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 
and 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.
askthe"Bigot" 
Moira, My heart is with you. I am so sorry for your horrible childhood; sorry that no one protected you. You are loved, dear one. I will remember to pray for you, pray for many warm and safe arms to welcome you as you share your story.
I’m so impressed that there are still people among us who have the courage to tell the truth. God bless you with healing and peace in your soul, Moira. I will be thinking about the things you have said here.
No. Words. My heart goes out to you. MZB appears to have had just a pump.
And let this be another cautionary tale to those who mistakenly believe that great creative talent cannot coexist with moral depravity, or (G-d forbid) is somehow a ‘hall pass’ for it.
This is a very serious allegation, to believe that ALL Homosexuality is like this. However, as I told someone else today on Facebook on an ENTIRELY different topic— the very fact that you exist, that you represent even a Part of what is True, that there is a Faction out there who experiences this— that matters. Your voice must be heard. Those who want to support gay marriage should have to defend themselves and prove they are not part of the insidious darker side of the movement that you are so familiar with.
I believe its very possible for all kinds of movements to find that they have members who have reinvented or twisted the movements away from the roots. Take for example, how there are many, many kinds of Christian denominations that stemmed and broke from and reacted to the Catholic Church, and imagine their relationship to the Catholic Church and their different practices and beliefs. Some of them now actually fight the Catholic Church philosophically.
I have strong reason to believe that even if the gay community had as its roots what you describe, the situation we have now is many branches and stems and reactions. I have strong reason to believe there is more than one kind of gay just as there is more than one kind of Christian. People think for themselves and invent heresy upon heresy and rebellion upon rebellion and splice together all kinds of beliefs and messages that they get from everywhere and anywhere.
The roots may be as you say, but there are those I believe that would self describe themselves as being part of the gay community that would reel in shock at this and would vehemently oppose the things you oppose. There would be some who would deny that there is any insidious movement at all, because that’s more comfortable to believe. But the intelligent and brave ones might be willing to be more cautious before writing you off and check out for themselves if there’s a twisted rotten cancer within a tree that gives them life and love. They might be willing to go through the same pains and schisms the Christian Church has had to weather.
It might surprise you to meet some of them. The kind of movement you describe, which I do not doubt exists, because I’ve seen some evidence of it, would hate and scorn the kind of people I’m thinking about. Thanks to the internet, Christian Culture and Gay Culture and Every Other Culture have all gotten tangled up into quite a mess, and I think it’s created some oddball fusions. people that because of their nearly unique mix of beliefs and outlook are set up to be most rejected by the people they most otherwise have in common with, because they disagree on crucial key points.
“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.”
Where do homosexual females come from if that is true? I know some gays that believe in sexual responsibility and don’t believe in the sexualization of children and have children they want to protect, not abuse. Some of them are real families.
–However– Just because I don’t believe “all” gays are like that, doesn’t mean that I ignore your warning that there are, in fact, some who *are*.
I wish you good fortune and victory in your battles, and I also wish that you examine carefully, just who exactly is your enemy and who isn’t.
Well said Matt
It is a very serious allegation that maybe only whose have lived or went thru that know what really is..
Although what is important here is that I as parent , DO NOT SEE A need to teach or kids about homosexual relationship in Elementary School when their minds are very immature and susceptible to any or almost everything an adult (teache) say , I respect if people choose or want to be gay becausw thwy like it or because they think they were born gay but teaching children about “how to” is another story and this gay movemen is crossing the Line to what we call RIGHTS & RESPECT jus To make them feel better about they sex orientation.. Im not judging Im only talking for my own experience as I grew up very close to a unt that became lesbian at her mid 20’s and main 2 reasons are #1 sex abuse by (father) #2 physical & emitional abuse (by husband) well long story that point is that I never saw her kissing , making up or anything like that so I always respect her although I knew she had a female partner … Now after 15 years she is with a male and very happy ., so Im not judging gay Im just not in favor of making a law where basecally is leading more laws to destroy children education & morals , I believe there is time to everything so why make this gay sex class part of curriculum im public schools is #justnotfear..
There’s no intention to teach children about sexuality. There is an intention to teach children not to be bigoted.
Rubbish.
Oh, really, vbigelow? Here’s a charming item:
EDUCATION
At Anti-Bullying Conference, Middle Schoolers Learn About Lesbian Strap-On Anal Sex, Fake Testicles
Photo of Eric Owens
ERIC OWENS
Education Editor
10:31 PM 07/25/2015
41080
In rural, small-town Iowa, a group of parents and community leaders is seeking to prevent students from the local taxpayer-funded middle school and high school from attending future versions of an anti–bullying conference for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens.
The last one — in April — left many of the denizens of Humboldt, Iowa up in arms, reports Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/25/at-anti-bullying-conference-iowa-middle-schoolers-learn-about-lesbian-strap-on-anal-sex-fake-testicles/#ixzz3h7OqhA3G
The Daily Caller?????
Nonsense. Throughout the public schools systems nationwide there have been aggressively overt programs in place for decades – only more than ever, now – to sexualize our children. Have you been keeping your head where the sun don’t shine?
Ever is the welfare of humanity the alibi of despots and tyrants. Nice try, you want access to my children to teach them what you think and you would like it to be a mandatory law I assume?
“reports Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV”
You did not read carefully, because, let’s face it, you do not wish to know and will ignore or dismiss any evidence that contradicts you.
Read that story and tell me that there was no intention to teach children about sexuality. Oh, but I can predict that your response will be “it’s just one case! It’s an outlier!” When dishonest people can not deny unpleasant facts anymore they then move the goalposts.
The Government Bureaucrat in Ontario who designed a curriculum (with a lesbian his boss first as Minister of Education and later as Premier of Ontario) to introduce all forms of sexual activity to pre-teens – was convicted of producing and distributing child pornography and counselling to commit child sexual abuse…
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/29/ben-levin-sentenced-to-three-years-for-child-porn
Is this cherry-picked example provided to fuel your anti-gay feeding frenzy? Shall I post the Gothard-Duggar example again?
Whatever Duggar and his pastor did or didn’t do isn’t comparable to mandatory institutionalization of the LBGTQ agenda from pre-K throughout the university level within the public education system.
The bad acts of individuals is no excuse (actually, your rotting-from-the-head red herring is stinking up the debate) for any governments portrayal of disordered sexuality and behavior as normal to children.
Do you deny that the government mandate imposing the introduction of aberrant sexual behavior on children is a form of indoctrination by the radical LBGTQ lobby?
Do you believe that parents should have the right to teach their children their own morals and ethics in matters of sexuality, or any other matters of behavior?
Not a red hering. I matched one cherry -picked example from the straight extremist Christian movement to the cherry-picked example from the gay community. The point was to show the irrelevance of cherry-picked examples to assigning characteristics to whole groups of people.
You write: “Do you deny that the government mandate imposing the introduction of aberrant sexual behavior on children is a form of indoctrination by the radical LBGTQ lobby?” I deny that the government is imposing the introduction of aberrant sexual behavior. I deny that the LGBTQ community is imposing any form of “indoctrination.” I believe the anti-gay lobby is trying to impose the indoctrination of bigotry against LGBTQ people on children.
You write: “Do you believe that parents should have the right to teach their children their own morals and ethics in matters of sexuality, or any other matters of behavior?” That is a complex and loaded question. In some ways yes, in others no.
vbigelow
July 28, 2015 at 4:39 am
“…. to fuel your anti-gay feeding frenzy?”
vbigelow
July 28, 2015 at 11:50 am
“…. This has ceased to be a discussion or debate. It’s about slander, personal attacks and bigoted, non-evidence based anti-gay opinions…. rant all you want, you’ve lost your hateful war….”
vbigelow
July 28, 2015 at 6:54 am
“I believe the anti-gay lobby is trying to impose the indoctrination of bigotry against LGBTQ people on children.”
vbigelow
July 26, 2015 at 1:53 pm
“Aberrant sexual proclivities?” is slander, Jae. Slander for which you have no evidence or justification.”
vbigelow
July 26, 2015 at 8:13 pm
“You make things up as you go. There’s no “hard data” as you say, to support your hateful claims.”
vbigelow
July 26, 2015 at 8:46 pm
“I couldn’t decipher the rest of your frothing rant.”
“What is the difference, IMHO (and Jae for that matter) between knowledge and opinion in your minds? I don’t think you know the difference.”
vbigelow
July 27, 2015 at 3:52 pm
“Yeah, sure, O’Boyle. Keep telling yourself that. Your personal attacks are unconvincing. I have a PhD…”
vbigelow
July 27, 2015 at 3:47 pm
“Keep ranting, Jae. You still don’t make any sense.”
vbigelow
July 28, 2015 at 1:20 pm
“Uh, no, Phil. I’m not. If I had any respect for you, your baseless insult might bother me. Since I don’t, it doesn’t. Go back to your echo chamber and resume enjoying your mutual mental masturbation with your bigoted friends. Bye, bye.”
It just felt like it was time (perhaps, overdue) to reveal some truths about those that claim ‘slander’, ‘bias’, ‘bigotry’, ‘hate’ and ‘victimhood’ in response to their oppositions logical arguments, while they show all their own ‘love’ and ‘tolerance’ to their opposition.
Nothing says ‘hypocrite’ as plainly and loudly as providing the evidence (this is actually what evidence looks like for those ‘softy’ social-psych theorists out there) of one’s own slanderous words right back at them.
This is what you have to do, in addition to suing bakers and florists and ‘shaming’ and ‘bullying’ your opposition into the closet, while you simultaneously support all the paraphilia groups to force their ‘equal rights’ onto a moral society, instead of being able to defend the logically indefensible position they’ve taken.
Oh- speaking of moral – it is immoral and unethical to continue to demand we use tools to ‘prove’ social theories that are deficient for the task- but, then, the immoral minority already knows this to be fact.
That is why they must force us to either look away from nature, or lie about and distort nature. They managed, albeit temporarily, to eliminate God from the debate; not so easy with nature, though – is it?
Yes, not one of those comments I made was slanderous or defamatory. Looks like I attacked comments and behavior…unlike you and some of your sympathizers on this site.
The bakers and florists broke the law. You can’t operate a public accommodation and discriminate. It’s that pesky US Constitution.
Again, I’m waiting for you to post the results of some independent probability studies to support your reductionist nature theory.
>>Where do homosexual females come from if that is true?”
Moira gave two possible answers in her post:
>>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.
Moira’s experiences are Moira’s experiences. I know a number of lesbians, and I can’t think of one who “hates” men. Do you hate other men, Steve, because you are sexually attracted to women? (assuming you are).
But…let’s put your question to a lesbian and see what she has to say…oops…someone beat you to it: http://www.afterellen.com/columns/200574-the-hook-up-addressing-the-lesbians-hate-men-stereotype
There are many women who identify as lesbians who do so not because they aren’t sexually attracted to men, but because they haven’t been able to get along very well with the men they’ve partnered up with. Some time in their thirties or forties, they decide that they want to become lesbians.
Something much like this appears to be what happened with actress Cynthia Nixon, who was viciously attacked by the gay activists, when she said that her lesbianism was a choice. Even though her experience is far from unique, it didn’t fit the narrative.
Sometimes this lack of affinity with males can rise to the level of hate, but sometimes it’s more a matter of not being able to get along.
this is actually true. I work with someone who left her marriage and “chose” to become a lesbian.
I see: Moira’s experiences are Moira’s experiences. YOUR experiences and opinion (and one lesbian’s opinions) somehow trump hers – because you tell us they do.
And I have met 3 women who identified as lesbian and was on friendly terms with 2 of them.
One was severely molested by a man (including burnt with cigarettes) when she was a teenager, at which point she became a lesbian. The other was going through a man-hating stage and identified as a lesbian, which she eventually grew out of, having previously sworn “it isn’t just a phase”. The 3rd looked like she had a hormonal imbalance. She was very butch.
Clearly, there’s a connection between being sexually abused/hurt by men and being a lesbian, which isn’t to say that all lesbians have had such experiences, certainly not when it comes to bisexual women, but when it comes to lesbians, there’s very often a terrible experience with men which forms more than just a backdrop.
I also was on friendly terms with a bisexual guy who was semi seduced, semi abused by a man when he was a teenager. Though that doesn’t mean that all (or even most) gays were seduced by men when they were young. I’m perfectly willing to believe that many gay men just naturally turned out that way.
Children who grow up in a gay household will not all become gay themselves but have a much higher chance of growing up to be gay than children who didn’t.
You slandered yourself, V-big, I only pointed it out. Not so surprising is the attempt at a not-so-veiled threat to shut down any opposition to your position, and quite dubious claims. Won’t work, move on.
You deny hard evidence that LBGTQ ‘sexuality’ is being mandated to be taught in public schools- when we all know this to be true. How can we believe you about anything if you continue to deny that LBGTQ behavior is non-existent in nature and that kids are being force-fed LBGTQ sexuality in public schools?
Your response to whether parents have/maintain the right to teach their children their own morals and ethics vs. the states role in these moral teachings is quite revealing; are you a socialist-communist authoritarian or more of a fascist dictator type?
I suppose, according to some philosophies, if it’s OK for the states to usurp the parents role and responsibility over their child regarding the dispensing of birth control and abortifacents, as well as now permitting minors to surgically trans-sexualize without the parents permission, yet while still denying the dispensing of an aspirin or inclusion of sweets as snacks in the kiddies lunch boxes- all the while still holding the parent legally and civilly responsible for the child’s bad behavior up until the age of adulthood (varies by state), yet preventing a parent from corporal punishment of that child (are we yet seeing the incredible illogic of the states intrusion into family life?), it’s OK for the “Dr. Big’s” of the nation (or is world domination we’re after?) to decide what is or isn’t within the states purview regarding ‘bearing’ and raising of our children.
So long as the states philosophy is in line with the radical leftist philosophy- all is good.
What happens if one of those nasty “Christian fundamentalist’ gets hold of the state? What will be the cry of the leftist- ‘Separation of Church and State, or die!’?
Your leftist ‘theology’ seems far more radical and intrusive than most other theologies. Your own ‘religious’ slip is showing.
That’s bs, Jae, and you know it.
I demand that you stop slandering me.
This has ceased to be a discussion or debate. It’s about slander, personal attacks and bigoted, non-evidence based anti-gay opinions.
I concede nothing, but am withdrawing from this conversation. I am satisfied knowing that, rant all you want, you’ve lost your hateful war. You are irrelevant.
Dr Biggie- citing biology and evolution is now hate speech and slander? How long do you think you’ll be able to run with that insanity? Is everything you disagree with to be considered hate speech and slander? Do you hold your un-calloused hands over your delicate ears and scream when you’re forced to hear the truth?
So funny that the very thing you leftists worship should wind up throwing you and your lousy death-centered philosophy off the bridge.
Take your silly argument up with, and point your equally distasteful attorney’s ‘slander’ brief toward, nature. I think we’ve seen this play acted out before in the “Scopes Monkey Trial” – nature won, as I recall.
Nature is never irrelevant.
Silly wabbit-
Jae, as always, thank you for your stalwart support. I always learn from you and so appreciate your commitment to arguing from biology, and your persistence. You are a gift to me, friend!
The slanderous remarks had nothing to do with biology and evolution. They were unfounded personal attacks. The defamation will stop.
If you have a counterargument or a rebuttal, you can make it without attacking people. The owner of this site invites participants with the promise that ideas will be attacked, not people. I am holding her to that argument, and you.
Your naturalist/biological argument proves nothing but that males and females are required to produce offspring, and that certain behaviors are observable in nature, including homosexual behavior and “adoptive” parenting. Human parenting is far more complex than your simplistic, reductionist argument is able to explain. For example, your biological/naturalistic/evolutionary model certainly doesn’t explain human biological parents who are poor parents, even abusive parents. It doesn’t explain why non-biological parents raise well adjusted, psychologically healthy, successful children. It doesn’t explain why gay parents produce well adjusted psychologically healthy, successful children. It doesn’t explain the differences between say, duck parenting, and human parenting. What are the requirements, emotionally, cognitively, economically? Is there such a thing as instinct? Do children who lose a biological parent suffer loss? Do children of divorce suffer loss? Are children of blended families or adoptive parents or gay families worse off than those of biological families Good questions. Do multiple INDEPENDENT probability studies and try to answer them.
I regret being drawn back into this discussion momentarily. Your ugly comments appeared in my email box this morning, and I felt I had to respond.
Again, stop with the slander.
Hi Vbig, this might be a few hours too late, but welcome. Thank you for your reading and commenting. Though I obviously disagree with your position, I respect your willingness to engage! All the best to you, Katy
“….independent probability studies to support your reductionist nature theory.”
Yeah, you’ll see that happen when you produce some ‘independent probability studies to support your reductionist theory’ regarding the definition of “human”, or the need for humans to eat, sleep, drink, eliminate, and breathe. “We know these truths to be self-evident…” Sound familiar?
The illogic that demands the limitations of an empirical study or probability study (flawed human creations) be used to ‘prove’ what we all know to be true (self-evident) by virtue of our senses (eg. external and internal sensorial system) and intellect has veered into the realm of insanity.
This is the same illogic that is currently attempting to convince members of western culture, who have been sufficiently de/re-educated for the past two generations, that there are more than two sexes (17 ‘genders’?)and that sex is ‘mutable’/’interchangeable’. It’s the same illogic that claims, sans any evidence (empirical, sensorial, self-evident), that LBGTQ will provide the same optimal fitness parenting needs to children as would the child’s biological opposite sex parents (all things being equal- do not bore us again with the usual ‘bad bio parent’ vs. ‘good gay parent’ trope), in direct contradiction of all self-evident, and other (less reliable) available evidence to the contrary.
You keep looking for those studies, I’ll just take that walk through the woods and keep searching for that elusive rainbow unicorn while you logic-deniers question the very essence of life-
That was meaningless word salad, Jae.
Only to you, V-big. I am not surprised that you do not recognize logic when you see it.
(Hint: I am not really commenting/engaging for you, solely. I am using your illogical ‘contributions’ to continue to make my point. Thank you for being such a good sport. You can get back to contemplating your navel, again.)
I recognize logic when I see it. I haven’t seen any from you. Your overly simplistic, reductionist biological argument falls flat in the face of successful same sex families with healthy, well-adjusted children. You have no evidence whatsoever to refute that. You can’t even answer a few simple questions.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-change
Sometimes, a quick visit to the near-past is helpful to our discernment-
“Your overly simplistic, reductionist biological argument falls flat in the face of successful same sex families with healthy, well-adjusted children.”
I suppose that ‘conclusion’ isn’t cherry-picking? Or, are there multiple, individual empirical probability studies to back-up your particular brand of ‘cherry-picking’?
I suppose you have a point regarding the natural biological argument only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But, that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible). You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus, your rabid and raging case of ‘ scientism’ (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.
Your religion holds no more validity than anyone’s else’s religious dogma, doctrine, convictions or perspectives on the subject matter. Looks like your ‘god’ just turned around and bit you on your butt.
