands to provide to them, under the banners of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’, all the children, for whatever reasons (I omit none- even the most nefarious) they demand. They could demand that society also pay for these new ‘entitlements’, too, since income inequality is a another mantra sung by these S-P-H anarchists. Just as we’re expected to pay the freight for the medical solutions (another profession of too many whores corrupted by ideology, money) for the imprisoned transsexual population, so will we be expected to pay the freight for the acquisition of the new slave-class, the children. Only LBGTQ men can make this demand on society, ‘straight’ men, especially white straight men, are abhorred in our current culture- this is why the LBGTQ movement was [somewhat willingly] hijacked. After all- if you say “No’ to LBGTQ you are a bigot of the first order.
Just as redefining marriage opens the door for other ‘aggrieved’ groups to demand the redefinition accommodate their chosen lifestyles (aka fetishes, disorders), so, too, does the acquisition of children open that door to the temple in the abyss where children are offered up as sacrificial lambs on the altar of LBGTQ.
And, that is the Trojan Horse that will strike at western civilizations ‘Achilles Heel’.
We’ve been here before, it’s pre Judeo-Christianity. It was especially bad for women and children.
We should not fool ourselves, this is every bit a religious war on western civilization (which is why Christians are the main target) as is the revolution (or, is that ‘Arab Spring’) in the Mideast that is recreating the Islamic caliphate.
Isn’t ironic that the S-P-H gang have actually aligned themselves with ISIS?
“But you don’t care about facts, just pushing your anti-gay religious agenda.”
Well, except for the secular- atheist argument against SSM/parenting-
Hard as I try- I cant find one iota of evidence of O’B’s ‘religion’ in any of his/her posts. All I see in his/her comments is logic. I am beginning to wonder if reason and faith are inextricably bound together?
First author (Adam Kolasinski) secular atheist? ROLFMAO. He’s a member of Christian Faculty Network at TAMU.
When will you over-emotional people drop the ridiculous emoticons and other juvenile emotionality?
So, regardless of what that particular authors belief practices are, personally, the authors argument is secular-atheist/non-religious. Point being- there is a S-P-H (atheistic) argument in support of natural marriage.
Just like the biological argument against SSM/parenting is a non-religious, reasoned and logical argument. It is pure, unadulterated truth.
You don’t seem capable of launching a logical counter-argument anymore than any others in your ‘camp’.
Are you really going to try to eliminate all arguments based upon the authors religious affiliation? You’d best start looking to China for any of your own studies or proclamations in support of SSM/parenting (not thinking that’s going to go very well for you)
Reminder: No religions or their dogmas or doctrines are cited as the reason for opposing SSM and parenting in the cited S-P-H arguments presented, thus far.
Use more logic and less emotion, next time.
“I’m quite finished engaging with this scam you people have put together”
Interpret: I’ve fabulously lost the logical argument against SSM and/or parenting and “…I’m just not gonna take it anymore….”-
At least he flamed out without further embarrassing himself by employing the sad, weepy emoticon.
Apparently, not all LBGTQ are goose-stepping along with the gaystapo.
What a shame that the good (sane, logical, generous) LBGTQ that put others, like children, before their own sexual behavior, are also being called ‘haters’ and bigots’.
I wonder who the ‘haters’ and bigots’ are in this Great Debate?
We need to drop the “parenting” lingo and talk about mothers and fathers and real biological bonds between parents and their children. The marriage issue is over. Everybody has the right to marry. Great. Now that right to marry who you love did not come with rights to take ownership of other people in the future. The issue of children by way of surrogacy and adoption flew under the radar—and most people have not considered it too deeply. As more COGs speak out the less control over the crafted propaganda narrative they will have. They have rights over the children they already have not rights to future children. The issue of children’s rights is a major factor.
They have used the stereotype poor single mothers (raised the specter of the hated junkie whore mother) as the a measure to say “well we are better than them” the truth is the jury is still out on that and single mothers do not defacto deny the child their right to a father and many children born to unmarried mothers have a relationship with their father. The comparison is offensive to single mothers and degrades women who are mothering their children often under difficult circumstance. Recognize they have to search the margins for examples of alternative parenting none of which demanded an entire class of people be subjugated and loose their basic human rights. And none of which give them more rights than any other person in society. The margin examples are examples of personal choice, isolated cases, and not a whole political movement bent on human trafficking.
Since same sex marriage is the law of the land we have to look at what is best for children. No adult on the planet has rights to other people’s children or women’s eggs or wombs. Men are not infertile women with a medical problem any more than they are single heterosexual mothers. These are all faulty comparisons that serve faulty conclusions. They use all the negative stereotypes in really women hating ways. People need to see all their strategies in the public square. They have funded attacks on COGs and COGs families—they will destroy their own children and anyone else’s who they are given power over.
