Do you want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

[actsnoblemartin]

what about gay adoptions?

[Classact]

what about gay adoptions?I think gay adoption is child abuse.

[Immanuel]

I don't believe the Federal Government has any business interfering in the religious rite of marriage. If the Federal Government wants to allow "civil unions" then that is their business but marriage belongs to the church.

Immie

[JackDaniels]

what about gay adoptions?

No.

Rights do not come in groups. Rights are inalienable to every person, regardless of any category you wish to put a specific person in.

It's irresponsible and authoritarian to start writing into our Constitution the practice of denying rights to a group of people.

[Guernicaa]

I think gay adoption is child abuse.
Forgot to take your meds today huh?

[avatar4321]

of course i do. the full faith and credit clause makes it a federal issue. let the people settle it federally before the Court does.

[actsnoblemartin]

Lets examine this for a second. If you let cities and counties vote for social issues, some will say gay marriage is fine, some wont. But isnt that what our country was founded on, for the people, by the people.

Not, a court, with biased judges, but the people of the united states getting their voices heard. And if you dont like living in an area where gay marriage is legal, then leave. If you live in an area where gay marriage is illegal, then you dont have to stay there.

I love how, we have to see it as a competition to impose one will over the other.

But then again, i could be wrong. It doesnt bother me.


of course i do. the full faith and credit clause makes it a federal issue. let the people settle it federally before the Court does.

[bullypulpit]

I think gay adoption is child abuse.

So, you'd rather have a child raised my a toothless straight couple with a meth lab in the basement than by a loving same-gender couple? You got no class.

[Gunny]

So, you'd rather have a child raised my a toothless straight couple with a meth lab in the basement than by a loving same-gender couple? You got no class.

And you got no game. Why does the worn-out analogy ALWAYS include the hillbilly-est or most abusive example for the heterosexual side?

One, the hillbilly's probably ALREADY got 6 kids ...

and Two, abusive people should not be allowed to adopt.

[JimmyAteWorld]

what about gay adoptions?

The Constitution has been tampered with enough through the courts, I don't think we need to start pushing to do it directly. It's a state issue, it should stay that way.

[bullypulpit]

And you got no game. Why does the worn-out analogy ALWAYS include the hillbilly-est or most abusive example for the heterosexual side?

One, the hillbilly's probably ALREADY got 6 kids ...

and Two, abusive people should not be allowed to adopt.

That, in essence, is what NoClass is espousing, contrary to the evidence.

<blockquote>First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. - <a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html>The American Psychological Association</a></blockquote>

And, of course there is always the possibility that NoClass is simply trolling.

[bullypulpit]

I don't believe the Federal Government has any business interfering in the religious rite of marriage. If the Federal Government wants to allow "civil unions" then that is their business but marriage belongs to the church.

Immie

Indeed, the sole interest of the state in marriages lies in the contractual relationship which it establishes, whether in church sanctioned marriages or civil-unions.

[Gunny]

That, in essence, is what NoClass is espousing, contrary to the evidence.

<blockquote>First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. - <a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html>The American Psychological Association</a></blockquote>

And, of course there is always the possibility that NoClass is simply trolling.

I look at gay couples adopting the same I way I look at homosexuality itself ... no matter HOW you twist, skew, tapdance and otherwise try to present it .. it isn't normal.

If this is about the child's welfare, we can start out with the fact that peer pressure is hard enough on a normal child in a normal family. That child will be dogged mercilessly for having gay parents, and none of those dogging the child are going to accept that the child is not also gay.

That alone is a pretty-damned cruel fate to sentence a child to.

[bullypulpit]

I look at gay couples adopting the same I way I look at homosexuality itself ... no matter HOW you twist, skew, tapdance and otherwise try to present it .. it isn't normal.

If this is about the child's welfare, we can start out with the fact that peer pressure is hard enough on a normal child in a normal family. That child will be dogged mercilessly for having gay parents, and none of those dogging the child are going to accept that the child is not also gay.

That alone is a pretty-damned cruel fate to sentence a child to.

The same argument were made in support of anti-miscegenation laws, until they were overturned by the SCOTUS in the 1967 case of "Loving v. Virginia", ruling that such laws were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<blockquote>Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; <b>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws</b>.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</blockquote>

[gabosaurus]

I would rather see a child raised by gays than hateful racist bigots.

[Gunny]

The same argument were made in support of anti-miscegenation laws, until they were overturned by the SCOTUS in the 1967 case of "Loving v. Virginia", ruling that such laws were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<blockquote>Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; <b>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws</b>.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</blockquote>

Trying to equate a behavior with race is disengenuous.

You're ignoring my point. What's in the best interest of the child? You know ... what this is supposed to be all about?

Instead, it's about the rights of any screwball with a behavioral disorder to be allowed to raise said child.

Pathetic.

[Gunny]

I would rather see a child raised by gays than hateful racist bigots.

Already addressed statements like this. I'd rather see a heterosexual couple that passes a rigorous screening process raise a child that a couple of people who define who and what they are by their aberrant sexual behavior.

[BoogyMan]

Forgot to take your meds today huh?

Anything of substance to add to this discussion? Egads.

Marriage is an institution that should be man and woman as it has been since the beginning of time and no revisionist society should be allowed to change it.

[Classact]

Forgot to take your meds today huh?I don't do pills other than the Bayer low dose...

I think rearing children in an unnatural environment is child abuse. I know that many foster homes and government operated shelters do not provide the roll model of normal parents but allowing gays to adopt children simply places them in an even greater unnatural environment.

The majority of Americans see the homosexual lifestyle as unnatural. Most states do not even support legal unions let alone marriage and this by itself means the majority of citizens of other strait traditional families see it as a freak show. It is not the job of school to indoctrinate "children from normal families" that children in "unnatural families" are natural as they are and as a result children will always treat children of gay couples differently... this may cause irreparable sociological damage to the minor child... in my mind it is experiment with human guinea pigs. No one can be sure that they will not hold the hatred for their treatment by children from normal families and one day have an attack causing them to kill hundreds of normal people in retaliation.

I can remember few people from elementary school but I can remember clearly the fat girl I and other children used to mentally abuse... likewise, I can remember the bully that used to start fights with me regularly and dreamed once of looking him up after decades passing and shooting him in the knee. I can't imagine what a child of gay parents would dream of doing to the other normal family children that bothered him/her after decades of subconscious withholding. It is experimenting with people in a very unnatural way.

[Guernicaa]

Anything of substance to add to this discussion? Egads.

Marriage is an institution that should be man and woman as it has been since the beginning of time and no revisionist society should be allowed to change it.
Actually no, marriage used to be quite widespread amongst same sex couples depending on what part of history and the world you look at. It's been done in societies before. Modern gays aren't the first in history to have wanted to get marry.


In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions.[5] However, they were both eunuchs and much can be read into his mental state by the fact that he made them up to look like Poppea, his deceased wife, who he was presumed to have killed by kicking her in the stomach until she miscarried bloodily. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same.



However, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church, and Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. In the Balkans, same-sex marriage survived until modern days, in the form of the Albanian rite of vellameria, "brother bond."[7]


In late medieval France, the practice of entering a legal contract of affrèrement provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse.[8]


In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father.


In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies.[1] The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. Generally, this practice - though unusual even in China - was reflective of the value Chinese culture placed on the reciprocal relationship between benevolent elders teaching and guiding the obedient younger members of society.

In Japan, Shudo (衆道 shudō or shūdō), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo, in its pedagogic, martial, and aristocratic aspects, is closely analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[avatar4321]

I would rather see a child raised by gays than hateful racist bigots.

fine. give them your children then.

[manu1959]

I would rather see a child raised by gays than hateful racist bigots.

are gays incapable of being hateful racist biggots....

[actsnoblemartin]

Im surprised gabo the clown can put together a sentence.


fine. give them your children then.

and I think her children would be better off with them, cause she cant parent a doll.

[manu1959]

what about gay adoptions?

not intrested adpoting a gay .... thanks for the offer though

[bullypulpit]

Trying to equate a behavior with race is disebgenuous.

You're ignoring my point. What's in the best interest of the child? You know ... what this is supposed to be all about?

Instead, it's about the rights of any screwball with a behavioral disorder to be allowed to raise said child.

Pathetic.

The attitudes involved here and those of the anti-miscegenationists are no different.

Have you ever met a same-gender couple with children? Probably not or you wouldn't be spouting the crap you are. There is no evidence showing that the children of same-gender couples have any greater tendency towards homosexuality than the children of traditional couples. Nor is there any evidence to show that the children of such couples are harmed in any way. Until you can produce definitive, independently verifiable evidence contradicting the finding of the APA on the matter, you're just spouting your own prejudiced crap.

Having know more than a few same-gender couples with children, I've never seen anything different from what I see in the families and children of traditional couples. The only nastiness here is the nasty minds and imaginations of those who keep asserting that something nasty is happening. They are the ones with the behavior disorders.

Fucking grow up.

[Pale Rider]

That, in essence, is what NoClass is espousing, contrary to the evidence.

<blockquote>First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. - <a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html>The American Psychological Association</a></blockquote>

And, of course there is always the possibility that NoClass is simply trolling.

It's not a psychological disorder aye...


Intimidating the APA

"homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that their deviancy is a 'desirable, noble, preferable way of life.'"[69]

"[I]n a deliberately planned campaign of intimidation and disruption, the U.S. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), declaring that 'psychiatry is the enemy incarnate,'[25] actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declare homosexuality, theretofore defined as deviant, 'a normal condition.'"[G374] It should be noted that only half of the APA members voted, and of these, only 58 percent agreed with the change.[G375] It should also be noted, that the study by the NIMH task-force which recommended the change did not include psychoanalytic clinicians.[R143]

"Only three psychiatrists were participants [in the NIMH study]. One of them, Dr. Judd Marmor, had for years espoused the view that homosexuality is normal. The chairman, a psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D., was of the same long-time conviction. The Kinsey-Hopkins faction was represented by Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for Sex, Indiana University, and John Money, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins, a prime mover among the proponents for transsexual surgery."[s86]

"The consequences of this action are of a formidable nature. Not only will the homosexual be victimised, but the entire area of research in the development of gender identity will be damaged. Young men and women with relatively minor sexual fears of the opposite sex will be led with equanimity by psychiatrists and other members of the medical profession who buy this bill of boods into a self-despising pattern and lifestyle. Homosexuality will henceforth be touted as simply an acceptable variation on the norm. Adolescents, nearly all of whom suffer some sort of uncertainty as to identity, will be discouraged from assuming that one form of gender identity (one's own birth-right) is preferable to another.[74] And those persons who already have a homosexual problem will be discouraged from fighting their way out of a self-destructive fantasy, discouraged from learning to accept themselves as male or female, discouraged from all of those often painful but necessary courses that allow us all to function as reasonable and participating individuals in a co-operating society." [s89]

"Even four years later, a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed homosexuality was 'a pathological adaptation.' About 18 percent disagreed; 13 percent were uncertain."[G375] The decision was the result of political pressure, not expert consensus.