Back to nature (observable [to all-even the ‘unwashed masses’], consistent, testable, repeatable, perfect, immutable and unforgiving) we go…
And, once again…Jae avoids the questions. You could have cited your source (Professor Peter Kreeft, speaking on Life After Death instead of lifting it and integrating it into your paragraph…You know…this one???
“You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus, your rabid and raging case of ‘ scientism’ (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.”
Well, I agree with vvicked0471 over at http://www.marijuana.com/community/threads/scientific-philosophy.276402/, which [serendipity] I happened to be reading after hearing Chris Christie blather on about enforcing federal marijuana laws…
“I think the statement is ridiculous. Its wrought with semantics intended to confuse and mislead.
To me the whole point of posting this was to show that we all have a religion. Well, youre wrong again. The idea that those who lean towards scientific explanations must have faith in the resulting scientific answers just like religious followers is flawed from the start. Anyone who is so inclined can gain the requisite backround knowlege and put any theory to the test. Its called peer review. There isnt a religion on earth that offers anything other than blind faith. Religion does not offer peer review.
Here is where semantics come into play. It can be said that one must have faith that what he or she is being told is correct. After all, we cant test every theory ourselves, so the fact that we accept it proves that we must exercise faith on a daily basis. And to a certain degree you would be correct.
Herein lies the problem. You cant be absolutely sure of anything. How can you know that the things and people you see on a daily basis actually exist? How do you know that when youre looking at the color red youre actually seeing the color red? You dont, and furthermore, you cant. Our senses are flawed, the fact that smoking pot can slightly alter those senses is proof. So you have to exercise a certain amount of “faith” on a daily basis just to keep from going insane.
The problem arises when someone, such as the author, likens that “faith” to the type necessary to buy into religion. The two simply aren’t the same. In order to believe religion you have to ignore the red lights going off in your head telling you that what youre being told makes no sense. You must accept the fact that religious claims, so far as the religious are concerned, are beyond reproach. In order to be religious you must accept that there is no proof other than your own feelings. “
“You cant be absolutely sure of anything. How can you know that the things and people you see on a daily basis actually exist? How do you know that when youre looking at the color red youre actually seeing the color red? You dont, and furthermore, you cant. Our senses are flawed, the fact that smoking pot can slightly alter those senses is proof. So you have to exercise a certain amount of “faith” on a daily basis just to keep from going insane.”
Let’s just leave this one out there in the ‘ethosphere’ to hang in the mist-
’nuff said.
Take your complaint up with vvicked0491.
Sorry vbigelow, but much of the important and useful human techno-science was done with no peer review process. Some of the best is done in spite of peer review.
Before you do “go insane,” please consider re-reading Descartes’ third meditation. Unless it also meets the rigorous DrRocki test as “anti-gay rhetoric?”
That is your OPINION, O’Boyle.
Also, stop trying to change the subject. Not talking about techno-science.
VB: It is fact, not “my opinion,” that many scientific breakthroughs have happened without or in spite of peer review. The 2005 Nobel prize work of Marshall for H. pylori and ulcers comes to mind as one recent example.
Rocki, maybe you could tell me exactly what the important difference is between “science ” discussed in the post above by VB and “techno-science?” I doubt it because they’re essentially synonyms.
Did you re-read the third meditation of the great geometer, or does he fit too closely into the category of religious people that you like to mock over on Pink’s site?
I think it’s significant that most of the transgender child stories are coming out of CA and are sons with lesbian mothers.
So, here’s the SS’M’ advocates rules of engagement: everything their opposition claims is hearsay, cherry-picking, hateful, bigoted and phobic, scientifically unverified or off-topic; and everything they claim – even that ‘reality isn’t real’ (this is how you can end up justifying any immoral or unethical thing your disordered mind can conjure up – even selling baby parts, eugenics and holocausts) is to be treated as gospel – to be taken on belief/faith in their ‘god’.
It must (or should) be troubling to their conscious’ that they can only win a logical debate on this issue by either lying, cheating or bullying their invalid points into the dialogue, and tyrannically imposing their will on the greater population.
Can’t lie about nature- which is still the mighty obstacle to their best defense of the thoroughly unnatural-
A very high percentage of lesbians were raped or abused by males. I have only heard from one who was not, but she turned away from homosexuality after a long monogamous relationship. You can listen to her story here. https://vimeo.com/101135437
V-Big- what personal attacks and slander are you referencing? If poking fun at your claimed PhD is now to be considered ‘slander’- get over it, you’ve said far worse to your opposition here at ATB. You’re using your ‘hurt feelings’ (emotional plea) as your defense of SS’M’ and ‘parenting, in lieu of an intellectual defense.
I’m not an activist jurist on the SCOTUS- it wont work on me.
‘My naturalist argument’ provides the biological foundation for all humanity- being we are an integral part of, if not the apex/epitome of it, it rather applies.
You simply cannot replace the facts and laws of nature with the errors and biases ingrained in flawed human theoretical exercises, such as your sociology or psych studies.
What you propose is as inane as conducting sociological or psychological studies to determine if humans need to eat, drink, sleep and breathe instead of simply consulting the known facts of biology. Natural, normal reproduction between male and female dictates what is optimal parentage (it’s the only kind) – that is an undeniable fact.
Deal with it.
And, speaking of slander, stop slandering biological parenting (nature) in order to prop up your indefensible position on LBGTQ ‘marriage’ and parenting’. It is slander against the normal 98% of the population-
I do not think you meant to reply to my post.
Jae: Reread the responses to my comments. Personal attacks and attempts to slander me abound. Be very clear… I will not get over it. It has nothing to do with hurt feelings. It has to do with defamation. I’m not using an emotional plea as a defense of same sex marriage and LGBTQ parenting. That’s a straw man. Again, stop the slander, at once. If your intellectual arguments are as strong as you claim them to be, you don’t need to attack your opponents personally.
As for the rest of your response, you totally avoided responding to my statements or answering my questions.
V-big- reread whatever you please, I maintain my statement- I gave/give as good as I got/get, the LBGTQ lobby just isn’t used to being hit back in similar fashion as they viciously strike out at their detractors. That is why they focus all their love and compassion on Christians – they know Christians either won’t or can’t use the same tactics you and other radical LBGTQ and their supporters use to battle – even D-Crock recognizes this fact (although, he distorts that reality to claim a ‘conspiracy’ between commenters here). I recognize no such restrictions in my rules of engagement. If I cross the line (possible, as I claim to be only human), I leave it to the Bigot to moderate, as required. Also, no one stops you from defending yourself- grow up (assuming you’re not a child) and deal, and stop whining, already.
I am not avoiding any of your statements or claims- even those that call your opposition bigots and haters, but, especially those that claim some psycho-social ‘gnostic’ abilities about your sole discernment of good LBGTQ parenting vs. bad biological parenting, I’ve responded to all of your bogus claims that pertain to the biological facts of the matter.
Here is what you can’t accept; the fact that the good (optimal and only) parentage has already been determined, by nature, it’s the biological male-female parentage that got us to where we are today as a species; we are biologically fitter now than ever before in our history- and it’s natural marriage that got us here. And, our society, which is western society, provides the fittest environment for humans than ever before in our history. Those two positive outcomes are directly related.
Why anyone would choose to undermine (or ‘transform’) what has been a successful model for humans can only be attributed to a distorted and disordered ideology, because, there simply is no data to reject the optimal male-female model- no matter how hard you and others try to distort or manipulate the facts, and the laws of nature.
If you want to change it, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why and how, with reliable predictions of anticipated outcomes to the individuals, the species and society.
Until then, I’m sticking with what nature has deemed to be the optimal model.
Not quite, Jae. The Bigot tried, but did not edit out your personal attacks. STOP now.
Again, you’ve answered none of my direct questions.
Moira, You’re not the only voice in the wilderness. Keep speaking out, because NO ONE is speaking for the children! http://www.blogtalkradio.com/southern-sense/2015/04/25/my-father-was-gay-dawn-stefanowicz
Thank you for your courage in writing this. Thank you for not staying silent.
Thank you!
To go through this and still come out a very beautiful, mature, intelligent, loving, caring Wife, Mother, Musician….and so much more. You have inner strength, courage, convictions……You are an amazing woman. Please share your story with the world as what you say is so evidently true!
You are so brave and strong. Thank you for sharing your story. May continual healing always be yours.
I’m sorry for the way you grew up but for you to say the whole gay community is like this shows how ignorant you are. your parents were child abusers and your dad was a pedophile. did you know there are straight people who also abuse children and most pedophiles are straight? I feel sorry for you. you blame the wrong people for your childhood. it was your sick family not the gay community
@Shela. Moira doesn’t say the whole gay community is like this. She suggests it, and when she makes what she knows is a startling suggestion she first qualifies her opinion sensibly, writing “maybe the gayness WAS an issue” and “My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this”. She is putting forward an observation, her observation. Is she of all people not entitled to it? She is not being dogmatic or hateful about it and is well aware of how iconoclastic it is “But someone needed to say it.” I think it is unfair of you to suggest she is unaware that straight people are abusers and that she is blaming the entire gay community. She is simply making observations after a lifetime of living with people who were enthusiastic homosexuals who–as many homosexuals continue to do with no push-back–supported a pan-sexuality that she believes crossed a moral boundary.
Please Sheila, have a little respect for the opinions of others, even ones that you disagree with. This old liberal is stunned that the dogmatism all comes from the left nowadays.
@Shela. Moira doesn’t say the whole gay community is like this. She suggests it, and when she makes what she knows is a startling suggestion she first qualifies her opinion sensibly, writing “maybe the gayness WAS an issue” and “My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this”. She is putting forward an observation, her observation. Is she of all people not entitled to it? She is not being dogmatic or hateful about it and is well aware of how iconoclastic it is “But someone needed to say it.” I think it is unfair of you to suggest she is unaware that straight people are abusers and that she is blaming the entire gay community. She is simply making observations after a lifetime of living with people who were enthusiastic homosexuals who–as many homosexuals continue to do with no push-back–supported a pan-sexuality that she believes crossed a moral boundary.
Please Sheila, have a little respect for the opinions of others, even ones that you disagree with. This old liberal is stunned that the dogmatism all comes from the left nowadays.
Sorry–didn’t mean to pile on with the unintended double-post.
I would not have used the word ignorant, Sheila, because in doing so, you gave the anti LGBT readers here an excuse to dismiss your otherwise valid points. It makes sense to me that Moira would question everything about the people who victimized her, down to the color of their eyeballs. However, neither eye color nor sexual or gender orientation has been demonstrated in independent peer reviewed empirical research to have a causal relationship with pedophilia or any other sort of child abuse.
It isn’t ‘antigay’ to recognize the known risks inherent in a population, especially a population that identifies itself by it’s aberrant sexual proclivities. That is LBGTQ’s primary self-identifying mantra- their lifestyle is all about their sexual fetishes. The SSM/parenting opposition would be just as vocal if non-LBGTQ pedophiles and pederasts lobbied to get ‘married’ in order to be able to adopt or Franken-create their ‘families’. SS’M’ opposition is similarly opposed to polyamorous and other abnormal (in western culture) relationships in which children are targeted as ‘souvenirs’ for the acquisition of social ‘benefits’.
There is plenty of independent, peer-reviewed empirical research supporting conclusions that homosexuals commit pederasty far more than the general population, and that they suffer more and more intensely from just about every psychological disorder known to man. This fact increases the risk inherent in placing (forcing) children into this emotionally dysfunctional environment.
There is no comparison between eye color (immutable inherited trait) and a selected behavior, such as is homosexuality-for which there is also no independent, peer-reviewed empirical research that has established LBGTQ are ‘born that way’ (quite the reverse when you consider the twin studies).
One’s life choices have consequences. If you choose the LBGTQ lifestyle, it is your choice to forego bearing and raising children.
We ‘tolerated’ you right into the mainstream of our society- which was just fine regarding employment and just about every other social venue in which you should be (are) welcome. We won’t tolerate you when it comes to the elevated risks to children inherent in your lifestyles (generally- exceptions noted) and to society, overall.
“Aberrant sexual proclivities?” is slander, Jae. Slander for which you have no evidence or justification. “Not to your taste” is not evidence. One could easily argue that heterosexual “proclivities” were about straight sex. There is more and more evidence brain researchers are finding to support the FACT that being LGBT is biological, and immutable inherited trait, rather than socially constructed.
Where is your probability sampling for your slanderous accusation that more LGBT people are child molesters, Jae? There is no research based on a probability sample, i.e, random sampling of all/most/large group child molesters, more identify as LGBT. None. Here is what a scholar at UC Davis has to say about the FRC “study” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Straight parents, unfortunately, molest their children: http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/20817
Lots of straight parents abuse their children: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-charles-county-parents-of-autistic-boy-kept-in-cage/article_03488aa5-e646-5c02-9869-2a185eb88b83.html
82% of all juvenile victims are female. How does that statistic support your world view, Jae? http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics Two adult males tried to molest me when I was 13, Jae…one a church going married man for whom I babysat… and I was raped by a friend of the family when I was 17…yep, you guessed it…also a male.
So you are against “frankenfamilies” (Gee, what a clever term….). So, I guess that means you are against remarriage after death or divorce where children are involved, and against adoption or fostering in general.
Parenting has ZERO to do with sexual and gender identity, what you label “sexual proclivities” and “lifestyle choices.” It has to do with love, maturity, and commitment to a child. LGBT people have these to offer just like straight people do. So, your whole argument focusing on the manner in which adults bump their uglies in the privacy of their bedrooms is irrelevant. Further, there is no evidence that children raised in same sex homes are less well adjusted. In fact, they often do better, because they have to try harder to keep people like you, Jae, from trying to find a reason to take their kids away. Here is an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
In closing, I found it amusing that you assumed I was gay. Actually, I’m not. Further, I’m a mother of three grown children and one grandson. I would far rather my children be around any of the wonderful gay people in my life (none of whom are pedophiles, BTW) than someone with a heart filled with prejudice and hate like yours.
Again, I am very, very sorry for what Moira went through. Her parents were sociopaths. Don’t highjack her tragedy for your nefarious cause.
Amen
Check your dictionary V. “Aberrant sexual proclivities”
aberrant (def) – outside the accepted norm
Proclivity (def) – a natural propensity or inclination
There was no slander by Jae.
Being gay is within the accepted norm, Maria. It is not a proclivity, either. It is an immutable characteristic.
Sorry the truth offends you, v-big- any behavior that is a direct disadvantageous to the fitness of the species is considered aberrant- it is a biological term, not a moral judgment. The fact that tis aberrant behavior occurs only 1.6-2.0% of the time throughout the species population is a fact. The fact that this behavior is, by definition, sterile, makes it disadvantageous to the species. All clear now?
I never mentioned ‘not to my taste”- don’t attribute your opinions to me.
My statement that LBGTQ commit pederasty far more than non-LBGTQ stands- do your own research- start with CDC or NIH.
Nobody ever claimed that ‘straight’ people don’t abuse their children- di you make that claim? My claim is based in biological reality- offspring fare best when raised by their own biological parents- all other things being equal. Actually, since males are the greatest offenders in the child abuse saga, how do you square placing children in households with two males, one of which will be unrelated biologically to that child?
“Franken families” are created when human intervention (technology) replaces the opposite sex conjugal act between married (monogamously boded) persons for the intent of bearing and raising their own biological children. I reject all forms of unnatural procreation, for anybody- not just LBGTQ. But, the fact is that only LBGTQ have to rely on technological means to ‘reproduce’ or form ‘families. See how that position doesn’t specifically target LBGTQ? I look to nature to determine what is normal and natural- to whom or what do you look, v-big…. some ideologue, politician, state?
I am opposed to divorce- are you an advocate for divorce? I am also opposed to society underwriting and/or incentivizing divorce, which separates children from their biological parents- as society has done with SS’M’.. See how that position has nothing against LBGTQ?
I didn’t assume you were gay, v-big, I said you were either gay or a gay supporter- I was evidently correct- wasn’t I?
I could care less what disordered personalities do in their bedrooms (again, I’m a naturalist- got any of those wonderful ‘gay marriage’ or ‘gay families” examples to be found in nature?) -but, I do care that when it creeps out of their bedrooms and into our classrooms and all over our kids people like you defend the ‘right’ to practice this disordered behavior over the rights of children to be safe and healthy.
My ‘nefarious’ cause is to speak biological truths (you cannot challenge any of these truths/facts with your ideologically- driven opinions) about 1.6-2.0% of the population, and to speak truths about the biological needs of children. The ‘needs’ of LBGTQ, by definition, are thoroughly incompatible with the needs of children. That is a biological fact. Your opinion doesn’t matter.
What is your nefarious cause, v-big- other than the obvious which is to risk the health of children in order to permit adults to engage in their chosen lifestyles- no matter who else may be harmed?
I just want to address your comment “I guess that means you are against remarriage after death or divorce where children are involved”. For me, that would be a resounding “yes”!! In fact, my views on marriage as a whole stem from my devastating childhood cause by divorce, made much worse by remarriage, and my alienation was made complete by their subsequent children. (My half-siblings) My parents expected me to play along in their ridiculous charade of “See what a happy ‘blended’ family we are” to outsiders, while behind closed doors the situation was/is as close to “Cinderella” as it gets. My story is far from uncommon. I hate to see our society becoming more and more all about making the adults happy while ignoring the needs of the children. (My parents were happy and expected me to not rock the boat by having any bad feelings about my situation, which was terribly inconvenient for them.) I’m sorry but once you have children, it’s not about you anymore. If you divorce or your spouse dies, your children need you more than ever to be 100% devoted to thier needs, not distracted by new romance or building a new family. Being a parent means putting your children’s needs ahead of your own. Our society has it backwards, and SSM is just another step in the wrong direction.
I am sorry for your terrible blended family experience. However, it is one case and not representative of the population.
Don’t minimize what happened to me by calling it a “blended” family. It was a “broken” family, my family and my world was ripped apart when my parents divorced and then remarried and had more children. I was always an outsider from that point on. My situation is far more typical of divorce and remarriage than not. Kids from broken homes fare far worse in life than those from intact families, the consequences have lifelong consequences. Some children do better than others depending on the parent’s maturity level, age of remarriage, and the child’s disposition and sensitivity, but overall the odds are not in their favor. Anyway my point is that yes, I am against that. I’m against society normalizing anything other than the gold star standard for children. Yes, we live in a broken world and I know kids will continue to have to deal with less than ideal family situations, but does that mean we should promote it?
I am not minimizing your experience. However, you can’t cherry pick examples and claim causation.
I’m not “cherry picking” anything. The verdict is in regarding the overall effects of divorce and remarriage on children. I doubt you could find one study showing these kids on average fare just as well or better than those raised by their married biological parents, nor could you find many people who were glad their parents divorced when they were young children, remarried, and started new families. You may be able to “cherry pick”, as you say, isolated examples, but you have to look at the majority. It’s just disingenuous to assert that any and all family structures are equally beneficial to children.
“Being gay is within the accepted norm….”
No it is not within any accepted norm by any scientific or statistical metric/measurement.
