The Story of Moira Greyland (Guest Post)

I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed him out of science fiction fandom.

More profoundly, though was his disgust with my gender, despite his many relationships with women Moiraand female victims.  He told me unequivocally that no man would ever want me, because all men are secretly gay and have simply not come to terms with their natural homosexuality.  So I learned to act mannish and walk with very still hips.  You can still see the traces of my conditioning to reject my femininity in my absolute refusal to give in and my outspokenness, and my choice of theatrical director for much of my life.  But a good part of my outspokenness is my refusal to accept the notion that “deep down I must be a boy born in a girl’s body.”  I am not.  I am a girl reviled for being a girl, who tried very hard to be the “boy” they wanted.

Suffice to say I was not their only victim of either gender. I grew up watching my father have “romances” (in his imagination) with boys who were a source of frustration because they always wanted food and money as a result of the sex they were subjected to, and didn’t want HIM. (OF COURSE!) I started trying hard to leave home when I was ten, after the failure of my first suicide attempt, and to intervene when I was 13 by telling my mother and her female companion that my father was sleeping with this boy. Instead of calling the cops, like any sensible human being, they simply moved my father into their apartment, which I called “The Love Nest” and they moved back into our family home.

Naturally that made things much worse. I had already been couch-surfing at the home of my directors from the Renaissance Faire for some time, but nobody could take me all the time. As might be imagined, where my father was, there were teenaged boys, drugs, and not a whole lot of food, though I wasn’t really starved in my teens once my mother’s books began to sell really well. I lived all kinds of places as a teen, though I moved back in with my father when I started college.

One day he brought an eleven year old boy to stay with us for a week, with his mother’s permission, which horrified me. I made sure he had a room and bedding. When I saw my father holding him upside down kissing him all over, and saw the porn books out, I called my counselor who had already agreed to call the cops if I ever saw anything happen, and my father was arrested. For that offense, he was given three years of probation. However, word got around, and a man who had given him a place to stay in Los Angeles realized his son was of the age to be a target, and asked questions, which resulted in my father’s conviction on 13 counts of PC 288 A, B, C, and D. (Suffice to say that these are varying kinds of forcible sexual offenses that should never be committed on anyone, let alone a child!)

He died in prison in 1993, after my initial report in 1989. It should be noted that far from being a first offender, his first arrest had been in 1948, when he was 18.

As might be imagined, although my mother was perfectly well aware of my father’s crimes, and so was my “stepmother,” I was disbelieved almost up to the moment of his conviction, and discounted as “hysterical.” Again, much of that is in the public record: my mother’s cold indifference and my stepmother’s pretense of complete lack of responsibility is sickening in and of itself.  Her words ought to suffice.  She knew what he wanted to do.

At no time did I try to get justice for myself, because in my moral structure I was the protector of others and I loved my father very much. So although I thought I could forgive my father for what he did to me, in no way did I think it was my place to forgive him for what he did to someone else, and his latest victim was not a hooker, but an innocent child who was very badly hurt.

In any case, where my family had closed ranks around my father to protect him, more recently they’ve closed ranks around my nameless male relative, who stands accused of molesting his ex-boy-lover’s kids, whom he thinks of as his “grandchildren” as he “adopted” his boy-lover as his “son.”  Yes I know, that is so sickening it is hard to read, and I am very sorry. Once more I am marginalized, called “crazy” and “hysterical” because after all, why would someone with a long history of molesting teenaged boys keep doing it? So as I did when I turned my father in, I’ve moved away. I made a police report, as did my students, who were horrified by what he said about his “grandkids.”

Now it should be noted that boy lovers do not think of what they are doing as “molestation.”  To them it is sex, they imagine it is consensual, and any objections will certainly be overridden by the orgasms they are certain they can produce, and it is the shame of these orgasms that silences the boy-victims, and persuades them they “must” be gay.  (Regardless of subsequent heterosexual marriages and children.)

Apparently, 33 reports against my nameless male relative for pedophilia were not enough, and he’ll skate on all this. Not my circus: not my monkeys. I did what I could, and I am easy to find, if ever I am needed to testify.  Pardon my fatalism, but serial sexual offenders don’t stop, and there is likely to be another victim.  Either someone will come forward, or he’ll offend again, or perhaps, being that he is older, he’ll pass on before he ever has any consequences.

Between the time of my reports of father’s offense and my nameless male relative’s, I went and got a Bachelor of Music Performance, and had a career as a wedding harpist and singer, then I married and had children, then I got a Master of Music Performance, and since 2007 I have mainly taught voice and harp and directed operas with two opera companies I founded: one in Southern CA and one in Northern CA. I also made an album of Celtic music.  Yet I’ve always been dissatisfied with my career: artists need to tell their story, and mine was rather too ugly to be told.

Yes, I stupidly returned to Northern CA.  My beloved cousin’s wife was dying of cancer and I wanted to be part of a family, hoping that since my father was dead his evil might have died with him.  I was wrong.

Last June, (2014) a blogger named Deirdre Saoirse Moen asked me if there was any truth to the rumors about my parents, and I told her yes, that both of them had molested me and my brother as well as a HOST of other children, and I sent her two poems that I had written about that, never having breathed a word about what they had done to me in public before.

She printed my emails and poems on her blog, which promptly went to 92 countries around the world, to my utter shock. I was flooded with letters from survivors of sexual abuse, all of which I tried to answer promptly with sympathy and warmth, (which knocked me out, emotionally, in a way I can barely describe!) Everyone who wanted to send money, I asked them to send it to RAINN (Rape Abuse Incest National Network) and there were even anthology authors associated with my mother who turned over every cent of their royalties from her to charity. Other people burned their copies of her books, because they couldn’t stand to sell them and make any money off her evil.  Still other people deleted her works from their Kindles and iPads.

The reason I have given, and stand by for not talking is this: I know many people found value in my mother’s books, and I did not want to harm them or disturb their lives.  Thus my shock and embarrassment at how far this story went.  Ironically, the survivors who benefited from her books have found more strength in standing against abuse than with her, and my admiration for them is ongoing!

Naturally, there was a lot of debate about her and my father. Every time someone tried to doubt my story, a hundred people would shout them down. The age-of-consent creeps came out and were also shouted down. I was, to my shock, believed. After watching what had happened to Woody Allen’s daughter, I had no expectation of anything other than a virtual public execution were I so stupid as to speak out, but in a way, my mother “protected” me with her OWN WORDS. She had testified, blandly, when accused of molesting me, that “children don’t have erogenous zones” and didn’t bother denying tying me to a chair and attacking me with a pair of pliers, claiming she was going to pull out my teeth. With her cold admissions, nobody could put much of ANYTHING past her.

In any event, since the truth came out, the pedophilic themes in her books became very obvious to people who had previously chalked them up to history or the license granted to an author of fiction. My father had written, with her editorial assistance, a book of apologetics for sex between adults and children called “Greek Love” under the pseudonym “J.Z. Eglinton.” All of a sudden, nobody could have any question about what had been so obvious to me all along.

So what has changed since last June? Since my (and others) report of my nameless male relative back in November and my decision to go No Contact with my family due to their response, it began to dawn on me that maybe the gayness WAS an issue. Naturally, I had been brought up to be completely tolerant. Years ago I read Satinover, who believed that gays were largely “pansexual” that is, preferring sex with EVERYONE of EVERY age and EVERY gender rather than wanting to be limited to one person, and he regarded it, credibly, as a moral and ethical problem, rather than a sexual “orientation.” I can’t tell you how many lesbians I know who simply hate men, or who have been raped and can’t face sex with men because of that.  For me, my research about homosexuality was almost a guilty secret: me thinking the unthinkable.  After all, gayness had always been presented to me as the natural state: I was “hung up” and a “prude” because despite my mother’s pleading with me to “try it the other way” and “how could I possibly know I was straight?” I just couldn’t hack being gay myself.

My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited.  Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.”  If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish.  As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur.  As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

I know, I know.  The stupidity of that particular thesis is boundless, and the actual consequence is forty-year-olds in therapy for sexual abuse, many, many suicides, and ruined lives for just about EVERYONE.  But someone needed to say it.  Will anyone hear it?  There were six Johnny Does at my father’s trial, who would not testify, and two victims, who did.  One of the victims I am in touch with.  He was silenced so fiercely by fans of my mother years ago that he is not able to talk about it to this day.  I don’t know the fate of all the Johnny Does, but I do know one of them is dead in his forties from an eating disorder, never having been able to talk about what happened, and I know at least one of the people on the list of 22 names I gave the cops as a potential abuse victim died from suicide last year.  I also know a number of victims of my father who would not testify because they love him.  As a personal note, I can understand why: of my parents, he was by far the kinder one.  After all, he was only a serial rapist.  My mother was an icy, violent monster whose voice twisted up my stomach.