"And homosexuals tended to feel the same way about themselves. About 25 percent believed their behaviour was an emotional disorder, and 37 percent answered they they were 'emotionally disturbed.' Young male homosexuals (14-21) commit suicide at two to three times the rate of heterosexuals (Paediatrics, June 1991). For all ages, their rate is six times that of heterosexuals."[G375]

"many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue --it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation."[13]

http://members.tripod.com/british-nation/illness.htm

[KarlMarx]

I think some things ought to be pointed out

1. "Gay marriage is a 'right'" --- really? Why? Because someone says it is? Who decides what is a right and what isn't? The founding fathers granted us certain "unalienable" rights in the Constitution, but, knowing that future generations would have arguments just like the one we're having today, they added the 10 amendment. In that amendment, those rights not enumerated in the Constitution are left up to the states to decide.

2. "Amending the Constitution is a bad idea, it should be left up to a judge to decide" --- people who repeat this phrase either don't know any better or know that, if the gay marriage came up for a vote, that it would be voted down by a majority of Americans. The same could be argued for abortion. That is why gay rights groups aren't attempting to get this issue put before the voters, they'd rather get a sympathetic judge to do their dirty work for them. Besides, we abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote by amendments to the Constitution.

3. "I'd rather have a child raised by gays than by toothless hate mongering racists" --- now, that's a hateful statement, and one full of ignorance too. First, the statement assumes that hate is solely in the domain of the Right. The fact is, that the Left has done its share of hating too. Anyone that has followed the news for the past 8 years knows this. The evidence for the Left's hatred for Christians, George W Bush and the military is in abundance. Perhaps a child raised by a gay couple will learn to hate, too. The couple could instill its hatred of Christians upon the child, and justify it by the Christians' "homophobia". The Left doesn't seem to have any great love for conservatives, either. So, it is possible that the gay couple will also teach the child to hate Republicans and conservatives. You see, to the Left, it isn't acceptable to hate someone because they're black, but it is quite acceptable, if not encouraged, to hate someone for their religious and political beliefs. That is the case, especially when the religious and political beliefs are at odds with the Left's distorted world view.

[bullypulpit]

It's not a psychological disorder aye...

Fucking grow up.

[OCA]

Fucking grow up.

Bully do the facts of how the APA came to declassifying homosexuality as a treatable disorder bother you?

[OCA]

Anyway, a constitutional amendment is not needed, it should be left to the states to decide and they have been, pretty much unanimously and overwhelmingly against queer marriage, even in lib states such as New York and Oregon.

[OCA]

I would rather see a child raised by gays than hateful racist bigots.

Thats because you hate children.

[bullypulpit]

I think some things ought to be pointed out

1. "Gay marriage is a 'right'" --- really? Why? Because someone says it is? Who decides what is a right and what isn't? The founding fathers granted us certain "unalienable" rights in the Constitution, but, knowing that future generations would have arguments just like the one we're having today, they added the 10 amendment. In that amendment, those rights not enumerated in the Constitution are left up to the states to decide.

2. "Amending the Constitution is a bad idea, it should be left up to a judge to decide" --- people who repeat this phrase either don't know any better or know that, if the gay marriage came up for a vote, that it would be voted down by a majority of Americans. The same could be argued for abortion. That is why gay rights groups aren't attempting to get this issue put before the voters, they'd rather get a sympathetic judge to do their dirty work for them. Besides, we abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote by amendments to the Constitution.

3. "I'd rather have a child raised by gays than by toothless hate mongering racists" --- now, that's a hateful statement, and one full of ignorance too. First, the statement assumes that hate is solely in the domain of the Right. The fact is, that the Left has done its share of hating too. Anyone that has followed the news for the past 8 years knows this. The evidence for the Left's hatred for Christians, George W Bush and the military is in abundance. Perhaps a child raised by a gay couple will learn to hate, too. The couple could instill its hatred of Christians upon the child, and justify it by the Christians' "homophobia". The Left doesn't seem to have any great love for conservatives, either. So, it is possible that the gay couple will also teach the child to hate Republicans and conservatives. You see, to the Left, it isn't acceptable to hate someone because they're black, but it is quite acceptable, if not encouraged, to hate someone for their religious and political beliefs. That is the case, especially when the religious and political beliefs are at odds with the Left's distorted world view.

<b>1.</b> Marriage is a church sanctioned activity which the state has no interest in beyond the contractual relationships it established...division of property...providing for children...medical decision making...My wife and I were married in a civil-ceremony. In essence, we each took a legally binding oath to the other, and "Voila!", we were married and subject to all the rights and responsibilities that marriage...a contractual relationship...entails. No church was involved...no deities were invoked. There is no rational reason to deny same gender couples the same. If religious authorities disapprove of same-gender unions, they don't have to get involved, either in marrying same-gender couples or by interfering with the ability of those couples to enter into marriage through civil-ceremony.

<b>2.</b> It should be noted that when voters were faced with the challenge of dismantling the "separate and anything-but-equal" education system set up under Jim Crow segregationism, they refused. It took the Supreme Court of the United States to step in and do the job. The "will of the majority" was over-ridden by the courts because the majority was wrong. Majority rule requires respect for the rights of the minority. It is not mob rule. When any majority tramples on any minority for no good reason, a third party must step in. Which the SCOTUS did in the case of "Brown v. Board of Education".

<b>3.</b> Do you have ANY evidence of ANY kind from reliable, independent sources to support ANY of the claims in your third point? Didn't think so.

[bullypulpit]

Bully do the facts of how the APA came to declassifying homosexuality as a treatable disorder bother you?

Single sourced from a British right-wing group? Not much in the way of facts there.

[OCA]

<b>1.</b> Marriage is a church sanctioned activity which the state has no interest in beyond the contractual relationships it established...division of property...providing for children...medical decision making...My wife and I were married in a civil-ceremony. In essence, we each took a legally binding oath to the other, and "Voila!", we were married and subject to all the rights and responsibilities that marriage...a contractual relationship...entails. No church was involved...no deities were invoked. There is no rational reason to deny same gender couples the same. If religious authorities disapprove of same-gender unions, they don't have to get involved, either in marrying same-gender couples or by interfering with the ability of those couples to enter into marriage through civil-ceremony.

<b>2.</b> It should be noted that when voters were faced with the challenge of dismantling the "separate and anything-but-equal" education system set up under Jim Crow segregationism, they refused. It took the Supreme Court of the United States to step in and do the job. The "will of the majority" was over-ridden by the courts because the majority was wrong. Majority rule requires respect for the rights of the minority. It is not mob rule. When any majority tramples on any minority for no good reason, a third party must step in. Which the SCOTUS did in the case of "Brown v. Board of Education".

<b>3.</b> Do you have ANY evidence of ANY kind from reliable, independent sources to support ANY of the claims in your third point? Didn't think so.

You see Bully, you are falsely labeling queers as a "minority", I believe and most other rational people believe that to be classified as a minority the condition or whatever that makes you a minority should occur at birth and not be changeable. There is no such evidence that definitively states that queers are born that way which leads most rational people to believe that queers are queer of their own choosing and thereby negates their minority status and does, in fact show that they are not discriminated against and have every inalienable right that you and I have............except the right to break laws which currently states, and with the stamp of approval of the people, that same sex marriage is illegal.

[OCA]

Single sourced from a British right-wing group? Not much in the way of facts there.

Which right wing group? I can find the same info from here in the states but you'll just say its from religious wackos. See how the carousel keeps going round and round and round..........

[avatar4321]

The attitudes involved here and those of the anti-miscegenationists are no different.

Have you ever met a same-gender couple with children? Probably not or you wouldn't be spouting the crap you are. There is no evidence showing that the children of same-gender couples have any greater tendency towards homosexuality than the children of traditional couples. Nor is there any evidence to show that the children of such couples are harmed in any way. Until you can produce definitive, independently verifiable evidence contradicting the finding of the APA on the matter, you're just spouting your own prejudiced crap.

Having know more than a few same-gender couples with children, I've never seen anything different from what I see in the families and children of traditional couples. The only nastiness here is the nasty minds and imaginations of those who keep asserting that something nasty is happening. They are the ones with the behavior disorders.

Fucking grow up.

You want to wait around till we have screwed up children before admitting that gay couples raising kids screw them up? Unlike you most of us have common sense and would like the children involved to have decent lives. Children have a right to be raised by a moth and a father. This is a natural right. you start denying them that right, and the child is far more likely to be screwed up.

You want to wait a generation to see the results of all these screwed up children. Personally, Id rather not, because the damage wont just last one generation.

Its amazing how anyone telling someone else to grow up can be so ignorant of the consequences of decisions involving the lives of others.

[Gunny]

The attitudes involved here and those of the anti-miscegenationists are no different.

Have you ever met a same-gender couple with children? Probably not or you wouldn't be spouting the crap you are. There is no evidence showing that the children of same-gender couples have any greater tendency towards homosexuality than the children of traditional couples. Nor is there any evidence to show that the children of such couples are harmed in any way. Until you can produce definitive, independently verifiable evidence contradicting the finding of the APA on the matter, you're just spouting your own prejudiced crap.

Having know more than a few same-gender couples with children, I've never seen anything different from what I see in the families and children of traditional couples. The only nastiness here is the nasty minds and imaginations of those who keep asserting that something nasty is happening. They are the ones with the behavior disorders.

Fucking grow up.

What crap am I spouting? You're sitting here comparing extreme examples of heterosexual couples to gay couple in a blatantly obvious attempt to negate the fact that homosexuality is in fact abnormal behavior. The fact that heterosexual couples exist that should not be allowed to procreate much less adopt is completely irrelevant to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to adopt.