As for the allies, the most powerful argument they have is basically “some of my best friends are gay” or “I love my gay son/daughter”. This is never historically a good argument and it won only because it was backed by a huge media effort and the by the support of higher education, academic compliance and with political buy offs. Being pro same sex marriage has been a good career move and good business. I am not so sure that lobbying for human trafficking and denying children a mother and father, in it a form of child abuse as broad social policy will be the same.
The rights of children is a much bigger social issue than “what goes on between two consenting adults”. There is no reasonable way they can assert they are better than a mother and father. The “two parent” rhetoric ought to be rejected because it is deeply misogynistic and destructive to children. As more COGs describe their own lived experience people will see the patterns emerge and while bullying and lying and shaming work in politics it is not considered good parenting.
Everyone has their in- invisible- ink- constitutional-right- to- “dignity”. And Justice Kennedy’s concern about adults “loneliness” has also been put to rest.
I think it is all right to address Children’s rights to not be bought or sold alongside the other major human rights violations that this movement embraces. Adults who are in favor of human trafficking do not define the lived experience of COGs.
Simply put demanding children is just more activism as is the persecution of COGS that speak out for children. They do not provide a stable reliable or nurturing structure for children.
IMHO- you and your claims are being ever more and more validated the more we get to simply step back and observe the incredible illogic and dishonesty of your opposition.
One totally bailed on the whole exercise here as soon as he realized he could no longer hold up the farce that he was reasonable, and, once he had secured the rotten fruits of his manipulative and dishonest labor here at ATB. Now, he spends his time plotting revenge – which is to launch a new personal assault, an expose, on the Bigot (he’s keeping his hag here to collect more info to distort).
The other lost soul is so arrogant as to think that she is actually some sort of an unusual intellect on all matters, and, therefore, has managed to embarrassingly screw herself so deep into the self-contradictory and illogical mud that her gracious opponent just keeps, mercifully, throwing her lifeline after lifeline so she can pull herself out. She foolishly doesn’t grab for them. Nor does she have the good sense to just quietly follow her dear leader into the poisoned pink mist of their shared fantasy candy land.
These people are the dregs of the earth. To feign friendship and compassion and honesty, while all the time you are only plotting to viciously attack those who trusted and confided in you says mountains about exactly the sorts of ‘parents’ these snakes would make. No wonder they cite reptile biology to support their ridiculous positions on marriage and parenting- they’re reptilian.
Your efforts at opening up all eyes to these evils are paying off. Keep up the good work, IMHO.
Much of society has lost an understanding of what children are and mistake them for something completely unrelated. This makes it possible to talk of a “planned parentage” which brings children into the world which are merely the product of adult wants. A couple wants a child and so they engage the method which best suits that end, be it copulation or laboratories. Sex itself becomes a means to fulfill the parents wants.
This became possible with contraceptives, which placed the procreation power into the hands of the parents and took it away from the hand of fate. Children conceived this way are brought into the world a commodity, parentage becomes not unlike any major purchase. The spontaneity of life or the “accidental conception” is held to be inferior, thus nature is subordinated to planning. The passion of the moment, in which the divine spark of life is unites in the womb as a result of that desire for one another, completely removed from the want of children, has always made children a gift and a product of desire and the moment. This desire as much as it is part of the beginning of the child’s life, forms part of their character and destiny and becomes a beautiful thing through marriage, when the child is able to comprehend themselves in relation to the passion which gave them life.
Absolute logic, mrpathurst, bravo.
Once sex was ‘transformed’ from a natural, biological act for the sole intent of producing offspring, into a casual sport for pleasure, only, the demise of marriage and its natural product, children, were put on the endangered species list.
It would be akin to ‘transforming’ other biological functions from their intended purpose to a casual sport for pleasure only; such as:
Eating. Hmm, where would that lead? Morbid Obesity?
Eliminating. Use your imagination.
Sleep. Rumplestiltskin, anybody?
Form and function are inextricably linked. Once the function of organs was redefined, it opened the door to the facultative practice of all sorts of dark human behaviors, and illnesses. Not using the organ or body part for it’s intended purpose is disordered, no matter how anyone chooses to define that behavior. If you don’t see it displayed as an evolutionarily advantaged behavior in the nature world, you shouldn’t see it in humans since we are also inextricably linked to the natural world. There is an ecology to the biology of all living things, an a fixed biology and ecology between humans and their natural world.
The advocates of unnatural behavior claim that any opposition to their aberrant behavior is based in ideology; really, it is nature that opposes their disordered, abnormal behavior.