A very brief note on my “stepmother:” she now denies ever having been gay, after 22 years with my mother, and she has married a man.  So what was was she “born”?  Was she born gay, and is now living in “denial” of her “true nature” as the gays would have it, or was she besotted in a childish way with my mother, who did what celebrities do, and took advantage of her innocence and emotional infantility?  She was 26 when she got involved with my mother, and told me later she felt she had been “molested” by my mother.  I can’t use that word for her: she was 26.  But she DID call my mother “mommy” and most of the emotional content of their relationship was an attempt to prove that she was a “better daughter” than I was: a competition that for me, was over before it began.  I am my mother’s daughter.  It is a biological reality.  Giving my mother orgasms does not make my stepmother a better daughter, simply a fool.  And as it can be noted now, she MUST be the “better daughter” because I blew the whistle.  I don’t speak to her.

This March I met Katy Faust online: one of the six children of gays who filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing gay marriage. We corresponded, and I left CA. I am still reeling from the death of my last bits of denial. It IS the homosexuality that is the problem. It IS the belief that all sex all the time will somehow cure problems instead of creating them that is the problem.

So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

If you doubt me, research “age of consent” “Twinks,” “ageism” and the writings of the NUMEROUS authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow “beneficial” for children.

Due to my long experience with the BSDM community (bondage/discipline, Sado-Masochism) it is my belief that homosexuality is a matter of IMPRINTING, in the same way that BDSM fantasies are.  To the BDSM’er, continued practice of the fantasy is sexually exciting.  To the gay person, naturally, the same.  However, from what I have seen, neither one creates healing.  My mother became a lesbian because she was raped by her father.  My father was molested by a priest–and regarded it as being the only love he had ever experienced.  There are a vanishingly few people who are exclusively gay, but far more who have relationships with people of BOTH genders, as my parents and other relatives did.

What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial, and the sure knowledge (don’t think for a second that they DON’T know) that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences BEFORE he can be “ruined” by attraction to a girl.

If you’re OK with that, and you might not be, it is worth your consideration.  If you think I am wrong, that is your privilege, but watch out for the VAST number of stories of sexual abuse AND transgenderism that will come about from these gay “marriages.”  Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.

Naturally my perspective is very uncomfortable to the liberal people I was raised with: I am “allowed” to be a victim of molestation by both parents, and “allowed” to be a victim of rather hideous violence. I am, incredibly, NOT ALLOWED to blame their homosexuality for their absolute willingness to accept all sex at all times between all people.

But that is not going to slow me down one bit. I am going to keep right on speaking out. I have been silent for entirely too long. Gay “marriage” is nothing but a way to make children over in the image of their “parents” and in ten to thirty years, the survivors will speak out.

In the meantime, I will.

Moira Greyland

**Note from Katy Faust: This is the first time that Moira has chosen to tell her story publicly. She and I had very different childhoods, and both perspectives are valid.  I don’t believe that all or most gay or lesbians abuse children, like most heterosexuals do not. Respectful comments and questions for Moira are welcome.  Degrading and slanderous comments won’t see the light of day.

735 thoughts on “The Story of Moira Greyland (Guest Post)

  1. Pingback: The Duty of the Adult to the Child | The Orthosphere

  2. I wholeheartedly disagree about the Christian God explaining the origin of life. Time, not a creator, explains the beginning of life. Given the incredibly vast amount of time our Earth has existed, the possibility of life coming from “nonlife” is not so absurd anymore. Certainly no less absurd than an ancient story of creation that was not uncommon during the time it was written. And we need to leave God out of the discussion anyway. It’s fine to have your faith, it’s a good thing, but has absolutely no value in a debate with those who do not share your faith. (As a side note, I am not hostile towards Christianity. I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years.)

    • Epic- for my part, I consider the Christian theory of the origin of life as feasible as the secularists agnostic theory of abiogenesis since both are equally highly theoretical, albeit, perhaps suffering the incongruity of language from back then compared with now. Being formed from the dust by an eternal power seems well-synchronized with the most recent theories from Big Bang to the latest Second Law of Thermodynamics MIT endeavor.

      Neither theory sect holds any more weight than the other, factually – both are still based upon unverifiable belief systems. No one belief system should be advanced over another without evidence (incl. circumstantial), especially as ideology may affect such scientifically impure actions. It is no more acceptable to criticize Christians for their beliefs than it is to criticize Atheists for theirs, if we are to base our opinions solely on observable evidence.

      My statement regarding Christianity as being the major religion whose doctrine and philosophy (not dogma) is most harmonized with the laws of nature is based in fact – not theory, not theology.

      But, this tangential point aside, the origin of life has little to do with SS’M’ since LBGTQ are in no way originators of life. The biological argument, alone, is sufficient to criticize and condemn the tangent western society has imposed upon itself with a very bad legal decision.

      • Agreed, Jae. However, the Bible is filled with principles and guidelines for living a happy, fulfilling life that are beneficial to society, but by no means holds the monopoly on these general “rules for living.” You will also find these same principles in other major religions. Philosophy aside, I understand why Christians want to use their deeply held beliefs to justify their positions, but my point is it hurts rather than helps their cause. It can really drive a wedge between the two sides and does nothing to facilitate a meaningful discussion. Again, nothing wrong with those beliefs, they just don’t belong in this debate.

        • Epic- mine is the biological argument against SS’M’ and ‘parenting’.

          But, until I found ATB, I wasn’t aware of the vitriol being directed toward Christians, and only Christians on this issue, even though, as you correctly state, many other religions espouse the same principles and guidelines.

          I suppose I find myself wondering why Christians, with Christianity, solely, being the philosophical foundation for western civilization, not all those other religions, are being singled out for attack?

          It isn’t illogical to suppose that not only is traditional marriage being targeted for ‘transformation’ and redefinition, but, so are all western ideals. Non- western nations are far harsher on LBGTQ ‘rights’ than are western nations- we need clarity, and honesty from the SS’M’ proponents and supporters on this element of the debate since it is they who constantly invoke their oppositions ‘religion’ as reason to reject those arguments while demanding that we accept their own thoroughly religious arguments in lieu of Christians, only.

          If their Atheist religious belief is permissible in the debate, so is everyone else’s, including Christians. They all either cancel each other out (my position on the unreliable social studies), or, they’re all in for consideration.

          • I think they use their opposition to religion in response to all the religious arguments used against their beliefs. I think Christians primarily use “christian” reasons to oppose SSM, so naturally they’re going to take issue with that. I believe Christians are being singled out not because it proves their faith is the “one true faith”, but because so many people have been hurt by Christians. Many came from spiritually abusive Christian homes, others feel unfairly judged by Christians. (As a former Christian I can say that is absolutely true. There’s a moral superiority, arrogance, and pride infecting our churches. It’s hard to see as an insider but glaringly obvious from the outside, and it disgusts and repels people.) And let’s not forget the Crusades, burning “witches” at the stake, and other atrocities committed by the church. Christianity can be a wonderful thing when it’s lived out properly, but it’s also been used to abuse and control people for centuries.
            Having said that, I think the atheistic liberals now own the media, Hollywood, and the public school system. It’s pretty scary to see what can happen when the government holds that kind of power. Hitler comes to mind.
            I agree that BOTH religious arguments should be off the table. I wouldn’t engage in debate over religious arguments. We have a national crisis going on caused by the crumbling of the traditional family, starting with no-fault divorce in the 60’s, and it’s been a downward spiral ever since. The massive increase in mental illness, poverty, government dependence… It can all be traced back to the “normalization” of divorce, single parenting, remarriage, third-party reproduction, and now same sex marriage. You don’t need a Bible or Darwin to see how many kids are totally screwed up by the whole “self-fulfillment” movement. That should be our focus. There’s a time and a place to debate religion, but this isn’t it.

        • Interesting exchange but there aren’t enough possible combinations of words in human language to resolve a question of the breadth or origin of the known universe, even if we apply our characteristic human hubris and completely ignore the unknown universe.

          But selfless, brave action like Moira’s to save other kids from her homosexual, pedophile abuser gives it meaning. Where does that originate?

          • If Christianity, per se, is off-limits in the debate, than so should be Atheism, as another wholly-religious dogma and philosophy.

            I don’t see why we need to reject Judeo-Christian philosophy which provided the foundation for the fittest society for humans, ever, sans any invocation of a divine being or God, that is undeniably the foundation for our western morals and ethics. The theist may point to their one god for their morality, but, we still have no idea to whom or what the atheist points- this fact cannot be lost in a debate that revolves around morality and ethics.