You keep leaning on that "there is no conclusive data" crutch which is as disengenuous at the rest of your argument. Homosexual couple have not been allowed to adopt for a long enough period of time for there to be any conclusive data.

I would say willful blindness is a behavior disorder as well. Again, you are arguing in favor of what the homosexuals want, not what is in the best interest of the child.

I am not arguing anything "nasty" is happening. I'm arguing that the child should ALWAYS be placed in an enviroment that is as close to 100% perfect as possible. A homosexual couple is FAR from that.

Perhaps YOU should consider growing up instead of making one-sided arguments and trying to pass off abnormal behavior as normal, abd catering to people who define themselves by that abnormal behavior instead of doing what is best for the child.

[Classact]

You want to wait around till we have screwed up children before admitting that gay couples raising kids screw them up? Unlike you most of us have common sense and would like the children involved to have decent lives. Children have a right to be raised by a moth and a father. This is a natural right. you start denying them that right, and the child is far more likely to be screwed up.

You want to wait a generation to see the results of all these screwed up children. Personally, Id rather not, because the damage wont just last one generation.

Its amazing how anyone telling someone else to grow up can be so ignorant of the consequences of decisions involving the lives of others.The children are WARDS of the state... we don't experiment with new untested drugs on them nor do we try to create a super race with them...

The state's responsibility, as these children become state property is to provide the best possible environment and placing them with gays is an unnatural environment in addition to social experimentation.

[bullypulpit]

You see Bully, you are falsely labeling queers as a "minority", I believe and most other rational people believe that to be classified as a minority the condition or whatever that makes you a minority should occur at birth and not be changeable. There is no such evidence that definitively states that queers are born that way which leads most rational people to believe that queers are queer of their own choosing and thereby negates their minority status and does, in fact show that they are not discriminated against and have every inalienable right that you and I have............except the right to break laws which currently states, and with the stamp of approval of the people, that same sex marriage is illegal.

Research to date, indicates that sexual orientation is a result of genetic, gestational and environmental factors which play synergistic roles in determining sexual preference. Therefore if would be appropriate to consider sexual preference "something which occurs at birth". There have been no definitive peer reviewed studies to show that gender preference, once manifested can be changed.

In many cases, minority status is chosen...we need look no further than our political system for the proof of that pudding. As we always see, the minority party screams bloody murder when they perceive their "rights" as having been trampled upon.

Deal with it.

[bullypulpit]

The children are WARDS of the state... we don't experiment with new untested drugs on them nor do we try to create a super race with them...

The state's responsibility, as these children become state property is to provide the best possible environment and placing them with gays is an unnatural environment in addition to social experimentation.


Anything to substantiate this? Or is it just more of you parroting RWN talking points?

And children to be put up for adoption are wards of the state...Not "property" of the state. Or perhaps you're advocating for slavery?

[Gunny]

The children are WARDS of the state... we don't experiment with new untested drugs on them nor do we try to create a super race with them...

The state's responsibility, as these children become state property is to provide the best possible environment and placing them with gays is an unnatural environment in addition to social experimentation.

:clap:

I owe ya some rep for this one. Excellent post.

[Gunny]

Anything to substantiate this? Or is it just more of you parroting RWN talking points?

And children to be put up for adoption are wards of the state...Not "property" of the state. Or perhaps you're advocating for slavery?

Looks to me like that's what he said.:poke:

[Classact]

Anything to substantiate this? Or is it just more of you parroting RWN talking points?What part of my statement is in question? Substantiate what exactly?


And children to be put up for adoption are wards of the state...Not "property" of the state. Or perhaps you're advocating for slavery?Actually, they are a minor or incompetent person placed under the care and protection of a guardian or a court. They require a chain of custody as property/persons collected by the state in other manners such as arrest or removal for mental issues. These children, as all minors in the state are to be protected correctly by law. When a situation arises that a parent is unfit they may be removed by the state from the family to be put in custody of the state court. I think unnatural environments such as rearing by gay parents is basis for removal even if the birth mother is the gay person in that couple because the social situation is unnatural at that point.

[OCA]

Research to date, indicates that sexual orientation is a result of genetic, gestational and environmental factors which play synergistic roles in determining sexual preference. Therefore if would be appropriate to consider sexual preference "something which occurs at birth". There have been no definitive peer reviewed studies to show that gender preference, once manifested can be changed.

In many cases, minority status is chosen...we need look no further than our political system for the proof of that pudding. As we always see, the minority party screams bloody murder when they perceive their "rights" as having been trampled upon.

Deal with it.

Do you need the words "definitive", "ironclad" and "indisputeable" defined for you? You have only supposition and theory on your side as to date there is nothing but those two when it comes to homosexuality being "from birth".

Your analogy of a minority to a political party is childish at best. I expected better.

[bullypulpit]

Do you need the words "definitive", "ironclad" and "indisputeable" defined for you? You have only supposition and theory on your side as to date there is nothing but those two when it comes to homosexuality being "from birth".

Your analogy of a minority to a political party is childish at best. I expected better.

I just give as good as I get. It's not my fault y'all come to a battle of wits unarmed.

[bullypulpit]

What part of my statement is in question? Substantiate what exactly?

Pretty much ANY of your statements on the thread thus far.


Actually, they are a minor or incompetent person placed under the care and protection of a guardian or a court. They require a chain of custody as property/persons collected by the state in other manners such as arrest or removal for mental issues. These children, as all minors in the state are to be protected correctly by law. When a situation arises that a parent is unfit they may be removed by the state from the family to be put in custody of the state court. I think unnatural environments such as rearing by gay parents is basis for removal even if the birth mother is the gay person in that couple because the social situation is unnatural at that point.

But property? Even you wouldn't go so far as to assert these individuals aren't chattel. And as for gaay parents, there has been no demonstrable harm shown to either their children or society at large as a result of their being parents.

[bullypulpit]

Which right wing group? I can find the same info from here in the states but you'll just say its from religious wackos. See how the carousel keeps going round and round and round..........

The logic demonstrated by you, and the sources you cite is circular. Hence the argument just keeps going round and round and round...

[bullypulpit]

You want to wait around till we have screwed up children before admitting that gay couples raising kids screw them up? Unlike you most of us have common sense and would like the children involved to have decent lives. Children have a right to be raised by a moth and a father. This is a natural right. you start denying them that right, and the child is far more likely to be screwed up.

You want to wait a generation to see the results of all these screwed up children. Personally, Id rather not, because the damage wont just last one generation.

Its amazing how anyone telling someone else to grow up can be so ignorant of the consequences of decisions involving the lives of others.

What evidence do you have to support your assertions? No, really...what evidence do you have to support your assertion that the raising of children by same gender couples have deleterious effects on those children. If you have evidence in the form of independent, peer reviewed studies, I'd love to see it.

[Pale Rider]

What evidence do you have to support your assertions? No, really...what evidence do you have to support your assertion that the raising of children by same gender couples have deleterious effects on those children. If you have evidence in the form of independent, peer reviewed studies, I'd love to see it.

Chew on this...

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH

Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children

Part 1
Dale O'Leary on the Risks

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, 4 NOV. 2004 (ZENIT)

Despite the large number of securely married people waiting to adopt children, same-sex couples are often regarded as desirable adoptive parents with equal qualifications.

So says Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association.

She shared with ZENIT how adoption agencies have disregarded evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public, and how those risk factors can negatively affect children.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Friday.

Q: What is the growth trend of children being adopted by same-sex couples or individuals with same-sex attractions?

O'Leary: I do not have any research showing this, but the anecdotal evidence suggests a dramatic increase in such adoptions.

Recently, I spoke with a woman who has adopted a number of special needs children and is extremely active in the adoption movement. She said that she has observed a dramatic increase in adoptions by same-sex couples.

She believes that the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.

I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt.

Consider the consequences of giving a special needs child or a child with an attachment disorder — something that is very common among children adopted from orphanages overseas — to a couple where one or both suffer from a psychological disorder or substance abuse problem.

There should be an investigation into whether social workers are giving vulnerable children to same-sex couples who would not otherwise be qualified and the long-term consequences of these adoptions.

Q: Would children linger unloved in foster care if not placed with a same-sex couple?

O'Leary: Given the increase in infertility due to late marriage and the consequences of the pandemic of STDs, the number of securely married couples who want to adopt is very high. Due to abortion and the acceptance of single motherhood, the number of healthy babies being released for adoption is very low.

Therefore, since the demand overwhelming exceeds the supply, agencies should have no problems finding a virtually perfect placement for every healthy baby released at birth by the mother.

There is no reason for choosing a second-best placement, and adoption by a same-sex couple is by definition second-best, since it deprives the child of a parent of one sex and all the experiences that having a father and a mother provides.

Because there are so few healthy newborns available for adoption, the number of securely married couples who will consider a baby with some health problems or an older child has also increased dramatically.

Most children in foster care have not been adopted because their biological parents have refused to release them for adoption or because the courts have not terminated parental custody. These parents and their children cling to hope that the situations that lead to them being placed in foster care will change and the family reunited.

Reform in the foster care system is certainly called for, but placing already deeply wounded children with same-sex couples is not the solution.

Because of the shortage of babies and available older children, many couples choose foreign adoption. Persons with same-sex attractions often do not inform the country from which the child comes that they are homosexual.

Recently an article in the Boston Globe reported on a lesbian couple that wasn't going to get "married" because then they would have to disclose this to the adoption agency and would not be able to obtain a second child from overseas.

They had already deceived the overseas agency in order to obtain their first child. Such deceptions will negatively affect married heterosexual couples seeking to adopt abroad.

Q: What does a child typically experience when adopted by a heterosexual couple?

O'Leary: While the public likes to romanticize adoption, the fact is that being surrendered for adoption by one's biological parents is a wounding experience.

Pretending that adoption is just like having your own biological child and that there are no additional problems to overcome does a disservice to the adoptive child's struggle to understand and to the adoptive parents' heroic love.

Adoptive parents tell their children how their brave mothers made the courageous decision to give their babies good homes with a mommy and daddy and all the advantages that brings.

However, in spite of the reassurances from the adoptive parents and all their love and care, an adopted child almost always asks: "Why? Why did my mother give me up? Where was my father?"

