"Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is child abuse." ~ Me
One of the positives of Tuesdays elections was the California initiative in which voters reversed the District Court's ruling on Gay marriage. The measure was voted down by a majority of California voters, proving that California hasn't yet gone completely insane. They have voted against allowing same sex couples to marry.
As was expected, the pro-gay lobby in California is filing lawsuits.
Hand-in-hand with that ruling was the less publicized vote in Arkansas where voters passed Initiative Act 1 with 57% of the vote. The measure bans unmarried couples in that state from adopting or foster parenting.
Opponents of this initiative charged that it is a veiled attempt to prevent same sex couples from adopting children.
It probably is, at least in the minds of the majority of those who voted.
Personally, while I think it's disgusting that same sexes would even want to marry, I nevertheless believe they have the right to do so if they want.
It is still a free country, at least until after January 20th.
On the other hand, it can be argued that allowing same sex marriages could lead down the proverbial slippery slope towards all kinds of deviations, including lawful polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
There are merits to both arguments.
However, I am firmly resolved that homosexual unions should not be allowed to adopt children.
Allowing same sex couples to adopt children is child abuse.
In spite of the gay lobby's protestations to the contrary, there is no way children would not be adversely affected by this kind of relationship.
First, it is obvious that a child growing up in a home with two same sex parents would be indoctrinated into accepting the gay lifestyle as normal and natural, leading to confusion of the child's own sexual identity. Despite any unlikely efforts on the part of homosexual parents to raise their children to be heterosexual (as if they would), a child living in a home with same sex parents would grow up with the belief that homosexuality is normal, rather than the perversion we know it to be. That can't be avoided.
If a child is brought up by a father who routinely beats his wife, the child almost always grows up to be a spouse abuser himself. This is not a mere hypotheses. It is a psychological fact. It is also a fact that not all children of abusers grow up to be abusers also. But the fact that some children of fathers that abuse their spouses don't grow up to be abusers themselves is not an excuse to continue to allow spousal abuse to happen. Or to continue to allow children to be exposed to the crime.
The same would be true of children of same sex parents. I have no doubt that some, upon reaching adulthood, might choose to be heterosexual, however, it doesn't alter the fact that raising a child in such a perverse environment could have many detrimental consequences, including an intense sexual identity confusion.
In a home where a child is subjected to abnormal lifestyles such as a mother who is a prostitute, parents who are drug addicts, or either parent is psychological defective, etc, Social Services are called in and the child removed from the home to prevent any further possible psychological damage to the child.
Why would this be different in the case of homosexual parents?
Second, is there any doubt that some same sex parents would sexually abuse their children? Particularly those who adopted the children? I have no doubt that there are indeed some homosexuals whose sole purpose in adopting children is to have their own personal sex toy that they can abuse at will.
How much more convenient to a pedophile is that?
In their efforts to stop war and the Republicans, Liberal Democrats often use the line, "If it saves just one life, it will be worth it." Using the same logic, is not one child escaping the horrors of child abuse worth preventing same sex couples from adopting?
Liberals continually plead for bigger government using the argument that it is "for the children", yet they scream discrimination when it comes to homosexual adoption.
Where is the concern for the welfare of children in this case?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
"Opponents of this initiative charged that it is a veiled attempt to prevent same sex couples from adopting children."
I say, "Let's unveil it!"
(Actually, that they think it is veiled is very funny.)
In spite of the gay lobby's protestations to the contrary, there is no way children would not be adversely affected by this kind of relationship.
This, despite the reality in the real world that real children living with their loving gay or lesbian parents are NOT adversely affected by it? This, despite studies that show no evidence of increased problems in children of homosexual parents?
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to support your claim? If not, you won't mind, will you, if we simply ignore your small minded prejudices for what they are?
You are free to think that gays having children is child abuse, just as you are free to think that sucking gas fumes out of your car's tail pipe is a blessed thing, but rational people will not be inclined to go along with your delusions.
If a child is brought up by a father who routinely beats his wife, the child almost always grows up to be a spouse abuser himself. This is not a mere hypotheses. It is a psychological fact.
Evidence?
I suspect what you are thinking is that children who grow up in abusive homes have a greater tendency to be violent themselves. Many studies have indicated this (like this one).
But no, studies don't show that such children "almost always" grow up to be abusive.
But feel free to make up facts to support your case. It actually just further undermines your point, as people see you ranting and throwing out obvious falsehoods and it is that much easier to dismiss you as just another bigoted idiot.
