36 Comments »

1. How could homosexuality be due to a hormonal imbalance? If that were the case, then all gay guys would have breasts and all lesbians would have chest hair.

   Very ignorant, but also laughable……

   Comment by James — May 12, 2009 @ 11:31 am

2. Greetings to all. I can understand the sarcasm and the frustration you feel regarding those that are opposed to gay marriage. The conservatives that make statements that do not have evidence give fuel to you — fuel that exacerbate the very complex battle you have as a gay person to legitimize homosexuality. I am not gay. I have no idea if same sex attraction is simply a desire you have in your heart or a genetic mutation that you have no control over. I do know that biologically, the human body and reproduction does not support your desire and I’m sorry about that. (Men also practice sexual behavior with women that is not really supported biologically)…
   But regardless of the issues, I will say this — your sarcasm and frustration with the Dobson’ of the world will not help people like me decide to be more supportive of things such as same-sex marriage or the homosexual community. The anti-gay community’ judgmental behavior against homosexuals is also not justified and they do not help you accept your life as a gay person in the larger context of heterosexuality.
   The problem: your arguments implied above are not sound. For example, Miss Prejean was NOT judgmental. She is no more hypocritical than you or I — we are all human and we all do things we regret… or at least should regret. But her public statement was not judgmental — she simply stated what she believes. Belief about homosexuality is different than belief about lying, stealing or murder and the truth is — we don’t know WHAT cases any sexual attraction. As a man, why am I attracted to women? I don’t know — I do know that I chose to get married and I choose every day NOT to act on my attraction to other women. (I’m not dead and I am indeed attracted to other women).
   So, your sarcasm does not help to win me over. Please try another approach. Listen, I also know that I cannot prove the existence of God but those that believe in God are not evil. I do happen to believe in God myself, and I hope that I am not a fool for doing so. Believing that gay marriage is wrong is not evil — it’ simply a different belief. Argue based on belief — prove your point, but don’t use sarcasm; it’ a weak and ineffective form of argument.
   Thus, for now, I am still in the camp of evolution or biology alone making an argument against same sex marriage. Two eggs cannot create a human being and neither can two sperm. Sexual Intercourse — mating — requires a man and a woman. Everything else is extra. Why is it all pleasurable? Either evolution did it to perpetuate the species or God did it for His own reasons but biologically and reproductively speaking — homosexuality doesn’t work. Now, there are terrible physical birth defects in a very few human beings that cause them to have physical gender issues that the medical world with parents must deal with. In addition, some people have reproductive problems and the mechanisms just don’t work and they are infertile. That’ life — things don’t always work, but outside of those very few issues, same sex attraction is a mystery to me. Even so, your sarcasm — along with a push to normalize and legitimize homosexuality without solid answers that I can understand — does not help me fully embrace it as something I want my children to embrace.
   I hope this helps you.
   Peace,
   Agathos Zoe

   Comment by Agathos Zoe — June 2, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

3. Agathos Zoe,

   So strange how you judge “soundness” in people’s comments, when you make one that is not sound.

   You say that homosexuals cannot procreate. Niether can priests. Niether can people procreate by use of a condom. But condoms are acceptable in society, and also being a priest is acceptable by society. Homosexuality, is not.

   So why do you think that is? Why do people pose the non-procreation argument against homosexuality but at the same time, do not speak out against condoms or priests.

   You say you’re not judgemental. But you do say that “homosexuality does not work” referring to perpetuating the species. Well condoms AND priests do not work to perpetuate the species either.

   Please speak the same way about heterosexuals who use condoms and priests and I might buy your “non-judgemental” attitude you say you have.

   Comment by James — June 3, 2009 @ 12:07 am

4. Agathos Zoe,

   Sarcasm is a last resort when the person, or people, you are addressing have no logical response to your words, actions or someone else’s opinion or actions. Name calling is another emotional defense when someone has nothing to stand on. Since they cannot attack a truth, they attack the truth teller.

   So I am sorry to say that I believe that, despite your open-hearted, open-minded plea for a limiting of sarcasm, when someone does not have truth to back up their opinion, they will only speak louder and more vehementally to distract everyone from the fact that their viewpoint is based on fictions.

   But please do not give up on trying to reach people. You may not change their mind, but at least you got them to use their brain instead of only their passion.