These questions often persist well into adulthood. It takes emotional and psychological stability in the part of the adoptive parents to allow children to ask these questions.

Adoption by a happily, faithfully married husband and wife provides a healing environment for the child who has been surrendered by his or her biological parents. The faithful committed love of the father for his wife and children teaches the adoptive child that all men do not walk away from their responsibilities to their children.

The strength under pressure of the adoptive mother teaches the child that even though his or her biological mother may not have thought she had the resources to bring up a child, the adoptive mother is strong enough to face any crisis and never stop loving or surrender a beloved child.

The day-to-day experience of seeing a loving married father and mother sacrifice and persevere gives the adopted child an image of true marital and parental love that can serve as a model for his or her own life.

This is undoubtedly why, in spite of the initial wound, the majority of adopted children grow into healthy and happy adults who marry wisely and become good parents. ZE04110424


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2

Dale O'Leary on the Stress for Kids

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, 5 NOV. 2004 (ZENIT)

Adopted children of same-sex parents face the deprivation of either a mother or father and the strain of living in an unstable and unnatural situation, according to a researcher in the field.

Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, shared with ZENIT how same-sex parents give their children a second-class upbringing by exacerbating normal problems that adopted kids experience.

Part 1 of this interview appeared Thursday.

Q: What's the difference between a child being adopted by a same-sex couple and by a heterosexual couple?

O'Leary: If children adopted by married couples ask, "Why was I given up for adoption?" what will the children who are given to same-sex couples ask? Will they not wonder why their mother would give them over to a permanently and purposefully mother-less or father-less family? And how does adoption by a same-sex couple—which gay activists admit can expose the child to social stress—protect a child from the stigma of being raised by a single mother?

Sooner or later the child will ask, "Why was I deserted by my father, given up by my mother and then treated by society as a second-class baby who could be placed in a second-class situation?"

Persons with same-sex attractions who adopt love their children, and the children love their adoptive parents, but because there is love there will also be denial. The same-sex couples will not be able to admit to themselves the harm they have done to the children they love, and so will blame "society" or "homophobia" for the problems they face. The children will not be able to voice their dissatisfaction and will at the same time feel guilty for not being grateful. The children will be made to feel that there is something wrong with their natural desire for a parent of opposite sexes.

We have already seen an example of this. Rosie O'Donnell, a very public lesbian and advocate for lesbian adoption, was asked what she would do if her adopted son wanted a father. According to O'Donnell, her son had already expressed that desire. When he was 6, he said, "I want to have a daddy."

O'Donnell replied, "If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn't have me as a mommy because I'm the kind of mommy who wants another mommy. This is the way mommy got born." He said, "OK, I'll just keep you."

While O'Donnell undoubtedly sees this as a positive affirmation of same-sex adoption, there is another interpretation: She made her son feel that his natural desire for a father is a rejection of her. That is a terrible burden to place on a little boy.

And it gets worse. In the same interview, O'Donnell recounted how she explained adoption to her son: "... he understands that there are different types of people; that he grew up in another lady's tummy, and that God looked inside and saw there was a mix-up and that God brought him to me."

In other words, in light of this and the previous conversation between O'Donnell and her son, it is wrong for him to want a daddy because God decided that he shouldn't have one.

Q: What other dangers threaten children who are adopted by same-sex couples?

O'Leary: Children surrendered for adoption have been separated from their biological mothers and often from transitional caregivers. This can lead to attachment disorders. Attachment to a single maternal figure during the first eight months of life is crucial to emotional development. Raising a child with an attachment disorder requires special sensitivity on the part of his or her adoptive parents.

A friend who adopted a child from Eastern Europe discovered that her adopted son had a severe attachment disorder. The specialist told her that his ability to trust was so damaged that she should not leave him for any extended period for several years.

Because children surrendered for adoption have already suffered one major loss, it is very important that they be placed in the most stable situation possible. Same-sex couples are the least stable arrangement.

Gay male couples are very likely to break up; even if they remain together, they are rarely sexually faithful to one another. Lesbian couples are more likely to remain together than gay male couples, but they are not nearly as stable as married heterosexual couples.
Because of this, a child placed with a same-sex couple is at greater risk for a second major loss during childhood. The research on the effects of divorce on children is clear and unequivocal-divorce is profoundly damaging. The damage is necessarily greater for the adoptive child.

Michael Reagan—who was adopted by President Ronald Reagan and his first wife, who later divorced—speaks of divorce as two adults going into a child's room, breaking everything of value and then leaving the child to try to put the pieces back together. Michael Reagan in his vulnerability became the victim of a pedophile who took pornographic pictures of him and then used them to blackmail him into silence.

While the press presents a happy picture of same-sex couples adopting babies, there is a different side of the picture: nasty breakups and custody fights.

An article by Barbara Eisold entitled "Recreating Mother" in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry reports on the effects of a mother-less family on one little boy. This boy was conceived for a male couple using a surrogate mother who was paid for her service.

His father, the older member of the couple, hired a nanny to care for the boy. When she became too emotionally involved she was fired; another nanny was hired and then a third. The boy was then sent to nursery school. By the time he was 4 he was suffering from profound psychological problems and a therapist was hired to treat him.

One of his problems was that he wanted to "buy" a mother. The therapist asks "How do we explain why this child, the son of a male couple, seemed to need to construct a woman-'Mother'-with whom he could play the role of loving boy/man? How did such an idea enter his mind? What inspired his intensity on the subject?"

The therapist was hired to convince this little boy that what was done to him was OK and that he must accept it. But the therapist missed the obvious: Children need mothers. This child was artificially deprived of what he needed.

A recent article in the New York Times Magazine on Ry and Cade—sisters now 22 and 24 years old who were born to a female couple—appears designed to present a positive picture of how having two moms is a "big, messy, incredible experiment" that "worked." However, the lengthy article reveals the many ways in which the experiment has not worked.

Their two "mothers" did not provide the girls with clear models of femininity or masculinity. According to the article, "Ry remembers Cade pouring over Seventeen magazine as if it contained a code she needed to crack." Cade apparently didn't find what she was looking for, and at age 18 came out as a lesbian.

One gathers from the article that Ry's "mothers" were part of an active radical feminist community that held extremely negative views about marriage, and those views affected their daughters.

At one point, Ry was "repulsed" by heterosexual relations and afraid of the "sexist soul-losing domain of oppression" she associated with male-female relationships. At 16 she wrote, "I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a straight relationship." Ry's mothers encouraged her to have sex with her boyfriend, which she did, but at the same time she felt conflicted about having "sex with a man, which meant 'growing up and away from my mothers.'" Since then she has become more confident with men, but still feels as though she is "passing" for straight.

The experiment has clearly placed a burden on the girls. According to the article, "For most of her life, Ry has been both parent and child to her mothers." If this is supposed to be a success story, one can only imagine what the failures are like.

The adoption controversy is growing as courts and agencies favor same-sex couples over heterosexual couples. Social workers and foster parents who protest are sometimes punished.

Laurie Ellinger, a foster mother who protested the adoption of a black little boy by a white gay male couple, was temporarily suspended from sheltering foster children because she made the case public. Two married Christian couples had tried to adopt the boy, but the baby's natural father protested to the social workers, who had control over the adoption.

Q: How will same-sex couples adopting children affect society?

O'Leary: Our first concern should be the welfare of the children turned over to same-sex couples, but this policy also negatively affects our families. By sanctioning adoption by same-sex couples, the government is sanctioning homosexual behavior. It is one thing for the state to tolerate what goes on behind closed doors and quite another to say that it is equal to marriage.

How will the schools, particularly the elementary schools, handle this problem? The question is not theoretical. Schools in Massachusetts and other areas are already teaching elementary school children to accept same-sex relationships as equal to marriage between a man and woman.

This puts religious parents in an untenable position. They have a duty to teach their children the truth, namely that homosexual behavior is always and will always be contrary to God's plan. On the other hand, they do not want to go into the details of homosexuality with a kindergartner. Nor do they want to subject children being raised by same-sex couples to additional pain.

The only answer for many parents is to withdraw their children from public education. When public schools are used as instruments of indoctrination against religion, religious parents are discriminated against. ZE04110522


http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZSSADOPT.HTM

[Pale Rider]

And this...

Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree



A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH*
S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW
Journal Of Law & Family Studies
University Of Utah
VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2



I. INTRODUCTION

The notion that all "family forms" are equally as helpful or healthful for children has no basis in science. Indeed, there is no better example than the extensive research on children reared in single-parent families. The most authoritative evidence on children growing up in single-parent families (most often headed by single mothers) concluded that such children are three times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, twice as likely to drop out of high school, 1.4 times more likely to be idle (out of school and out of work) and 2.5 times more likely to be teen mothers. Lest one might suggest that the lower socio-economic level of children alone accounts for such statistics, these conclusions were reached subsequent to adjustments for income-related variables such as race, sex, mother's/father's education, number of siblings, and place of residence (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Perhaps, if we follow these statistics further, another picture emerges. Of children born out-of-wedlock, their chances of living in poverty are five times greater than that of growing up within intact families. Additionally, children born out of wedlock have a two to three times greater probability of having psychiatric problems as adolescents (Popenoe, 1996). Following this statistic even further, early sexual activity poses a great danger for adolescent health. Adolescents account for more than 25 percent of all sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) nationally. Women are twice as likely as men to acquire gonorrhea, chlamydia and hepatitis.

Many STDs generate increased risk of one developing certain cancers, becoming infertile, and contracting HIV upon exposure. Tragically, STDs are passed on by women to their children at birth. We could carry this scenario further and include excellent data on single parenting and child abuse, single parenting and violence. While it is clear that there are cases where children reared by single parents do well, such cases are the exception rather than the rule. The evidence shown by the substantial majority of children reared in single-parent homes is very clear: this one family form places children at substantial risks (Popenoe, 1996).

A. Is Dual-Gender Parenting Protective For Children?

There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996) summarized the research nicely: "social science research is almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and step-families" (p. 176). Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better; in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents. This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked differences in child-rearing that are protective for children. That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. Children of parents who are sex-typed are more competent (Baumrind, 1982). Research has repeatedly supported the conclusion that most effective parenting is highly expressive and highly demanding (Baumrind, 1991). Highly expressive, instrumental parenting provides children with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and individuality. These essential contributions to the optimum development of children are virtually impossible for a man or woman alone to combine effectively (Greenberger, 1984). Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes.