Dan, you ask if I have any evidence to support my claim, and yet, in your previous paragraph you make a similar claim to the contrary:
"This, despite the reality in the real world that real children living with their loving gay or lesbian parents are NOT adversely affected by it? This, despite studies that show no evidence of increased problems in children of homosexual parents?"
Where's your evidence that my statement is not true?
The only link you offer argues in my favor. So substitute the phrase "almost always" with the word "tendency" and you re-inforce my point.
According to reserch conducted by Dr. Robert Lerner, and Dr. Althea Nagai, professionals in quantitative analysis, There is no basis for the assertion that children raised by homosexual families are as socially and psychologically adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.(Robert Lerner,Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D, No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us about Same Sex Parenting (Washington DC Marriage Law Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center 2001)
Dr's Lerner and Nagai analyzed the results of 49 empirical studies on same sex partnering and found major research flaws in all 49. The main flaw was that most of the studies were conducted by gay or lesbian researchers or were funded by gay friendly foundations who wished to influence public policy in support of homosexual families.
I can provide further evidence but all studies have thus far proved at best, inconclusive.
So, That leaves me to rely on something that you, Dan, apparently don't possess. Common sense.
Yep. Ask any libertarian-flavored conservative who favors (or does not oppose, which is practically the same thing)gay marriage (Neal Boortz, for instance)whether that means that if they die, they couldn't care less whether their children of grandchildren are adopted by gays. Then watch them squirm.
Mr. Trabue: Neither you nor I know the effects of being raised by gay partners. As Mark notes, the jury is still out. I'd prefer that my children or grandchildren not be part of the experiment, expecially since the social scientists running the studies seem to lack objectivity. Do I have the right to say "No" to that?
I didn't think so.
My evidence is my own eyes, to start with. I have REAL living friends who are good parents and they also happen to be homosexual. They are not only good parents, they are great parents.
So, when you make the blanket statement: "Allowing homosexuals to adopt is child abuse," I can disprove that easily enough just from my own experience.
On top of that, studies DO show that homosexual parenting does not harm children any more than heterosexual parenting. Or, conversely, that good homosexual and good heterosexual parenting contributes to healthy children.
"With the exception of studies at a few universities with very close connections with conservative Christian denominations (like the Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, UT), essentially all research studies into same-sex parenting reveal that children of these families develop normally."
source
Now, if you want to argue credibly that those gay or lesbian parents with less stable home environments might result in less healthy children - JUST AS those straight parents with less stable home environments might result in less healthy children - you might be able to make your case. But as long as you choose to stereotype and embrace faulty reasoning and make false statements, you come across as, well, someone who makes false statements and has faulty reasoning. Go figure.
Mr O'Sullivan said:
whether that means that if they die, they couldn't care less whether their children of grandchildren are adopted by gays. Then watch them squirm.
Mr. Trabue: Neither you nor I know the effects of being raised by gay partners.
As I noted in my previous comment, I know from my own eyes of seeing children raised by members of my church congregation who happen to be gay. So, while that is not first hand personal knowledge, it is second hand knowledge. It is something that I can see with my own eyes - these people are good parents.
I'd be more than happy for my children to be raised by my gay and lesbian friends.
For the record.
"My evidence is my own eyes..." - Deceiver Dan
That explains a lot, Dan.
You see only what you wish to see. And you rely on the ungodly to guide you.
Leftists like Dan are experts in "veiled" rhetoric.
Wolf in sheep's clothing? You bet!
Bitter Mark typed:
'On the other hand, it can be argued that allowing same sex marriages could lead down the proverbial slippery slope towards all kinds of deviations, including lawful polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.'
Anything 'can be argued'. Or, in this case, merely asserted. No problem there.
But the hetereos already won the race for 'lawful polygamy'. There is certainly no shortage of male hetereos preying on younger members of the opposite sex. And the jury is out on bestiality.
Dan says, "As I noted in my previous comment, I know from my own eyes of seeing children raised by members of my church congregation who happen to be gay."
Oh! So now anecdoltal evidence is allowed? I see how it is with you, Dan. What's sauce for the goose isn't necessarily sauce for the Gander. Anectodat evidence is not relevant unless, of course, Libtards use it. Then it's ok.
Dan, you know nothing of what goes on inside the minds of your "gay Friends" children. An appearance of normalcy is exactly that. An appearance. I once knew a young man who appeared normal. Subsequently, he climbed to the top of the highest building in Wichita with a rifle and took pot shots at the people walking the streets below. He killed 4 people and wounded many others before his legs were shot out from under him by Police.
I am sure you would say this man was mentally defective but no one knew until he started target practice.
Oh! So now anecdoltal evidence is allowed?