“It is not a proclivity, either. It is an immutable characteristic”
No, it is not an immutable characteristic, it is an elective behavior that is driven by aberrant (disordered)human emotion.
The active LBGTQ lifestyle (recognizing that some LBGTQ do not indulge their aberrant sexual proclivities) is comprised of abnormal behavior indulged by a minority of the overall population. Nothing about the aberrant sexual behavior practiced by active LBGTQ is either life-sustaining (required to live) or life-enriching (required to thrive), from a biological perspective. It is nothing more than a biologically sterile (useless) misuse of the form and function of sexual and other organs. It’s as biologically and evolutionarily useless a practice/behavior as an individual who’s chosen sexuality/sexual ‘identity’ demands they he/she amputate his own limbs to derive sexual pleasure, or demand others suffer pain or die for his/her own sexual gratification, or that he/she be provided non-humans, minors or multiple and concurrent sexual partners for his/her own sexual gratification.
The only biological-evolutionary difference between the active LBGTQ ‘lifestyle’ and the practice of all the other aberrant behaviors is a given culture’s perception (and regulation) of the ethical, moral and legal underpinnings of such behavior.
We’ve seen sick cultures all throughout human history- it usually doesn’t end well for the ‘nature-deniers’.
Ridiculous and offensive, Jae.
You utilize Saul Alinsky tactics by attempting to isolate your opponents; i.e. those here who defy your poisonous fantasies. People offer you personal examples, and as a result of the feebled limitations of your imagination you repeatedly marginalize them by labeling their sharing as cherry-picking.
Moira’s testimony is NOT unique. Hers is the most recent of many to have surfaced in recent months. As more victims of this twisted hyper-sexualized sub-culture you ardently favor emerge, other victims will read or hear it and step forward, too.
We are coming back from the edge, and with a vengeance. You and your ilk will sorely regret you’ve attempted to destroy our culture by imposing your own.
I am thankful for vbig’s participation here though because I wondered how gay-apologists would defend the overwhelming evidence that being raised by gay parents is harmful to children. Now I know, simply deny the evidence and label every single incident as “cherry picking”.
Please do not argue with ‘Jae’. He’s a hateful angry bigoted aggressive attention-seeking troll, who will find any reason to agitate others who don’t share his irrational views on gay people. He’s persistent, aggravating, annoying and childish and likes to argue for the sake of arguing. In other blogs I’ve talked to others, and he had jumped up uninvitedly and insulted me. I didn’t take me long to realize he’s only a Christian SJW, with a chip on his shoulders.
Hello MAO- nice to see you back at ATB- I’ve missed you, too.
You will need to prove all your baseless accusations, MAO- you should start with direct references or citations or excepts of my comments at ATB on the following:
1. ‘hateful, angry, bigoted, aggressive, attention-seeking trolling….agitate….persistent, aggravating….annoying, childish……” Hint: formulating a position based in fact (biology) and [successfully] defending it is called debate.
2. provide evidence of me “…jump[ing] up and [uninvitedly]….insult[ing] me ….in other blogs….” What ‘other’ blogs? Proof, please.
3. and that “…he’s only a Christian SJW….”. Proof of my sex or my religious beliefs/affiliation, please.
The fact is that you have drawn erroneous conclusions about me based solely on your emotional reception of, and objection to, my biological position on the SS”M’ issue. You built a ‘strawman’ that you think you can pummel. Problem is, your ‘strawman’ is based upon lies, as are all ‘strawmen’. So, in effect, all you are pummeling is your own fabrication.
It’s one thing to disagree and then argue your reasoned position (I like to use biology), preferably using logic and facts; it’s quite another to just throw out the usual emotional gunk and hope some/any of it will stick.
Is no supporter of SS’M’ capable of challenging the biological argument against SS’M’ and ‘parenting’ using facts, reality, logic or reason, and not emotion?
All my contributions at ATB are available for all to review- I challenge all to do so.
They will find no evidence of anything MAO has claimed. They will only discover biological truths.
Sometimes the truth just ‘hurts’-for those who rely solely on emotion to debate.
No one cares about your naturalist/biological “argument,” Jae. Yeah…one would think that biological relationships would come with some sort parenting chunks (neural connections) in the brain. Yet, many biological parents are bad parents who abuse their children horrifically…even kill them, while many adoptive parents are excellent. Biology only goes so far. Parenting is a learned skills for which one must be emotionally and cognitively prepared. Instinct and intuition only go so far. Sexual and gender orientation are unrelated to parenting skills.
Oh…and not that it matters…but actually, homosexuality does occur in nature.
You write: ““Franken families” are created when human intervention (technology) replaces the opposite sex conjugal act between married (monogamously boded) persons for the intent of bearing and raising their own biological children.”
Yes, people adopt children. Yes, people same sex and hetero conceive through artificial insemination and in vitro. So what? Your biological argument spins a nice tale, but there’s no evidence (again—multiple peer-reviewed independent probability studies) to support your claims that any of these are bad for children. Too bad you reject all forms of “unnatural procreation.” Let that rule your own life. You have no right to dictate to others. You look to nature…I look to democratic principles of fairness. There is no reason on Earth why same sex families should not be accorded the same rights and privileges as others.
You write:
<>
Most men are not child abusers. If we follow your argument, Jae, we end up with no men in families.
V-big- you distort well enough for most- but, not for me.
While you say no one cares about the biological argument, you simultaneously argue that LBGTQ are ‘born that way”- should the biological argument in support of LBGTQs existence be dismissed, then?
If no one cares about the biological argument, why do you attempt to claim that LBGTQ exists in nature? You contradict yourself, which is always the case when your whole argument is based in emotion. There is no LBGTQ in nature, period. Aberrant behavior, that sometimes involves the genital of the participants, is only that, aberrant behavior- it is not homosexuality as defined by and for human behavior. Sorry- you cant change facts (biological truths) with your opinion, to fit your ideology.
Did you intentionally ignore the ‘all things being equal’ invocation when I claimed, with biological proof, that offspring are best raised by their biological parents, as nature intended via millions of years of evolution? top dragging down the level of debate with your endless examples of bad biological parents. No one advocates for bad biological parents, no one pried the SCOTUS at just the right time to hear a case forcing society to accept or encourage (underwrite incentivize) bad biological parents. Why is it you only care about those children being raised in bad biological households while dismissing the increased risks to children in SS households? Should not your caution be weighted in favor of the child?
Where are your ‘democratic principles of fairness’ when it comes to protecting children, from the womb throughout their childhood? Do you ‘principles’ only apply to LBGTQ, or do they also apply to Jewish or Muslim bakers who do not wish to participate in LBGTQ functions? Do you ‘principle’s apply to LBGTQ bakers that do not wish to participate in Westboro Baptist Church or skinhead functions? Do they apply to Christians who do not wish to participate in ISIS promoting functions? Where do you draw your arbitrary and capricious line in the sand regarding forcing your version of “equality’ on the world?
it is interesting that you will use the biological argument to dismiss the importance of its role in parent-child bonding, yet, you reject it when its used to challenge your version of a healthy environment. Your ‘logic’ is all over the place, v-big.
Yeah, v-big, ‘no one cares about your natural biological argument’. Well, except when one believes their shell-game logic can distort it to support their ideology. Nature isn’t ideological- its is truthful, and correct.
No species exists that has embraced aberrant behavior in lieu of those advantageous behaviors that ensure the fitness of the species.
Explain to us how LBGTQ ensures the fitness of the human species, please.
We already know your politics, let’s see your logic.
Correction: v-big appears to claim that I said most men abuse children. I said most child abusers are male. There is a world of difference between those two statements. But, it serves as just another example of the distortion that must occur in order to promote LBGTQ ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’ as optimal alternatives to natural, biological, evolutionary-determined pair-bonding and parenting.
You have no verifiable evidence that gay men are child molesters in greater proportion than anyone else. Verifiable data suggests otherwise. I provided that data. You ignored it. You have no verifiable evidence on domestic violence among gay men. You have no verifiable evidence that the state places children in households at higher risk for abuse or other dysfunctional behavior. You make stuff up and put it out there. That doesn’t make it true.
I’m not the one with the crumbling position, Jae. I’m not pointing to the bad behavior of others to defend anything. That’s a straw man. I’m pointing to the bad behavior of straight people to cast rightful doubt on your non-evidence based claims that gay people commit child molestation in higher proportions than straight people.
You write:
“Do you contend that it is better for children to be raised by biological strangers (all other things being equal) than their own biological parents?” I don’t know. “all things being equal” can encompass different things.
Note: There is ‘straight’ or ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ in nature. You simply refuse to see it because it doesn’t fit your narrow world view.
Jae-
You write:
“While you say no one cares about the biological argument, you simultaneously argue that LBGTQ are ‘born that way”- should the biological argument in support of LBGTQs existence be dismissed, then?” See how you twist things by taking them out of the context of the discussion? I reported the facts about the biological basis of homosexuality in response to assertions posters made to the effect that being gay is socially constructed or the result of trauma.
If no one cares about the biological argument, why do you attempt to claim that LBGTQ exists in nature? Because you base your argument on biology and because you said it doesn’t. It does.
I did not ignore your “all things being equal invocation,” I asked you to clarify it. I’ll stop raising the issue of bad biological parents when you stop stating that biological relationships are the only valid ones. I never said anyone was incentivizing bad biological parents. Straw man. I didn’t say I only care about those children being raised in bad biological households. Straw man. There are no proven risks to children in SS households? My caution is in favor of the child, who needs a loving home with mature parents capable of caring for him/her. I have seen no credible evidence that SS parents don’t fit those criteria in the same proportions as hetero parents.
You write: “Where are your ‘democratic principles of fairness’ when it comes to protecting children, from the womb throughout their childhood?” I’m taking the womb out of the equation, because the womb involves a female host who has the right to self determination over her own body. I will not get into that discussion here.
However, you write:
” Do you ‘principles’ only apply to LBGTQ, or do they also apply to Jewish or Muslim bakers who do not wish to participate in LBGTQ functions? Do you ‘principle’s apply to LBGTQ bakers that do not wish to participate in Westboro Baptist Church or skinhead functions? Do they apply to Christians who do not wish to participate in ISIS promoting functions?” Anyone running a public accommodation in this country must provide the same level of service to every customer. A baker who sells wedding cakes must sell them to everyone. To refuse to do so is as unconstitutional as a white diner owner refusing service to an African American customer at the lunch counter.
“Explain to us how LBGTQ ensures the fitness of the human species, please.” I already have.
You write:
Correction: v-big appears to claim that I said most men abuse children. I said most child abusers are male. There is a world of difference between those two statements. But, it serves as just another example of the distortion that must occur in order to promote LBGTQ ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’ as optimal alternatives to natural, biological, evolutionary-determined pair-bonding and parenting.
Correction. I did not say that. You have once again taken a comment out of context and spun it. You said that in your belief (again, no evidence) most child abusers are male. Then you said that if most child abusers are male, why would you want to risk putting a child into a home where there are two male parents. You increase the probability that one parent will be a child molester. That is a specious argument, Jae, given the small percentage of gay men…or men in general, who are child molesters.
Let’s face it, Jae, if evolutionary advantage were the gold standard, we’d all be in favor of sterilizing or euthanizing people with genetic disorders and banning miscegenation between persons of certain races. We’d choose our spouses more for their bloodlines than on any other basis. Even if you’re right where homosexuality is concerned, don’t pretend that emotion is the only thing that prevents society from translating your ideals into policy. For better or worse, there’s a big wall of philosophy — much of it Christian — standing in the way.
Well Shelia I am another COG and it was not an “exception” it was not “rare”. It is rather clear that people that think their sexual feeling is the end all and be all violate other people.
The somewhat slick media campaign and TV and movies do not in anyway shape or form reflect the COGS experience. The adults are narcissistic, they have a culture that is far from nurturing in fact it is you will find more BDSM clubs in any gayhood than “nursery schools” Have you ever in you life heard of the . These are selfish people. They are stunned and think sexual pleasure or identity is some rare and special thing and they cross every boundary with children because they see children as something they own. We blame the Gay community and you have no authority by which to tell us otherwise. You in fact prove the point.
V-big: I believe once you maintain that LBGTQ exists in nature, we are done debating.
I can’t argue from a logical position that unicorns don’t exist with someone who continues to demand that they do. In your parallel universe, perhaps they actually do.
All the rest of your comments are the same old emotionally-loaded stuff- they’ve already been handled with you and plenty of others, ad nauseum. You’ve travelled down that old familiar road where you will only distort my words and statements while denying your own statements and distortions, and so on….
I will leave it at this with you – there is no doubt but that evolution has already road-tested (‘determined’) the best family in which offspring should be raised: it is the natural, biological male-female monogamously pair-bonded and genetically-related two-parent family, that which ensures the fitness of the individual, the species and the species society. It was never your ‘choice’ to begin with- and, while it may seem as though the pendulum has sung way out of sync with nature in your favor, nature will force the errant pendulum back into its proper place- it always does.
Your ‘unicorns’ are incapable of challenging what all of our senses (and reason/intellect) inform us is truth-
Homosexuality exists in nature, not only because many humans are innately homosexual-http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
Yeah, I know all about it, V-big, animals exhibit aberrant behavior, as do their humans counterparts. Like I said in probably dozens of previous posts here at ATB, the aberrant behavior is rare (by definition) and disadvantageous to the species, it is not embraced and promoted by the species to replace the normal (advantageous) sexuality that ensures the fitness of the species.
Here’s another clue for you- animals also participate in other aberrant behaviors, such as rape, murder, cannibalism and suicide- none of these make it past the natural selection process to the point of ever threatening the fitness of the species. These behaviors are correctly kept to very low numbers (perhaps <2.0% is that magic number) of the populations so as not to adversely affect the fitness of the species.
Only humans are capable of being so incredibly stupid as to promote a recessive trait in lieu of the dominant trait – that which ensures the integrity of the species.
Get back to us when you've located a mammalian or avian species (higher order species) that has managed to reproduce itself outside of the evolutionarily tried and tested male-female pair bonding.
Maybe, we've somehow managed to miss the 'trans' community amongst the wildlife during the decades of wildlife ecology field research, rescue and rehabilitation, to date-
Perhaps there are unicorns out there, somewhere, too. Maybe they hang with Bigfoot-
On a planet threatened by human overpopulation and overconsumption, reproducing ourselves is the least of our worries. There is nothing psychologically or sociologically wrong with LGBTQ people; there is nothing that supports denying them the same rights and privileges as heteros enjoy. Would you also deny sterile hetero people the opportunity to raise children? In your narrow world view, they are aberrant, too. So are people with red hair.
“Let’s face it, Jae, if evolutionary advantage were the gold standard, we’d all be in favor of sterilizing or euthanizing people with genetic disorders and banning miscegenation between persons of certain races.”
Not true, LAM, there is no evolutionary evidence that miscegenation is disadvantageous to our species (which is actually impossible since ‘race’ does not exist in nature)- to the contrary- diversity is the name of the game when it comes to gold standard genetics. Nature sterilizes those unfit for reproduction, not to worry. At a minimum, at least we haven’t yet deteriorated to the point of actually socially incentivizing the prevalence of genetic disorders- how thoroughly unfit that would be for us all- similar to incentivizing LBGTQ ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting’.
“We’d choose our spouses more for their bloodlines than on any other basis”.
For many generations and in most cultures and until recently, we did, LAM. In fact, many in western culture still do- we just don’t realize it. As in nature, males choose females (to the extent that they actually ‘choose’) that exhibit feminine traits which imply health (fitness) for breeding, and females choose males that exhibit similarly healthful male traits to ensure the optimal fitness of the offspring.
“Even if you’re right where homosexuality is concerned, don’t pretend that emotion is the only thing that prevents society from translating your ideals into policy.”
Actually, I ‘pretend’ no such thing. It isn’t about ‘me’ being right or wrong, it’s about nature- the issue seems to have been clearly settled, evolutionarily- homosexuality, as an act/behavior is absolutely useless (disadvantageous) to the individual, the species and the species society.
“For better or worse, there’s a big wall of philosophy — much of it Christian — standing in the way.”
That’s your argument, not mine. I am more troubled by the secular philosophy that lies about and distorts the laws and needs of nature in order to support its’ ideological wants. In reality, Judeo-Christian philosophy seems rather well-aligned with nature, more so, than most secular (especially leftist) philosophy that directly opposes nature.
Last time I checked in on the major religions, pretty much none of them, en masse, were supporting LBGTQ ‘marriage’. Why have you singled out Christianity, NAM? Is gay “marriage’ accommodated/or promoted in secular China, Russia, North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, or any of the Muslim theocracies or Animism cultures? So far as I can tell, it is only the Judeo-Christian nations (western culture) supporting ‘gay rights’ to the point of redefining marriage.
I must have missed your point, there-
It is you who fails to understand the sickness that is homosexuality and all its related sexual deviancies which attack the hearts and souls of innocent children for the purpose of a pseudo pro-creation of a culture that “looks like” themselves.
Phil, thank you for reading and commenting. I appreciate you passion and willingness to speak up. However, I did unapproved one of your comments that I felt crosses the line of attacking Vbig. We can disagree, but let’s please keep things as respectful as possible.
Perhaps there are other examples on this thread which have crossed the line as well and I simply haven’t done a good job of scrutinizing the comments as I ought- the disadvantage of having a over-committed mother of four moderating comments on what ended up being a more-widely-shared-than-I-expected post in the middle of summer break. Thanks again, Phil.
Wow – almost unbelievable. So good that you can share your story in such an articulate manner. God bless you, and continue to guide you. I believe we are a population that has been losing its moral compass for decades. Your parents certainly didn’t have a moral compass. We also have too much time and money on our hands (these are 1st world problems).
Bingo- there it is, the leftist ideology in full regalia- was wondering when you would finally let it all out, V-big!
So, we’re too overpopulated for normal hetero reproduction, but, not for SSA ‘reproduction’, yes?
The planet doesn’t suffer from either overpopulation or overconsumption- it suffers from corrupt governments/governance. The K capacity will regulate the population, no matter what/whichever ideology wishes to control it.
LBGTQ persons are just fine being LBGTQ with each other. It was when they crossed over into those domains preserved to secure the fitness of the species when they triggered a negative response.
If its only about all enjoying the same rights and privileges, why do you deny them to all the other sexually and otherwise disordered personalities? Who’s to decide who gets the free pass and who doesn’t- you?
To repeat it for the hundredth (at least) time here at ATB: I reject all forms of technological reproduction to ‘provide’ children as a commodity, but, I support adoption of children by opposite sex married persons, only (for the same reasons I prefer offspring be raised by their biological parents- offspring need the healthy functioning model that can be provided by only an opposite sex and bonded pair).
Good grief, you are in need of a dictionary- aberrant behavior is that behavior that leads to an unfit condition for the individual, the species or the species society (all interrelated). Red-headed persons may inherit other recessive traits that reside on the same loci as that for their hair (and usually skin and eye color) that are disadvantageous to the species (some diseases or other undesirable genetic traits), but, I haven seen red heads demand that society underwrite or incentivize their reproduction, either. But, your attempt at an analogy isn’t entirely lost- would you support the social promotion/incentivizing of the advancement of sickle cell anemia in a population? Probably not. That would not be good for the species, or society.