Complementarity is readily observable in differing parenting styles of mothers and fathers. Not only are fathers' styles highly complementary to the styles of mothers, but research indicates that the fathers' involvement in the lives of children is essential for optimal child-rearing. For example, complementarity is provided by mothers who are flexible, warm and sympathetic, and fathers who are more directive, predictable and consistent. Rossi's research (1987) noted that mothers are better able to read an infant's facial expressions, handle with tactile gentleness, and soothe with the use of voice (p. 113). Fathers tend to emphasize overt play more than caretaking. This play in various forms among the young appears critical for later development. (Yogman, 1982).

A study authored by Marissa Diener, (2002) at the University of Utah, demonstrated that babies (12 months old) who have a close relationship with their fathers seemed more stress resistant than those who did not. Babies who had secure relationships with their fathers used more coping strategies than those who did not. Her conclusion has fascinating implications: "there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions" (Broughton, 2002 p. Al).

Male and female differences emerge in ways in which infants are held and the differential ways in which mothers and fathers use touch with their children. Mothers more frequently use touch to calm, soothe, or comfort infants. When a mother lifts her child, she brings the child toward her breasts providing warmth, comfort, security and protection. Fathers more often use touch to stimulate or to excite the child. Fathers tend to hold infants at arms length in front of them, make eye contact, toss the infant in the air, or embrace the child in such a way that the child is looking over the father's shoulder. Shapiro notes that each of these "daddy holds" underscores a sense of freedom (1994).

Clarke-Stewart (1980) reported differences in mothers' and fathers' play. Mothers tend to play more at the child's level. Mothers provide an opportunity to direct the play, to be in charge, to proceed at the child's pace. Fathers' play resembles a teacher-student relationship--apprenticeship of sorts. Fathers' play is more rough-and-tumble. In fact, the lack of this rough-and-tumble play emerges disproportionately in the backgrounds of boys who experience gender disorders. Additionally, Clarke-Stewart notes the benefits of this rough-and-tumble play have appeared in child development areas extending from the management of emotions to intellectual and academic achievement. Interestingly enough, fathers' play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors and does not positively correlate with violence and aggression, but rather correlates with self-control. Children who "roughhouse" with their fathers quickly learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. Children learn how to recognize and manage highly charged emotions in the context of playing with their fathers, and such play provides children with opportunities to recognize and respond appropriately to emotions (Cromwell & Leper, 1994).

There are gender differences in parental approaches to discipline. The disciplinary approaches of fathers tend toward firmness, relying on rules and principles. The approaches of mothers tend toward more responsiveness, involving more bargaining, more adjustment toward the child's mood and context, and is more often based on an intuitive understanding of the child's needs and emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) concluded that the differences between paternal and maternal approaches to discipline are rooted in the fundamental differences between men and women in their moral senses. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules, while women stress understanding, sympathy, care and helping based on relationships.

The critical contributions of mothers to the healthy development of children have been long recognized. No reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers in the normal development of children could be found. Recent research validates the importance of fathers in the parenting process, as well. Studies such as that conducted by Pruett (1987) concluded that six-month old infants whose fathers actively played with them had higher scores on the Bailey Test of Mental and Motor Development. Parke (1981) noted that infants whose fathers spent more time with them were more socially responsive and better able to withstand stressful situations than infants relatively deprived of substantial interaction with their fathers. A second female cannot provide fathering. In fact, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that children living with a mother and grandmother fared worse as teenagers than did those adolescents living with just a single parent. Biller (1993) concluded that men who were father-deprived in life were more likely to engage in rigid, over compensatory, masculine, aggressive behaviors later. His research, based on more than 1,000 separate sources, demonstrated repeatedly the positive effect of fathers on children.

Pruett (1993) summarized the highly acclaimed work of Erik Erikson, one of the most esteemed developmental psychologists in the world, who noted that mothers and fathers love differently. A fathers' love is characterized by instrumentality and more expectancies, whereas a mother's love is more nurturing, expressive, and integrative. Mothers care for their young. Fathers baby sit. Mothers nurture. Fathers negotiate. Fathers focus on extra-familial relationships, social skills and developing friendships. Adolescents who have affectionate relationships with their fathers have better social skills, exude more confidence, and are more secure in their own competencies. When there is a father present in the home, there are lower instances of adolescent sexual involvement.

What are the consequences when fathers are not present? Alfred Masser, a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that more and more children who seek psychiatric help are suffering from father-hunger (1989). Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father-hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women.

Based on extensive research spanning decades, the importance of mothers to the healthy development of children is irrefutable. Recent research has provided clear and compelling evidence of the importance of fathers to the healthy development of children. The evidence is equally convincing regarding the consequences of father absence and the relationship, not only to the severe difficulties in the lives of children, but the societal costs, as well. However, the consequences of mother-hunger are less clear.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence citing the importance of mothers and fathers to the healthy development of children, attempts have been made in professional literature to blur the lines between genders, and to claim that neither mothers nor fathers are necessary for positive child outcomes. Such research reports have become increasingly bold with their activist agendas. Perhaps the boldest of such articles appeared in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association in 1999. In the article titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father," the authors argue that "neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child development and that responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family structures" (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999, p. 397).

As advocates of homosexual parenting, Silverstein and Auerbach support their "normalcy" or homosexual parenting theory through their observations of animal behavior, They utilized the offspring-raising habits of soft-furred, tree-dwelling South American monkeys to support their view that homosexual parenting leads to positive child outcomes. "Marmosets illustrate how, within a particular bioecological context, optimal child outcomes can be achieved with fathers as primary caregivers and limited involvement by mothers. Human examples of this proposition include single fathers . . . and families headed by gay fathers" (p. 400). I am not sure that animal models are good models for humans. To their credit, however, Silverstein and Auerbach offer the following statements: "We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific literature supports our political agenda. Our goal is to generate public policy initiatives that support men in their fathering role, without discriminating against women and same-sex couples. We are also interested in encouraging public policy that supports the legitimacy of diverse family structures, rather than policy that privileges the two-parent, heterosexual, married family" (p. 399). Further, the authors state, "We realize that some of the research we cite to support our perspective will turn out to be incorrect" (p. 399). It is noteworthy that the authors did not consider the best interest of children to be one of their goals. In fact, a careful reading of the article is reminiscent of activism, but not of science. That such a commentary would appear as the lead article in the premier journal of the American Psychological Association demonstrates that activism has replaced science in this instance.

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

[Pale Rider]

And this...

B. Homosexual Couples and Child-Rearing

Homosexual adoption of children has forced the issue of homosexual couples and child-rearing to center stage. Until recently, advocacy groups have argued that an upbringing in a homosexual environment not only presents no challenges for children, but actually may be better than a dual-gendered parenting environment. Such advocacy seems illogical and at odds with the abundance of peer-reviewed research. Nonetheless, the civil rights of homosexual couples, with an activist backdrop of politically correct words like tolerance, diversity and non-discrimination, seem to dismiss what is in the best interest of the child.

A close scrutiny of many of the studies provided some interesting data, more appropriately described as problems with the research. Lerner and Nagai (2000), in their excellent review of the research concluded:

The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation. (p. 1)
The critique of the research on homosexual parenting completed by Williams (2000) arrives at essentially the same conclusion. However, Williams goes a step further in his review of the research by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983), and Golombok and Tasker (1996), which followed children of lesbian and heterosexual parents into adulthood. He noted that the follow-up study found that children of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to have both considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships. This finding did not seem particularly interesting to the researchers. Williams found that other omissions were made by researchers who conducted research in these areas as well. Huggins found a difference in the variability of self-esteem between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents. Huggins did not test for significance, hut Williams reanalyzed the data and found the differences to he significant. Williams noted that Patterson found, and left unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to find its way into her conclusions.
Perhaps the most significant study to be published within last few years came from Stacy and Biblarz (2001). Stacy, the former Streisand Chair of Gender Studies at the University of Southern California and currently at New York University, conducted a meta-analysis that contradicted nearly 20 years of studies indicating that there were no differences between children reared by heterosexual versus homosexual couples. The findings of these authors include:

Based on sex-typed cultural norms, daughters of lesbian mothers when compared with daughters of heterosexual mothers more frequently dress, play and behave in gender nonconforming ways.
Sons of lesbian mothers behave in less traditionally masculine ways in terms of aggression and play. They are more apt to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.
One of the studies indicates that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of 25) when compared with those raised heterosexual mothers (none of the 20).
Children reared by lesbian mothers are more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.
Teenage and young adult girls reared by lesbian mothers were more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls reared by heterosexual mothers. Sons were less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys reared by heterosexual mothers.
Stacy and Biblarz (2001) reported,
the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste... in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them." (p. 171)
The research can be summarized as follows: lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. The bigger question is how healthy is the rejection of gender roles? Gender non-conformity is probably the only factor in the literature that predicts future homosexuality. Indeed, there are few facts on which both Rekers and Hamer agree and the relationship of gender nonconformity to homosexuality is one of them. Rekers (1995) states., "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality" (p. 300). Hamer (1993) concluded:
Most gay men were sissies as children. Despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented and significant finding in the entire field of sexual-orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology. (p. 166)
Stacy and Biblarz (2001) offered an interesting observation.
Planned [les-bi-gay] parenthood offers a veritable 'social laboratory' of family diversity in which scholars could fruitfully examine, not only the acquisition of sexual and gender identity, hut the relative effects on children of the gender and number of their parents, as well as the implications of diverse biosocial routes to parenthood. (p. 179)
What is the ethicality of such radical experimentation?

C. Homosexual Couples and Adoption
[Note to the reader: the author was employed by an agency which has a very comprehensive adoption program.] The "best interest of the child" test is often the most important guideline in the agency, and adoptive parents had to demonstrate that they were physically healthy, emotionally stable and had sufficient longevity to rear a child to adulthood. The question was, "[i]s this family the best fit for the child?" with the understanding that some parents are not able or prepared to rear the children whom they conceive or that some children, because of abuse or neglect, may need a home. Such children have a right to the best possible parenting arrangement that society can provide. The best possible placement for a child, regardless of the child's needs, is with parents whose health and lifestyles provide optimal development for that child on his or her journey to adulthood.