It is no wonder that only ‘pretzel-logic’ can be offered in defense of such an unnatural proposal-
The new “freedom to love” campaign has been kicked off (and, why not?)-
Sucks being right when it’s your lost freedoms you’re ‘being right’ about.
Again, in response to Miss Alternative Opinion,
I think you misunderstood the point of the article completely. There has been a shift in our society of late of parents to focus all energy and attention and the child, to the point of ignoring themselves and their own needs. This results in children who feel they are entitled and that the world revolves around them. Don’t believe me? Walk into about any college classroom.
When I said that the co-parenting situation focused on adult desires, I meant that the parents in this case want a child, but they are doing on their terms, i.e. focusing on the situation they want, not what is best for the child. While this may seem at odds with the opinion in the article I referred you to, I submit that it isn’t.
In the co-parenting situation, the attitude is “I want a child, but I don’t want to be committed to his/her father (or mother)”. In this case, the parents are *knowingly* and *intentionally* bringing a child into an inherently unstable environment. Also, the basis of the child’s existence is not founded upon love, but upon the adult desire to find personal fulfillment by manipulating the existence of another human being.
In the marriage situation, the couple is fully and wholly committed to each other and the child is the result of an expression of love between the two individuals. Both of them have an equal interest in building a cohesive, safe, and stable family unit while raising their children together. At the same time, they are working on their own relationship together, building each other up, and helping each other achieve their respective dreams/goals. This also provides a good example to the child, a example of self-sacrifice and service, how to love another person, and that while his parents have his best interests at heart, he is not the center of the universe, and can also be a contributing family member. Thus they are a family unit, working together to help each other achieve fulfillment and happiness. I just don’t see that with the co-parenting situation.
“Marriages are subjective and based on culture and opinion. But the reality of what they are, is just labels. The term ‘wife’ is no different from female partner. They’re both intangible terminologies used to address a sexual companion. ”
I agree with you on your statement about marriage, but I think we need to discuss it based on what marriage means in our culture. “Wife”, to me, has a much deeper meaning than simply “female partner”. I think this is one reason why lesbians wanted to get married, so that their female partners would be more than just “partners”. I whole-heartedly disagree with you on your last point. A wife (or husband) is so much more than a sexual companion. Why does everything have to be about sex for you? As I stated in my last post, marriage is about so much more than who you are having sex with.
In order to reassert the rights of children people have to see past what they have already seen. State enacted Marriage is only between two people. Congrats—remember marriage is not for reproduction but buckets of dignity, love, equality.
The fabricated synthetic social justice creation called the gay family is a political artifact of pop culture that may also fulfill some individuals’ need for validation and attention. These strong needs are not exactly the impulses of healthy ideologies and ideologies that are self-serving do not evolve into altruistic or compassionate value systems. It is public attention seeking and pretty much demonstrates every impulse that runs counter to a family unit.
People have to take back the narrative in smart ways. They got this far by closing down large swatches of intellectual discourse. In order to keep this going they must silence any other narrative. IMHO people should drop marriage issue. It is the law of the land. We need to move forward to ensure basic human rights of children, keep the discussion in the forefront and to do this we need to assert basic freedoms, which are tied to intellectual and religious freedom. It is not hate speech to point out all the lies of propaganda of the media machine at the service of Big Gay. COGs lived experience is not hate speech. Realize how corrupt the movement is.
They have corrupted media, scientific research in service to the distortion. There has not been such an elaborate propaganda infrastructure since Germany 1939. They silenced any researcher that tried to present unbiased research. This denied many people rights. COGs know very well that that there are serious issues and damages caused by growing in same sex homes. Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, People need to see the gaslights and the violence and threats. A LGBT schoolteacher publically threatens to burn down a Pizza shop that does not feel they would cater a same sex wedding.
It is a cultural con game and like most grifters they exploit other peoples greed and weakness. There is nothing about this that is interested in diversity of equality—they are supported by all the corruption of corporate America and the entire political system. Here is the promise to the gay child. —We promise you that wherever you are you will have the right to be provided with poor women to breed for you—your life will be great we fought and died (well not from the fighting) for you–(right sure)
Marriage is an illusion they used cover the lie they told back in the 70’s—we are happy being gay and it should not be considered a disorder. Okay. We accept that. The only reason real reason it was considered a disorder was because it was seen as an impediment to marriage and family. So here is a contradiction. The natural diverse state is then to not reproduce because same sex sex is not reproductive—not a sophisticated insight. What we are seeing now is that diversity is only normal if many many normal people give over other their own children or bodies against their consent—egg donors, womb slaves, human infants.