You made the blanket statement: "Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is child abuse." In order to disprove your blanket statement, all I have to do is offer an instance of homosexuals who are NOT abusing their children. By my eyes (and in my life and the life of my dear friends), I can attest that they do NOT abuse their children, thereby disproving your blanket assertion.
From that point, I offered studies indicating that homosexual parenting is not harmful to children. Thereby, disproving the less sweeping assertion: That somehow having gay or lesbian parents itself harms a child.
Now, to the degree that there are idiots out there who make inane unsupported statements like you have made - who call homosexuals deviant and perverse and all manner of names - to the degree that this happens, there may be some negative impact upon children with homosexual parents. BUT that is not the fault of the parents, but of homophobic idiots.
Dan, you know nothing of what goes on inside the minds of your "gay Friends" children. An appearance of normalcy is exactly that.
But this is not a casual glimpse into lives of acquaintances. These are dear friends, people we see every week at church and with whom we eat lunches and dinners, with whom we go on retreats. Now, to the degree that it's true that we never know what actually happens in the homes of our gay or straight friends, you have a point. BUT, by all appearances and with the evidence on hand, my church friends are generally good parents - gay and straight - and their children are doing okay, thank you very much.
And, given your own admissions in the past of being a less-than-perfect parent, I would think you would be a bit more compassionate towards the imperfections we all share.
Most of my gay friends who are married have not had a divorce. Can you say the same? Most of my gay friends who are parents have never had any serious problems with their children. Can you say the same?
Which is not to criticize you, Mark. Rather, it is to point out that those who live in glass houses should be careful about what stones they toss.
Dan says, "I offered studies indicating that homosexual parenting is not harmful to children"
I assume you didn't read the part of my comment that says, "Dr's Lerner and Nagai analyzed the results of 49 empirical studies on same sex partnering and found major research flaws in all 49. The main flaw was that most of the studies were conducted by gay or lesbian researchers or were funded by gay friendly foundations who wished to influence public policy in support of homosexual families."
The studies you reference are flawed, thus, at the very best, inconclusive.
Speaking of Lerner and Nagai...
http://www.narth.com/index.html
The studies you reference are flawed, thus, at the very best, inconclusive.
No, the opinion of a few (right-leaning?) people is that the studies I reference were inconclusive.
Do you have even one study, on the other hand, to support your ludicrous contention that gays adopting children is child abuse? No? Not one single individual study to support your claim? The best you have are two fellas who QUESTION the validity of these other studies (49 of them?) and think that perhaps the studies are inconclusive?
If you don't mind, I can see with my own eyes that your claim is not across the board true and our own God-given reasoning would tell us that GOOD parenting - whoever it is done by - will have the best results. I am an advocate of good parenting.
I am an advocate, also, of adoption. I've a single friend who has been to China twice to adopt two adorable girls who would otherwise have wasted away in unbearable orphanages. No, there is no father in the picture, but clearly, those girls have been saved - NOT abused - by this brave wonderful woman.
Adoption is a grand, wonderful, Godly thing and anyone who is prepared to be a good parent should be PRAISED for adopting. Shame on you, Mark, for your condemnation of something you probably don't know anything about.
Do you even know the first gay or lesbian parent? Even one?
So, since you have NOT ONE study to support your ridiculous claim and - if you don't know any gay parents - since you don't even know any gay parents, your crazy opinions are worth not quite as much as the cowpies on the bottom of my shoes after walking across a pasture - at least the manure ultimately serves some good.
The main flaw was that most of the studies were conducted by gay or lesbian researchers or were funded by gay friendly foundations who wished to influence public policy in support of homosexual families.
And who funded Lerner/Nagai?
"The most commonly cited authors in denouncing studies on gay and lesbian parenting are Dr. Robert Lerner and Dr. Althea Nagai, who were paid by an anti-gay group to write a 2001 book called, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting. In the book, they say that not a single conclusion can be drawn about gay and lesbian parenting from any study ever done. Lerner and Nagai are not credible; they are researchers-for-hire who make their living writing studies for conservative organizations and finding results that support conservative social policies."
source
Word on the street is that there's a new petition drive for a ballot initiative banning straight marriage, and it can definitely get enough signatures to make it on to the next ballot.
I did a doctoral thesis on homosexuality (nobody cares, and it has not been published in Psychology Today...for which I am grateful).
My conclusion was that h/s is learned behavior, not choice or physiological.
If you have worked puzzels, you know when the pieces fit and when they don't.
So what does a h/s "father" or "mother" tell his/her child about sex, that if the pieces don't fit it is perfectly normal to force them to fit?...what?