   Comment by JeremiahA — June 24, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

5. So if we tried to take rights away from Christians do you think Agathos would try to defend that BIGOTRY as ‘our beliefs’? I deont, I think he’s be shreaking in fury at someone who told him he should be a second class citizen because its their ‘belief’.

   Comment by penguinsaur — June 24, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

6. I don’t know. Agathos Zoe does not seem to be the type of person to take away anyone’s “rights.” But I’m not sure what you mean by “rights,” Penguinsaur. Do you mean “rights” or “desires”? For example, I have the right to bear arms but I cannot go waving a gun around on a public street even if that was my desire. We have rights and desires, but we do not always get what we want, especially if it is detrimental to others or ourselves.

   Or did you mean “rights” as in inheritance rights or as in redefining marriage rights or something else? Like with marriage, I do not think that it is intolerant or bigoted if someone thinks that changing marriage to mean any coupling of anyone of any sex as not being good for society. Tolerance, from my understanding, means the ability to disagree civilly.

   And I myself would probably scream bloody murder is the government came to take away my inalienable, God given rights. This would be reasonable of anyone, I think.

   Comment by JeremiahA — June 25, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

7. No one has the “right” to be a beauty pageant winner.

   No one has the “right” to abuse the rules of said pageant.

   Religion is not a license to violate every rule, jump to the front of every line, win every contest, smear everyone around oneself, and strip off one’s clothes for the camera.

   Comment by Michael Airhart — June 25, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

8. Agathos Zoe said – “As a man, why am I attracted to women? I don’t know — I do know that I chose to get married and I choose every day NOT to act on my attraction to other women. (I’m not dead and I am indeed attracted to other women).”

   They always cry that everyday they have to fight against adultery and choose not to. *rolls eyes* Yet, they demand that we MUST NEVER act on our feelings for loving and caring for someone of the same sex even though that is who we are attracted to. Lifetime forced celibacy. No love. No joy. No sharing of one’s life with another. I find this mentality sick and warped. And if I have offended Christians that believe in this mentality so be it. The GLBT community shouldn’t have to bow to their will or beg on our knees for basic civil rights that others (heterosexuals) enjoy. Its no wonder many in the GLBT community have left Christianity altogether.

   If God would grant me one wish I would wish for all those Christians that rally daily against the GLBT community to be gay for at least one year. Have all the feelings and desires that we have day in and day out. Experience the prejudices and the hateful scorn by the so-called Christians. I would give up all my possessions for that wish. Their tune would change rather quickly. And they would see first hand what exactly we go though on a daily basis.

   Comment by Ken R — June 25, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

9. After the antics of Miss California USA executive director, Keith Lewis, I do not see why any decent woman would want to be a part of that organization. He did not tell her she was fired. Ms. Prejean had to find out from a member of the media. And then after all of his interviews about her not doing her job, it turns out that she absolutely refused only one event. He wanted her to go IN DISGUISE to the opening of a gay documentary and then have her appear in a surprise press conference the next day. Seems a bit suspect that he required that she be disguised.

   And then you have Perez Hilton’s pageant question which started this whole shebang. I might add a pretty disingenuous question since it ended with “…Why or why not?” and he has made it clear that he did not want to hear a “why not” answer.

   I really wish there were more open hearts and minds. I mean anything that would help people understand the struggles of homosexuality would help facilitate empathy and sympathy. We all have our personal struggles and sometimes forget that there is help out there. If you are struggling with homosexuality, there are many options available. All you have to do is reach one of the many outstretched hands.

   Comment by JeremiahA — June 26, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

10. JeremiahA please. Spare us the “there is help for struggling homosexuals out there – outstretched hands”. There is none. These organizations do nothing more than instill guilt and shame in someone because they are gay, lesbian, bi, trans. Nothing more. I have read it all over the net in the last 3 years since I began reading about ex-gays etc…It’s all the same garbage. Former ex-gays have confirmed what I have been reading (it doesn’t work) and former ex-gay leaders say it doesn’t work.

    Thankfully I have come to a place that believes the Bible IS NOT the be all and end all of God. He is still speaking. Still revealing. Once someone begins to come to this belief they truly see a God that is working in the world. I praise God everyday that I am not a Fundamentalist Evangelical bible literalist Christian that demands my beliefs should be upheld for all to worship. Everything else is condemned.