I suppose you just managed to contribute to the biological case against forcing society to incentivize LBGTQ ‘marriage’, after all-even if that wasn’t your intent.
Mother Nature is a bitch to beat-
I am terribly sorry for what happened to you. Truly. However, your parents were sociopaths. They in no way represent gay people as a population any more than straight child abusers represent heterosexual people. To assert “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” is unfounded, slanderous, and damaging. Using a debunked and very biased report published by the FRC, a known LGBT hate group, is very poor research. It does not constitute evidence. It does not mitigate the harm you are trying to cause to innocent people, who were, YES, born LGBT. Again, I am so very sorry for the abuse you suffered. It may explain, but does not excuse the absolutely appalling and untrue statements you have made against LGBT people.
I beg to differ vbigelow, but any man who wants to put his penis into the smelly anus of another man is a pervert. Sorry for being so blunt, but a man’s anus was made for defecation not to be the receptical for another man’s semen.
Many, many straight men like to engage in anal sex with women, and would beg to differ with you. Not all gay men engage in anal sex.
What does how you bump uglies have to do with parenting? My children certainly weren’t aware of what their father and I did or didn’t do, and I sure as heck didn’t want to know what my parents and grands did. You are the one bringing sex acts into the picture. Ew to you.
>>What does how you bump uglies have to do with parenting?
There are sexual acts that can result in become a parent, and there are those that don’t. Anal intercourse, regardless of who’s doing it, will not have that result. Nor will any act between two men or between two women.
>>My children certainly weren’t aware of what their father and I did or didn’t do,
No, but they could make a pretty good guess.
This is what I do not understand. If gay people are “born that way” than identical twins, who share the same DNA, should always be either both gay or both straight 100% of the time. They are not – I believe the correlation is 40% which is far higher than for non- fraternal twins and non-twin siblings, but still not 100%. I believe the hypothesis is that one twin can suffer trauma in the womb that the other twin does not (there are also cases of an identical twin having Downs, while the other one does not).
If “born that way, because of prenatal trauma” is true – well, gay people deserve our compassion and kindness, but not the lie that what is in effect a birth defect makes gayness equal to heterosexuality. I do not wish to persecute gays, but I also do not wish to applaud what is clearly a flaw.
The answer is that identical twins are not really identical: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
VBigelow: You have completely misunderstood the Bruder et al. study described your pop link above.
The rare random somatic mutations and copy number variations identified for identical twins would be distributed across both the control and the experimental twin populations and therefore do not invalidate previous twin studies.
Katrina is correct to conclude that there are no data supporting human homosexual genes. There are fraternal twins studies suggesting a possibility of predisposition to this behavior but the weak level of evidence is in the “twilight zone,” similar to that found for other complex human behaviors.
In the future, the technology of complete genome sequencing coupled with the use of these rare inter-twin mutations, gene duplications etc. opens up the possibility of attempting subtractive analysis among the twins to find disease loci. Such mutations are relatively rare as a percentage of the genome often occur in non-coding regions and, most importantly, accumulate with time like other environmental effects on the organism.
But many self-identified homosexual people come to homosexuality before or after self-identifying as heterosexual or bisexual. How is spending limited public resources to research the question of “gay genes” or other fishing expeditions into the epigenetic or somatic mutation field going to help them?
O’Boyle, It is you who misunderstands the study. I processed it just fine. I’ve been working with DNA genealogical studies for quite some time.
For those who would like to read more, this article references several studies and explains the way genes may operationalize differently due to methylation http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay.
VB: Please state the frequency distribution of mutations identified by Bruder et al. compared to the human genome in any monozygotic twin concordance study examining homosexuality of your choosing. Then, paying attention to the fact that both control and experimental populations will have this distribution of mutations, please calculate the maximum % effect it could have on the reported penetrance results of that selected study.
Regarding your new link to another popular science article summarizing a study that you also probably also don’t understand, methylation is one of several known epigenetic effects that I referred to in my post above. Methylation is often a response to environmental stressors and it is naturally reversible. However, there are no epigenetic patterns of methylation or demethylation identified as causing homosexuality to date. Or causing any complex human behavior for that matter.
I believe you owe Katrina an apology for correcting her improperly by posting a pretentious link to a study that you actually don’t understand.
V-Big- you’re really out of your league with some of the commenters here at ATB.
Radical LBGTQ and their equally radicalized supporters may have thought that they had reined in all the experts with the endless bullying and ‘outing’ of professionals who disagreed with the radical LBGTQ ‘mantra’, but, not so quick- there is real data and there are real data analysts out there whose only intention is to interpret data, honestly- not manipulate it to serve an ideological cause.
Your endless citations of/references to popular science magazines and other ‘soft’ outlets rather than actual empirical research studies or actual investigative journalistic endeavors calls you out as a wannabe ‘pseudo-scientist/analyst’; IOW- you’re a wee-bit in over your big head.
You’d best use another angle at making your, to date, very bad case in support of ‘gay marriage’ and it’s unlikely contribution to rearing fit children.
Maybe you should just stick to the emotional angle – it did work with the judicial activists in SCOTUS (equally unfit to analyze/interpret real data).
Oh LGBT are the victims? WOW. I suppose we are just going to have to say it over and over and louder and louder. Those of us, and there are more everyday, who grew up with these sick and distorted people are not going to be demised so easily. The harder you push the lies the harder we will come back with truth. And sweetie our truth is not pretty, trust me on that. There is no way that LGBT can keep the lid on this because the kids are not going to be silent. You should consider what backlash might look like when more people find out that as far as parenting goes and kids, LGBT are in fact major abusers and abuse is supported in the ideology and the false narrative. The fact is no child will be protected by any LGBT adult ever.
You might realize that the standard tactics are pointless with COGs.Are the children of gays a hate group–you guys better go back to the drawing board and rethink this one. The truth is not slander. What next us talking about our lived experience is going to be hate speech? You people are so sick and so deluded it is still terrifying.
I am sorry for your bad experience, IMHO. However, it is not representative of gay parents. For every cherry picked example you find of poor parenting by gay parents, I can pull up at least 100 comparable or worse by straight parents. It’s not sexual or gender id that makes one a good or bad parent.
Proportionally, LBGTQ suffer more and more intensely from psychological disorders associated with their chosen sexuality, and concomitant lifestyle.
How does that fact NOT translate into increasing the risk to anyone under their authority, especially a minor?
Why would you be willing to risk the health and welfare of any children in order to assuage the ‘feelings’ of <1.6-2.0% of the adult population?
Where, exactly, is your logic, v-big?
False premises, Jae. LGBTQ people do not “choose” their sexuality. Their sexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
From which psychological disorders do you claim LGBTQ people suffer, and where is your evidence? I think you just said that LGBTQ people suffer from more psychological disorders related to being LGBTQ than straight people do. ??????
I am unconvinced that allowing LGBTQ people to be parents is any more risky to the health and wellbeing of children than allowing hetero people to be parents.
What I am convinced of is that the tyranny of the majority is a threat to our democracy.
Until there is hard data that proves that LBGTQ are “born that way”, it is logical to presume that their aberrant sexuality is a choice. By LBGTQ’s own admission- they are ‘pan-sexual’- that’s all the proof needed to claim that their sexuality is a choice.
Not even LBGTQ will try to sustain the lie that they only have sexual encounters with the same sex- is that your claim?
You’ve had plenty of opportunities here at ATB and elsewhere to gather the stats on LBGTQ emotional and physical health- don’t play dumb now that’s you think it suits your position- it doesn’t.
The only false premise being floated anywhere is the LBGTQ premise that SSA persons can ‘marry’ and raise healthy offspring.
Another false premise is that SSA persons ‘have children’- they don’t, they are ‘gifted’ others children, usually. Your comparison with ‘permitting” heteros to have children is quite revealing, though. Since when do heteros need anyone’s permission to bear or raise their own offspring (except in China and other communist societies)?
Are you a statist, v-big?
Jae, I am not going to engage with a statistics/science denier. You make things up as you go. There’s no “hard data” as you say, to support your hateful claims. The onus is on you to provide it.
They suffer those disorders because they are disproportionately victims of sexual abuse, which is doubtless why they are gay. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/csa.pdf.
Lots of speculation and leaps of logic in your paper, Clayton. Also, you don’t discuss the studies that disagree with you and show evidence for why your position is the stronger one (Paper writing 101). Your bias is fairly dripping from the paper. Oh, and that Masters’ and Johnson study on homosexuality? Even Virginia Johnson believed Masters fudged his results.
You show no causal relationship between homosexuality and childhood abuse. How do you know that children who are perceived as gay aren’t targeted for abuse and sexualized early? Huh?
“Proportionally, LBGTQ suffer more and more intensely from psychological disorders associated with their chosen sexuality, and concomitant lifestyle.
How does that fact NOT translate into increasing the risk to anyone under their authority, especially a minor?” First understand why that happens: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brick-brick/201402/the-psychological-impact-lgbt-discrimination
So, Jacob, I read your comment and the article from Psychology Today. So, what I am hearing you say is that people who suffer from depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. because they have been victimized through familial rejection, bullying, discrimination, etc. should be further victimized by precluded from becoming parents. Do I have that right? If so, surely you realize that this would have implications for others groups that face discrimination…racial and ethnic minorities included. Is that what you mean to put out there?
Further, what verifiable evidence do you have (and again, this would call for a probability sampling) that people who suffer from depression, anxiety, etc. abuse their children in significant numbers? (Please, no cherry picked examples).
Of course, you can find many more instances of poor or abusive parenting by straight parents. Heterosexuals are approximately 97% of the population and so within that massive population you are going to find angels, demons and everything in between. The question is what percentage of the gay population abuses children compared to what percentage of the straight population. If gay parents are 3% or 1% of the population, but homosexual sexual abuse of minors account for, say , 40 or 50% of all cases, then the fears of those who argue against it are very well-founded. Please bear in mind that I am not saying gays account for 40% or 50% of all cases -I don’t know what the figures are.
You don’t know. Yet you would deny LBGTQ people the right to be parents. SMH.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
“What I am convinced of is that the tyranny of the majority is a threat to our democracy”
How’s that tyranny of the minority working out for those LBGTQ ‘non-believers’?
How ‘democratic’ was the hijacking of a ‘well-packed’ SCOTUS by <2.0% of the population?
How 'democratic' is the environment for those shopkeepers and NPOs whose religion prohibits them from supporting 'gay marriage'?
You're kidding, right, v-big?
Jae,
1) More people support marriage equality than oppose it.
2) The Constitution, which is the law of the land, requires equal protection under the law.
3) People who operate public accommodations are required by the Constitution to serve all equally.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Most studies before PC took over the profession found 21% or so of molesters were same-sex only. And prominent gay activists molest children. See http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/judge_denies_gay_activist_terr.html
You can find examples of child abusers in every group: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-resigns-following-abuse-allegations/2014/03/07/0381aa94-a624-11e3-b865-38b254d92063_story.html
Then, there’s Gothard’s pupil, rabidly anti gay hypocrite Josh Duggar.
Vbigelow,
“You don’t know. Yet you would deny LBGTQ people the right to be parents. SMH.”
First, No adult has “the right” to be a parent. People have reproductive freedom over their own body. LGBT demands society provide them with other peoples children (that is human trafficking and bondage) or body parts. They have no right to other live humans. What a monstrous thought.
Children have basic human rights and those precede adults rights. LBGT is committing the worst human rights violations against women and children of any single group in the west. They go into the 3rd world (and they would love to do it here too) countries as predators and use women as reproductive slaves and traffic in babies.
These men deserve life long prison sentences in the local prisons. But I can say that because I actual was raised in the LGBT community and unlike you know them beyond a friend at work, or even a son or daughter or mostly likely from form well crafted TV shows and commercials. Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/international-baby-business_992195.html?page=3
IMHO, becoming a parent is a right that our country recognizes.
Straight couples adopt children from Third World countries, too. Or, did you forget about that?
LGBTQ people do not DEMAND they be given other people’s children any more than straight people demand to adopt children. Lesbians couples usually have their own children.
I couldn’t decipher the rest of your frothing rant.
What is the difference, IMHO (and Jae for that matter) between knowledge and opinion in your minds? I don’t think you know the difference.
“Further, what verifiable evidence do you have (and again, this would call for a probability sampling) that people who suffer from depression, anxiety, etc. abuse their children in significant numbers? (Please, no cherry picked examples).”
Hey Jacob- Hint: Beware, the ‘she-lion’ sets booby traps for her ‘prey’- the fact is that only studies that ‘prove’ that LBGTQ are the most wonderful and superior humans, ever, are not cherry-picked and all other studies are ‘biased, cherry-picked and just plain nasty and bigoted”-
The game is rigged.
vbigelow
Actually, it is representative–sorry to burst your bubble. We all saw it over and over and over. And it will come out (pardon the pun) it is a disorder community defending a disordered ideology. You really have no clue so please do not defend child abuse.
I wouldn’t dream of defending child abuse, IMHO, and I’m not. Do not slander me. I am not leveling personal attacks at you.
Who is “we” as in “we all saw it over and over and over?” You need a probability sampling IMHO, not a biased group of people amassing a few case studies each that they have selected WITH BIAS.
You can’t claim that I have no clue just because you don’t agree with me. You need hard evidence, and there is none to support your claims.
We are COGs–Children of Gays. We saw abusive and aberrant behavior. We saw adults who protected other adults and never the child. We saw the victims punished and isolated if they even dared to utter a word to anyone. And this kind of behavior was out sourced to as many adults as possible–20 30 or more. I defy anyone to find even one single time anyone in the LGBT community ever turned another LGBT person in for children abuse–it has never happened. They will protect the adult abuser and never the victim. They are dangerous to kids as a community and an ideology. The have a good marketing campaign and America is not the smartest place on earth.
Again, I can match you 100 abusive straight couples for every one abusive gay couple you list.
Our republic is based on democratic principles.
“First, No adult has “the right” to be a parent. People have reproductive freedom over their own body. LGBT demands society provide them with other peoples children (that is human trafficking and bondage) or body parts. They have no right to other live humans. What a monstrous thought.”
Your logic doesn’t just apply to same-sex adoption, but to adoption in general and frankly, to parenting in general, adoptive or not. Think about it, heterosexual parents who wanna make a baby feel like they own it even if they are shown to be incapable.
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/tu-quoque-2
“Actually, it is representative–sorry to burst your bubble. We all saw it over and over and over. And it will come out (pardon the pun) it is a disorder community defending a disordered ideology. You really have no clue so please do not defend child abuse.” Considering that most of you are from broken heterosexual homes, as based on people like dawn and Mr. Lopez, it would help if you call it as it is…
“What is the difference, IMHO (and Jae for that matter) between knowledge and opinion in your minds? I don’t think you know the difference”
Oh, I don’t know, maybe first-witness testimony by persons who have suffered the abuse at the hands of their ‘gay’ parents and community is knowledge, while your denial of facts is your mere opinion- would ya’ say?
Do you think that just because you are either gay or a supporter of gay that you have all the knowledge necessary to form your opinions? Do you think your opinion replaces the experience of those abused by gays?
I am curious- what is your opinion about the minor abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church?
I am betting that this is where we get to separate those who actually ‘know’ something to be true from those who have formed opinions that originate out of their ideology-
Jae—Your eye-witness accounts, while horrible, are cherry picked examples that have not been proven to be representative of the population through multiple independent probability studies. So, you don’t know. You opine. I can find 100 examples of straight couples who have similarly abused children for every one you can find.
What do I think of the Catholic Church covering up for sexually abusive priests? Uh…I’m against it.
“Again, I can match you 100 abusive straight couples for every one abusive gay couple you list.”
But, regardless of the lack of proportionality of your claim (‘gay’ men commit pederasty at a greater rate in proportion to the general population. There is also troubling data regarding rates of domestic violence among homosexual men), the crux of the issue isn’t about who offends the most- it is about the state underwriting/incentivizing the removal of children from their biological parents and placing them in households at higher risk (proportionally) for abuse, and other dysfunctional behavior.
Do you intend to continue to point to the bad behavior of others to defend your crumbling position, v-big?
Do you contend that it is better for children to be raised by biological strangers (all other things being equal) than their own biological parents?
Note: There is no ‘straight’ or ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ in nature, there is only normal and abnormal.
I have to agree that there is only normal and abnormal. It’s an evolutionary/biological fact that all living things exist for the purpose of recreating itself. If the particular organism is unable to do that, it’s not functioning as it was designed to. All kinds of biological abnormalities exist in humans and all living things. A woman may be born without ovaries and a uterus. That is an abnormality. Her body isn’t functioning as it needs to in order to procreate. It doesn’t make her a “bad person”, or any less human, but the fact remains that it is abnormal. When living creatures interact in a way that makes procreation impossible, it is in fact, abnormal. I’m not taking a moral position here, just pointing out the obvious.
What a liar you are! I’m just shocked, shocked (with apologies to Captain Louis Renault, Vichy French Constabulary, Casablanca) at the boldness of your dissembling.
Your deception depends upon a manipulation reality by a misrepresentation of the meaning or value of the ratio you cite. Bad straight parents do exist in superior numbers, but only because they presently outnumber your kind by a factor of 50+ to 1. However, they are not part of a perverse sub-culture abusing the poor kids unfortunate enough to be forced to undergo the abuse germane to that sub- culture.
You better run but you won’t be able to hide, because even a pliant sympathetic media will be unable to pass up on what a great scandal story right before their eyes. Trust me, they’ll turn on you if they can run this coming scandal for a half year or more – despite their alliance with your ilk so far.
They are, after all, in it for the money and they’ll sell anyone out – their mothers AND their ideological soul-mates!
And then you’ll be toast..
They already do that if you cite race and crime statistics. If the facts don’t agree with SJW narratives, then the person who cites the facts is full of hatred and bigotry.
The entire SJW movement is sick and deluded. It denies biological and natural truth as its central premise. It intends to disrupt and destroy everything that was considered good and righteous.
The ironic part is that the SJWs could only exist in a safe and wealthy society, the products of the ‘patriarchy’ and conservatism. And that they are driving the entire culture into the gutter.
I agree. I think this proves that gay people aren’t any more perfect than straight people, and the media needs to stop projecting it that way. In the 1960’s there were ‘free love’ communes featuring adults being sexual with other adults and sometimes children, in the open. The children grew up emotionally scared as adults. There is a book called “Wild Child: Girlhood in the Counterculture” where one of the stories included a child’s heterosexual parents encouraging early childhood sexualization. The girl grew up with problems and had to go to therapy. This isn’t a gay problem. I hate to say it but it’s just conservatives happy to have found a reason to hate gays.