BTW: You may know some h/s parents that you consider good, but you don't know any h/s families that are "normal," because "normal" is a defined scientific term that means (in lay terms): "how the majority of people do something."
Homoseuals are at the extreme end of the Bell curve in society.
Homosexuality is aberrant behavior and the children would then be learning aberrant behavior from the example of their "parents."
joe said:
'I did a doctoral thesis on homosexuality (nobody cares, and it has not been published in Psychology Today...for which I am grateful).'
Really?
Anywhere we can take a look?
To amplify what Joe said, the very fact that the kids are being raised by homosexuals lends to their minds the notion that such behavior is acceptable or normal. They are influenced to buy into the argument by virtue of having grown up in it. It is something for which they had no choice.
Now, it's important to distinguish between those who are trying to pretend they have a normal "marriage", and those who adopt to extricate a child from a bad situation. The latter is a separate issue and does not belong in this discussion, though the agency should be obliged to find a tradition marriage in which to place every child first.
Naturally, it's unlikely that the homosex couple will overtly indoctrinate their adopted. Only the real jerks will do that. But once the kid sees the disparities between his situation and those of his peers, of course he'll ask the folks. It is at that time that the couple will likely tell the kid that their's is just another lifestyle choice equal to that of the kid's friends. That, of course, is a lie. Hence the abuse.
Also, it is ridiculous to assume that a kid won't be inclined to look upon homosex as a possible option should, like most kids, he struggles during those pubescent times of his life. And no, before anyone attempts to suggest, questioning one's sexuality isn't a given during the teen years and it wasn't in mine. But it is a time of life when such is likely to arise, and what will the child of homosex parents conclude? Naturally, he will be more likely to conclude that there's nothing wrong with it, and if the kid is questioning his sexuality, the likelihood of him looking to that option of course is higher than the child of normal parents.
And to re-iterate for Dan, normal is what most do. Abnormal is what the rest do. Deviants deviate from the normal. Perverts pervert the normal function of whatever. Unnatural is that which is not natural. Thus, abnormal, perverse, deviant and unnatural are all appropriate words for homosexuals by definition, not to be mean. If we have to weigh our words and sugar coat words in order to avoid offending, then truth is at risk. You are purposely muddying the waters.
There is normal and there is normal. Normal, as in "the norm," meaning what most people do. This is what you're referring to and yes, homosexuality is not the norm, it is a relative small percentage - somewhere between 2-10%, most studies would suggest.
Then there's the more common usage of the word "normal," meaning "acceptable," "regular," or "natural." In this sense, homosexuality is normal - ie, it has always happened naturally with some percentage of people and that's okay.
Being left-handed is not the norm, nor is being homosexual. But, neither is morally deviant, but rather, naturally occurring instances, just like heterosexuality and right-handedness, but not as common.
There is a distinction.
So, as to Mark's point: Homosexual parenting is NOT child abuse. That term has a meaning, too, just like "normal." You don't like that some very nurturing, wonderful Christians and citizens have opted to do the morally pleasing thing of adopting children, but your not liking it does not mean that it is child abuse.
If anything, those who would strive to keep children in orphanages instead of encouraging capable people of adopting, THOSE people would be the ones who come closest to neglecting the welfare of children.
"You don't like that some very nurturing, wonderful Christians and citizens have opted to do the morally pleasing thing of adopting children, but your not liking it does not mean that it is child abuse."
I never said I don't like "very Nurturing, wonderful Christians and citizens" doing the "morally pleasing thing of adopting children".
I said allowing homosexuals to adopt is child abuse.
Now if you mean brainwashing children to believe an abberant, deviant, morally reprehensible, and deadly behavior is natural and normal is "nuturing", or that People who engage in sexually deviant behaviors are "Christian", pewrhaps you have a point.
If, on the other hand, you believe, as all logical clear thinking people do, that homosexuality is an abberant, deviant perversion, then you would have to conclude that it is neither nurturing or Christian.
Sorry, Dan. Your comparison of homosexuality to left-handedness is spurious.
Left-handedness IS biologically determined by the genes, h/s is not.
Do not misunderstand me.
A person whose so-called "sexual orientation" (a sweet little euphonism, isn't it?) is different from mine is entitled to no fewer rights than I.
Neither is he/she entitled to any form of special rights.
He/she is also not entitled to change the meaning of things.
I drive a Saturn. If I insist on calling it a Lincoln, that will not make it a Lincoln.
Calling the union of two homosexuals "marriage" will not make it a marriage.
Marriage is defined by the majority of people (and that's the way one arrives at definitions)as the union of one woman and one man.