            Religion is the elephant in the room regarding all matters of morals and ethics and we’ve permitted Atheists, who have not had to explain or defend the foundation for their beliefs, which when fully explored are less likely to reflect reality, theoretically (the law of probability, alone, blows up the foundation of their theory), when compared to most other major religions, to eliminate only one side of the religious argument. We’ve also been unsuccessful at forcing Atheists to identify the source of their morals and ethics- is it themselves, a state or statist, some historical figure, scientist or a Hollywood actor?

            JJGD may be correct in saying that the strict biological argument is deficient to totally defeat the premise of SS’M’ and ‘parenting’; while it is factual and should force the atheists to acknowledge those facts, minimally, it can’t help but eventually lead to the moral argument, where only one’s religious and/or philosophical convictions are consulted. After the facts of biology are accepted (only the truly illogical can deny them)- which is a significant portion of the argument, humans need to use their intellect to resolve moral and ethical dilemmas. Moral and ethical problems are not subject to empirical analysis, it is a philosophical endeavor.

            The debate, ultimately and necessarily, must be between theists and atheists. And when that debate happens, all the atheists have in their quiver is a highly unlikely theory and too many examples of immoral and unethical societies based in Atheism, while Christians can cite the grandeur of western civilization, which for over two millennia has witnessed far fewer moral and ethical bumps and warts than did/does Atheism in one century, alone (fact, orders of magnitude higher).

            But, astoundingly, we’re still having to educate the Atheists on the facts and laws of nature that dictate fit families and societies, a reality observable to all, so, how can they be expected to move into the next level of the debate if they are permitted to deny the reality of biology? The illogic that denies the reality of biology as witnessed in nature while it cites wildly improbably theories and highly biased and flawed human endeavors in science has to be challenged.

            To date, the SS’M’ advocates have had no rational argument to defend their position- which is why they had to resort to emotional and legal hijinks. It’s a short term and hollow victory. As more ‘Moira’ tragedies emerge, the masses will turn on these manipulator of truth – they will have a short fuse regarding mass child abuse.

            There will be that ‘Planned Parenthood dead baby bartering for bucks’ moment for the SS’M’ advocates/supporters – no doubt. There is no more perfect example of the Atheists’ horrendous immoral and unethical foundations/philosophy than what is unfolding as their reality before all our eyes. ‘Love’ and ‘Equal Rights’ are concepts, apparently, not be applied to babies up to and during their birth, but, they should be applied to LBGTQ to accommodate their chosen lifestyle.

            The ‘love’ and equal rights’ argument that supported the LBGTQ SCOTUS ‘victory’ used the concept of inalienable rights. Those rights are sourced to the Christian God.

            The Atheist has yet to identify their source of these inalienable rights. Theists have permitted them their free ride on their coattails long enough- it’s time for the Atheist to identify and defend their ‘god’.

          • Jae
            Well said . Everything in the armour must be used .
            As Moira says above in her piece ” watch out for the VAST number of stories of sexual abuse AND transgenderism that will come about from these gay “marriages.” Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.” The gay ” community ” can scream about its civil rights and equality but when those same civil rights result in a torrent of abuse then the system that supported it will collapse and so called seeming equality will rupture and be seen for the veneer that it is .

          • Jae from an evolutionary standpoint everything we see as “moral” can be attributed to biological hard-wiring to ensure the survival of our species.

          • Epic- I agree that to win the logical argument against SS’M’, you only need the bio-evo truths to be accepted. But, when the atheists default to their religious argument, which is to state, unequivocally, that there is no God (they are usually far more disparaging than that), they need to be reminded that there is also no evolutionary or physics theory or proof of the origins of life that holds any more water than the theology of God – all are based upon a set of beliefs.

            The positive effects of Christianity on the human species, and the species society is indisputable; while, similarly the adverse effects of Atheism on the human species, and the species society, is also indisputable.

            While evolution can explain much of our history and our destiny, it can only address the material element of our lives. Either religion or philosophy has to be consulted to address those obvious things that separate humans from their animal relatives, the immaterial.

            SS’M’ advocates and their supporters, including the SCOTUS, relied on emotional arguments, and flat out lies, to ‘rationalize’ their case for SS’M’. Their argument relied on the immaterial elements of the human psyche, such as ‘love’, ‘liberty’, ‘happiness’ and ‘equal rights’, and all manner of ‘feelings’. They were permitted, after pounding Christians into submission using lies about their beliefs and their history, to use their own religious and/or philosophical beliefs as accepted scientific truth, to win their argument, legally. Christians need to respond to the Atheists criticisms of their beliefs ‘in kind’ by reminding them that their ‘all from nothing’ beliefs are actually on shakier logical (evidentiary) ground, and that their baseless beliefs led to the destruction of more humans in one century than all the deaths caused by all religious wars involving Christians, combined. The religious-philosophical immaterial element of the debate is as biological and evolutionary as is the material element of the debate, and it is as easy to prove since human history is replete with evidence.

            Christianity has as much right to the public square as does Atheism, and all other religions and/or philosophies. Permitting distortions, sans any evidence, to elevate one over the other is akin to permitting the distortion of truths about biology, such as that ‘gay’ animals exist.

        • Epicabundance
          I think if you refrain from the veiled ad hominems we will get on fine . What you want to say is that if we leave God out of the debate all will be well .
          That is not philosophically well reasoned .
          Firstly
          The problem with the solely natural approach is that the ssm crowd can turn around and say ” we do just as well as heterosexual parents ” . They are already winning that war . From Europe to America the media support that view . It’s a civil rights and equality issue . It’s the idea of a perfect open society – except if one is a Christian . So they have won that debate according to them at least . The biological argument against ssm and ss parenting is not even being heard IMO . They shut it out . What are we going to do now ?
          Secondly
          If we can show that the equality agenda , which includes an array of people( atheists ,even false Christians among others ) , is flawed philosophically then we are on to a winner . Philosophy ultimately brings in an ultimate reason for existence ie God. It seems to me you are trying to block the specifically Christian viewpoint . This would be quite worrisome . If I can’t talk about Christ then this blog wouldn’t be worth staying in as there can be no foundation for truth whatsoever except in Christ . That doesn’t discourage others from debating . Rather it helps to being people into the debate . Just because I rely on Gods word doesn’t not mean others cannot participate . Jae believes the biological argument is fullproof . I don’t . I think it it is a good argument and it’s a great support to people in here I’m sure and it is part of the richness of the debate my friend . I myself come at it from a different angle .
          So state your claims , announce your arguments if you have any and get to it . No offence intended:-)

          • Epic
            What I wanted to say was that the evolutionary biology argument could be better if the evolution part were left out . The biology argument is a good argument as it offers people hope but it can be complimented . In fact I think the whole illogical basis for the leftist political agenda will come crumbling down because of the current craziness on the issues of ssm , ss parenting , transgender , gender identity , polygamy etc on and on.

            In my view we already have independent thinking on the subject of human exceptionalism. It’s right there in Genesis 1–2. We often just doesn’t want to accept it.

            We live in a day where cultural insanity is becoming normalized—even mandated. For example, the Obama administration is requiring public schools to change their bathrooms for LGBT tolerance, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents. Secular materialists and leftists are redefining gender, family, and morality. We are being told that you can choose your identity independent of your biology, that intact families are unnecessary, and that same-sex couples can raise kids just as well as moms and dads. But reality has a way of beating ideology. I think even the secular science demonstrates human exceptionalism.
            No other primate looks, acts or thinks anything like a man, woman, or child.
            Father’s parenting is unique and valuable, according to this article on Live Science ( http://www.livescience.com/51284-fathers-mothers-parent-differently.html) about research done at Washington State. The differences in parenting styles between moms and dads gives children a more balanced development. Mothers are more apt to comfort and coo with baby talk, while dads will engage in roughhousing play with the kids and talk more like adults to them. In addition, dads train kids to take a hurt bravely, and prepare for the real world. “We think that maybe fathers are doing things that are conducive to their children’s learning, but in a different way,” one of the researchers says. “The parents are complementary to their children’s language learning.” The positive findings are predicated on the father being involved with the children.

            Thousands of years of experience show that the biological differences between men and women are there for a reason: they were designed to complement one another, providing the best hope for the next generation to develop moral character and community reinforcement of godliness. ( Jae would call that fitness !;-) )

            Since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, anything less is folly. Our Darwin-drunk society is rejecting the Genesis scriptural foundation, pretending that conscience and the innate moral sense are evolved strategies of blind evolutionary forces. But if the all-wise God is indeed our Creator, can anything reasonable result? Rationality has a foundation .
            Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Several have pointed out the tangled web of bad logic inherent in the belief one can choose his or her identity apart from the biological systems God ordained. Currently, some race groups denounced a white lady choosing to identify as black, while supporting others who want to change their gender (look at the tortured logic in Live Science’s article on Rachel Dolezal http://m.livescience.com/51245-what-is-ethnicity-racial-identity.html
            ; if she would be celebrated for choosing an identity against her biological gender, why not against her biological skin color?). The feminists are struggling to cope with whether to accept men identifying as women at all-female universities, or what to do about their female students who want to identify as men. We’re watching the insanity destroy itself. Albert Mohler

            http://www.albertmohler.com/category/the-briefing/

            has had some good podcasts recently on the tangled, self-defeating nature of identity politics when the Christian worldview is rejected.