    I praise what Wayne has been doing. These ex-gay groups need to be exposed for what they truly are.

    Comment by Ken R — June 26, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

11. JeremiahA claims we should all be free to disagree, civilly. Absolutely. Live and let live. He makes no rational argument why enabling gay people to marry the most special person in their lives, like heterosexual people do, removes him of any rights.

    He is absolutely welcome to believe that only marriages between a man and a woman are real relationships, just as he is welcome to pretend that we did not evolve. But he has no moral right to have that belief enshrined into law, because there is no evidence to support such a claim. He must come up with a rational reason why recognizing loving gay relationships harms him or society in any way. What does he believe the purpose of marriage to be?

    If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, then what penalties does he plan to impose on those straight couples who cannot or will not pass on their DNA? Does he propose e.g. a time limit for married couples to produce offsprimg? If not, why not?

    Also, can he explain why it is necessary for everyone to produce children – especially as there are too few resources on the planet to support the current population? Where is the evidence, that only those who reproduce make a contribution to society?

    And, if he calls for people to ‘live and let live’ – well, if he were true to his word he would be able to live with the fact that gay people also experience real love, and need a significant other in their lives just like anyone else.

    We should respect rights of people, before respecting people’s beliefs. If he has a reason to think otherwise, can he explain why his particular beliefs should uniquely be given special treatment in the eyes of the law? Marriages after all, did not spring into existence on account of some mythical event in Palestine.

    Comment by adrianT — June 26, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

12. I am not sure what “these organizations” are that you are referring to. And I am not quite sure how any organization could instill guilt and shame in someone because they are gay, lesbian, bi, trans. before the person went to the organization. I mean they are looking for help because they want help, not because of an organization they have never approached. If there are organizations that are doing harm to someone, then I agree that they should be exposed and put out of business.

    I do not think allowing gay people to marry would remove any of my rights> I have been concerned that advocates for man-woman marriage may be charged with a “hate” crime in the future.

    And I do not believe that gay couples can only have a real relationship through marriage. I mean look at all of the cohabiting heterosexual couples out there who may or may not have children. People living the gay lifestyle do not have to be married to have a deep, lasting relationship. The message of the 60′s-70′s was that marriage was just a piece of paper.

    And I believe we all evolve. Certainly sexual orientation does in a young person’s life.

    What is the purpose of marriage? For thousands of years, every secular or religious moral philosophical system, East or West, defined marriage as an institution that brings a man and woman together which coupling then gives birth and raises the future members of the society.

    Some married couples do not have children. And sometimes children eat lunch in their classroom on a rainy day but that does not change the basic function of the classroom as a place of learning.In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions don’t nullify that marriage is intrinsically about and for children.

    I am not so concerned about overpopulation since I lived through the population bomb fears of the 70′s and since the Sierra Club showed that the entire population of the world could easily fit many times over in just the United States.

    I also believe that everyone has intrinsic worth and so can be beneficial to society if that is their wish, even if they cannot produce children.

    Basically, supplanting the knowledge and wisdom of human history with compassion as the only guideline in forming society’s values and laws is not a great idea to me. Taking all of the wisdom and just chucking it out the window may be a mistake, so in place of promoting another social experiment, like we have with no-fault divorce, cohabition, narcissistic single parents (not all single parents), we should promote the ideal environment for a child.

    I do not know if I have clearly answered your questions or not. I am not very articulate, and I apologize for writing so much, for making this too long.

    Comment by JeremiahA — June 27, 2009 @ 4:04 am

13. - What exactly is a ‘gay lifestyle’, as opposed to a ‘straight lifestyle’? This term, which sounds like white noise, means nothing to me. What, in the course of a typical day or week, do people in a ‘gay lifestyle’ do, that people in a ‘straight lifestyle’ do not do?

    The comparison with children eating lunch in a classroom on a rainy day doesn’t really work, though. Because, after lunch, all the said children will be using the classroom for the purpose of learning. No-one is just in class to eat lunch. In society there are always some people who will not ever have children.