V-big- since bias permeates the LBGTQ ‘parenting’ sociological and psychological (‘soft’ sciences) studies, I do not base my position on any of them-in my opinion, they are unreliable due to the radical politicization of the whole LBGTQ issue. We’ve already witnessed the scrubbing of the former good work (prior to LBGTQ being promoted as the preferred lifestyle) done on LBGTQ emotional and physical health since the ideologues infiltrated these disciplines. Even LBGTQ themselves, as well as their advocates, recognize the special emotional challenges these folks have when compared with the general population (which has statistically nothing to do with discrimination; blacks and women suffer far more real discrimination and do not exhibit the same level of emotional or physical problems). Did you know that the APA had removed pedophilia from the draft of the last edition of the DSM to send up their trail balloon on their next ‘disorder’ redefinition? Are you aware that LBGTQ radicals (as opposed to non-radical LBGTQ) have infiltrated these disciplines to push their ideological agenda items?
Your snide response aside, did you know that the Catholic Church abuse scandal was driven by (over 90% of the settled cases) homosexual men preying on adolescent boys = pederasty, and not pedophilia?
Did you also know that over 90% of those Church settlements or convictions occurred sans any ‘hard’ , or any ‘typical’ circumstantial evidence?
Did you also know that the crimes alleged in over 90% of those settled cases occurred from 50 to 20 years ago?
Perhaps, when the ‘target’ is a Catholic priest the ‘evidence’ bar is considerably lower than for LBGTQ- the current leftist ideological and media darlings-
Got any biology (my ‘bailiwick’) to offer up in defense of SS’M’ or ‘parenting’?
Let me know when you have personally observed (or has anyone, reputable, in human history) a SS ‘married’ [monogamous] bonded pair that is ‘bearing’ and raising offspring. Let me know when that behavior evolves to become biologically advantageous to the species.
Perhaps then, and only then, will I be convinced it is fit for my species to do so-
Jae-
This is all your very biased and opinion, which is not supported by evidence. Where are the multiple peer reviewed (peer does not equate to sharing one’s bias) independent probability studies to support your claims about LGBTQ people and abuse? They don’t exist. They never did.
You write: “Did you know that the Catholic Church abuse scandal was driven by (over 90% of the settled cases) homosexual men preying on adolescent boys = pederasty, and not pedophilia?” Gay priest preying on adolescent boys, a subgroup that gained notoriety due to the issues around it involving the Church (trust, hypocrisy, etc), still accounts for an overall small group of gay men. My hypothesis is that there is at least an equal percentage of child molesters within the population of straight men. They may just not go for boys.
I can’t imagine what the timeline of when the cases involving Catholic priests were solved matters.
You write:
<> Again, you have zero evidence.
You write:
Got any biology (my ‘bailiwick’) to offer up in defense of SS’M’ or ‘parenting’? Often, one of the members of the couple is the biological parent. However, I don’t really need any. Again, so much of parenting is NOT biological. You want evidence of where biological parents abused their children?
I know quite a few SS couples who are raising children and where one parent is the biological parent and the other adoptive (much as one would experience in a divorce or death and remarriage situation). The children are growing up loved and well adjusted. That is great for the species, society, and the planet.
V-big- do you reject the biology, that supports the evolution of our species?
Your social and psych studies are mere soft-science blathering compared with the reality of who and what we are, and how we got to this place in time.
You reject the facts of the biology, while promoting your own social hypothesis, which is subject to your very obvious bias.
Where is the bias in nature?
Until you ‘discover’ the natural, biological model that usurps the model nature has followed- which is the M-F, monogamous pair bonding model, you have nothing to offer but more theory highly prone to the investigators biases (hard and radical ideology in your particular case).
Meanwhile, we are seeing hints of serious adverse implications from the COGs, who provide first-witness testimony of their horrible experiences being raised by LBGTQ.
I’ll use nature and the COGs first witness testimony instead of your baseless and biased theories to form my opinions, and upon which to base my conclusions.
That’s science. It’s based upon the observable, testable and repeatability of the experiment. Nature has provided the most reliable laboratory of/for all time, for all humanity. You should try it sometime.
Moira please do not back down . Please keep fighting for the children
I think it must be to much for people to stop for one minute and think possibly Gods word the bible bad it right. He Loves us sooo much he tells us the truth. I personally do not stand in judgement of people that make these decisions for themselves. I I do. Elie e the truth sets is free. My prayers go accordingly God Bless
Good for you for seizing the perfect time to use your story as a money maker. It’s unfortunate that you had paedophile parents, but you’re not alone in this and those stories are a dime a dozen. You have to push a homosexual agenda to make a profit.
Good luck.
Gee, BS, Moira had rabidly radicalized ‘gay’ parents that forced their aberrant homosexuality on her and other children. It is because they were “gay” that they forced her and other children to accept their sexuality. It kinda, sorta factors into the whole debate, don’t ya’ think?
If pedophiles are declassified as ‘disordered’ by the APA (a debate that is currently underway) simply because they are ‘born that way’, should they demand ‘equal rights” and demand that society underwrite/incentivize their ‘right’ to raise children? Not all pedophiles act out on their aberrant sexual impulses, you cant broad-brush paint them all with the stink of the act of pedophilia (see B-4-U Act, formerly known as that great LGBTQ activist- genesis organization called NAMBLA)- how do you ‘vote’ (or do we await another corruption of our formerly balanced system of government to force an ideological decision out of SCOTUS?)?
If an adults ‘equal rights’ supersedes a child’s rights, where, exactly, do you draw the line- if any? We see where it all went with Roe v. Wade- how are those ‘baby-body-parts-for-sale-to-the-highest-bidder’ working out for our ‘humane’ and ‘advanced’ culture? Why stop at harvesting baby parts in the preborn – why not the already born?
How about polyamorists, shall society underwrite/incentivize their ‘group’ rights to children, too?
If you don’t consult nature to determine what is natural and normal, from where do you source your sense of normalcy (or right and wrong)?
Jae,
Moira had narcissistic, sociopathic parents with no empathy and no regard for boundaries. Their sexual identity had nothing to do with their behavior. So, no….it doesn’t factors into the whole debate. It distorts it.
Here is a summary of the APAs thoughts on pedophilia, in which they break them into two categories, actors and non actors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html
In one scenario, the person maintains empathy, a sense of boundaries, and of right and wrong. In the other, not. This has nothing to do with being gay, as gay people as a population pose no threat to children. Nice try at a slippery slope argument.
The SCOTUS voted for SSM because there was no compelling evidence to deny SS couples equal protection under the law. Similarly, there is no more evidence that gay people are more likely to molest children or are bad parents than straight people. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt. (BTW, I’d love to see you try your biology argument on the billion dollar adoption industry that specializes in prying babies away from girls/women when they are at their most vulnerable).
False premise: There is no adults equal rights versus child’s rights scenario with gay marriage and parenting. It is win win. Couples want to parent. Children need loving homes. R v W was a god send for women’s rights. There is no one selling baby body parts. That is a bald faced lie. The already born have rights, but nice slippery slop argument again.
You write: “How about polyamorists, shall society underwrite/incentivize their ‘group’ rights to children, too?” Wow…you are on a roll with those slippery slopes.
VBigelow asserts “Their sexual identity had nothing to do with that behavior.”
Can you prove that statement? I mean as opposed to just posting links to the opinions or poorly designed studies of other people.
The victim who lived with the actual perpetrators seems to assert that indeed it was a factor. What qualifies you to disagree with her on this point?
V-big- your argument is with nature- I am holding the line where nature put it. I believe, with millions of years of evidence behind it, nature to know best. I wont tell/promote a lie about nature to prop up some subpopulations desires for ‘things’. If you want children, enter into an authentic (not the phony redefined ‘thing’) marriage with the opposite sex and get going- no one has the right to stop you.
But, don’t redefine what nature clearly delineated as between one male and one female, and then demand society incentivize ‘it’, and then turn over their children (future generations) as a damned in situ experiment on kids, our species and society. Would you advocate such an experiment on LBGTQ? Suppose we wanted to determine if forcing LBGTQ into opposite sex marriages affected their sexuality for a generation or so? We can’t even claim (with evidence) that LBGTQ sexual behavior is mutable and probably be resolved with therapy without being called bigots and haters, yet, you force the redefinition of marriage (a natural hetero institution based in the biology [fact] of monogamy) and then tell us to suck it up while you make claims on our children, and probably the health and future of our free society.
You need the reality check here, we don’t. Imagine <2.0% of the population dictating to you, in direct opposition to nature no less, anything? Suppose Sharia Law was imposed upon you as a result of the bad precedent set by your ridiculous 'equal rights' claims? Why not? Don't Muslims in the US have equal rights, too?
By the way, nature is replete with slippery slopes, they do exist, they are all over the place out there (you need to get outside more often). Human history is also replete with slippery slopes, you'd best get busy with some remedial education on the topic. The Weimar Republic-Hitler transition years or the fall of the Roman Empire might be good places for you to start. Be careful you don't slide off the cliff during your review of the harsh realities of human error and folly. ISIS is 'slippery-sloping' all over the map in the Mideast, or haven't you noticed? If you stopped looking for your unicorns and was more receptive of biological reality, you might see the truth of this matter.
Can you actually keep a 'straight' face when you claim that opening the door to redefine marriage to accommodate SSA 'couples' isn't going to lead to polyamorists and all the others from seeking their 'equal rights', too? They're already 'there' – you'd be wise to crack open a newspaper, or two-
On what basis would you reject their claim to 'marriage', and our children?
Are there testimonials from children of SSMs describing their wonderful upbringing?
Zach Wahls is a great example.
Sent from my iPad
>
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/12/sunday-review/same-sex-households-children.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sidney-switzer/dear-heather-barwick-dont_b_6903252.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ella-robinson/dear-gay-community-your-k_b_7151970.html
Also, please check out the organization COLAGE. http://www.colage.org
Thanks to you and VB for the links, which I am reading and studying.
Sent from my iPad
>
The above is a response to John’s question.
I guess my reply is sitting in moderation because of the weblinks I included. John, to find some positive testimonials please google the recent New York Times piece by Gabriela Herman, the recent article by SIdney Switzer and the other piece by Ella Robinson both found on Huffington Post. Also, check out the organization COLAGE.
Most of the kids who speak up in defense of their gay parents are under enormous media pressure to conform to what their parents want to say. There is a book called “Families Like Mine” where an author who interviews over a hundred kids of gay parents talk about their real lived experiences with gay moms/ dads.
According to them, media is skewing up the perception. A lot of kids of lesbians have daddy issues, that they are too afraid to talk about in public:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4QOTBe6mzk4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=families+like+mine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI1oSi7P2KxwIVhtSACh0bZwE9#v=onepage&q=families%20like%20mine&f=false
Robert Oscar Lopez (a child with lesbian parents) wrote a brief to SCOTUS stating that he has been in contact with dozens of children who have been raised by same-sex parents but are too afraid to talk about it publicly. He and many other children of gays against gay parenting/gay marriage, have been publicly humiliated, legally harassed, ignored by maisntream media and even given death threats by gay activists who run GLAAD.
You can read all about it in his brief here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_Robert_Oscar_Lopez_and_BN_Klein.pdf
Others who have recently come out, said that the reason why they hadn’t (and many others haven’t either) is because they feared they were the only people who felt this way.
Hi Brandi,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have felt alone for so many years. And it’s hard to talk about because no one understands. Our society has transformed to become so tolerant (and rightfully so) of lesbian and gay marriages, that there has become a “how dare you” mentality about speaking out on this touchy subject. I would love to share my story with you,….
https://thelesbiansdaughter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/the-waves-will-wash-us-away/comment-page-1/#comment-103
+Here are some video examples of the true raw feelings of kids with gay parents+
Millie: “My lesbian mothers and my sperm donor are the most selfish people I’ve ever met….When I was little all I ever wanted was my father”
Kaylee “I think it’s a shame that I won’t get to meet my father… I tried writing Oprah to ask her to find my dad when I was 11”
“Growing up with lesbian moms has been really challenging for me because when I was little, all I ever wanted was my daddy”
+Stories:+
I have two moms. is it wrong to wish i had a dad?
i’m 17 and female…. i love my two lesbian moms of course, but sometimes when i see a little girl with her daddy, i get jealous, or i get emotional. i’m adopted too by the way. i’ve never met my dad, actually, for all i know he’s dead. i don’t know if this is related to not having a father figure, but i get very quickly attached to guys around 30 years old- for example the guy at my church who is married- i went through this whole passed summer being practically obsessed with him. my one friend saw it as just a crush, but i truly believed that i loved him and wanted to be with him. i never told him, because i’m not a psycho who tries to steal people’s husbands, but this feeling was so strong when we were near eachother. we got pretty close, but not in a sexual way, but close enough that he would touch my shoulders or whatever when he was saying hi from behind me. and i would always take advantage of our hugs and try to draw them out a bit… i hope he never noticed! i feel so guilty about wishing i had a dad. i wonder alot what it would be like and it does bother me a little bit when i see a little girl with her loving father. any advice? also, do you think me not having a dad has anuthing to do with me going crazy over this married guy who was and still is so super nice and caring towards me?
SOURCE: : https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110313184623AAgNgcz#
I hate my gay dads. Am I a bad person?
Hi…I’m a boy of 14.
I live with 2 dads…one of them is my biological dad and one of them isn’t.
My biological mother (who gave my dads her ovum for my birth…) comes my house often. She’s 38 and my dads’ long time best friend…I want to call her my mom but my dads always get mad when I try…actually I’ve already call her mom when my dads are not around and she liked it…she and I have lots of connections with each other.
I hate my dads so much…WHY didn’t they just adopt some baby instead use ovum donor and surrogate mother? Don’t you think gay people who want to get a baby by ovum donor and surrogate mother are horrible? I think they are horrible as hell…even my biological dad is being gay. She’s a mother of mine, even my surrogate mother also exist, but dads don’t want me to get so close to my biological mother…
What do you think? Don’t you think it’s normal to hate my dads? But must I be their good son cos they actually decided to get me? I don’t hate gays but hope my parents are heterosexual… am I a bad person to feel this way? what should I do…? I’m still so young but everyone wants me to accept everything that I can’t and don’t want…
SOURCE: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110908013701AAqKDOM
(pay attention to the lovely supportive gay people who commented in response to this boy)
If you need more stories, just let me know. I have plenty. What Rocki is promoting is not the full story. He’s part of the mass exploitation of third world women, who are treated like factories to produce his mother-stolen children: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2014/03/indian-surrogate-mothers-suffer-exploitation-20143276727538166.html
Those aren’t the only voices of the LGTB parenting community. The vast majority of politically active children of gays are under tremendous pressure to appease their gay parents and pretend everything is ok. If you’re not too comfortable hearing that from conservatives like Katy, hear it from liberals. Abigail, the author behind the book families like mine, explains that most children of gays (or the hundreds of them she used in her book Families Like Mine) were terrified of talking about their raw feelings of growing up with gay and lesbian parents because it would hurt their parents feelings and damage their relationship with them.
John Yes. There are organizations set up for LGBT to control the kids and use them as public statements. To make sure they learn the script and can spout the party line. As far as I am concerned they are dog and pony shows. Most of had to play the role in public. Groups like PLAG demand every member of the family serve as a cheering squad and walking propaganda campgain for LGBT. The indoctrination is brutal and there is survalliance–of teachers and friends parents. If for kids anyone steps out of character or goes off script it is public shamming, isolation and bullying–they out source this to other adults and any child who speaks out will be punished. This makes them very dangerous given how profoundly gullible the public is.
Groups like Collage are the same, They have no use for anyone who has another version. LGBT “parents” The community also highly values gay kids over straight ones–You grow up your whole life hearing that women and straights are breeders and some lower form of life. Most often it is not a happy life for a straight kid in that community. They become the enemy and pressured and treated like traitors. LGBT ideology is unbalanced it is distorted and it is aggressive and abusive. And this is something we COGs are seeing and hearing over and over from other COGs
At this point more and more kids are coming forward with very disturbing stories of what many of us lived through. There is not a single organization to protect straight kids in the gay community, nobody allowing for all the incidents of abuse and suicide and attempts to be documented. All one big cover up. Then there is the fabricated “research” done by LGBT that proves they are “better” parents. I mean that nobody questions the absurdity of such assertions is mind boggling.
Mr. Docrocki I believe is a big supporter of LGBT human trafficking industry that sells infants and uses women as reproductive slaves. He may even be in the business and earning a living from it. This he feels is a Gay mans “right” to own other peoples children and to use poor women as breed animals. Make no mistake, the kids are owned, trained to spout the party line. It fits with the whole distortion that the adults feel they have the right to sexualize the kids early because–well “kids are sexual.” Anyone who thinks what is going on in this community is not a violation of children’s human rights is delusional. Their entire identity is based in sexualization. All the ideology follows from that. They want to own children as a political tool to prove a point, demand attention and have control over others. It has nothing to do what even the worst heterosexual parent thinks of when they think of parental love–children are another “entitlement” to be used however they want. There is no such thing as the gay family or as two same parents–all of is a violations of children’s human rights.
I think it has more to do with wanting to be ‘politically correct’ than it has to do with gullibility. For the younger generation, yes, maybe. But for the older, I think it steams from not wanting to be labeled a ‘bigot’. My mother questions homosexuality, and thinks its unnatural. But she’s never told her siblings, her relatives, or her friends this, because she knows it would crush them. On the outside, she’s supportive of gay marriage and feels bad about how gays are being persecuted. I too, am finding myself questioning it, but if I become public about this–its immediately associated with bigotry. If you ask basic questions like “If gay sex is supposed to happen, then why don’t gays have sexual organs that fit with one another?” or “If gay is normal, how does it fit with the law of attraction, and how sexual attraction is how we specify if a person is good enough to mate with?”. Conservatives have used this question to publicly hate gays, therefore the questions themselves are associated with people who hate gays. So, when you question, doubt, or come off the least bit unspportive, you’re suddenly homophobic. With that mindset its incredible hard to form a opinion that doesn’t coincides with the mainstream.
Thanks for these interesting comparative links Miss AO.
In support of the bullying point you make, look at the tone in the pro-SSM piece by Switzer that Rocki posts. Switzer’s writes more against Heather Warwick personally than any arguments for experimental male-male parenting.
Switzer states “Heather was surrounded by negative man-haters.” How would Switzer know that? Or is this just another gratuitous anti-lesbian slur to bully SSM dissenters who step out of line?
Yeah, BS, I’m sure it was really worth the years of horrendous physical and emotional abuse all throughout childhood and being emotionally brutalized as an adult to ‘come out’ and make some of ‘dat dough’ for Moira.
BS perfectly illustrates why radical LBGTQ and their rabid supporters are not fit to be anywhere near children.