            But of course; there can be no logic in rejecting the Creator’s plan. We can pray that its implosion will be quick and as painless as possible, so that the wise among us can mercifully lead us wounded back to the truth

          • JJ, I think you’re forgetting I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years. I studied the Bible extensively and devoured books on theology, philosophy and church history, and I am politically very conservative. We’re on the same side of the fence on traditional marriage, so there’s no need to post articles and arguments proving why it’s best for children and society. I totally agree, ok? Where we differ is in our approach. I just don’t think using the religious/philosophical arguments is going to be effective in reaching the opposition. So many on the left are atheists, and we have to speak to the left in the “language” they understand, which is evolution and biology. Arguing from a religious perspective is just going to put up more barriers, because now you’re not only trying to convince them that traditional marriage is right, but so is your religion! You started with one difference of opinion and added a second. How can that possibly be helpful? You started with one hurdle and now you have two.

          • JJ I just re-read this. I see what you’re saying. You think they’re shutting out the biological argument, I think they’re shutting out the philosophical argument. The left can claim that gay couples can do just as well as heterosexual couples in raising children, but every credible study disputes that. I think ultimately the most powerful tool in winning this war is stories from children of gays like Katy and Moira. I hope they all find the strength and courage to speak out about their experiences. They’re exposing to the world that SSM might make the adults feel good but it’s greatly harmful to children. I think that is what’s going to change public opinion, not efforts to evangelize the whole world.

          • The biological/evolutionary argument doesn’t explain much except that it takes a female egg and a male sperm to reproduce.
            You’d have a hard time proving that human beings are monogamous, as Jae claims.
            Parenting involves much more than biology; there are many, many, many examples of poor or even abusive parenting by biological parents. There are many examples of good parenting by non-biological and SS parents. You cannot establish that IF you are a biological parent THEN you will be a good parent.

            There are no credible studies that show SSP as inferior.

          • Vbig you’ve made up your mind, no need to confuse you with any more facts. Besides, I thought you made your dramatic exit days ago.

          • Wow- so much disinformation, such little space and time:

            “The biological/evolutionary argument doesn’t explain much except that it takes a female egg and a male sperm to reproduce.”

            Well, no, not exactly true. It proves that only opposite sex mated individuals bear and raise their own offspring. And, that those optimally fit family units form the foundation for their optimally fit society.

            “You’d have a hard time proving that human beings are monogamous….”

            Well, again, until the leftist-secularists intended actions to dissolve said monogamy, and since no one forces anyone to chose monogamy, it is true that humans largely still choose to practice some form of monogamy, which is a natural pair-bonding behavior found throughout nature.

            “Parenting involves much more than biology; there are many, many, many examples of poor or even abusive parenting by biological parents.”

            So what? There are many, many examples of poor and even abusive humans- they are in the minority, and probably statistically evenly representative of all populations, even LBGTQ. The majority of biological parents are good, thus, we have a fit species and a fit society as evidence of that fact.

            “There are many examples of good parenting by non-biological and SS parents.”

            Really? Where is our evolutionary history are there good non-biological and SS parents? Please, do spare us your thoroughly biased ’empirical studies’. There may also be good examples of dogs being good parents to cats, but, that would not be advantageous to their species or their species society.

            “You cannot establish that IF you are a biological parent THEN you will be a good parent.”

            Being a biological parent has been proven biologically to be the optimal parenting condition required for a fit species and a fit society. The evidence is right before all of our eyes to see, fell, smell, touch and hear. Your theory that being a biological parent necessitates unfitness is unproven (in every way). You have less of a measurable foundation on which to claim that IF you are a non-biological parent THEN you will be a good parent.

            “There are no credible studies that show SSP as inferior.”

            There certainly are studies that show SS’P’ as being inferior, they are all around us in nature since SS’P’ is non-existent in nature, the greatest empirical study of all time. If SS individuals were meant to raise offspring, they would have evolved a way to reproduce them, themselves. Nature has determined that they are unfit to bear and raise offspring.

          • Jae
            I think your post should have been directed at vbigelow not me . I agree biology and nature are against ssm and ss parenting . It’s just the macro evolution view can hamper things when it’s added into the equation in my view . I certainly think that one acts against nature when one engages in same sex parenting. The Christian scriptures agree with that . I also think vbigelow’s arguments are solely research based -biased and bad research at that . She certainly cannot have a basis for objectivity from her either her atheistic ,agnostic or sceptical standpoint .
            Later ,I will post recent research from science journals which helps to confirm that science supports a biblical view of fathers mothers and kids.

          • JJGD, I love your circular reasoning…
            Also, the way you dismiss my evidence-based arguments (Good parenting is more than biology; SS parents are good parents): you write: “vbigelow’s arguments are solely research based -biased and bad research at that .” REALLY?????? WHAT BIASED AND BAD RESEARCH?????She certainly cannot have a basis for objectivity from her either her atheistic ,agnostic or sceptical standpoint .” WHY NOT?

          • V
            If you re-read my posts you’ll find reasons as to why atheism ,agnosticism and scepticism do not have grounds for objectivity itself let alone objective morality . What is your foundation , ground or basis for the worldview you have ?

          • Jae, Jae, Jae…

            You write:
            “Well, no, not exactly true. It proves that only opposite sex mated individuals bear and raise their own offspring. And, that those optimally fit family units form the foundation for their optimally fit society.” This is your opinion, Jae. Only opposite sex mated individuals can reproduce. It is not true that only opposite mated individuals can raise children. The statement that those families are optimally fit, is also untrue. Not necessarily, as we see in cases where there is abuse and neglect. “Optimal fitness” rests on more than biology.

            Didn’t catch your drift in the next two paragraphs, so I’ll move on.

            You write:
            “Being a biological parent has been proven biologically to be the optimal parenting condition required for a fit species and a fit society. The evidence is right before all of our eyes to see, fell, smell, touch and hear.” NO IT IS NOT. There are many exceptions.
            “Your theory that being a biological parent necessitates unfitness is unproven (in every way). You have less of a measurable foundation on which to claim that IF you are a non-biological parent THEN you will be a good parent.” I never said that being a biological parent necessitates unfitness. I said there is more to parenting than biology. Being a biological parent doesn’t guarantee one is a fit parent.

            Again, there are not credible studies that show SSP is inferior.

            Oh..and PS–you may find this interesting (unless you think arguments made by Yale scientists are just emotional):

            http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

          • VB– Thanks for the link to the college newspaper editorial. It is more “poli-pop” science reporting from a graduate student author.

            How many animal species routinely engage in fratricide, infanticide, sexual violence or cannibalism? Should we anthropomorphize those actions too, or just project those “behaviors” that support your personal political agendas?

          • Yale Scientific Magazine
            The Yale Scientific is an undergraduate science publication focusing on Yale science departments. The magazine is committed to the ideals of scientific journalism, and serves the Yale community by presenting the scientific, medical, and engineering activities at the University.

            Hardly a pop rag.

            You write: “How many animal species routinely engage in fratricide, infanticide, sexual violence or cannibalism? Should we anthropomorphize those actions too, or just project those “behaviors” that support your personal political agendas?” Leave it to you to go to the dark side, O’Boyle. Sadly, all of those behaviors exist in human society. Morality is socially constructed. All of those behaviors, O’Boyle, involve violating someone else’s rights. More inclusion, more participation, more democracy, recognizing and legitimizing loving committed relationships can hardly be compared to murder.

          • O’Boyle—The study about which the student wrote in his article for Yale Scientist was by evolutionary biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at UC Riverside. Here’s Bailey’s email address nathanb@ucr.edu, why don’t you write to him and tell him why you find his research unworthy.

          • VB: “Dark side?” My point is that human beings generally do not aspire to live like wild animals.

            Watching two giraffes or birds rub necks and projecting upon them human homosexuality, as you and the graduate student author of the pop sci article do, insults gay people.

            It also incorrectly presumes that there are rigorous behavioral studies on giraffes. Serious animal biologists struggle to understand even non-human primate “behavior,” let alone distant lizards, penguins or giraffes. The article is just more exploitation and “dumbing down” of biology to make a contrived political point.

            But the term “rag” is your perjorative VB. Rather, I find it to be more pop-sci or glossy junk mail for alums.

          • Well actually, O’Boyle, most of us do act like wild animals. We eat, sleep, eliminate wastes, have sex, seek shelter, play, fight, show affection, care for young, etc. etc. etc.