    Same sex marriages have been a feature of many civilizations of the past, too. Not least, ancient Rome. Who is harmed by this, especially if only a small proportion of people are gay? By what right do you claim that all marriages today are ‘for’ the purpose of creating offspring? That’s just your opinion, but there is no reason to believe this.

    A typical marriage vow:

    “To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.”

    I have never heard of any mention of offspring at the numerous ceremonies of friends and family I have been to over the years. To love and to cherish the one you love is the central point of life, the vert centre of the Good Life.

    Your reduction of marriage to a baby-making system sounds Orwellian, loveless, grey, cold. You’re welcome to it. But with life expectancy and population levels as they are, it would be a threat to human survival if your vision were the case.

    What are you going to do about gay couples who adopt or have children of their own? What evidence do you have that children in stable same sex families fare any worse than those of straight couples? All you are doing is pretending they do not exist.

    “Basically, supplanting the knowledge and wisdom of human history with compassion as the only guideline in forming society’ values and laws is not a great idea to me.”

    - This goes back to my point about evolution. We have evolved as a society, as well as biologically. Knowledge is cumulative. We know far more about life than our ancestors, thousands of years ago. Of course, our values and idea of morality have changed, and for the better. 600 years ago, when we assumed floods, plagues and supernovae were signs from god, we thought it acceptable to burn witches. We have better meteorology, medicine and astronomy now, and our values have changed accordingly.

    Even 200 years ago, it was acceptable to believe coloured people to be inferior; slavery was deemed to be acceptable by St Paul, Jesus of Nazareth, and even Thomas Jefferson. Darwin tells us we all originated from the Savannah, abolishing racism.

    If you are really keen about wisdom, you would be able to discriminate against axiomatic principles that are essential for man’s survival in a hyper-connected world, like ‘do as you would be done by’, ‘do not unnecessarily harm, abuse, harrass, oppress or take away the rights of others’ from ‘homosexuality is a deadly sin’, when there is no reason to believe this. Your approach seems to be ‘well, this is the way we’ve always done it’, and hold on to ancient, primitive ideas for the sake of it.

    Base your beliefs on evidence, reason, logic. Rather than tradition and authority.

    Science tells us homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Basic decency tells us not to judge others based on who they are. On the harm principle, homosexuality is not a moral question, because other people’s private, consenting affairs harm no-one else and are no concern of other people.

    With the information we have today, you have no rational basis to say gay people are any less decent, upstanding or moral than straight people.

    PS No one is taking away your right to marry, and I am very much in favour of man-woman marriage for those who want it. We just don’t want your personal unfounded prejudices about gay people and the worthiness of their relationships to be enshrined in law, unnecessarily ruining life for a great many people.

    Comment by adrianT — June 27, 2009 @ 5:33 am

14. Hey JeremiahA,

    The Child Welfare League of America says that children raised by same-sex couples are no likely to turn out any different than ones raised by heterosexual couples. The only reason you believe that children cannot be raised by same-sex couples healthily is because no one in the distant past cared to study it and same-sex parenting is a new phenomenon (legally speaking). Now it has been studied and confirmed. Your ignorance precludes you from seeing it, but it does not mean it is not there.

    Each and every respected mental health organization in existance that has studied homosexuality concludes that it is a normal part of the core identity for a minority of people, it is not a choice, it is not a mental illness, and is not abnormal. Again, this has not been studied until the 1970′s because no one cared to. Now it has and it’s very clear. Your ignorance does not prevent it from being clear. It only prevents you from it being clear to you.

    Don’t tell me that marriage has anything to do with reproduction. If the sole purpose for human sexuality would be for reproduction, then no one would be heterosexual or homosexual. No one would feel any romantic love, or have any desire to be in relationshsips. They just would have this inner desire once in a while to have sex with a member of the same sex to have a baby, then go back to being single again.

    Comment by James — June 27, 2009 @ 6:14 am

15. I have never read that ancient Rome held same sex marriages. This is new to me, so please let me know where you learned of this.

    And maybe I made myself misunderstood. I think that love is a constituent of marriage, but it is not the only component. Marriage has a purpose. One is the satisfaction of the couple itself. The other is the birthing, raising, and educating the next generation. If love was the only component then we would not need wedding vows which sustain a marriage if love wanes for a time. A wedding vow helps keep a family intact. Also, arranged marriages would not have existed if love were the only component. Plus they never question you about your passion when you are applying for a marriage license.