To define h/s union as a marriage would require finding another word to define the union of a man and a woman.
Children are designed to be raised in a home with a mother (woman) and a father (man).
To do otherwise would require the redesigning of children.
That's not going to happen any time soon.
Oh, and arthurstone, you can check the archives of Stetson University and probably find it.
That was 44 years ago, BTW.
Left-handedness IS biologically determined by the genes, h/s is not.
Says you.
People are born gay or straight or somewhere in between, in some cases. According to the people who have lived it. Myself, for instance. I know that I was born straight. I couldn't "choose" to be gay, it's not in me. I don't swing that way, I'm not wired that way. I can't CHOOSE to be gay.
Likewise, my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters did not choose to be gay or lesbian. It just didn't happen. Just like those who are left-handed or right-handed did not choose that, but rather, it was something they were born with.
Reality and science are not in your corner on this. You are free to have the hunch that people are out there choosing to be gay and straight, but you can't inflict your guesswork on others, or to try to legislate your opinion.
OK, Dan since you think Homosexuality is normal, why don't you go downtown, find a gay bar, pick up a guy and let him ram his penis into your rectum and then tell me if you feel normal.
The problem in trying to reason with you is you are unreasonable. You, Dan, are stuck on stupid.
"Left-handedness IS biologically determined by the genes, h/s is not.
Says you.
No, Dan. Says common sense and logic.
The problem in trying to reason with you is you are unreasonable. You, Dan, are stuck on stupid.
And you appear incapable of having a rational conversation. I noted that it is a normally occurring phenomenon, just like heterosexuality is, just like being left or right handed. I further noted that I am, by nature, heterosexual. I am also right-handed.
To suggest that I try to engage in homosexual conduct is to ignore nature and try to engage in something that is not in my nature. It would be wrong for me to do that.
Just like I can't simply choose to be left-handed. It is not a choice, it is how we are born.
Dan, you appear incapable of having a rational conversation.
My point is that it's NOT NORMAL and suggested that the way you can tell it isn't normal is to try it yourself and see if it feels normal to you.
I know, or at least, I assume you're smarter than that but I could be wrong.
Is there any doubt that, statistically, most child abuse occurs in heterosexual families?
Pedophilia is mostly a heterosexual crime, according to the bureau of Crime Statistics.
Homosexuality is normal, especially for a homosexual.
Mark did you chose to be hetero? Did you chose between being hetero and homosexual, is that why you're so concerned? Did you feel that you had to make a choice not to be gay?
Why do I try?
Mark, are you obtuse deliberately or can you just not help it?
"it can be argued that allowing same sex marriages could lead down the proverbial slippery slope towards all kinds of deviations, including lawful polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia"
It could be, but it would be moronic to do so. It's simple: it is illegal for ANYBODY in the US to practice polygamy, bestiality, or pedophilia. It is legal for heterosexuals to marry one another; it is illegal for homosexuals to marry one another. It's a simple matter or equal protection under the law.
Joe's scientific definition of normal as what most people do would then consign Church going Christians to the abnormal column. Along with those who go to Temple and those who go to the masjid.
These poor attempts at scholarship are "normal" for those who get their degrees mailed from the online university.
I very much would be interested in what "institution" Joe produced a thesis for.
"Allowing same sex couples to adopt children is child abuse."
Based on what study and whose opinion? Not mine. Please show me the proof that this is fact.
"First, it is obvious that a child growing up in a home with two same sex parents would be indoctrinated into accepting the gay lifestyle as normal and natural, leading to confusion of the child's own sexual identity."
Obvious? Indoctrinated? I teach my children to accept that the gay lifestyle is normal and natural for gays. My children are not confused nor have they become gay. Have I abused them in some way?
"Despite any unlikely efforts on the part of homosexual parents to raise their children to be heterosexual (as if they would)"
I'm sure they would raise their children to be whatever their children were naturally.
"the perversion we know it to be". We do? I don't know that. Most people don't know that.
"Second, is there any doubt that some same sex parents would sexually abuse their children? Particularly those who adopted the children? I have no doubt that there are indeed some homosexuals whose sole purpose in adopting children is to have their own personal sex toy that they can abuse at will."
Based on what evidence? What a load of manure!
It's amazing... that Dan is always the authority on all his views. Maybe we should declare him pope and be done with it. For in his world, he is final authority to all what is right and good.
Dan Trabue,
If you boil it down, yours is an argument for relativism.
Try, try, as hard as you can to define deviancy as normal. It won’t work.
At least for now, it won't work with a majority of the people.
There's no telling what a few more years of public education will do to the electorate.
Post a Comment