            I don’t see how refuting the claims of ideologues who cling to biological/evolutionary arguments against SS pairings based partially on what they claim is observable in the animal kingdom…. by showing so many examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom…behavior that provides advantage to the species from an evolutionary standpoint… would be offensive to gay people.

            You write: “It also incorrectly presumes that there are rigorous behavioral studies on giraffes. Serious animal biologists struggle to understand even non-human primate “behavior,” let alone distant lizards, penguins or giraffes. The article is just more exploitation and “dumbing down” of biology to make a contrived political point.” I believe the researchers provided examples from quite a few more species than that. However, I would again suggest you take your complaint up with the researchers.

          • VB: You challenge me to write Nathan and Zuk about “why his research” is unworthy.

            But it turns out the pop-sci piece for college students you cited is citing an opinion expressed based on a review article. Nathan and Zuk is only a review/perspective itself, not original research or data. Perhaps you should read these articles before recommending them to others?

          • Uh….Not true, O’Boyle. Actually, the Yale student’s piece, which was approved for printing in Yale Scientific is a review of the actual study. I went into the library database at my university, downloaded the study, and read it prior to posting my comment. I got the researchers’ information, which I provided to you, by doing so. So, I repeat my challenge that you write to Drs Bailey and Zuk and share your thoughts on the quality and substance of their research.
            I’d also suggest you write to the advisory board of Yale Scientific to explain why you think their magazine is pop-sci junk mail for alums. I’m sure they’d be interested in responding to your concerns.

          • VB: Truthfully, N. Bailey and M. Zuk published two review/perspectives on this topic. Neither is an original research paper with data. Both are reviews/editorials and are in the minireview journal called Trends Ecol Evol (2008, vol 23; 2009, vol 24).

            Can you share a link to the original research papers by Bailey and Zuk you read in the library? Maybe I missed those?

            I found your anthropomorphic comparison of humans and animals entertaining.

            But I don’t think it is funny to compare complex adult behaviors like human homosexuality with these almost casual observations of birds or other wild animals. I think it degrades and insults my homosexual friends. Why not just stick to comparing oneself with the beasts instead of comparing others?

    • Epic
      We most certainly do Not need to leave God out of the argument. Arguing from atheist naturalist materialist bias it’s all random chance processes that got us here but as science confirms it’s completely impossible to have something come into being uncaused from nothing . Everything that begins to exist has a cause . The universe began to exist . Therefore the universe has a cause . That cause is a space -less ,timeless , personal being : God .
      Once we start with ” in the beginning God “, then it all falls into place . Gods word as revealed in the judeochristian scriptures is unparalleled in that science confirms it .
      A finite amount of time will never turn mere molecules into an amazingly complex finely tuned body of a man or a woman .

      We have the story of a man and woman in the first book of scripture who were given the power to procreate . Two homosexual men cannot do this naturally . Adam was told to join himself with his wife in a one flesh bonding . The plan of one man one woman was there from the start . If you mess with that you mess with truth and true knowledge ( science ) and then the story just becomes some weird narrative . It is a story the world would love to get rid of but they will never succeed because Christ tells us not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law ( Torah) -it will last forever .
      Fundamentals will never hurt us . They bring fresh vision to this debate and show us that we matter , that we are really human , unique and wonderfully made in Gods image to reflect and think His thoughts after Him .

      People may not like what I say but that doesn’t matter to me . What matters is truth . If we can say what happened to Moira was wrong then how do we exactly know that ? On what basis is our discernment of right and wrong? If there’s a God then there’s purpose and truth – a basis for laws of logic and uniformity in nature and objective morals .If not, no purpose , no truth , no really independent objective morality . But since God exists He gives us a foundation for truth and we can call certain values and duties as truly moral or immoral because of His revelation. We can strive to fight against the principalities and powers with this revelation . Let us not grow weary in defending and proclaiming it .

      • It may not matter to you that people might not like what you have to say, but does it matter to you that your religious arguments will make them “tune you out”? You may feel righteous about being vocal about your faith, but what will it matter if your words fall on deaf ears? Or worse, make people dismiss you as “extremist” or just plain silly? I think we need to remember what we’re fighting for. We’re not in this fight to be “right” about our religion, we’re in this fight to save more children from experiencing what Moira did. Great that you believe so strongly in your faith, but let’s stay focused on our objective.

          • JJGD, I don’t think you’re getting my point. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the philosophical reasons to believe in God. I know what you’re getting at, I’ve read plenty of C.S. Lewis. To atheists, this makes no difference, and most proponents of SSM are atheist. I think there are better ways to facilitate discussion with the opposition. Talk about what we can all agree on: That we all want what’s best for children and society. And the verdict is in: Children do best when raised by their married, biological parents. There’s no disputing that.

        • If this discussion is about the best way to make the case against SSM, the biological determinist argument or the spiritual, I would like to opine that these arguments are complementary, and mutually supportive. If fused and presented well, such an argument could help to ally two groups who might not otherwise agree on this issue: scientists and religious leaders. That could be a powerful alliance in the battle for public opinion. Fascinating discussion and I am so pleased to be able to participate in it.

          Sent from my iPad

          >

          • John
            Epicabundance has now agreed that the spiritual and the philosophical can be joined whereas in the previous post I was told an argument using God was unhelpful . This is inconsistency . I hope you noticed it .
            Epicabundance will not be stopping the debate by seemingly calling me self righteous . Labelling people as fundamentalists is trying to avoid the issue . What makes Moira’s story one that is morally good ? We don’t defeat atheism by pandering to its wishes or by a wishy washy pragmatism .
            The gay lobby is using every tactic possible . However what do know so far ? That naturally speaking hetero parents are best for children ? According to vbigelow ( pro gay advocate ) in here on this very blog gay parents do just as well as heterosexuals . My point is that we will not defeat the secularist atheist faction of the gay lobby by spouting statistics . This is a philosophical and spiritual battle . I’ve provided both in my previous posts . I fuse the two .

          • JJ this is certainly a strange way to have a discussion. Are we now going to speak to and about each other through John?

      • Epic abundance
        There will be no refraining from speaking the Gospel either in here or outside in the world . It is not an issue whether you were a fundamentalist for 20 years . It’s not my business . It seems that by this admission you imply that I am a fundamentalist . I am not to be labelled. If you do not like my view then it I’m sorry for you but that’s just the way it is . Get used to it my friend .
        I take the whole gospel which you seem to dislike and speak it . Christ used evidential , philosophical and even presuppositional arguments in his time on earth to confound the critics . I will be doing the same and I will not be deterred by your opposition or by anyone else’s opposition in here .
        As for the evolutionary biology argument . I’ve shown already that a macro evolutionary stance is untenable . Kindly re-read my posts .
        It is an impossibility for something to come from nothing in the first instance . Every thing that begins to exist has a cause . The universe began to exist . Therefore the universe has a cause .
        Secondly , the universe , stars planets etc the earth itself is formed directly by God . It doesn’t just form spontaneously from matter . Man similarly doesn’t just spontaneously evolve from the dust of the ground . No science would support that . Oh but wait , secular science does support it . Look at Neil de grass Tyson – he supports an abiogenesis . He supports molecules to man evolution even though it is impossible . There isn’t an endless amount if time . So I do not see why nature gets the credit. It seems to me that nature has become a god alongside evolution and that’s a huge problem because when debating atheists they just insert evolution for whatever paradigm they desire .

        Today’s elites present a false dichotomy of faith vs. science (example in Current Biology: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2815%2900743-5
        Steven Pinker’s glowing review of atheist-Darwin-defender Jerry Coyne’s new book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible). Actually, everybody exercises faith, and everybody is a supernaturalist who believes in miracles . You have to exercise faith to do science: faith in induction, in logic, and in the human mind’s reliable access to external reality. You have to have faith that facts are facts. Logic is supernatural; it cannot evolve, and it is not made of matter. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic . Believing that matter and life created itself is blind faith in the ultimate miracle. It didn’t happen because real science shows us it could never happen .

        “Faith” in the religious sense can be empirically grounded, while secular science can be dishonest (example http://phys.org/news/2015-08-vanity-predatory-academic-publishers-corrupting.html ). Proper faith follows the evidence where it leads, then takes a step beyond in the direction it points. That’s not really “faith” the way moderns use the word; it’s more like logic, wisdom, and trust. That’s why Christian apologists like Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason http://str.org/ )
        doesn’t use the word “faith” in his conversations. He wants people to learn to trust the soundness of evidence and arguments, just like every mature thinker must learn to do, and to distrust fallacious or groundless claims. Biology has shown the Scriptures to be worthy of our trust. ( see a previous post where I used science articles)
        So God can create two human beings who were told that marriage is only between a man and woman and that they were to procreate and multiply . Christ believed the same . Now a lot of people might not like that but I believe science confirms it . It’s not fundamentalist it’s confirmation that the text is reliable and that we can bring God into the argument , particularly this argument over the morality of same sex parenting . If atheists choose to reject it then so be it . They reject anything that’s not reflecting their worldview . So ? We still use the weapons at our disposal : evidence , presupposition and philosophy ( Christian teaching ).