    Throughout history there have been variations on marriage. The number of spouses, spousal rights and traditions have evolved, but what is the one feature that has remained the same? Spouses have always been male and female because men and women are the natural source of children that allow civilized culture to persist.

    It was suggested that no one is harmed by same sex marriage, especially since only a small proportion of people are gay. Well, according to that logic, then not redefining marriage would not harm anyone, either.

    Basically, my approach to life is that some values and institutions have been greatly beneficial and so should not be abandoned or devalued. More than thirty years of social science studies shows us that children do best with a married mother and father.

    I agree that many of the large medical and psychiatric groups have made positive statements about same-sex parenting. However, it was only the American Academy of Pediatrics that has really done any analysis of the topic, and most other organizations, such as the APA, the AMA, etc., simply approved of AAP’s statements.

    The AAP only looked at a relatively small handful of studies which only examined white, almost entirely middle-class lesbian-headed families. They also did not reference the larger body of studies showing which family forms most strongly and consistently contribute to a child’s well being.

    Scholars from the universities of Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, Chicago, Maryland, Washington, UC Berkeley, and Rutgers University, they reported that children who live with their own married mother and father live longer, healthier lives, both physically and mentally, do better in school, are more likely to graduate and attend college. They are less likely to live in poverty, be in trouble with the law, drink or do drugs, be violent or sexually active, or be victims of sexual or physical violence. These children are also more likely to have successful marriage when they are older. This was reported by W. Bradford Wilcox and others in 2005.

    Also, Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, stated that “The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

    I guess my point is that we should be working for the ideal environment for children, and redefining marriage or devaluing it as we have with no-fault divorce would not be ideal.

    Comment by JeremiahA — June 27, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

16. “Scholars from the universities of Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, Chicago, Maryland, Washington, UC Berkeley, and Rutgers University, they reported that children who live with their own married mother and father live longer, healthier lives, both physically and mentally, do better in school, are more likely to graduate and attend college. They are less likely to live in poverty, be in trouble with the law, drink or do drugs, be violent or sexually active, or be victims of sexual or physical violence.”

    In cases of foster care and adoption, that point is irrelevant, don’t you think? Not all married couples have children and many married couples abuse their children. And then there is the case of lgbt couples who have fertilization. Isn’t the child with his natural mother/father in that case?

    I’m curious as to where you received your data? Sounds as if you received it from one of those pseudo-scientific religious right sites.

    But to break it down, there have been NO studies that say that children suffer from being in lgbt households. It’s easy to point out possible flaws in some studies if there are no contradictory studies available.

    To use that point about children as a possible reason to be against marriage equality is nothing more than a skilled diversion.

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 27, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

17. I don’t see how bringing in gay marriage would devalue marriage.

    However — and I expect to be shouted at and stoned as a blasphemer for this by many of my fellow gays — I’m still not convinced that I want a gay relationship to be called marriage. I think that I may have made this point before on here (or perhaps it was over on Box Turtle Bulletin), but I don’t mind making it again.

    Here in Britain we don’t have gay marriage as such, but we have civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, and I feel perfectly satisfied with that. It’ often said that gays are just like everyone else, and we are. But in one respect we ARE different from the majority, and we shouldn’t try to pretend that that difference doesn’t exist, nor should we apologise for it.

    As far as I’m concerned, a gay relationship is a good and beautiful thing precisely for what it is, and it doesn’t need to be “validated” by pretending that it’ the same as a straight relationship. It isn’t and it CAN’T be, because it’ a same-sex relationship, not a mixed-sex one, and it’ certainly none the worse for that.

    I have to confess that I sometimes get a bit irritated when I see gay and lesbian couples aping some of the more tedious and unnecessary features with which traditional straight marriage has become overlaid. For example, as my brother said of a gay couple we knew who were having an expensive stag night in Warsaw a week before their civil partnership ceremony, “They’ve been living together for the past ten years. What the hell do they want a stag night for?” In any case, a stag night, as I understand it, is a way of saying that this is your last night out as one of the gang of lads, but now you’re settling down with the missus and won’t be one of the gang any more. A stag night for a gay man seems pretty meaningless.