Historical and current research provides significant concerns about the mental health, physical health and longevity of homosexual individuals, as well as stability of homosexual relationships. The data cannot be applied to all homosexual individuals, but the findings are so significant that they cannot be ignored when considering the placement of children.

D. Mental Health, Physical Health, Stability of Homosexual Men and Women and Longevity of Homosexual Relationships

The mental health data is alarming. Herrel, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) concluded, "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures . . . the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity" (p. 867). Fergusson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999) concluded,

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)
These researchers further noted that "findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian and bisexual young people are at an increased risk for mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder" (p. 876). Commentaries on this research were offered by some of the most prominent investigators in the field. Bailey (1999) noted,
[T]hese studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicide, major depression and anxiety disorder. Preliminary results from a large [,] equally well-conducted Dutch study generally corroborate these findings. (p. 883)
Bailey (1999) offered the following possible explanations:
"increased depression and suicidality among homosexual people are caused by societal oppression" (p. 884).
"Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness" (p. 884). Since evolution naturally selects for heterosexuality, Bailey indicates that homosexuality may represent a 'developmental error' (p. 884). Noting that some research links homosexuality to 'developmental instability.' (p. 884).
"Increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle
differences associated with sexual orientation ... such as behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity" (p. 884).
Bailey concluded, "it would be a shame if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis" (p. 884).
A commentary by Remafedi (1999) noted "[T]here can be little doubt about the conclusion that homosexual orientation is associated with [suicide], at least among young men" (p. 886).

Friedman (1999), in another commentary, noted, "[T]here is clearly a need for additional investigation of associations between sexual orientation, suicidality and psychopathology. Collaborative research between developmentally oriented clinicians, descriptive psychiatrists and epidemiologists might help distinguish between causes and consequences of these associations" (p. 888).

These findings were corroborated by another study conducted by Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl, and Schnabel (2001). The researchers concluded that

homosexual men had a much larger chance of having 12-month and lifetime bipolar disorders, and a higher chance of having a lifetime major depression . . . the greatest differences were found in obsessive-compulsive disorder and agoraphobia. The 12-month prevalences of agoraphobia, simple phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. (p. 87)

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

[Pale Rider]

continued...

Homosexual women reported a substantially higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime than did heterosexual women, and "[o]n a life time basis, homosexual women had a significantly higher prevalence of general mood disorders" (p. 87). This study was significant from several perspectives. First, it was a large study of 7,000 individuals which avoided convenience samples and the potential for bias that such samples often introduce. Of the individuals surveyed, 2.8 percent of the men and 1.4 percent of the women were classified as homosexuals. The authors noted, for example, that the lifetime prevalence for two or more psychiatric disorders for men who engaged in homosexual behaviors was 37.85 percent versus 14.4 percent for men who did not engage in homosexual behaviors. For women engaging in homosexual behaviors, the rate for two or more psychiatric disorders was 39.5 percent versus 21.3 percent for women not engaging in homosexual behaviors (Sandfort, et al., 2001). Society's oppression of homosexual people is a hypothesis unlikely to find support in this study, concluded the Netherlands, which is perhaps one of the most gay-affirming and tolerant countries in the world.
High suicide rates among homosexual individuals have been further substantiated in the research literature. In a study reported in The Washington Advocate (2002), Lisa Lindley recruited 927 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students for her study. She found that 62.1 percent of lesbians had considered suicide compared to 58.2 percent of gay men. Among lesbians, 29.2 percent had actually attempted suicide and 28.8 percent of gay men had attempted suicide.

Studies on sexual molestation and its relationship to homosexuality have mental health consequences. Shrier and Johnson (1988) found that homosexually assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times more often as the nonassaulted control group. In half of the molestations, physical force was used. The mean age at which the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range from 15 to 24. The mean age at the time of the molestation was from four to six with mean age of 10. Of the extension group, "one half of the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences" (p. 1192).

Additional data on molestation was found in a recent study by Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, and Kotler (2001). The researchers used a non-clinical sample of 942 adults to compare rates of childhood molestation between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. The researchers found that 46% of the gay men and 22% of the lesbians reported homosexual molestation in childhood. In the compared heterosexual group, the homosexual child molestation rates were 7% of the heterosexual men as compared to 1% of the heterosexual women. The researchers noted that this was the first study to report substantial homosexual molestation of girls. The girls had a mean age of 13 at the time of the same sex abuse and the group of abused boys had a mean age of 11. This study was particularly important because the population was not dissatisfied homosexual men and women. Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed were participating in a gay pride celebration at the time they were interviewed. What was particularly intriguing about this study was that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not identify as homosexual until after the molestation.

Violence in gay and lesbian relationships has been another area of considerable investigation. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder (1997) explored the gender differences in victimization and perpetration experiences of gays and lesbians in intimate relationships. The results from a sample of 283 gays and lesbians revealed that 47.5% of lesbians and 29.7% of gays had been victimized by a homosexual partner. Lesbians reported an overall perpetration rate of 38% compared to 21.8% for gay men.

High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse. Lie and Gentlewarrior (1991) found that more than half of the lesbians had been abused by a partner. Island and Letellier (1991) noted that the incidence of domestic violence among gay men was almost double that of the heterosexual population. In a national survey of lesbians published by Bradford, Ryan, and Rothhlum (1994) found that 75 percent of almost 2,000 respondents had received psychological care, many for long-term depression.

Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressing high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. 37 percent) had been physically abused and 32 [percent] had been raped or sexually attacked. 19 [percent] had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 [percent] drank alcohol more than once a week--6 [percent] drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty one percent had actually tried to kill themselves, more than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed. (p. 228)

A most alarming report recently appeared in a popular magazine about a group of gay men identified as bug chasers, or those who consciously seek the AIDS virus (Freeman. 2003). Freeman reported an interview with Dr. Robert Cabaj, the Director of Behavioral Health Services for San Francisco County, who suggested that bug chasers are alarmingly common. Cahaj estimates that at least one-fourth of newly infected gay men may have sought out the fatal disease. The article centered around Carlos who estimated that he has already had several hundred sex partners and that he eagerly awaits for the day when he tests HIV positive and will turn toward infecting another person. The process is referred to as "gift-giving." Carlos noted that "as sick as it sounds, killing another man slowly ... is exciting" (p. 48).

Mortality rates among those who engage in homosexual practices have attracted the attention of public health researchers. Using a population drawn from a major urban area of Canada, researchers focused on the mortality rates of men engaged in homosexual relationships. Hogg and Strathdee researchers concluded:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. (p. 657)
A recent issue of The American Journal of Public Health (June 2003, Vol. 93, No. 6) focused on the risks associated with homosexual practices. The magazine's cover contained numerous public health posters, including the caption; "I gave my lover everything including HIV. I didn't mean to. We made a mistake. Maybe deep down we felt it would be better if we both had it. Now I know that's bullshit. HIV is not a gift." [emphasis in original] The journal contents read like a litany of bad news, one article following another. Consider the following: Mary F. Northbridge, (2003) writes,
Having struggled to come to terms with the catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM [MSM is the new politically correct term for homosexual men i.e., Men who have Sex with Men] in the 1980's by addressing the pointed issues of sexuality and heterosexism, are we set to backslide a mere 20 years later as HIV incidence rates move steadily upward, especially among MSM? (p. 860)
In the same issue, Gross's editorial (2003) focused on the resurgence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States. The highest rates of HIV transmission are among African-American and Hispanic men who self-identify as gay. Gross noted, "To prevent HIV transmission, we have little more today than we had [two] decades ago, when it became clear that the virus causing AIDS is sexually transmitted: behavioral interventions" (p. 861).
Malebranche (2003) addressed risk assessment and risk reduction. Malebranche referenced a recent six-site. U.S. metropolitan area study that concluded 93% of African-American men who were HIV infected felt that they were at low risk for HIV and did not know they had contracted the virus. Malebranche's study contradicts the view that coming out of the closet, or disclosing one's homosexuality, is associated with improved mental health, responsible behavior and lower rates of HIV infection. To the contrary, African-American men who disclose their homosexuality had a higher rate of HIV prevalence than those who do not choose to do so (24% versus 14%). They also engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41% versus 32%) than those who do not disclose.

A second article by Gross (2003) contained the ominous warning: "The Second Wave Will Drown Us." Gross cited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistic of a 14% increase of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States between 1999 and 2001. He noted unprecedented outbreaks of syphilis and alarming rates of rectal gonorrhea. He also noted an emerging visible subculture of "barebacking" (men who have anal sex without condoms). Gross concluded that "behavioral interventions to promote condom use--the only strategy currently available to stem the MSM epidemic--are failing" (p. 874).

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

[Pale Rider]

continued...

Gross offered an interesting comparison:

On the same day that seven astronauts and fragments of the vehicle that failed them plummeted to the fields and woods of East Texas, six times that many U.S. MSM became infected. Maybe the number was higher, since it occurred on a weekend; perhaps lower if the news of the catastrophe interrupted libidinous pursuits . . . on the basis of CDC estimates of the lifetime expenditures for treating a single case of HIV infection, MSM infections acquired that single day will cost $6.5 million. The cost in human potential need not enter the calculus even for a voodoo economist, unless so muddled by moral outrage that he thinks sex between men is indeed something to die for. (p. 879)
Ciccarone (2003) authors noted that "risky sex without disclosure of serostatus is not uncommon among people with HIV" (p. 949). From their study, they conclude:
The results of this study indicate that sex without disclosure of HTV status is relatively common among persons living with HIV. The rates of sex without disclosure found in our sample of HIV-positive individuals translate into 45,300 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men and 7,500 women -- all HIV infected -- engaging in sex without disclosure in our reference population of individuals who were in care for HIV. . . these numbers, suggest the authors. "should be considered a lower-bound estimate." (p. 952)
Perhaps the most alarming study was that reported by Koblin, et al. (2003). The authors described the prevalence of risk behaviors among MSM who participated in a randomized behavioral intervention study conducted in six U.S. cities: Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. The data involved homosexual men who were HIV-negative and who reported engaging in anal sex with one or more partners during the previous year. The results were staggering:
among 4295 men, 48.0 percent and 54.9 percent respectively, reported unprotected[,] receptive and insertive anal sex in the previous [six] months. Unprotected sex was significantly more likely with [one] primary partner or multiple partners than with [one] non-primary partner. Drug and alcohol use were significantly associated with unprotected anal sex. (p. 926)
While it is not intended to detail the medical consequences of homosexual practices, the following diseases have extraordinary frequency among gay men: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isopora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C and syphilis. The transmission of some of these diseases are so rare among heterosexuals as to be virtually unknown. Other diseases, such as syphilis, were found among heterosexuals, but not nearly as prevalent as in the gay population (Diggs. 2003). The CDC (1999) reported that 85% of syphilis cases in King County. Washington were among gay men. Presently, syphilis has reached epidemic in San Francisco (Heredia, 2001). Besides diseases, physical conditions associated with anal intercourse include hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma and retained foreign bodies (Barone, 1983). The list continues with the "gay bowel syndrome" and extremely high rates of parasitic infections (Hastings & Weher. 1994; Kazal. 1976).
Although the study of medical conditions associated with female homosexuality is relatively new, bacterial vaginosis. Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, alcohol abuse and intravenous drug use was significantly higher among lesbians than among heterosexual women (Fethers, 2002). In one study of lesbian women 30% had bacterial vaginosis, which is associated with high risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections (Berger & Kolton. 1995).