        • JJ I give up. I don’t think you’re even reading my posts, or just skimming and inserting your own ideas of what you want me to say in order to have a debate on a topic you want to express your views about, or you’re just thoroughly committed to misunderstanding me. I have no clue where you got the idea I dislike the Gospel, think you’re a fundamentalist, and don’t understand Christian theology. Your responses to me don’t even make sense in light of what I’m saying. Somehow, Jae was able to see my point and respond to it, so I know I’m making myself clear. I would try to explain myself to you yet again but I see my efforts are futile. We’re not having a productive conversation, so I am ending it. I wish you all the best.

        • I would just like to add that I have spoken privately to Katy via email. She knows my story and how I lost my faith. I am her biggest fan and consider her a friend. Neither she, nor anyone else on this blog besides you, has felt the need to treat me as if I were the antichrist who’s come here to silence Christians everywhere for all time and eternity.

      • Oh Big, Big, Big,
        – It is absolutely true that if same sex individuals were meant to pair bond to bear (impossible) and raise offspring, that would be evidenced throughout nature, and history.

        – It is absolutely true that opposite sex families provide the foundation for all societies, with western civilization being, to date, the fittest society for our species.

        -It is absolutely true that aberrant sexual behavior exists in nature, along with all other aberrant behaviors that lead to unfitness for the species, I am glad that the Yalies finally figured that long known fact out for themselves. What they can’t claim, no matter how biased their investigators, is that same sex individuals pair bond monogamously to form fit families which are the foundation for fit societies.

        The rest of your statements are adrift-

        Fact: If SS’M’ was so darned good for the species it simply would have evolved and you would not have had to distort the US Constitution to force it on our society.

        Academia impresses me far, far less than does nature.

        • Again, Jae…Your statements are your opinions, not facts. You still haven’t explained why within your fit as a fiddle hetero families (you know, those monogamous ones…50%+ of which break up) bad and even abusive parenting still abounds. Could it be that good parenting involves more than biology?

          • Gee Biggie- you need a serious reality check if you think that there are same sex monogamous pair bonds forming families and societies throughout nature, including human societies. You will need to prove your assertion that my factual claim is just an opinion. If you want to claim that the sky is yellow- the onus is on you to prove it.

            Of course almost 50% of human monogamous bonds fail, our society has devolved to the point where monogamy was dis-incentivized via the leftist pop culture glorification of pornography, all forms of aberrant fornication, accommodation of all forms of addicts and sexual deviants, no-fault divorce, birth control and abortion- what did we think would happen to monogamy when so intensely targeted by the secular-progressive aberrant policies?

            Bad and abusive parents do abound- thanks to the engineered collapse of the biological family, and the promotion of the immoral and unethical secular-progressive-humanist culture. The solution to that problem isn’t fabricating ‘other’ parents, it’s fixing the natural, actual parents.

            Your lament that monogamy is having trouble ‘sticking’ and that biological families are suffering abuses is the height of hypocrisy since that is exactly the outcome the left engineered for the past two generations. Did you think that if you intentionally injected a vector full of a deadly social virus into a free society it wouldn’t infect the population?

            Good parenting begins with biology since that happens to be the biological definition of ‘parent’. When the warped leftist ideologues decided that the best way to collapse western society, the most free and fair society in human history, was to dissemble the family, as it approves of dissembling babies in utero for financial gains, they targeted the traditional, natural biological family since that is the social unit at the core of western civilization. Up until the sick progressive ideology got hold of the culture, good, biological parenting was supported by society- not intentionally undermined by it.

            And, you don’t need an academic reference to know that all of my claims are facts, not opinions, that are quite observable to all – even a Yalie.

            Let’s remember, the leftist ideology is currently in the incredibly illogical throes of trying to convince society that there is no such thing as sex or ‘gender’- well, unless you’re a tranny looking to cash in with a ‘reality’ show (oh, the oxymoron there!).

          • Bravo Jae! I don’t often cheer these days but you give me cause. Thank you.

            Sent from my iPad

            >

          • Jae writes:
            “you need a serious reality check if you think that there are same sex monogamous pair bonds forming families and societies throughout nature, including human societies. ” It would seem that you are the one who needs the reality check, because homosexual behavior is observable throughout the animal kingdom (see Yale report) and same sex monogamous pair bonds form throughout society. You write: “You will need to prove your assertion that my factual claim is just an opinion.” It is readily observable. The onus is, in fact, on you, Jae, to prove why gay people should be denied equal rights in a democratic society.

            Jae writes: “Of course almost 50% of human monogamous bonds fail, our society has devolved to the point where monogamy was dis-incentivized via the leftist pop culture glorification of pornography, all forms of aberrant fornication, accommodation of all forms of addicts and sexual deviants, no-fault divorce, birth control and abortion- what did we think would happen to monogamy when so intensely targeted by the secular-progressive aberrant policies?” Hmmmm historical references to polygamous societies that did not have access to porn, birth control, etc. abound. The Bible even has many examples of men with more than one wife.
            Jae writes:
            “Bad and abusive parents do abound- thanks to the engineered collapse of the biological family, and the promotion of the immoral and unethical secular-progressive-humanist culture. The solution to that problem isn’t fabricating ‘other’ parents, it’s fixing the natural, actual parents. ” Good luck with that, Jae. Bad parents have been around since antiquity, and in the absence of [this is really laughable] “unethical secular progressive-humanist culture.” Biological parents have sold their children into slavery, to be castrated by choir masters, given them away to orphans’ courts, sold them into prostitution, sacrificed them to gods, killed them for being female, etc. etc. etc. It has more to do with the fact that the value of children and the definition of what constitutes a fit parent are both socially constructed.
            You write: “Your lament that monogamy is having trouble ‘sticking’ and that biological families are suffering abuses is the height of hypocrisy since that is exactly the outcome the left engineered for the past two generations. Did you think that if you intentionally injected a vector full of a deadly social virus into a free society it wouldn’t infect the population?” No, I reject the idea that a deadly social virus has been injected into the population. You have no proof of this. It is not enough to disagree.

            You write: “Good parenting begins with biology since that happens to be the biological definition of ‘parent’.” No, that is the definition of biological parent. It has nothing to do with good parenting, which does not seem to be instinctive in humans.
            You write: “When the warped leftist ideologues decided that the best way to collapse western society, the most free and fair society in human history, was to dissemble the family, as it approves of dissembling babies in utero for financial gains, they targeted the traditional, natural biological family since that is the social unit at the core of western civilization. Up until the sick progressive ideology got hold of the culture, good, biological parenting was supported by society- not intentionally undermined by it.” This makes no sense and is not evidence based.
            You write: “And, you don’t need an academic reference to know that all of my claims are facts, not opinions.” I’m afraid you do, Jae. Your claims are opinions, very narrow ones that ignore the social, economic, and psychological factors that define good parenting.

  3. Pingback: Magicians of the Outer Right, Part Zwei – Power Plays | The Mitrailleuse

    • Brendan, actually, truth be told, not even animals of higher order (mammals, avians) prey so upon their own offspring nor engage in unnatural sexuality.

      I see no reason to indict animals!

    • “The onus is, in fact, on you, Jae, to prove why gay people should be denied equal rights in a democratic society.”

      Millions of years of evolution that led to the biological fact that same sex pair bonding is non-existent in nature and thoroughly unfit for species and society. They should no more be accommodated or incentivized by society than any other individuals exhibiting and freely choosing to practice other similarly aberrant behaviors.

      “Hmmmm historical references to polygamous societies that did not have access to porn, birth control, etc. abound. The Bible even has many examples of men with more than one wife.”

      Yeah, we know, so is the bible full of stories of other human corruption and deviant behaviors- it isn’t a promotion of the behavior, its a condemnation. Polygamy didn’t work out for them – did it (kinda the whole point)? Why did you choose to cite only those bible passages that you erroneously believed supported your dubious claims – got anything on homosexuality or fornication out of that good book you’d like to share?

      …”I reject the idea that a deadly social virus has been injected into the population. You have no proof of this. It is not enough to disagree.”

      All leftists, including you, gladly crow of all the ‘progress’ made to push traditional and conservative ethics and morals and religion out of the public square to ‘free up’ the individual to pursue every deviant sexual and other selfish pursuit their devilish little hearts can imagine. Do you deny that western culture has taken a giant step to the left towards socialism over the last 50 years? Will you still maintain that you are an ‘honest’ ‘PhD/academic’ in the same fire-breath when you try to maintain that unsustainable position?