    Frankly, as long as a committed gay couple have the same rights as a committed straight couple, I don’t really care two flicks of a camel’ prick that their relationship isn’t called “marriage” — just so long as it’ called something nice.

    Comment by William — June 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

18. JeremiahA,

    You know, just because you “didn’t know something” does not mean it’s not true. Every respectable historian will agree with me when I say that same-sex marriage is not anything new. It has existed in past cultures.

    Your simple refusal to “know” something, does not mean it is not true.

    Also, JeremiahA, I know a gay couple who have been together for over 47 years and they have an adopted son who is now 16 years old. He is just like any other 15 year old kid I know. I didn’t even know he was raised by 2 fathers his whole life until I actually went over to his house and had to ask him, “Where’s your father at?” Also, he is not gay, he is straight and has a girlfriend.

    JeremiahA, you rely on these “statistics” and “information” that is compatible with your beliefs in order to make judgements on people. Now us LGBT people and straight allies also rely on information to back ourselves up. Our information is from each and every respected mental health organization in the world that has ever studied homosexuality, but it’s also from us. People.

    Despite the fact that the evidence is overwhelming that children raised by same-sex couples are no likely to turn out any different, and that homosexuality is not a mental illness, or choice, I don’t need to look at that. All I gotta do is look at the LGBT people around me, and their familes, and their children to know that it’s true. Us LGBT people don’t need the proof because we ARE the proof.

    Comment by James — June 27, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

19. But everyone, I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but I think it’s best we do not respond to “JeremiahA”. His mind is closed and refuses to acknowledge anything other than what he believes. He likes to promote his beliefs, but instead, finds it fit to just make excuses for his beliefs instead of legitimate backups for them.

    Comment by James — June 27, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

20. James, but if people post devious replies, and nonsense, isn’t it good to expose them as such?

    To make a claim, you have to provide positive evidence FOR something. JeremiahA doesn’t do that. It’s not for people to disprove a negative (funny how religious people always use this trick, in claiming the veracity of their beliefs).

    American Psychological Assn. in 2004 makes this perfectly clear. The full reasoning is given, full of citations which you can check: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
    Summarized:
    “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children”; and “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”

    “I guess my point is that we should be working for the ideal environment for children,”
    - Your idea of ideal is totally subjective, and actually quite damaging to children of stable, loving gay households.

    Another interesting point is that studies have shown positive links between religiosity and immorality. The rates of crime and of sexually transmitted diseases are higher in Red states than the liberal Blue states. Using JeremiahA’s model for ideal societies, isn’t it therefore best to only allow non-believers to marry?

    Comment by adrianT — June 27, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

21. The point is that we all want what is best for children. Should we support and promote the ideal environment for children? Yes. Are children raised in a home with their biological mother and father less likely to be affected detrimentally? Yes. Are children raised by same sex parents any different from children raised in a divorced household or by a single parent? Not really. Instead of promoting the ideal environment, should we promote divorce and advocate for children only having a single parent? Of course not. Should we try a social experiment to redefine marriage, deny a child of ever having a father or a mother, and continue the negative effects found in divorced or single parent homes? No. Should we support children, who from no choice of their own, are being raised in a less ideal environment? Of course.

    Concerning the APA and it’s statement, 39% of the association voted against it. Also in the news,”The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) has called on a related association, the influential American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), to withdraw its policy statement that supports homosexual parenting.

    ACPeds President Joseph Zanga, M.D., of Eastern Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina, says the AAP’s February 2002 policy statement on “Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” was released over the objections of one-third of the members of the task force that drafted it.”

    Lastly…

    “Another interesting point is that studies have shown positive links between religiosity and immorality. The rates of crime and of sexually transmitted diseases are higher in Red states than the liberal Blue states. Using JeremiahA’ model for ideal societies, isn’t it therefore best to only allow non-believers to marry?”

    The rates of crime and of sexually transmitted diseases are higher in Blue cities than the conservative Red cities. The top 10 American cities with the highest crime rates are all run by Democrat mayors.

    But this is beside the point. Do more people self-identify as religious in Red states than in Blue states? Possibly. Does a person identifying themself as religious guarantee that that person is following the tenets of their religion? No. Also, states with the largest Protestant and Mormon populations were Red in the 2008 election, while the ones with the largest percentage of Catholics, Jews, other religion, and non-religious were Blue. So religion does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a state is Blue or Red, especially a simple majority of Democrats can make the entire state Blue and simple majority of Republicans can make a state Red.