Lesbians are three times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than heterosexual women (Burnett, Stakley, Slack, Roth, & Lerman, 1999; The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999). These conclusions also found support in another study conducted by Suzanne Haynes of the National Cancer Institute, who estimated that lesbians have a three times higher risk than the average female population (Campbell, 1994).

Promiscuity is not a myth among gay men. Gay author Gabriel Rotello noted that "Gay liberation was founded ... on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions" (p. 112). Rotello's perception finds support in the literature. Bell and Weinberg (1978) found that 75% of white, gay men had sex with more than 100 different males during their lifetime, 15% claimed to have had sex with 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed sex with 250-499 partners; 15% claimed 500-999 partners and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Subsequent to AIDS, instead of averaging six different partners per month, there was a decrease to four partners per month (McKusick, 1984). More recently. the CDC reports that from 1994 to 1997, the percentage of gay men reporting multiple partners and unprotected sex increased from 23.6% to 33.3%, with the largest increase among men under 25 (1999). In another CDC report. 30 percent of all gay black men are HIV positive. Forty-six percent of the study participants had unprotected anal sex during the previous months, and less than 30 percent realized that they were infected (Sternberg, 2001).

While promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, recent Australian research reports that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (Price, 1996). It is interesting that 93% of lesbians reported a history of sex with men. Other research has been supportive (Ferris, 1996; Skinner & Stokes, 1996).

Monogamy is usually defined as sexual fidelity. Perhaps the most extensive study on sexual fidelity was conducted by Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994), who found that the vast majority of heterosexual couples were monogamous while the marriage was intact. Ninety-four percent of married couples and 75% of cohabiting couples had only one partner in the previous 12 months. In contrast sexual fidelity is so rare among gay men that a new term has been offered: "Monogamy without fidelity." Gay men who were coupled reported that they had sex with some one other than their partner in 66% of their relationships during the first year, rising to 90% if the relationship lasts for five years. In one study, 15% of gay men and 17.3% of lesbians had relationships that lasted for more than three years.

Another extensive study on homosexuality and monogamy was conducted by McWhirter and Mattison (1984), focusing on evaluating the quality and stability of long-term homosexual couplings. The study was actually undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves are a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist and the other a psychologist. After much searching, they were able to locate 156 couples who had been in relationships that had lasted from one to thirty-seven years. Two-thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity. The results demonstrated that of the 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple capable of maintaining sexual fidelity for more than five years.

The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couple. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last "until death do us part," whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships would survive (p. 3).

McWhirter and Mattison (1984) admitted that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem and dependency. However, they believed that

the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10 year mark, is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together. (p. 256)
A more recent study published in the journal AIDS (2003) found that gay relationships last 1 1/2 years on the average and had an average of eight partners per year outside those relationships.

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

[Pale Rider]

Conclusion...

Conclusion....

The research is clear: mothers and fathers are essential for optimal child-rearing. Gender complementarity affords children the opportunity to thrive in the best possible environment. Other family forms are not equally as helpful or healthful for children. Substantial research demonstrates the negative effects of father hunger. One can only surmise the consequences of mother hunger.

Adoption is not a right. Rather the best interest of the child should always prevail. Although most children do well when raised by the couples who conceive them, some children are voluntarily released for adoption because parents are not able to adequately care for them. Others become available for adoption because of abuse or neglect. These children have a right to the best possible parenting arrangement that society can provide. The best interest of a child is in a family setting with parents whose health and lifestyle are likely to ensure appropriate care and guidance until the child reaches adulthood. Taking into consideration appropriate family preparation, the social science data suggests that a married mother and father have beneficial outcomes for adoptive children. Other family constellations are less optimal and place children at risk.

The emerging data on the placement of children with homosexual couples provides significant warning signs, suggesting that there are differences between children reared by homosexual and heterosexual couples. Stacy and Biblarz' s meta-analysis (2001) contradicted prior studies on homosexual parenting, and concluded that lesbian mothers have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. How healthy is the rejection of gender roles? What is more alarming is that both historical and current research provides significant concerns about the medical and mental health consequences of homosexual practices, as well as the stability of homosexual relationships. Medical health, mental health, longevity and relationship stability are essential issues to be addressed when considering the placement of children. Those who engage in homosexual practices present serious concerns in all of the above areas. Hayton (1993) expressed concern about children who are reared without the benefit of dual-gender parenting. What do children learn from homosexual relationships? Hayton writes,

Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. [Children) taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm and should he discouraged if one wants a good marital relationship. (p. 9)
The contribution of gender complementarity to child rearing is deeply rooted in the innate differences between men and women. The Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin (1956) concluded that no society has ceased to honor the institution of marriage and survived. Traditional marriage and parenting contributes to the fulfillment of life's meaning to both individuals and society.
Enjoying the marital union in its infinite richness, parents freely fulfill many other paramount tasks. They maintain the procreation of the human race. Through their progeny, they determine the hereditary and acquired characteristics of future generations. Through marriage they achieve a social immortality of their own, of their ancestors, and of their particular groups and community. This immortality is secured through the transmission of their name and values and of their traditions and ways of life to their children, grandchildren, and later generations. (p. 6)
Regarding gender complementarity and child-rearing, tradition and science agree: mothers and fathers provide optimal development for children. Children's needs must be placed first. The placement of children in settings where there is not a mother and a father begins a slippery slope, one filled with risks that neither the children, nor society can afford to take.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dr. Byrd is President of the Thrasher Research Fund and Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine with appointments in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and in the Department of Psychiatry. In addition, Dr. Byrd has an adjunct appointment in the Department of Family Studies. Reprinted by permission of S. J. Quinney College of Law, University Of Utah, Journal of Law & Family Studies.
REFERENCES

American Journal of Public Health (2003) Cover, 93, 6.

Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 883-884.

Barone, J. E., Yee, J. & Nealon, T.F. Jr. (1983). Management of foreign bodies and trauma of the rectum. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4), 453-457.

Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more effective persons and parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Adolescence, 11 (11), 59-95.

Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Berger, B., Kolton, S., Zenilman. J. M., Cummings, M. C., Feldman, J., & McCormack. W. M. (1995). Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21, 1402-1405.

Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Blankenhorn. D. (1995). Fatherless America: confronting our most urgent social problem. New York: Basic.

Bradford, J., Ryan, C., & Rothblum, R. C. (Eds.), (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for mental health care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 228-242.

Broughton, A. E. (2002). U. study says dads are important, too. Salt Lake Tribune, April 5.

Burnett. C. B., Stakley, C. S., Slack, R., Roth, J., & Lerman, C. (1999). Patterns of breast cancer screening among lesbians at increased risk for breast cancer. Women and Health, 29(4), 35-55.

Campbell, K. (1994). Specialist weighing mammogram advice. The Washington Blade, 19 December 2.

Center for Disease Control (1999). Increases in unsafe sex and rectal gonorrhea among men who have sex with men--San Francisco, California, 1994-1997. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. 48(3), 45-48. January 29.

Center for Disease Control (1999). Resurgent bacterial sexually transmitted disease among men who have sex with men--King County, Washington, 1997-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(35), 773-777. September 10.

Ciccarone, D. H. Kanouse, D. E., Collins, R. L., Miu, A. Chen, J. L. Morton. S. C. et al. (2003). Sex without disclosure of positive HIV status in a U.S. probability sample of persons receiving medical care for HIV infections. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 949-954.

Clark-Stewart, K. A. (1980). The father's contribution to children's cognitive and social development in early childhood. In F. A. Pedersen, ed., The father-infant relationship: observational studies in the familv setting. New York: Praeger.

Cromwell, N. A. & Leper, E. M. (Eds.). (1994). American fathers and public policy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Diener, M. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., McHale, J. L. & Frosch. C. A. (2002). Infancy, 3(2), 153-174.

Diggs, J. R. (2002). The health risks of gay sex. Corporate Resource Council.

Ferguson, D. M, Horwood, L. J, & Beautrais, AL. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 876-880.

Ferris. D. (1996). A neglected lesbian health concern: cervical neoplasia. The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6), 58 1-584.

Fethers, K. & Caron, M. (2000). Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviors in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5), 345-349.

Freeman, 0. A. (2003). In search of death. Rolling Stone magazine. 45-48.

Friedman. R. C. (1999). Homosexuality, psychopathology, and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 887-888.

Gilligan, C. (1994). In a different voice. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University Press.

Golombok, S., Spencer, A. & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572. Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183.

Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families? Developmental Psychology, 32, 3-11.

Greenberger, E. (1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. In P. Karoly & J. J. Steffans, (Eds.), Adolescent behavior disorders: foundations and temporary concerns. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Gross, M. (2003). When plagues don't end. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6). 86 1-862.

Gross, M. (2003). The second wave will drown us. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 872-881.

Hamer, D. & Copeland, P. (1994). The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hastings, 0. E. & Weber, R. W. (1994). Use of the term 'gay bowel syndrome, Reply to a letter to the editor. American Family Physician, 49(3), 582.

Hayton, B. (1993). To marry or not: The legalization of marriage and adoption of homosexual couples. Newport Beach, CA. The Pacific Policy Institute.