      “Your claims are opinions,very narrow ones that ignore the social, economic, and psychological factors that define good parenting.”

      No, they are facts available for verification by all. Do your own homework, Dr. Strangelove. Meanwhile I’m still waiting for your examples of any homosexual societies or species that are fit and/or thriving.

      If your only defense against the facts of the biological argument is going to be to continue to deny reality, rather than formulate an actual factual response, you’re going to cede your nasty little illegal ‘legal’ triumph much sooner than I anticipated. Stick with that ‘plan’, I like it-

      .

      • Hey Jae, Millions of years of evolution have what???
        Nathan W. Bailey, Marlene Zuk, Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 24, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 439-446, ISSN 0169-5347, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014.
        (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001542)
        Abstract: Same-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals. Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations for the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior. Researchers have begun to make headway unraveling possible evolutionary origins of these behaviors and reasons for their maintenance in populations, and we advocate expanding these approaches to examine their role as agents of evolutionary change. Future research employing theoretical, comparative and experimental approaches could provide a greater understanding not only of how selection might have driven the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviors but also ways in which such behaviors act as selective forces that shape social, morphological and behavioral evolution.

        You still haven’t answered my questions.

  4. Why is everyone arguing so much on this woman’s post? She has poured her heart out on here, her life’s story with all of its unsavory details and pain and abuse. Why are we using this post as a venue for arguments, when Katy has so many other posts for this type of discussion?

    All there is to say is that this woman has suffered, and she is opening up about the truth she has discovered in her own life. Maybe it doesn’t tell the whole story about the things you’re arguing about, but it is nevertheless part of the story and it is important. Grieve for this woman, even if you don’t agree with the implications. Take the truth from her slice of life and use it to illuminate your understanding of things.

    Moira, I am truly horrified by what has happened to you and I am thankful that you were pulled out of your suffering. You are in my prayers.

  5. Jae, it seems that you are claiming that Christianity is what made America great. It’s positive effects on society are absolutely disputable. Are you forgetting about the officially Christian governments of Europe throughout the ages that crushed and oppressed people? How do you explain that to the left? How do you ease their fears that a Christian nation won’t evolve into an oppressive theocracy as has happened in Europe? Clearly, “Christianity” alone isn’t what made America great. I think it was a combination of complex factors and at most, Christian general principals played a small role.

    As far as philosophical arguments providing the basis for moral/altruistic behaviors, I think evolutionary game theory is just as plausible as God. (I am personally undecided, I think both could very well be true.) We’re just not going to win the argument on religious/philosophical grounds. I agree proponents of SSM are completely dependent on emotional reasoning, but I think they’ll be forced to look at reality as we begin to see the fruits of their “fairness and equality” through the stories of children raised by homosexuals. Remember, the left doesn’t understand the language of God, absolute truth or objective morality. We have to speak to them in concepts and terms they can understand.

    Not only that, but because of people like the Duggars, Christians are an absolute joke in their eyes. Why on earth would you use the very thing they find the most ridiculous to persuade them? Personally, when I start to read a comment declaring how God’s law is supreme and only Jesus can save us, I scroll right on by. I don’t even read it, and I suspect atheists do the same thing with possibly the addition of an eye roll. Ryan T. Anderson is devoutly Christian, but I have never heard him talk about his religious beliefs when defending traditional families, because it doesn’t work and he knows that. He may bring it up in discussions among other believers, but not with those who don’t share his faith. All I’m saying is we should do the same, which is why I enjoy reading your posts so much.

    • Epic, I am not saying to replace the clear-cut biological argument with the religious argument. I am saying that when Atheists use their god to criticize the Christian or any major religions’ God to shut down their opponents debate, they need to be reminded that their god is far less rational and far more harmful to humanity than any of the other major religions God. I am enough aware/familiar of/with evolutionary game theory to dismiss it as being unproductive in any element of the argument against SS’M’.

      From an historical, factual basis, your conclusions about Christianity’s history or its effects on western civilization are either flat-out erroneous and/or highly debatable- but that isn’t the intent of my contributions at ATB. I’ll leave other more theologically-prone contributors to address them, if they please. Suffice it to say, with evidence, that Christian doctrinal tenets and principles more closely mirror biological truths than any other religions tenets, including Atheism. Now, whether that fact is by design or accidental, I can’t say- I can only point out the readily observable, and therefore, testable, for consideration. That doesn’t mean that other major religions fail to be in synch with evolutionary biological facts, only that Christianity seems to be most congruent with them.

      We need to be careful not to demonize anybody, including Christians and Atheists since that is a pure emotional exercise based in human biases, there is enough historical and biological evidence to correct the record all around. After all, it’s just as easy and justifiable to roll eyes at the Atheists claims of the origins of life as it is any other religious claims. We need to stop exhibiting/practicing bias – evidently, so ingrained in some from yielding to it for so many years of outwardly practiced bias and discrimination as practiced by western cultural pop ‘icons’ that we don’t even recognize it in ourselves – against one religion while giving a free pass to all the others.

      Again, the biological argument kills the SS ‘M’ argument, in toto, logically, but, it isn’t the indisputably factual argument that won the LBGTQ advocates their day in court, it is the emotional and that is where non-Atheists need to learn to dialogue, and dominate.

      • Fair enough Jae. But there’s the million dollar question: how to appeal to emotional reasoning? As I’m seeing here and on other sites they outright deny the biological facts and statistics, as well as the existence of God and objective morality. People’s stories like Katy’s and Moira’s, as well as others, appeal to emotions, but then they’re invalidated and demonized.
        For the record, I didn’t say I rolled my eyes at Christians, but I think atheists do. I admire those who can maintain their belief in a loving, just God in spite of the unspeakable suffering of people like Moira in this world.

        • Epic- I believe that there has to be a forced reckoning with the facts of biology, and those aspects of evolution theory that are verified via direct observations, as well as supported by both archeological and genetic evidence.

          The SS’M’ advocates position is entirely based upon emotion, with a dabble here and there of biological distortions, such as the ‘gay’ animal claim. They’ve been so brainwashed by their ideology that they’ve got a substantial portion of western society questioning the very concept of sex (which is why they had to redefine it to ‘gender’) and the clear and observable and necessary biological differences between the sexes.

          I can’t really think of a better way (maybe others can?) to pull the debate, that which is currently teetering on the edge of the illogical ideological cliff, than to push their smug leftist know it all faces into that nasty pile of biological reality. Their very own god, borne via the ‘science’ of biology, thoroughly repudiates their ridiculous claims, and their equally ridiculous redefinitions of the reality of all matter. Quite frankly, they need to be treated as the ideological and biology-denying fools that they are, and that they present to their opposition.

          If you search back on my contributions at ATB you will find that other than the obvious and ever-so testable hypothesis (lie) that ‘gayness exists quite naturally in nature’, you will see the biological argument resulting in either the huffy “…I’m leaving here because you’re all just bigots…” or the “…you’re just a Christian in disguise and thus a bigot and hater…” or “….see those social studies supporting SS’M’…”, and/or any other silly unresponsive emotional ‘response’, but the one that kills the biological argument on its own biological merits (which simply does not exist in reality), and that is the myth that same-sex individuals pair to form family bonds, which in turn provide the foundation for societies- which ensures the fitness of the species, which provides the foundation for the most fit society in human history.

          So, we need to stop enabling them by preventing them from dragging us into their incredibly illogical emotional debate and by continuing to point out the facts of life to them. The facts may not change the minds of those already ideologically poisoned beyond help, but, the facts won’t be denied or rejected by others more rational – especially in light of Moira’s and other COGs heartbreaking testimonies. There is no logical reason, based upon the facts of biology alone, not to establish a direct link between the biological facts of the matter (i.e. same sex individuals do not sexually pair-bond to produce and rear [‘parent’] offspring) and the similarly horrendous experiences suffered by these COGs.

          Remember, we’re eating an ‘elephant’-

        • Epic—To which “biological facts and statistics” do you refer? Just curious.
          I don’t agree that people are dismissing Moira or Katy’s traumatic childhood experiences. We are just standing firm on the point that these are individual cases that have not been proven to be representative of or generalizable to the population. We also point out that pedophilia and other forms of abusive parenting exist among hetero parents. You’ve got nothing evidential to support your claims that SSM and SSP is detrimental.