    Therefore, we do not know that non-believers, which are approximately 10% of the US population, are more or less moral than believers (though I believe that non-believers act more morally than some believers).

    Is a non-believer household the ideal environment for raising a child? If it is determined to be, then society should promote it.

    Comment by JeremiahA — June 28, 2009 @ 3:47 am

22. Oh, I almost forgot. Historically, Jesus did not speak on slavery, but he also did not speak on the act of crucifixion, either, and I do not think he was a big fan of that.

    Saint Paul, like Jesus, had a more eternal, spiritual perspective than a worldly one, so he commented more on spiritual matters. He did state that all are equal, man or woman, Jew or Gentile, slave (or bondsman) and master (or bondholder). In Timothy 1:10, he also included slave traders with those who are “lawless and disobedient” and the “unholy and profane.” Not exactly an endorsement of slavery.

    And while Jefferson did own slaves, he did work to weaken and abolish the practice. He was deeply in debt and so he had encumbered his slaves by mortgages and notes of debt, so he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened. Also in 1778, when the Virginia legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into that state, he said that it had, “…stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication.”

    Comment by JeremiahA — June 28, 2009 @ 4:37 am

23. These were all good people for their time, nothing more. We have better ideals now, and they are enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, a much better source of morality than any other document I know of. Which is why, when someone say’s an ideal is ‘age-old’ – I am more inclined to suspect it than respect it.

    (Jefferson wasn’t persuaded by Thomas Paine’s abolitionist argument and allowed importation of slaves into the new territories, and setting the united states on the path to civil war. As for St Paul – arguably the Fred Phelps of his time – visit ephesians 6:5, I rest my case.)

    “The point is that we all want what is best for children.”
    - We do, but as before, not all married couples want babies.

    Should we support and promote the ideal environment for children? Yes. Are children raised in a home with their biological mother and father less likely to be affected detrimentally? Yes.”

    - Another non-sequitur!

    The evidence does not say this. And irrelevant for same sex households. There is no evidence same sex households have detrimental effect on kids. And whether 39% of the APA voted or not, the fact remains there is no evidence to the contrary. A peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal would be more interesting. Evidence stands or it doesn’t.

    Forcing partners together who do not want to be together actually is absolutely not ideal; infact the worst solution of all for kids.

    Same sex parents have been around for a long time, so it cannot be regardrd as a social experiment. It is merely recognition that same sex families exist.

    “Are children raised by same sex parents any different from children raised in a divorced household or by a single parent? Not really.”

    Utter nonsense, and again, irrelevant means of finding out whether the family environment is a stable, loving and supportive one. Are gay coupls able to provide stable, loving, supportive environments for a child? Yes.

    Are children of same sex families more likely to suffer if the state refuses to acknowledge them? Absolutely. That’s why the state should focus on things like the economy and defense and keep its nose out of people’s private lives, and least of all, impose superstition on everyone.

    So to be consistent, you will enforce an outright ban on re-marriage, since step-mothers and fathers, in your opinion have a negative effect on kids?

    Comment by adrianT — June 28, 2009 @ 6:11 am

24. Actually JeremiahA, I have a better solution.

    You, as a Christian I presume, have a host of different ideals when it comes to living the Good Life. Some of those ideals may work for you, but not for others.

    With marriage, the best way forward is this:
    You should have the right to call your marriage e.g. a ‘Southern Baptist marriage’, or a ‘Mormon marriage’ etc. And the rest of us – the nearly 20% of Americans who are non-believers, gay people etc, who want nothing to do with such ideals, are free to call their unions ‘marriages’.

    That way, you get to emphasise that your marriage is ratified by God as well as the state; the state makes no judgement on either the private life or the Church. The same would apply for gay-affirming churches, who are as certain as you are on god’s idea of morality. It’s up to each church to argue who is right. The ultimate win-win-win situation.

    Comment by adrianT — June 28, 2009 @ 7:02 am

25. Hey JeremiahA,

    What about religion itself? I think that maybe religion could be immoral depending on how you look at it. In it’s existance, the Christian church has murdered more people than Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden combined.