You provide the best example of all that ‘gay’ love and compassion-
Children have the right to be conceived in the marriage bed, and raised by their own mother and father, who strive to be chaste, faithful to one another. Children raised by unchaste adults whether homosexual or heterosexual suffer. I know because I have read yours and other stories of children of unchaste parents, and I was raised in the opposite household. My father died when I was four, but my single mother lived a staunchly chaste life, and she deeply understood her own identity as female. As a result I never doubted my sexual identity as a woman, and I was given the courage (and it takes courage) to sleep with only one man in my life — my husband of 32 years. He received the same example in his home, and we were both virgins at marriage, and faithful throughout our lives together. This is pure happiness. It is a fact that we have souls that are male and female. No surgeries, no activity, nothing can change that. Unfortunately, the first sexual experience impresses itself on a person, and people can get really messed up if it happens when you are a child. Sex belongs in marriage. The best outcome is that your first sexual experience be on your wedding night. Only if we come into relationship with God as his children — Male or Female — can we truly become human. Moira, I’m sorry, your parents lived non-human lives. About them was written: “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) Susan Fox of Christ’s Faithful Witness http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-poison-of-gay-parenting-children.html#.VbXoXGD0iIk
God bless you. And to all others to whom I have not yet replied, I will as soon as I am able. God bless you all.
Moira — What your parent did to you is a monstrous tragedy, and you are very brave to go public with all the ferocious details.
I’m a gay man, married for 12 years to another man, with two beautiful young children. We are an integral part of a large extended family that includes grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. Our children’s upbringing has been about as conservative as one could imagine.
Just as you fight against SSM based on your experiences, I fight for same-sex headed families based on mine. Your story, and my kids’ stories, diametrically opposed as they are, are both valid and worth telling.
http://babyreference.com/bonding-matters-the-chemistry-of-attachment/
The biology supporting the evolutionary perfection of the biological mother and father regarding the fitness of the child (and therefore, the species and the species society) is indisputable.
Of course, this fact should not (is not meant to) minimize the love shared between non-biological or other unconventional family members- it just means there is an optimal model that a society should strive to achieve (and incentivize). All other family ‘conventions’ are suboptimal and should not be promoted or incentivized by society either over or parallel to the biological model.
Which is why nature designed it as such.
All of society should support the biological family as the primary and preferred family status that ensures the fitness of the individuals, the species and the species society.
It benefits all of us when we support biological ‘fitness’ over personal ‘wants’-
Again, you have zero evidence of anything except fertile males and females are biologically capable of reproducing.
We don’t need your version of ‘evidence’, V-big (which would only be that so-called ‘evidence’ that supports anything and everything LBGTQ – right?), we have nature- we have human history.
Nature (and history) is replete with evidence. Evidence we can all see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Then, some of us even have an honest intellect with which to discern the truth.
Now for you……look, over there, quick- Unicorn!
Nice try, Jae. That’s not evidence. I’m still waiting for multiple, independent, peer reviewed probability studies.
V-big, you are confused- the onus is on you, the proponent of SS’M’ and ‘parenting’, to provide the evidence that it isn’t harmful to children.
Think of it this way- if the pharma folks want to introduce a new drug into the community, they must conduct clinical trials for several years to prove their product will do what it claims without causing untenable adverse effects to the population.
We’ve had the good (successful) biological model for producing fit progeny (and a fit species and fit society) for millennia upon millennia. It is, undeniably, the male-female monogamous bonded biological parents. The fact that nature flushes out all other behaviors is enough evidence for anyone (sane and honest).
What have you got to support your position that <2% of the population, formerly and recently classified as 'disordered', is suddenly healthy enough (i.e. what 'magical' thing happened to change that classification?) to raise fit offspring, which will form a future fit society?
From the American Academy of Pediatrics PEDIATRICS Volume 131, Number 4, April 2013 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374.full.pdf+html):
“Many studies have assessed the developmental and psychosocial outcomes of children whose parents are gay or lesbian and note that a family’s social and economic resources and the strength of the relationships among members of the family are far more important variables than parental gender or sexual
orientation in affecting children’s development and well-being.20 A large body of scientific literature demonstrates that children and adolescents who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are
heterosexual.21–37 Although the methodologic challenges are daunting in
addressing phenomena as complex and multifactorial as children’s longterm developmental and psychosocial
outcomes, the literature accumulated over more than 30 years, taken together,provides robust, reliable, and
valid assurance about the well-being of children raised by parents of the same gender.”
I am profoundly humbled by Moira’s willingness to speak of the horrendous things that stole her innocence. I agree with her observations and assumptions regarding molestation and the devastation it reeks on individuals and our society. She has found the words to describe my feelings about the homosexual community. Of which, I have friends and loved ones, who are part of it. I appreciate her insight and find myself contemplating more deeply the reasons why marriage between a man and a woman is so important to me.
It is interesting that nobody considers homosexuality to be a RELIGION — that is, not a choice, not a matter of birth, but a matter of personal faith. I witnessed two coworkers undergo the “change” over a period of several months leading up to “being born again” (coming out of the closet). Just like a person struggling with faith, they fought it, they questioned it, they gradually adopted in measures, and finally lived openly as gay. And, by contrast, I knew another fellow who went the opposite way, going straight after much soul searching and identity crisis.
Taken together, special cultural privileges and civil laws favoring homosexuals is unnecessary, as religious discrimination laws are on the books, and ours is a secular state.
But, of course, defining homosexuality as such would not deter the fanatical paedophiles from conducting crusades to convert the unbelievers, as we see here: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/25/at-anti-bullying-conference-iowa-middle-schoolers-learn-about-lesbian-strap-on-anal-sex-fake-testicles.
Pingback: This is bravery | Head Noises
O’Boyle. I understand the studies I posted just fine. I don’t think I’ll waste my time looking for studies of gay MZ twins with similar frequency distributions of mutations to the ones in the Bruder et al. study in the library database. The point I was making with Katrina, was that MZ twins are not “identical.” The Bruder study makes that point, and I owe no one here an apology. If you think Bruder’s study was poorly designed, take it up with him/her.
Show me multiple independent probability studies showing a correlation between homosexuality and sociopathic behavior. Until then, I can assert Moira’s parents sexual identity had nothing to do with their parenting and other behaviors.
There is nothing wrong with Bruder’s paper. It documents the anticipated fact that all of us, including monozygotic identical twins, experience environmentally induced somatic mutations and even multiple copy number variations in different cell types during our lifetimes.
The detected frequency of these environmental changes can be on the same small scale as the frequency of random laboratory sequencing errors for genome sequencing. So it was a methodological advance to pull it out of the noise.
The problem is that you apparently misunderstand the implication of the paper beyond its title, as well as the frequency of somatic mutations in comparison with the large error bars around the well-documented and small influence of heredity on homosexual behavior.
It does not surprise me that you don’t want to do the calculations to convince yourself that the paper you improperly cited currently no documented impact on Katrina’s valid conclusion, documented by multiple large twin studies, that human homosexuality is primarily an environmental phenomena, not inherited.
Perhaps best for you to stick with political editorials published in journals like Pediatrics with apologetic statements like: “Although the methodologic challenges are daunting…”?
Yeah, sure, O’Boyle. Keep telling yourself that. Your personal attacks are unconvincing. I have a PhD. I have been reading studies critically and with understanding for years. You mistake my unwillingness to waste time bowing to your demands with inability to do the calculations, etc. .
Katrina was incorrect.
VB: It’s nothing personal. You do not have any evidence that de novo somatic mutations like those described by Bruder et al. cause or in anyway predispose humans to homosexual behavior.
You also are unwilling to do the math to support your second-hand speculation that such environmental changes occur frequently enough to change the published conclusions found in several very large twin concordance studies showing same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior are largely behavioral and influenced by individual environment.
Remember the motto “in God we trust, all others bring data…?”
What your are ignoring, O’Boyle, is that the question raised by Katrina was not whether or not there were comparable studies demonstrated in “de novo somatic mutations like those described by Bruder et al. cause or in anyway predispose humans to homosexual behavior.” She asked why identical twins could differ. I provided an example.
I don’t want to do the math because I work for a living and don’t have time to do a library search right now. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with ability to handle the cognitive load.
Where are these twin studies you reference: “the published conclusions found in several very large twin concordance studies showing same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior are largely behavioral and influenced by individual environment.” It would be worth my time to find evidence to refute them. Please provide your citations.
VB: Katrina asked why twin studies do not show high concordance for homosexuality if it is truly innate. Your rather pretentious reply was “the answer is…link to Bruder et al.” But you have no actual data or even a validated PDE mathematical model supporting your answer.
Let’s move on. For actual twin studies, try PubMed. Start with a large MZT vs DZT study from Sweden by Langstrom et al. 2010 Arch Sex Behav 39:75-80.
Like many complex human behaviors, Langstrom et al. found the individual’s unique environment accounts for almost two thirds of the twin variation in homosexuality observed (for example, this might include individual psychological attachment described by Freud, first sexual partner or CSA as Moira pointed out, speculative in utero epigenetic effects, etc.).
Like other tastes or complex behaviors, the inherited effects leading to homosexuality typically only account for perhaps 25% of twin pair variation (with error bars almost as large when comparing across multiple study datasets).
Individual environment > innate predisposition (genes). Not really too surprising and consistent with what Freud wrote on the topic a century ago.
O’Boyle, Your interpretation of what Katrina asked and mine differ. Further, there is nothing wrong with giving a simple answer to a simple question, i.e. posting a lay interpretation of a study accessible to a broad audience. If I had merely wanted to be pretentious…or pompous…as I have experienced your behavior, I would have posted a citation or the actual study and made her look it up.
There was nothing false in what was posted. MZ twins are not identical. Yes, actual published probandwise concordance twin studies discuss how CNVs can account for discordance, e.g. one twin schizophrenic or autistic or having Parkinson’s or oral clefts or is transgender (small preliminary study-Diamond, Milton (May 2013). “Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation”. International Journal of Transgenderism.) while the other is unaffected.
Frankly, I don’t know how you jumped to the leap you did with the Langstrom et al study. I took your sage advice and went to PubMed to pull the full article. First, let’s be clear that Langstrom et al don’t dismiss homosexuality as “tastes,” although they do show some bias by describing the importance of the study in terms of the number of gay people who have STDs and who suffer from mental illness (rather than the more positive and important issue of the number who suffer mental illness, engage in risk behavior, and commit suicide because of the abuse people who believe being LGBTQ is a “lifestyle choice” heap on them). This is a large, but not a conclusive study. They clearly admit to issues with sample size given the small percentage of people who met their criteria for gay. They clearly question the twin method…
“However, it was inevitably limited by the fact that same-sex behavior was relatively rare. With the unexpectedly low familial effects, the twin method has restricted power to detect statistically significant influences. For example, with 4% prevalence and a sample size of 2,000 twin pairs, there was 25% power to detect a heritability of 20% at the 5% level (assuming that shared environmental effects explain 15% and unique environmental effects 65%). To achieve 80% power to detect significant genetic effects with these assumptions, one would need to increase the sample size 5-fold (i.e., include approximately 10,000 monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs with complete data). Consequently, though familial effects certainly are important for same-sex behavior, the exact magnitude of genetic and environmental contributions to these effects should be interpreted cautiously.”
I am curious about why they didn’t ask people to self identify as gay, and why they did not ask about gay sexual fantasies (they question this, too).
I found Brian Palmer’s take on twin studies as published in Slate interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/twins/2011/08/double_inanity.2.html
He says, “There’s a strong temptation to believe that the same genes that make identical twins look so similar also make them think and act identically. That assumption isn’t just insulting to a twins’ individuality; it displays a reductive attitude toward the incredible complexity of our genetic structure, which scientists are just beginning to understand.”
Definitely worth thinking about.
“Where are these twin studies you reference: “the published conclusions found in several very large twin concordance studies showing same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior are largely behavioral and influenced by individual environment.” It would be worth my time to find evidence to refute them.”
Let’s see: Not worth my time to do some math that would support Katrina and O’B’s correct interpretation of the Bruder study, but, I got plenty of time to do any research that might enable me to distort and discredit the numerous twin studies that provide evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
This claimed PhD is at least ‘honest’ about her dishonesty and bias which is aimed solely at manufacturing ‘evidence’ that appears to contradict any study that falls out of favor with LBGTQ. She must have been one the Regnerus study critics.
How could such laziness and dishonesty ever produce anything worthwhile?
I strongly suggest that you stop slandering me, Jae.
“…..If I had merely wanted to be pretentious…or pompous…”
….I would have published the claim at ATB that “I have a PhD”….so that the other commenter-minions and ‘lay’ people at the site would bow at my feet and defer all logic in lieu of my now- confirmed bigger, yet obviously illogical and manipulative brain.
The fact that LBGTQ, by their own honest testimony, engage in sex with just about anyone (and sometimes anything) that is fair game (and sometimes not) is evidence that their sexuality is a choice and not hard-wired (genetic), as is, let’s say, those actual immutable traits.
All behavior is elective, but, especially sexual behavior. We make choices to act or not act. We are only mandated to eat, drink, sleep and breath in order to live; we should move and participate in intellectual and emotional stimulation to thrive.
Many individuals suffer from sexual dysfunction or other physical incapacities and are incapable of participating in sexual activity. They still live, and most still thrive.
LBGTQ have choices- they can choose to act out their chosen sexualities (typically the whole spectrum), they can choose to change (i.e. return to normal sexuality), or they can choose to be celibate.
The children at risk, thanks to very bad adult decisions, don’t have such choices. They’re stuck with the dishonest adults distortions of biological reality. Their lives are being ruined so that disordered adults can be indulged.
Those are facts that even a self-proclaiming and self-indulgent PhD can understand.
Nice try, jae. I revealed that I have a PhD (a) in response to a question about my credentials, and (b) to demonstrate that I have experience critically reading research. Your lack of logic speaks for itself. What credentials do you have to allege I have a “now- confirmed bigger, yet obviously illogical and manipulative brain.” Is this how you slander everyone who disagrees with you?
You write: “The fact that LBGTQ, by their own honest testimony, engage in sex with just about anyone (and sometimes anything) that is fair game (and sometimes not) is evidence that their sexuality is a choice and not hard-wired (genetic), as is, let’s say, those actual immutable traits.” This false conclusion is based on lies.
You write: “All behavior is elective, but, especially sexual behavior. We make choices to act or not act. We are only mandated to eat, drink, sleep and breath in order to live; we should move and participate in intellectual and emotional stimulation to thrive.” Not all behavior is elective. However, we are talking about sexual and gender identity….neither of which require action.
You write: “Many individuals suffer from sexual dysfunction or other physical incapacities and are incapable of participating in sexual activity. They still live, and most still thrive.” How is this statement relevant?
You write: LBGTQ have choices-” they can choose to act out their chosen sexualities (typically the whole spectrum), they can choose to change (i.e. return to normal sexuality), or they can choose to be celibate.” Gay sex is normal and not chosen.
You write: “The children at risk, thanks to very bad adult decisions, don’t have such choices. They’re stuck with the dishonest adults distortions of biological reality. Their lives are being ruined so that disordered adults can be indulged.” You have generalizable evidence that children of gay parents are at risk in greater numbers than children of hetero parents.
Finally getting a chance to review the comments on this thread. O’Boyle, I always learn a great deal for you. Thanks for all time you must put into your comments here. I hope they are widely read.
VB: I found the Slate editorial you posted to be a gross oversimplification of decades of twin research conducted by scientists and twin volunteers worldwide.
All of the so-called “assumptions” the author points out are well-known limitations or approximations of the method. No empirical method is perfect but this one has been very powerful for establishing the genetic basis for traits with high concordance.
Would you be so eager to discredit the utility of identical twin studies if Langstrom and others had not used that method to show homosexuality is primarily a result of the unique individual environment?
VB, You can assert all you want but you are wrong. The community and the ideology are as disordered as the people that created them. When you have 100 or 200, 300 kids explaining in detail the issues and the experiences what will the studies be worth? They were faux science, politically motivated and biased. All they are going to going to prove is the self serving corruption and dishonesty of LGBT–which is part of our point. Watch us. We will expose all of it.
Correction to my 7/28@454 post “…evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic…”
Addendum: Dr. Biggie cant seem to find a way to distort or manufacture “evidence” to refute what is found throughout nature, that which unceremoniously and conclusively rejects homosexuality and all other aberrant behaviors. Those biological and evolutionary facts are just “rants” to the radical LBGTQ and their lackeys.
Keep ranting, Jae. You still don’t make any sense.
V-Big- I make as much sense as does nature- which doesn’t recognize your claimed ‘PhD’ as anything but the self-promoting trope it is. It also flies in the face of logic (what is that doctorate in- women’s studies, art history?) that you continue to deny the reality of the biology that dictates the heath (fitness) of the species while you simultaneously promote biology to support your promotion of LBGTQ aberrant behavior throughout society. Was that a ‘distance learning” program that bestowed your doctorate? Pay for play?
Regardless, plenty of PhDs have gone down in flames when they have permitted their personal biases to dictate their analyses of the data. Got a parachute?
Perhaps less self-glorification and more analytical honesty can restore your cred, at least here at ATB-
Meanwhile, stick your head out of a window up there in that Ivory Tower (real or imagined) and get a whiff of nature- it’ll clear your head.
Hey Jae–Thanks for the insults. Dually noted. Thanks for willfully decontexualizing and misrepresenting my remarks to create a false narrative. After all that effort, you have offered no evidence for the great Tao of Jae, some unseen biological order that forms a basis for the visible world and around which we are all supposed to harmonize our behavior, except that fertile males and females can reproduce. Unconvincing.
Yes, Dr, Biggie, well, that would be ‘duly noted’, but, ‘dually’ may better describe your conflicting logic that cites biology when you think it serves you and dismissing it when you think it doesn’t.
I am not interested in insulting anybody, it serves no purpose- but, I do give as I get, so we can call it a draw now.
There is no false narrative in the biological argument against SS’M’ or ‘parenting’. I don’t need evidence to support the biology that dictates optimal parentage anymore than I need evidence to prove that the sky is blue (at least in my universe it is). Nature dictates these norms, not humans, and not LBGTQ or their most fervent supporters.
You have no logical response to the biological/evolutionary argument against your position- that isn’t ‘tao’ that’s simple truth. It is the foundation for humanity, and you and other ideologues who wish to disrupt it to appear to be ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’ to less than 2% of the population, while still ignoring the other disordered personalities that wait in line for their gifts to bestowed upon them (got a position there, Dr. Biggie?), while children (and their baby parts) are bartered for like chattel.
Nature need not convince you (see how it isn’t about ‘you and me’?), it is what it is and always has been, and not even the LBGTQ lobby can change it.
Straight fire, Jae…the truth is a sword that cannot be broken…
Praise the Lord for you. May He continually sustain you.
When I met my wife, she broke down after we were dating for a few months and explained how her father had molested her beginning at five, and continued this until she was old enough to fight him off. He would take her on business trips and essentially use her sexually while away from home. As a child, she felt special that all this attention was given to her and really didn’t know any better, yet deep down she knew this was not right. Her mother knew what was going on, and essentially drank herself to death. Sexuality is a complicated issue, since the way the brain registers all of these experiences and how it defends itself is different and complicated from person to person. My wife did not develop an attraction towards other women, and in fact has a distrust of other women. She struggles with the fantasy of forced sexual encounters between men with no faces and young girls. My hope was to somehow help her heal through all of this, but we have never had a true sexual love life, and what I thought was real was simply acting on her part. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t love and is not a good parent, just that a part of her has been so very damaged. Christianity teaches that a sexual relationship can be blessed between a man and a women. That as long as one or the other does not feel forced or abused, that sexual component is natural and as God designed it. As part of the Sacrament of marriage. It is our fallen nature that distorts sex, and in that participation in those dark places, it generates even greater darkness. Your point about homosexuality and BDSM being the same place sexually points to the fact that there really is no divide between any unhealthy sexual desires. Trying to establish a nation of homosexuality is absurd since the complicated nature of sexual desires just comes down to men and women, who have been damaged or who have been exposed to confusion and are lost. What they are looking for in those situations is never really found so they must have more and must invent new ways to be stimulated. This is just one more reason why the celebration of sexual dysfunction and the purposeful involvement of innocents is simply, evil.