          • To a point you’re right. SSP is a fairly new phenomenon and also rare, so we don’t have much evidence quantitatively that it is detrimental. But for the studies we do have that show kids from SSP homes suffer, you just discount by saying they’re biased or flawed in some way. (Admittedly so does the right) Many adult COGs have come forward with their stories and you claim it’s all “cherry-picking”. Like Katy, I believe the main issue with SSP is the likelihood of increasing numbers of donor conceived children. We now realize many donor conceived individuals struggle with identity issues and a longing to know the missing parent and their heritage as well as medical history, among other things. We know adopted children also struggle with these same issues. What we know for sure is that biology matters to humans, and it’s biologically impossible to homosexuals to create a human life together. People have the right to love whoever they want, and I don’t doubt homosexual relationships can be just as fulfilling as heterosexual ones. But people don’t have the right to knowingly and purposefully sever a child’s ties to one or both of it’s biological parents.
            Personally, my main argument is against normalizing anything other than the traditional family. I think no-fault divorce and remarriage is the worst thing to happen to our nation. That’s why it bothers me so much when the left plays the “well they don’t have a problem with divorce, remarriage or single parenting!” We absolutely DO have a problem with it! Those things are widely known and accepted to have major, sometimes devastating effects on people. If you think I’m cherry picking I suggest you get out from under the rock you’ve been living under. But 40 years ago, all those things were rare and nobody foresaw how much damage it was going to do to children. For years people said “The kids are fine!” Now we know they weren’t, but divorce is so normalized that people think nothing of it, even though we know it hurts children. Enough COGs have spoken out that we have a pretty good idea that it’s going to harm a lot of children raised by 2 moms or 2 dads. I think it’s sad when adults discount the needs of the children to satisfy their own wants.
            As far as posting links to specific articles and studies proving my point, I’m pretty sure you have a computer and access to the Internet. It’s pretty easy to do Google searches on all these points so I’ll leave you to do your own research as I have done.

          • Epic
            In a reply to vbigelow you said that homosexual relationships can be just as fulfilling as heterosexual ones . This is never the case as homosexual relationships are unnatural . You’ve even gone against your own argument . Also on this blog it may be difficult to say but it has to be said that homosexuality that includes sexual activity is sin .
            The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

            God does not create a person with homosexual desires. People become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

            However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God.
            “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

            God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over all sin to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation
            (1 Corinthians 6:11 says” And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
            Once we admit our error The Lord begins to heal . That’s the wonderful message of Christ for all .

          • JJ, you’re welcome to continue posting redundantly about how Jesus saves and God has the perfect plan, but just an FYI- I don’t read any of your posts, either to me or directed toward others, so it’s a bit of a waste of your time replying to me.

    • Epic
      Everyone comeson here with a bias . Even Jae , you and I . I don’t know anyone on here . I always assume that everyone is sincere in their posts . I try not to be personal . I occasionally may dip into the personal but I try my best to keep on the topic of the thread and argue the point instead of the person . That can be difficult .

      Everyone in here has had something going in in their life . I’d say we all have had issues at some stage or are having issues right now . Moira’s is a personal topic which does involve the physical body .
      I’ve been through life’s hurts and I have to say that at long last I’ve come through . It’s been a long hard slog . My faith has sustained me . My wife has been the best help I could ever imagine besides my God . She’s just incredible . We both have come through hard times – times that God actually brought on so that we would open our eyes to His way of love and truth . We thank god daily for it . We’ve still got some problems but they pale into insignificance after the learning and insight God in Christ gave us a few years back . I learned that He loves to discipline ( teaching) and lead us back gently to the fold particularly after terrible traumas and downturns .

      I understand you’ve lost your faith . I remember being snubbed by some of those those so called “fundies” . But they couldn’t love me the way Christ truly did . They didn’t have the antidote for the problem even though we believed in the same God ! Not all were guilty by the way . Some of the people in the body of Christ can be mean . I’m sure you understand . When I came through some still couldn’t deal with me . That was their problem not mine . All I know is that Christ led me back to the Father where I received forgiveness and grace . It’s like I once was lost but now I’m found . I was a prodigal . I learned the truth but what a hard time of learning I had to go through . I’m a prodigal no more . I’m not going back to that dark nighttime . I never lost the faith I just blotted Him out for a while . I also focused too much of my attention on what other Christians thought of me . Not now , because I truly know what it is to have a strong faith and I’m not giving Christ up for anything or anyone.
      Christ hasn’t given up on you . In my view He’s bringing you though a time of learning . I do believe we are in an end times scenario where lines are being drawn and the choice will be between God and the world . If I speak boldly it’s because I love my Lord and want others to know Him . I do speak strongly and I make no bones about it . You would too if you were in my shoes:-) . Christ is the answer to every single problem on this planet . He is God .He is the way the truth and the life . He opens doors to new life and heals the brokenhearted . That enables me to go forward in love of others, imperfect as I am yet forgiven . That’s my experience.
      Just try to understand the bible believing Christian . Although I would describe myself in a more simple way than that . I am a Christian man fighting the good fight . We Christians are not perfect people .We don’t claim to be . We are sinners saved by His love and mercy . Christ is our standard . The bible is where He is revealed . Revelation is truth . Without God there just is no meaning and the world of atheism ,anti theism ,agnosticism ,scepticism ,secularism ,scientism , materialism , naturalism , humanism is a world without meaning . It’s the world of the blind leading the blind often times by force . Im fighting that and in on here to give hope to those who hurt . Christ is real . He’s still healing people . I know because I’m one He healed .
      I wish you well ,epic . I’ll always be for
      your good . I’m not your enemy . I’m your friend .

  6. Big and Jae, is there any way you could exchange emails and continue your discussion privately? Clearly you’re both enjoying yourselves immensely, but it’s getting tiresome and there’s no need to continue your pointless bickering in public. It’s unbecoming of both of you.

    • I have learned a lot from both Jae and vb and wish they would continue to state their viewpoints without the personal attacks or insults.

      Sent from my iPad

      >

  7. Re-reading Moira’s story is even more harrowing than the first . One can see that homosexuality is the problem as she reiterates many times throughout the piece . Yet some people would call her an extremist for thinking that.

  8. VB: You cited an editorial in Yale Scientific Magazine (YSM) and provided a link. YSM isn’t a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It’s a glossy college publication that does a fine job of teaching science and non-science majors how to write current political or technical news magazine stories. But it is not a good source for primary scientific data.

    Your link to YSM described opinions published in an earlier mini-review from 2009 by Bailey and Zuk in Trends Ecol Evol (TREE). Articles in TREE are short mini-reviews or opinion pieces that do not contain original data. They are invited or commissioned by the editor(s).

    Bailey and Zuk 2009 begins with the statement: “The purpose of this review is to expand our thinking…” Is that hypothesis-based research VB? At one point in their perspective, this paper actually discusses Lawrence v. Texas 2003 in the context of “gay rights.”

    Doesn’t it seem a bit unusual that a mini-review in an ecology journal should be citing and discussing highly politicized state court cases? Don’t you think that sort of mixing of politics and scientific literature makes for “strange bedfellows?” Regardless of which side of a debate it occurs on?

    • O’Boyle writes: “Your link to YSM described opinions published in an earlier mini-review from 2009 by Bailey and Zuk in Trends Ecol Evol (TREE). Articles in TREE are short mini-reviews or opinion pieces that do not contain original data. They are invited or commissioned by the editor(s).”

      My link to the YSM reported on a literature review by Bailey and Zuk, both scientists and published researchers with university appointments. Articles in Trends in Ecology and Evolution are peer reviewed and articles are selected based on criteria including: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-accepted-your-article

      O’Boyle writes:
      Bailey and Zuk 2009 begins with the statement: “The purpose of this review is to expand our thinking…” Is that hypothesis-based research VB?
      It’s a literature review.

      At one point in their perspective, this paper actually discusses Lawrence v. Texas 2003 in the context of “gay rights.”
      SO WHAT?

  9. MM writes of a gay man he knows who lived part of his life as a self-identified heterosexual but later as a homosexual person . Moira writes that her father also identified as a heterosexual but behaved as a homosexual pedophile. Others here write about prisoners switching back-and-forth in their sexual identity. And the large twin cohort studies demonstrate that the largest component of homosexuality is accounted for by a person’s “unique individual environment.” Environments change throughout a lifetime.

    What percentage of the 2 to 4% of people now self-identifying as “homosexual” are prone to reverse their orientation, or have already done so at least once in their life? Is it a minority or majority of lesbians and gays? This is probably a controversial question so it can be framed for fairness the other way around to ask what percentage of self-identified heterosexuals have or will switch sexual orientation?

  10. Hello all, apologies for not staying on top of this discussion. This is one of the many facets of blogging where I am ill equipped. For the most part I trust people to police themselves when it comes to interacting, and indeed when they don’t it reveals more about them than anyone else. It seems that this discussion needs an active moderator, which at this time I am not able to be. This thread has devolved into little more than tit for tat, topped off by a sickening dose of threatening harm on an individual who doesn’t even know this discussion is taking place. So I am disabling the comments on this post and from here on out will have to consider whether or not comments on future posts will be fruitful or not.

    Many thanks to those who have sought to understand a new perspective and for those who have presented their case without attacking others. I appreciate your efforts and learn much from you.

    Cheers, friends.

Comments are closed.