Healthwatch. Study: Lesbian, bisexual women take more health risks than gay men. Advocate. December 27, 2002.

Heredia, C. (2001). Big spike in cases of syphilis in SF: gay, bisexual men affected the most. San Francisco Chronicle, October 26.

Herrell, R. Goldberg, J., True, W. R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M., Eisen, S. et al. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 867-875.

Hogg, R S. & Strathdee, S. A. (1997). Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3), 657-66 1.

Huggins, S.L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 123-135.

Island, D. & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. New York: Haworth Press.

Kazal, H. (1976). The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases. Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2), 184-192.

Koblin, B. A., Chesney, M. A., Husnik, M. J., Bozeman, S., Celum, C. I., Buchbinder, S. et al. (2003), High-risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities: Baseline data from the EXPLORE Study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 926-932.

Lerner, R. & Nagai, A.K. (2000). Out of nothing comes nothing: Homosexual and heterosexual marriage not shown to be equivalent for raising children," paper presented at the Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the 21st Century conference, Brigham Young University, March, Provo, UT.

Lie, G. Y. & Gentlewarrior, 5. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships; discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 4 1-59.

Lockhart, L.L., (1994). Letting out the secret: violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 469-492.

Lundy, M. S. & Rekers, G. A. (1995). Homosexuality: development, risks, parental values, and controversies. In G. A. Rekers, ed., Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems. New York: Lexington Books.

Malebranche, D. J. (2003). Black men who have sex with men and the HIV epidemic: Next Steps for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 862-864.

Medical Institute for Sexual Health (1999). Health implications associated with homosexuality, 63.

Messer, A. (1989). Boys' father hunger: The missing father syndrome. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 23(1), 44-50.

McKusick, L (1985). Reported changes in the sexual behavior of men at risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84--the AIDS behavioral research project. Public Health Reports, 100, 6, 622-629.

McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McWhirter, D. P. & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male couple: How relationships develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Michael, R., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. 0, & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Northbridge, M. E. (2003). HIV returns, American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 860.

Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parent's division of labor and children's adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 115-123.

Parke, J. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Mark Kessler Books, The Free Press.

Price, J., et al (1996). Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by women's sexual orientation. Journal of Community Health, 2(2), 89-105.

Pruett, K. D. (1993). The paternal presence. Families and Society, 74, 46-54.

Pruett, K. D. (1987). The Nurturing Father. New York: Warner Books.

Rekers, G. A. (1995). Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems. New York: Lexington.

Remafedi, G. (1999). Suicide and sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 885-886.

Rossi, A. 5. (1987). Parenthood in transition: From lineage to child to self-orientation. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Ahman, AS. Rossi, and L.R. Sherrod. eds., Parenting across the life span: biosocial dimensions. New York: Aldene de Gruyter, 31-81.

Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the destiny of gay men. New York: Penguin Group.

Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., BijI, R. V. & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 85-91.

Shapiro, J. L. (1994). Letting dads be dads. Parents, June, 165, 168.

Shrier, D. & Johnson, R. L. (1988). Sexual victimization of boys: An ongoing study of an adolescent medicine clinic population. Journal of the National Medical Association, 80(11), 1189-1193.

Silverstein, L. B. & Auerbach, C. F. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father. American Psychologist, 54 (6), 397-407.

Skinner, C. et a!. (1996). A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72 (4), 277-280.

Sorokin, P. (1956). The American Sex Revolution. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers.

Stacy, J. & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Psychological Review, 66(2), 159-183.

Sternberg, S. (2003, February 6). 1 in 3 young gay black men are HIV positive. USA Today.

Tomeo, M. E. et al. (2001). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 535-541.

Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L. V. & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 173-185.

Williams, R. N. (2000). A critique of the research on same-sex parenting. In D.C. Dollahite, ed., Strengthening Our Families, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 352-355.

Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17(7), 1029-1038.

Yogman, M. W. (1982). Development of the father-infant relationship. In H. E. Fitzgerald, B. M. Lester and M. W. Yogman, eds. Theory and research in behavioral pediatrics. New York: Plenum Press.

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

[Pale Rider]

Now what was that you were saying no proof that children adopted by homos is bad? Yeah... that's what I thought. You didn't think anybody would take the time to dig up the proof did you? Well, you thought wrong. Yes the proof is buried pretty deep, that's because search engines like google and yahoo are liberal bastions of propaganda. They make sure pages that differ from their liberal agenda are few and far between and buried pretty deep.

[bullypulpit]

None of the examples you cite are the result of independent, peer-reviewed studies. They are meta-analyses of other studies, cherry-picked to fit the desired conclusion. Given that the articles you sourced are from organizations with overtly anti-homosexual agendas their reliability is, at best, questionable.

Provide links to independent, peer reviewed journals to support your assertions.

Oh, and there's this...

<blockquote><b>Copyright Infringement</b> - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources,<b><i>please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but <font color=red>copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement</font></i></b>, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.</blockquote>

You're putting the board in jeopardy by your continued posting of copy-righted material in its entirety.

[bullypulpit]

The silence from the section 8 right is deafening.

[avatar4321]

The silence from the section 8 right is deafening.

you havent really stated anything to respond to.

[JackDaniels]

you havent really stated anything to respond to.

Nothing that your level of intelligence would allow you to respond to.

[PostmodernProphet]

The same argument were made in support of anti-miscegenation laws

you know, I have seen people make that claim a lot.....have you ever seen any evidence of it?....I find it tiresome that people try to equate the gay marriage issue to race.....being black isn't a choice....living with someone of the same sex is.......

[bullypulpit]

you know, I have seen people make that claim a lot.....have you ever seen any evidence of it?....I find it tiresome that people try to equate the gay marriage issue to race.....being black isn't a choice....living with someone of the same sex is.......

Really...? Could you provide any evidence to support that assertion? A link perhaps? Please try to refrain from eating up bandwidth as is Pale Rider's wont.

[PostmodernProphet]

Really...? Could you provide any evidence to support that assertion? A link perhaps? Please try to refrain from eating up bandwidth as is Pale Rider's wont.


lol...which one do you think requires proof?...

1) being black isn't a choice...
2) living with someone of the same sex is a choice.....

let's see....I woke up this morning and decided I would be black today.....didn't work....guess that proves the first....

hmmmm....should I have a relationship with Fred or Fredricka?......:dance:

[bullypulpit]

lol...which one do you think requires proof?...

1) being black isn't a choice...
2) living with someone of the same sex is a choice.....

let's see....I woke up this morning and decided I would be black today.....didn't work....guess that proves the first....

hmmmm....should I have a relationship with Fred or Fredricka?......:dance:

Don't be droll. Can you provide any indepedent, credible evidence that being homosexual is purely a matter of choice?

[theHawk]

I don't believe the Federal Government has any business interfering in the religious rite of marriage. If the Federal Government wants to allow "civil unions" then that is their business but marriage belongs to the church.

Immie

The whole "gay marriage" debate isn't about the religious ceremony. Gays can get married anywhere they want in a church that will do gay marriages. Nothing is preventing that now and no one is talking about taking that right away. What gays want is for everyone else to recognize and condone their "marriage." Sorry, but that steps onto MY rights as to what I call a "marriage". Two fags slipping rings onto each others fingers is not what I define as a marriage. If they considered as so, thats great, but don't tell ME that I have to recognize that. Through government, they want to force everyone else to recognize their "marriage". If government recognizes it as a legitimate marriage, it will open the door for gays being able to join the military openly, teaching children in schools that homosexuality is OK and even encouraged, and worst of all open the doors for gays to adopt children. The latter of which is their ulitmate goal, since there is no better way for gays to 'recruit' young ones into their preverted ranks.

[theHawk]

Don't be droll. Can you provide any indepedent, credible evidence that being homosexual is purely a matter of choice?

Is somebody forcing fags by gunpiont to stick a penis in their mouth? No, they choose to commit a homosexual act. So unles they are being raped, they are doing it by choice.

[Immanuel]

The whole "gay marriage" debate isn't about the religious ceremony. Gays can get married anywhere they want in a church that will do gay marriages. Nothing is preventing that now and no one is talking about taking that right away. What gays want is for everyone else to recognize and condone their "marriage." Sorry, but that steps onto MY rights as to what I call a "marriage". Two fags slipping rings onto each others fingers is not what I define as a marriage. If they considered as so, thats great, but don't tell ME that I have to recognize that. Through government, they want to force everyone else to recognize their "marriage". If government recognizes it as a legitimate marriage, it will open the door for gays being able to join the military openly, teaching children in schools that homosexuality is OK and even encouraged, and worst of all open the doors for gays to adopt children. The latter of which is their ulitmate goal, since there is no better way for gays to 'recruit' young ones into their preverted ranks.

Well, the point of the thread was do you want a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I don't want one. I don't care. I simply do not want the government regulating my faith in any manner. The Federal government should keep it's nose out of marriage, period.

I'm not afraid of homosexuals "recruiting" my children since they're darn near grown anyway. I don't want that lifestyle for either one of my children, but I can tell you this... if one of them came to me and told me, "dad, I'm gay", nothing would change for me.

Although, I will say, I often feared what my dad would say if I had told him that having grown up seeing his "intense dislike" for "queers".

Immie

[Trigg]

Marriage is between a man and a woman, period.

Do I want a constitutional ammendment to ban it? NO

If gays want a civil partnership so to protect their assets than fine, but don't call it marriage.

[bullypulpit]

Is somebody forcing fags by gunpiont to stick a penis in their mouth? No, they choose to commit a homosexual act. So unles they are being raped, they are doing it by choice.

I notice you didn't include lesbians...Or does the thought of woman on woman sex just send you to the bathroom to commit the sin of Onan?

[PostmodernProphet]

Can you provide any indepedent, credible evidence that being homosexual is purely a matter of choice?


only if you provide credible evidence that I made any such claim.....read my posts next time before you reply.....

[Pale Rider]

Really...? Could you provide any evidence to support that assertion? A link perhaps? Please try to refrain from eating up bandwidth as is Pale Rider's wont.

You've ALREADY been "provided" more links and proof than a DOZEN people would need, and here you are, still asking for more.

People get tired of this pathetic shtick of yours pulit. You need to either get with it and sound like you may know what you're talking about, or take a breather. You've lost all credibility with people here.