It is really mind boggling that every same sex marriage requires three other outside people to create a family. What happened to “just between two people” and “not hurting anyone else”? Why is nobody asking? Does nobody notice that this pop-culture lie requires an entire human trafficking industry, demands that children become commodities that are bought and sold? Any group that advocates this is not oppressed they have power and are corrupt. The movement is an attack against women and children’s’ basic human rights.
They introduce a new for of illegitimacy in the form of commodification of children. Like the old form it damages women and children. There is no such thing as “family through surrogacy” there is exploitation and human trafficking through surrogacy.
There is a lot that needs to be critiqued in the public conversation. The LBGT rhetorical that they “want” children and don’t have accidental pregnancies so their “want” makes them better more prepared and worthy parents is another example of the self absorbed manipulations that gets passed off the are “better” parents—wow. All of this has human consequences. Being born an accident an unintended pregnancy is far far better than living as a prop to show off to the “normal” living as a political statement, a thing to prove the adults right while they live out lives of imitation and approximation. Being forced to be a political statement—is no better than what kidnappers do when the make the video of the guy denouncing American Imperialism with the black flag in background. The gay family is a total fabrication and it takes a lot to live a lie.
People have been convinced into believing.
The LGBT lobby wants to draw all attention and all fire only on religious liberty. A diversion, this is a fight they want because they can win it. It is not the real fight because it is a deflection and distraction–a set up. They send people into these Christian businesses on purpose. I think Christians should pool money pay other peoples fines and consider it a form of conscience objection. What they really want, to become a legal “suspect class” which would a huge disaster, to dabble in foreign policy are to get the adoption and surrogacy laws changed along with some immigration laws. This is what really needs to be the focus otherwise everyone is playing the game they want.
Child rearing and family except in rare and cruel situations, never has been solely a political movement except in 3rd Reich, The reeducation programs of the Cultural Revolution. They function as totalitarians, an elite, privilege, powerful using the force of the state to enforce a corrupted self-serving will on the many. And this is their dream. As I said they have very little internal life. Everything is very superficial and the world must reflect back at them. It is a kind of emptiness or immaturity that never evolved. This makes them very adept at working to their benefit many social and political situations that are superficial in nature. On a profound level they seem unable to discern between happiness and pleasure. So they reflectively imagine the world owes them and they are insatiable. The children are tools. We see how they used them through all the courts in the land. The are a ticket to legitimacy. Easily trained to speak for them and work public relations and most importantly used to excert pressure and get access into schools and influence curriculum.
Children are seen as an accessory people are entitled to and that society must provide. This erases the child’s identity as a human from the get go. They are not even created as part of a human relationship. The are created as a commodity to be sold. That is why I say there is more humanness in a child conceived of rape—rape is human. And as with most purchased good they serve a purpose– keeping the public illusion going is incumbent on the child. The children are another deflection and gaslight. They are denied an identity and must play act their life. They are not permitted an interior life unless it reflects the adults. They are controlled and manipulated in abusive a cruel ways. These things are seen as “normal” in the LGBT community and fit into the ideology. They are provided with a skewed version of the world.
Taking a page of the leftist-Alinsky playbook being used by the current Administration, I wonder if setting up “Sanctuary” Cities or States that defy Federal law is an option to protect innocent children from SSA ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’?
San Francisco’s rejection of Federal Immigration laws may have something to offer a free society, besides its hedonistic and drug-fueled welfare culture, in the form of precedent, after all-
“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.
Yep, we were called ‘haters’ when we opposed Roe v. Wade, aka ‘law of the land’, and look where that got the babies- having their organs sold and bartered for profit. The war on women is being waged by the left- the left that glorifies abortion, and that glorifies surrogacy for gays, only. Women are to be despised as ‘breeders’.
We don’t need studies to oppose the lies of the left- we only need consult nature- where there is no ‘gay marriage’, abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia or all the other social ills intentionally brought on by the evil of leftist-anarchist philosophy.
But, we can chatter on about baseball (look, over there, squirrel!), it beats having to talk about dissembling and crushing babies while in the womb, or intentionally separating them after they’re born (well, for now) from their biological parents.
I guess it takes “love” to dismember families, and babies.
“But, but, really, don’t you haters and bigots know that 190% of the US population favors SSM….?”
Well, except that it’s all BS-
Just to drive the haters and bigots a bit more nutso than they are, already.
I do believe that I recognize some of the ATB SSM ‘advocates’ writing styles and usual illogical hyperbole in some of the ‘critics’ comments of the book/authors over there-
Jae, they all use the exact same “let me ask you, what about” or “are you saying” the same language and exaggerated emotional appeals. They must some kind of template or be the most truly conformist and uninspired people in the world.
Kevin over at Hillbuzz has a good take on the loyal little Gaystapo soldiers…
‘Humanity’ has been ‘here’ before.
All Hail Nero!
Comments are closed.