Nailed it, TAoG.
As for V-big’s latest diatribe; most of it is unresponsive and irrational, but, her “Gay sex is normal and not chosen”- well, that’s pretty much all we need to know about this commenters ability to honestly discern between reality and fantasy. Apparently, not only has ‘marriage’ been redefined to accommodate LBGTQ, but, so has the definition of “normal” (and this claim by a PhD?)-
And, by her redefinition, is stands to reason that so is all other disordered sex ‘normal’ and not chosen.
Good news for the pederasts, pedophiles, the BDSM crowd, every known paraphilia (got amputated limbs, anyone?), the polyamorists, the beastialists and the incestuous- and all the rest.
Should make for interesting ‘wedding’ invitations, and themes-
Pingback: Старый скандал | Gears and Springs
I’m very sorry for what you went through, but you were not part of the gay community. You were part of a pedophile community with very, very sick parents. Gay people value consent and believe in straight people’s legitimate sexuality. It’s incredibly unfair for you to spread this slander against loving, gay people because of your parents’ sickness. I know it feels like you are fighting for justice, but this is just a way to cope with trauma, but it is not the right way.
I’ve read the fanzines from Breendoggle and the depositions. The community sounded like a very odd, dysfunctional ,sci-fi/fantasy/hippie Berkley subculture. From what I could tell, it was filled mostly with married heterosexual couples who held questionable boundaries. Some of the people appeared to have lived in communes (Poopsie Ellington and her parents.) Seems to have been not just a geek/sci-fi fandom community, but also influenced by hippie thought/culture.
That sub-community in Berkley either did not care, or was unaware, of the predators in their midst. And that statement underlines the issues of the particular people in this specific community. But this specific, very odd community, had limited value in telling us about different communities.
I do not judge innocent, unrelated strangers by the actions of those who sin. This hippie-Berkley- 1960s sci/fi/fantasy obsessed with fandom community has limited information to shed on other, unrelated people and communities. It tells us nothing about Josh Barro. Or Tammy Baldwin. Or the families and communities in which Barro and Baldwin have grown and now live.
It seems just as rational to claim that all gay and lesbian individuals love sci/fi fantasy. And you know there are many feminist lesbians who are appalled at BDSM.
Just as an aside – reading the Breendoggle depositions and fanzines, I had to keep on reminding myself that MZB and her husband were not only heterosexual. For me, they don’t read as gay from the primary sources — it’s not the sense I get from them.
Predators use social blind spots of communities to hide.
As a kid I loved sci-fi fantasy. I never read Mists of Avalon. I tried several times. It has a great cover I was drawn to as a kid. But reading the back of the book — the book felt twisted and angry to me. I didn’t want any part of that world. Guess now I know why.
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar.
Ok, as someone who has an education in libel and slander (journalism graduate student), the terms slander is being thrown around too flippantly for my tastes. Often, calumny and defamation almost always involve malevolent intent to the extent that the truth of the matter is not of import. It’s just to harm via a false light. Moira’s story cannot be charitably interpreted as an account with such disregard for the truth. Yes, it is harsh on the LGBTQ community, but that by itself is not libelous. Don’t mistake criticism informed by life experience as blanket defamation.
Secondly, I notice there’s this tendency to treat the LGBTQ community as some monolithic demographic as well as similarly reducing sexual orientation to something as immutable as genetic makeup. This narrative that the LGBTQ community is just the opposite side of the same sexual orientation coin or a different flavor or preference of the same thing seems to be a lie.
vbigelow, the LGBTQ community appears not to be a uniform body politic and again to simplify the demographic’s problems to be solely caused by discrimination seems also to be false: “…rather than the more positive and important issue of the number who suffer mental illness, engage in risk behavior, and commit suicide because of the abuse people who believe being LGBTQ is a “lifestyle choice”. I mean, couldn’t the high STD rates and lack of monogamy in gay men possibly contribute to mental illness and thereby suicide? Those risky behaviors just don’t seem to solely reducible to blanket discrimination defined as calling their willful life choices in number of partners and frequency of sex encounters, decisions chosen regardless of whatever biological predisposition he or she may have, as “lifestyle choice,” as you posit. Modes of being needs to elucidated and not obscured. It seems to me that these mental health problems should diminish as gay people become more accepted, and for large parts of society they are, yet apparently the crisis continues unabated. I mean Obergefell v. Hodges is not some silver bullet to stop domestic abuse in LGBT households either. Moreover, I wonder what correlation you would find between alcoholics, whose predisposition to drink heavily seems to have some basis in genetic hardwiring as well, with their suicide rate and other mental health problems and risky behaviors? At what point do we actually say that maybe issues faced in the LGBT community are self-inflicted instead of chalking it always up to some outsider animus that is empirically difficult to quantify.
Modus: You should take it up with the site owner. Ms. Faust started this conversation forewarning zero tolerance for “slanderous comments.”
Making use of your definition, and considering that child abuse and neglect is one of the most serious crimes possible, don’t you think that the talk all over this site of gay parents “deliberately depriving their children” falls under the category of being rather defamatory?
Docrocki,
If it’s done in something known as actual malice, but I can’t see what Katy has written about thoroughly on this site qualifies. She might be wrong when everything is said and done, but I can’t honestly say she is looking to smear LGBTQ community with no regard for the truth and out of spite.
With the surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies being a part of multimillion dollar industry, given that for instance, Elton John, relied on such methods to obtain his children, and gay couples are essentially sterile, it would appear that indeed he and other gay couples who have done the same thing are indeed “deliberately depriving their children” of relationships with at least one or more of their biological parents. Is any of that false? Certainly, it’s critical of gay couples about a sensitive topic, but that does not make it defamatory. It has to be both false and deliberately so. Free and open discourse allows for parties to be held account for their action even if it makes them look poorly.
You seem to misunderstand my definition and think any criticism or chastisement of the LGBTQ community at large is by default slanderous and motivated by sheer bigotry. That too, in itself, is a serious indictment but I don’t see much caution or rational demonstration to prove the veracity of such accusations from the Gay lobby and its allies involving such charges.
This site goes on to posit that when gay parents “deliberately deprive children of relationships with at least one or more of their biological parents”, that these children invariably come to harm absent these relationships with one biological mother and one biological father. This is not necessarily true and often false.
To support this claim of harm, this site disregards the truth by knowingly promoting the Regnerus study, that smears gay parents with a non representative sample. Ms. Faust is quick to dismiss those who find fault in the Regnerus methodology as biased by the liberal media and academia. She fails to mention the truth that she herself is likely biased by the fact that Regnerus and a group she is affiliated with, Canavox, share the same funding source: The Witherspoon Institute.
Docrocki,
Well, I think commonsense life experience does seem to show that when children lose a biological parent it does tend to psychologically harm. Death, divorce or separation, adoption are all traumatic and apparently now surrogacy and ARTs and such also are having such effects on children. Necessarily, children of gay couples do all undergo at least one of those steps. Academically speaking, for instance, there is such a thing as the Cinderella Effect, which contends abuse rates are much higher in households where one of the adults is not biologically related to the children. It has its detractors but also proponents and research into it was done not under the purview of same-sex parenting. Do you perhaps know how the pro-gay parenting, “no-difference” literature reconciles with the studies that say the loss of mothers and fathers negatively affects children and those that show that mothers and fathers are pivotal to their children’s development conducted before gay parenting was even a glimmer on the political landscape?
It’s been awhile, and I need to re-read Regenerus’ and Loren Marks’ work, but I don’t think anywhere in their discussion and conclusions they overtly “smeared(s)” and morally condemned gay parents, as you imply. That would be inappropriate for any sort of scholarly research to the point where I’m skeptical that the study wouldn’t have been published for such content. As I understand it, Regenerus identified a gap in the literature regarding a certain type of sampling involved in varied household outcomes and sought to remedy it. I could be wrong; I have to re-read it. I think there have been now two studies besides Regenerus’ that are challenging the “no-difference” conclusion. It seem to me the jury is still out on the question of same-sex parenting despite what the popular narrative is saying.
As someone who works in the liberal media and currently is doing mass media research, Katy isn’t exactly wrong. As an industry, journalists are too ideologically homogenous, poor critical and intellectual thinkers and as all the recent scandals have shown, corrupt. They have utterly failed the American people on the same-sex marriage debate, among other topics. From my point of view, they were at best negligent and at worst partisan, framing the debate heavily in favor of redefining marriage to make it virtually no contest and conflating the legal case with the ideological one. I would bet my degree from the world’s oldest journalism school on it.
To my knowledge — and I’m sure Katy does not need me to defend her — when she started Ask the Bigot, she was not affiliated with Canavox or the Witherspoon Institute. And now that she is, do her arguments succeed or fail any more or less because of such association? The Williams Institute is a pro-LGBT think-tank. Should I automatically toss out any work they do as defectively biased because we are ideologically opposed? Should I discount GLAAD or HRC because I’m sure I could file some FOIA requests with federal and state agencies and inquire as to who exactly is on their payrolls? Or you, docrocki, should I disregard everything you say because your blog clearly proves this matter is very dear to your heart? Of course not, as you would undoubtedly and rightfully see it as bigoted, as I would be holding your sexual orientation against you to negate anything you would contend. So, I find it curious that I find you seemingly taking exception to the same standard — flippantly dismissing Katy and her work based ostensibly for being who she is and whom she associates with — that you most certainly would expect all of us to honor.
Maybe the world’s oldest journalism school teaches the concept of “full disclosure.”
“Maybe the world’s oldest journalism school teaches the concept of ‘full disclosure.'”
Docrocki,
I’m well aware of full disclosure, but you haven’t articulated how that exactly is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Are you implying there is a conflict of interest between Katy and the Williams Institute, entirely discrediting anything she’s published? Jeremy Hooper is awfully close with GLAAD and HRC…
Witherspoon Institute.
You don’t need to go back that far. “Study the Studies” defended Regnerus (also funded by Witherspoon) at length and was published to this blog April 27, 2015.
I’m not sure why that being affiliated with the Witherspoon Institute is damning? I’m not convinced that you or the LGBTQ community has made a compelling case that Regenerus and his study are the monsters underneath the bed you allege them to be. There are vested think thanks on both sides of the issue. You don’t think the Williams Institute isn’t funding social scientists for ideological reasons as well?
I agree we walk on a wobbly path when we dismiss people STRICTLY based on their affiliations/funding sources. One could be accused of Bulverism. However, those potential conflicts of interest need to be made transparent and we need to see how one is taking steps to address bias in one’s argument.
Fair enough and I agree, though I’m not sure Katy in what she has done here can be characterized as deceptive.
To Moira: I’m sorry you suffered such extraordinary abuse from your parents growing up. I disagree with your assertion that this type of abuse is ordinary amongst lesbian and gay parents.
To vbigelow: There is no point in attempting to reason with the other commentators on this blog. Jae, IMHO, and O’Boyle always chime in with their antigay rhetoric and inevitably descend into abusive language. Ms. Faust will never rein in comments from these three because in truth she shares some of the same hostility toward LGBT people, in particular toward gay men and transgender people. It just hurts her compassionate Christian image to say it herself.
Hi Doc. Long time no chat. I hope your kids are well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but disagreement isn’t bigotry. And further, I have trashed a few comments on this thread attacking Vbig. Incidentally, I’ve trashed a few comments attacking you in the past as well…
Have you trashed any of IMHO’s? I know it would sour the writing partnership you have with her.
And you! I wrote a email to you, I hope you get it. Sent it like 4 hours ago.
D-Crock- nice to see you raise your head, here, again.
Have you managed to develop any semblance of a logical response to the biological/natural argument against SS’M’ and ‘parenting’, yet?
Popping in only to throw accusations and nasty names out at your opposition isn’t debate, or honest.
Or, is your only response, ever, to just attack Christians and Christianity?
How very brave, and so very ‘rad’ LBGTQ. “Follower”.
Nature has no religion, she is totally agnostic – yet you all struggle so to rein her in under your ‘rainbow umbrella of love and compassion’-
I took one of those nature walks you are always suggesting and found out only 3-4% of mammal species engage in monogamy.
D-Crock- so glad you do get out there, occassionally.
Did you find any mammals that regularly and exclusively engage in obligate same sex copulation, or that pair-bond to raise hetero-reproduced offspring? Do any exhibit either same sex or ‘bi-sexual’ behavior when there are opposite sex mates available? Did you come across any ‘trans’ mammals? ‘Queers’?
So, back to those monogamous mammals; they pair-bond to support the needs of their offspring. If the bond needs to be longer term, it’s a longer-term bond; again, their sole drive is to bear and raise fit offspring- however long (or short) a time the monogamous bond need be. Both opposite sex biological parents are necessary to raise fit offspring, if one parent is lost, especially the female, the survival of the offspring is significantly diminished. What isn’t innate, the offspring learn their sexual roles in their community/population or society from both opposite sex parents.
Humans require the longest term bond between the biological parents since our offspring are altricial longer than any other mammalian species. We adapted this naturally, biologically-evolved system to human needs and called it marriage.
Tried true and road-tested for eons, by Mother Nature, herself-
5 to 10% of mammal species engage in biparental care.
DocRock- mammals that have evolved to need to engage in opposite sex bi-parental care- such as humans, require the participation of both opposite sex parents to bear and raise optimally fit offspring. As I’ve said, repeatedly (and as is true, biologically), every other option is secondary, and lesser, for humans. So, why would society incentivize/underwrite a suboptimal system of pair-bonding, reproduction and parenting for our species, and our society? Should we also incentivize all other suboptimal human behaviors and traits?
Are you still trying to locate the those ‘unicorn’ LBGTQ models out there in the woods?
So we’re done taking our cues from the animal kingdom and mother nature? I’ll shut the window if we are.
D-Crock- absolutely not, it’s the only source we’ve got to determine the fitness of our own species- right?
Now, more than ever, as we move further away from ‘her’, we need to consult nature to determine our destiny.
Anything and everything we think we know about our origins and destiny lies within our understanding of nature – from the quantum to other solar systems. Don’t you want to find the “God Particle”?
After all- if you don’t take your biological-evolutionary cues from Mother Nature to determine if the path we’re/you’re on is correct, to whom or what do you turn?
Never shut the window on nature, our world, or science.
We can take examples from millions of years of evolution, and social society construct. In all the polyamory, polandry, group monogamy, monogamy and serial monogamy what civilization on this planet has any examples of hundreds of generations of gay guys buying their children from impoverished exploited strangers and ordering baby factory companies to make them, and successfully raising them to adulthood? Can you at least admit that what you’re doing is completely experimental and has never been attempted in human history?
Oops, we cant cite ‘Bulverism’ lest we be transparent about the lived and loved Christianity of C.S. Lewis, who coined the term to ridicule the “logical fallacies and circular reasoning” gang of illogical relativists of the day.
And, the absurdity that denies nature, which sets all things straight, goes on….
Doesn’t mean it doens’t apply here. You still haven’t answered any questions. Attack mode must be all you have to offer.
Taking a (thoroughly illogical) cue from you, V-big, it only ‘applies’ here if you’ve got ‘independent probability studies’ that support your ‘cherry-picking’ application of ‘it’ to ‘here’-
What questions have you posed to me that I have not answered? I’ve answered all of your questions- you just don’t like the answers- that doesn’t mean they weren’t answered.
I think we’ve all seen all the ‘evidence’ we need to see regarding ‘attack mode’ – wouldn’t you say? Or, does the definition of ‘attack’ change, along with ‘normal and ‘marriage’ and ‘gender’, to suit your latest cause/claims?
Read back; you’ll find the questions. See if you can answer them this time.
I thought you said you were going to stop trolling this website. Why have you come back?
From my own experience in the gay culture I can only say what she writes is true. It consumes and destroys all who partake in it and of course the innocent victims. I cannot tell you how everyday I am so grateful to be away from it. I look back and am saddened at such wasted time.
My heart bleeds for her, the damage done to her and for a child with no protector and no sane adult to seek shelter with.
But I am afraid that when she says ‘What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial’ I am afraid she is speaking from that damage.
I have never, ever once heard this expressed by a gay person and I simply don’t believe it. I believe that she believes it, but this is the result of being exposed not to the gay community but to the paedophile one and the awful distortions it pedals.
I suppose you missed the whole NAMBLA genesis of the gay movement, then, Ian. You can still source all the info you need to catch up- the radical LBGTQ lobby revisionists have not yet completed total erasure of that historical fact.
Pedophiles didn’t demand they be classified as a ‘protected class’ and then be incentivized by society to acquire and raise children. Pedophiles aren’t forcing and fabricating social conflict to force religion out of the public square. Pedophiles aren’t hijacking the public school system curriculum about human sexuality. Pedophiles haven infiltrated media outlets to promote their lifestyle choices onto to the prevailing culture.
Pedophiles haven’t used government tyranny to force its’ will on the overall population.
We all know wonderful LBGTQ (many who oppose compelled SS’M’ and ‘parenting’ ARE wonderful LBGTQ) , we’re not worried about them (these are the LBGTQ not in lock-step with their radicalized left wing), we’re worried about the ‘other’ rather significant proportion of that community that have nefarious goals imbedded in their ‘movement’- which has only just begun.
Society needed to do more work at defining and delineating members of this relatively new subculture community before trashing authentic marriage and future generations of children – aka society.
Ian: I appreciate your comments and, like you, have never had any openly LGBT person tell me that they sought out young people to “convert” from heterosexuality. Although I have had several gay friends tell me that there are such predators in their community and they even go by a special name (maybe offensive to some). They are generally shunned today as any paedophile.
I also believe that there is much more openness in the LGBT community today than 25 years ago. That is a part of progress that we should all celebrate because secrecy is certainly a contributing factor to this kind of horrific abuse.
And I also respect your point that we have to acknowledge Moira’s individual experience. The fact that we are shocked by what happened certainly does not make it any less true, or her remarkable courage and stopping this abuse any less important.
Reblogged this on Cirsova and commented:
Moira Greyland, the daughter of Marion Zimmer Bradley, opens up and expounds on the revelations she made public earlier on Deidre Saoirse Moen’s blog.
Knowing things I know now, I’m very glad I never got into MZB. Similarly, I now avoid Samuel R Delaney for reasons beyond thinking his fans were obnoxious.
Moira and I both grew up in SF/Fantasy/Comics fandom and we both had horrible experiences with abuse, though Moira’s were far worse. To this day, abusers want everyone to shut up about what they did, even though they don’t believe they did anything wrong.
None of the people who abused me considered themselves gay, but all of them engaged in polyamorous behavior. They had open contempt for gayness, used gay as a slur, and anyone who didn’t join in with their behavior was considered “gender confused”, “prudish”, “sexually disturbed”. They believed they were liberated and following the true path of freedom and love, and anyone who didn’t join in was the enemy. Some were publishing professionals who would use the beliefs and social mores in their work as a sexual lure. If the elves in the story were having group sex and they all seemed happy, why not you?
Of course, as social mores changed, they wouldn’t be caught dead using gay as a slur, and now openly champion gayness. They sure didn’t back then!
Women and men made advances to me when I was underage. They did this to my friends as well. They would stand in front of me and talk to one another about who should have me as if I was a prize. When I objected, I was told I was stuck on myself. Why was I being so judgmental? Why was it bad to have sex with a 14 year old? In the Middle Ages, I’d be married at 12!
I don’t know a single one of these people whose children didn’t grow up to be absolute wrecks.
They didn’t believe in any boundaries at all. Children were fair game. They’d balk at sex with small children, but a kid of only 10 or 11 was OK. They would have long conversations about when puberty began and when it was good for kids to have sex. They believed that older people having sex with young kids was a good way to “lovingly” introduce them into the act of physical love. None of them considered themselves pedophiles.
Author Samuel R Delaney spoke out on behalf of NAMBLA, the National Man Boy Love Association, because when he was a 9-year-old gay boy, he wished he’d had an older man to introduce him into the ways of gay life. Anyone who thought there was something wrong with Delaney’s position was ostracized as being narrow-minded.
Fandom covered up for pedophile Ed Kramer who ran DragonCon, and many publishing professionals came to his defense. Those who stood up to him were harassed and abused. It’s an open secret that the former head of one of the largest conventions in the world was also a pedophile, and made advances to the kids of a well-known artist. The only thing that slowed him down was his death.
Pedophile behavior was never considered a problem in SF/F/Comics circles, it was considered a joke. Barry Blair sexually assaulted a teen, and he created and published grotesque pedophile fantasy cartoons. Yet people hired him.
Unlike Moira, I did not come to the conclusion that the problem is with gay people. The problem is the culture of fandom that is insular, secretive, arrogant, and unwilling to examine itself. There were many cult groups in fandom, and none of the people I had problems with considered themselves gay, even though they sometimes had gay sex. I don’t think there was any one group that did things like this. It was a dominant culture of “free sex” holdover beliefs from the 1960’s that permeated the convention scene and the people in it. You could go to a convention 1500 miles away from where you lived and have almost the exact same experiences with a completely different group of people.
If a girl was known to have been a sex object for one of them, they’d tell all their friends and then the girl would be getting advances from men all over, from male professionals whose names you’d recognize. There was a lot of pressure to say “yes”. If you got onto that track, they’d pass you around like candy.
And no matter how many people these Secret Masters of Fandom had sex with, whether they were men or women, the object was always the one who got labeled a slut. They were into “free love”, but they called kids they abused sluts and whores. I know of two girls who committed suicide, others who had complete mental breakdowns.
There was no such thing as “free sex” with these people. There was intimidation, coercion, abuse and rape.
Many people in fandom are good, but way too many of the people in fandom were perverted creeps, and no one was willing to stand up to them. People who complained got into trouble, victims of abuse were told to get over it.
I never encountered any of this behavior outside of fandom, not from gay people, not from straight people. Only in fandom.
So, while my experiences are similar to Moira’s, I’ve come to a very different conclusion. I don’t think it’s about being gay or straight. I completely understand why she thinks differently.
God bless you, Moira. Good luck.
Thank you Moria, for sharing your Story. You needed to tell it and honestly…we need to hear it. I support you.
vbigelow
the point I was making was that evidence is interpreted by those who have a bias, like yourself. We all do.
My argument is not circular. The fact is that the atheist cannot reach objective morality without an Ultimate basis. The secularist atheist has no basis for objective morality. What she thinks is objective is merely subjective because in the random world of the atheist we are all just evolved pond scum. When a lion kills a giraffe it doesn’t murder it- Its just animal behaviour in the atheist worldview. That’s why its hypocritical to call the author’s parents as sociopathic. On what basis? You have none. In the atheist worldview LBGQT behaviour is fine . Who says it is not?That’s seems to be your position in here. You can justify any behaviour on behalf of your so called evidence. No the argument stands undefeated . The premises are impregnable. Read them again and try to understand the argument please. God is the basis for objective morality. You don’t have that ultimate that gives you a foundation for morality.
As for gay parenting its immoral from the outset.
Thank you. This, not the Jenner debacle, took real courage.
I agree that Moira Greyland speaks from experience, however her experience doesn’t encompass straight pedophiles, naturally cross-gender associating children or monogamous gay people. Anonymous Girl points the finger at the SF/fantasy/comics community being the source of the problem without acknowledging that these behaviors go on elsewhere. Arrogance and abuse of power and privilege are not the exclusive province of these genre communities. If that were so, there wouldn’t have been a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church or the well founded allegations against Michael Jackson.
Pedophilia is the problem. There is no informed consent possible on the part of a child. If adults choose to indulge in behaviors with other consenting adults, that is entirely different. I am sorry for their pain, but denying anyone their civil rights is not an option. Violating another’s sense of self in service to one’s own emotions and desires is what harmed Moira and Anonymous Girl in the first place. Perpetuating that dynamic is wrong, regardless of orientation or gender identity.
It stands to reason (logical) that when an individual or group chooses to self-identify primarily by their aberrant sexuality, their sexuality (which is a disordered fetish) is going to be primary in their life. When sexuality, especially such sexuality without consequences (such as pregnancy, a typical consequence of opposite sexuality), is prioritized in one’s life, all else, including other humans in your life, such as children, are secondary. Rather than be the process by which humans create another human, sex becomes an aberrant behavior separated from its intended function (and form in LBGTQ), that leads to all forms of unacceptable abuses toward the other.
The perfect example of this predictable outcome is what was witnessed in the Catholic Church (and every other human institution that regularly intersects with minors) that you cite- albeit wrongly. There, homosexual clergy committed pederasty (over 90% of the allegations involved same- sex pederasty- not opposite sex pedophilia). Homosexual clergy elevated their disordered fetish over that of their vows of celibacy, their vocations, their love of and commitment to God, and in too many cases their freedom and their lives.
Perpetuating the lie that the LBGTQ ’cause’ has anything to do with civil rights will only perpetuate the slide of western culture into the abyss. There is not now, and never has been a US Constitutional and/or civil right to marriage (lest we open up that can of worms to all other sexually disordered), anymore, than there was ever meant to be a right to murder preborn children (or any of the numerous bad SCOTUS decisions that preceded Obergefell v. Hodges). What happened to elicit the latest bad SCOTUS decision is less akin to the true civil rights battles fought and won by black Americans and is far more akin to the OJ Simpson verdicts’ distortion of both logic and law-
Thank you Jae for all your comments, I am learning so much from you. Do you have a personal blog?
Hi Epic- thank you for recognizing my attempts here at ATB for what they are: revealing and/or correcting the record on nature.
I do not have my own blog, I only submit comments here at ATB (which I happened upon quite accidentally), where, in my opinion, Katy, and so many truly gifted (on both sides of the debate) contributors, are doing yeoman’s work.
I will also use this opportunity to denounce those few commenters at ATB who do not agree with Katy and use their disagreement with her position to indict her, personally, as well as other ATB contributors, as ‘co-conspirators’, ‘haters’, ‘bigots’ and ‘antigay’, and, simply inquire of them: Got any empirical evidence/data or multiple independent probability studies to back up your slanderous claims?
I hope you stick around at ATB, Epic, as I have similarly enjoyed your contributions!
Jae- I especially appreciate your stand on the biological arguments in favor of traditional families as the gold standard for the well- being of children, and therefore society. It seems the liberal media only gives screen time to those against gay marriage/parenting as ignorant, hateful, deeply prejudiced religious zealots who’s opposition is nothing more than “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” (Great strategy, really) It gives no screen time to intelligent scholars or any report of the vast amount of growing evidence that alternative families are hurting our children, because that would expose the lie they are promoting, that simply “Love makes a family”. Wouldn’t it be awesome if that was all it took? But our biological wiring doesn’t seem to buy that line.
I am not religious but have been deeply affected by the movement started in the 60’s that people should “be true” to themselves, regardless of the cost to children. “The kids are alright”, they said. Turns out, they’re not. Since the 60’s it seems our society has become increasingly narcissistic, and we’ve become experts in self-deception to justify doing whatever “feels good” while claiming there’s “no evidence” we are hurting our kids. Shameful.
You are absolutely correct, Epic, you won’t find the biological argument portrayed in the media because it (literally) kills the LBGTQ mantra re: SS’M’ and ‘parenting’.
The mainstream media’s (msm) only intent is to keep the secular-progressive-humanist agenda on track to ‘transform’ the US into an atheistic socialist regime- at all costs. They are the products of the silly 60s counter-culture that led to the lies about ‘sexual freedom’ and personal accountability that have been expressed in our present day culture of rampant on-demand abortion (for any reason- up to and during birth) and baby-part bartering, euthanasia (incl. for those not terminally ill), entitlement mentality/welfare state, reproductive ‘technology’, no-fault divorce, and the mainstreaming of anarchistic entities and organizations.
It’s the same warped mentality that advised us to replace ‘every man’s’ common sense with the elitist’s Ivory Tower illogic, some of which was illicitly acquired via the various ‘affirmative action’ degree gifting programs, as well as via ‘other’ nefarious means. I think I can pinpoint that moment in time when reality was rejected in lieu of ideology- the legal redefinition of “is” during one of Clinton’s many scandals.
The debate at ATB that now seems directed toward funding source or religious affiliation being used to reject perfectly good logic is another tactic that can easily be used against the dishonest purveyors of these dirty tricks; such as, if the study investigator has a degree from just about any western university, their study must be biased as a result of the leftist ideology of that university. If the lead investigator is an atheist, the study must be biased in favor of that authors religious bias. This illogic, of course, could be applied almost anywhere – except nature. Nature is truly ‘immutable’ in that sense.
And, that is why you will never see the natural (logical) argument against the radical LBGTQ lobby presented in the msm, or incorporated into those highly theoretical social ‘studies’ that seem to rather disproportionately promote the LBGTQ agenda. Once you’ve moved the “normal’ line so far to the left that you no longer recognize ‘normal’, you’ve got no place to go but off the cliff (with all your little lemmings in tow…).
Unbridled self-indulgence can’t last for long, it will, naturally, consume itself.
Dear Jae, I am new to ATB and have been reading the posts with great interest. Can you summarize briefly your thesis about the biological argument against SSM? Thank you for your time.
Thank you for being part of the resistance against the insanity that has taken over the society and the nation. Don’t let them squelch your voice.
John, the biological argument is so simple in its truth, beauty and perfection, that it is, indisputably, the most logical argument against SS’M’ and ‘parenting’- and it isn’t theoretical or prone to any other interpretation, but, recognition of and acceptance of the laws of nature.
It stands on nothing more (with nothing more required) than the evolutionary biology that dictates that males form monogamous bonds with females (for those species that require monogamy of varying lengths of time to ensure optimal fitness of the species) to bear and raise offspring, which form the most optimally fit families, that which form the most optimally fit societies (or communities, populations)- which feeds back into the loop that provides the most optimally fit environment in which the species (and the species’ individuals) optimally thrive.
Every other form of male-female bonding is inferior (and varying degrees of deficient) to the long-term monogamous pair-bond for those species that require extended care for offspring.
There is no occurrence of same-sex bonding for any sexual purpose, and especially, obviously, for the purpose of procreation or rearing of offspring, and thus forming of families, which comprise communities/populations/society in nature, of which we are an integral part. What some studies confirm is that there is same-sex aberrant behavior that has erroneously and/or intentionally been interpreted to include the possibility that homosexuality exists in nature. It doesn’t, that is an intentionally biased interpretation to support the ideological distortion that ‘as animals practice homosexuality so should humans’, when the fact is that animals exhibiting same sex ‘sexual’ behavior are only actually exhibiting an aberrant behavior that sometimes involves their genitalia (which is no different to them than any other parts or organs of their bodies) but is never about sexual pair-bonding, which always includes a spectrum of elaborate courtships and displays and commitment to the mate and the offspring, but dominance or the seeking of some other non-sexual social acceptance or outcome. Claiming, for example, that the rare occurrence of male giraffes mounting each other is proof of homosexuality is akin to claiming that rape is proof of love.
Our optimal biological fitness is dependent upon the fitness of our society, and the optimal fitness of our society relies very much on the optimal fitness of our biology.
No hate, no bigotry, no phobia, no ideology, no religion – just unadulterated biological facts.
Jae, thanks so much for taking the time to explain that to me. I am no authority on these subjects but I did study evolutionary biology and animal behavior as a young man, and I cannot dispute your facts or your interpretation. If natural processes have selected the monogamous nuclear family and gotten us through untold millennia, it seems a safe bet to stick with what got us here, and not experiment with unproven ways of raising future generations. On the other hand, and looking only from a materialistic, biological perspective, could SSM and parenting be considered a ‘mutation’ that might confer greater fitness on that group in a new and very different environment? I don’t want to over intellectualize this issue, my interest is not theoretical, it is personal, but I just think you need more than biological determinism to defend the traditional family. But I admire your intellect and your passion on this issue. Thanks again and best wishes.
Sent from my iPad
>
John, I don’t see a mutation that generates homosexuality in humans (it simply doesn’t occur in any other Animalia species, and still unproven as genetic in humans) so as to benefit families in changing environments supportable, logically. Homosexuality just isn’t inclined toward long-term bonding and isn’t inclined toward rearing offspring, two hard-wired traits in opposite sex biological parents needed to confer a family status on a group.
Biological determinism materially ‘created’ (actually, more rather dictated) the ‘traditional family’. If this fact even isn’t accepted by the radicalized SS’M’ advocates, it’s hard to reason all the other elements that define a fit family and fit society to see what support services these new families should be provided (since the die is already legally cast) to ensure the kids have all they need to thrive. Perhaps, rather than continue to aggressively promote the homosexual agenda for/to these new families society might wish to consider how to ensure opposite sex role models are accessible to the kids in these homosexual led households ‘struggling with’ heterosexuality (the odds are greatly in favor of the children being heterosexual) and having no parental role models to source. Perhaps there are psychological and other community oversight (recognizing COGs reported experiences in these households) services that need to be considered.
Shutting the door on the debate solely to protect and promote a radical ideology is bad for the kids- that door needs to be forced back open so that honest dialogue can be had, and protections identified and provided for those children.
Thank you for your very good and fair (honest) questions, and your own perspectives-
Pingback: In ten to thirty years, the survivors will speak out
Pingback: New Contributor: Moira Greyland | Surviving The Rainbow
Pingback: Friday, 7/31/15 | Tipsy Teetotaler
I’m very pleased that there are kids of gay parents who are starting to come out in the light about their true feelings, but I’m disappointed that they’re doing it in such a way that vilifies the entire LGTB community. It would be nice for those who are victim of abuse, to admit that their abusive situation is not universal of all gay parents, or that all gay people are part of a conspiracy to abuse women and children. Such assertions, makes COGs look like a bunch of wild-eyed nutsy whackjobs who are in desperate need of therapy.
There are countless cases of straight people sexually abusing children, that its not even a matter of debate. In the 1960’s sexual revolution, there were some groups in Germany that even believed in ‘free love’ between people of all ages, including adults with children. There are documents of adult men in sexual situations with school-aged girls, but would it then make sense to say straight people are part of a conspiracy to make sex with children socially acceptable? After all, child-marriages are an ancient global phenomenon in the straight community. To add, important religious figures like Muhammad was a pedophile who married a nine-year-old who was still playing with dolls, and even Jesus’s earthly father was a hebephile, since Mary was only twelve when she delivered Jesus, and twelve when she started having sex with Joseph.
This could be an excellent opportunity for Moria to raise awareness of kids of LGTB sexual abuse. She could have used her story to address how media censoring makes her abuse ignored by the public, and how this can be problematic and dangerous for kids of LGTB parents. But what does Moira do instead? She uses her individual case of abuse to speak out against gay marriage despite the fact that her gay parents were in a heterosexual marriage. She even ignores the reality that married or not, gay people can have access to children regardless, by her example alone.
I won’t tell her what she should or shouldn’t say, but it feels that her stance is very irrational and illogical. The fact that Katy is endorsing in this again, its just going to stigmatize COGs more, and make it harder and harder for them to be heard and respected.
Reblogged this on Daily Browse and commented:
“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. “
Moira, Thank you for speaking out. I can’t imagine what you have been through. YOU deserve a courage award! I do not know what it is like to experience child abuse but I just want to say that I understand and agree that the LGBT movement has a very dark side. I experienced it when my first husband became entangled with it and decided he was bisexual and then gay, after many years of straight marriage and three children. We divorced but when I remarried he sued to take the children from me and vilified me as a bigoted right-winger. Weird since I had alwsys been a Democrat. He is now a somewhat recognized gay activist blogger and has used me and his Christian family with traditional values as a reason to promote himself as a victim of gay bashing even though that never happened. I was shocked at how many people believed his lies. It is scary that this underground movement is going main stream. I hope people will realize that they have been sold a “cleaned up” version of homosexuality but that it leads to a Pandoras box of dangerous damaging views of sexuality. The pain that it causes families and individuals is truly missing as a subject in the public debate. It has caused me and my children tremendous pain and your situation far surpasses what we have been through. Thank you for sharing.
thank you so much Moira. thank you. bless you. ♡
http://thebostonpilot.com/articleprint.asp?id=174312
“No, really, it’s all just about being able to ‘love’ whom we please and equal rights- ya’ know”?
Well, except it isn’t about “love’ or ‘equal rights’ for/of religious.
And, it’s about ‘women’s rights’ and not slaughtering babies, too.
Just more dirty money funding dirty deeds.
My heart goes out to you for having your childhood ripped from you by the two people who should have protected you from exactly what they were doing. My heart goes out to all the children raised by LGBT. I hope that one day they see the light before another’s life is ruined. God bless you.
“Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). God has the last word.
I was shocked and deeply moved by Moira’s story, and hope that her ordeal is not commonplace among children of LGBT, but reading this site I am beginning to wonder. Thank you, Ms Bigot, for providing a forum for views and opinions and experiences that we will not find in the mainstream media or even the alternative media.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing about this. As a queer im ashamed of the encroaching elephant in the room from the far left pride queens etc to constantly portray my sexuality as a Perversive piece of pop culture distopia.
Mila- we need the good ‘queers’ coming out to defend sanity. You too are, indeed, very brave.
Pingback: News of the Week (August 2nd, 2015) | The Political Hat
vbigelow is simply an internet troll who has sidetracked the discussion of Moira Greyland’s experiences and observations. I would suggest ignoring this troll’s efforts to disrupt the discussion.