    Also, many people would be willing to argue that religion is abnormal. Come on, talking to a voice in your head that you believe is some all powerful God? Do we really want to raise kids in that environement?

    And don’t say, “Oh well I KNOW God personally and I KNOW he is good!” Because, like I’ve said, I KNOW same-sex couples who raised children and they turn out just like any other kid.

    Comment by James — June 28, 2009 @ 10:16 am

26. Jeremiah,

    From reading the webpage of the American College of Pediatricians, it sounds like a religious right site masquerading as a legitimate medical organization.

    In one study, it inaccurately cites the work of Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz to claim that same sex parenting is not a good idea. Stacey has on more than one occasion complained about the distortion of her work. I think Truth Wins Out has something on this.

    The group also inaccurately cites the work of Robert Spitzer, a man who has also complained about how his work has been distorted by the religious right.

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 28, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

27. a. mcewen, you said:

    “From reading the webpage of the American College of Pediatricians, it sounds like a religious right site masquerading as a legitimate medical organization.”

    SOUNDS LIKE? I think that you’re very politely understating the case. Having just perused it myself, I’d say that it bloody well IS.

    Comment by William — June 28, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

28. I see that the American College of Pediatricians lists among its “resource links” under the heading Sexuality:

    NARTH (National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)

    PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality)

    Free To Be Me

    Need I say more?

    Comment by William — June 28, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

29. The “American College of Pediatricians” screens its membership according to a pro-life philosophy spelled out on its “Core Values” page and an anti-gay philosophy spelled out here. The organization’ Bible Belt charter members are listed here.

    According to Concerned Women for America, ACP formed in retaliation against the American Academy of Pediatrics after AAP released scientific studies finding no significant harm to children in same-sex parenting. ACP accuses the AAP of “bad science” but does not say how AAP’ studies were flawed.

    The ACP’ family resources page links primarily to religious-right organizations.

    In contrast to the scientific approach of the AAP, ACP employs what it considers a predetermined “moral” filter to pediatrics.

    Comment by Michael Airhart — June 28, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

30. One of these days, someone has to take a good look at what these phony organizations push. I took a look at the article, Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for Change?, on the ACP webpage and it’s got every anti-gay distortion regarding the raising of children that I read from other religious right sites.

    Is there like some nasty reservoir where they all get this stuff from?

    One example is this claim:

    “Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships”

    One of the sources ACP uses is:

    “Marie Xiridoui, et al., “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)”

    ACP doesn’t tell anyone that the study only looked at casual gay partnerships, making it a point to exclude gays in monogamous relationships.- http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

    Also, there wasn’t even a question in the study about children in same-sex households so to use this study to make a prediction about children in same-sex households would be wrong.

    (Sorry, guys. As you can tell, I am bored today and itching for some type of fight.)

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 28, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

31. Yes, a. mcewen, I know how you feel when you say that you are itching for some kind of fight, because I’m feeling that way today as well, for a number of reasons.

    These people — if you can dignify them with that description — aren’t just disputing about some fascinating scientific or philosophical but purely academic point. They want, among other things, to stop gays from forming meaningful relationships and to break up all existing gay relationships; they want young gays to waste their teenage years trying to reject their natural sexuality at a time when they should be learning to come to terms with it, as their straight confreres are; and they want all “same-sex attracted” people to embark on a bootless quest for an illusory “cure” for something that doesn’t need fixing. In other words, they want to play unconscionable games with other people’ lives.

    Anxious as I often am to refute such people by reason and fact, there are times when I feel that the only message that can actually get through to them is that of the GayClic Collab Against Homophobia: “Fuck you. Fuck you very, very much.”

    Comment by William — June 29, 2009 @ 7:11 am

32. LOL, William.

    It’s not about getting through to them though. We already know how they feel. We just need to educate everyone else on how they lie.

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 29, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

33. We seem to be all spinning our wheels here, not moving forward, so I’ll just leave some final words here for now for your consideration.

    The UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, is an outstanding document, but I wish the United Nations was able to live up to that document. Since the United States has freed more people than any country in the history of the world, I would offer the Declaration of Independence and the oldest living constitution in the world, the US Constitution, as two other documents worthy of praise.

    As for slavery and Saint Paul’s writing, please read Ephesians 6:6-9 and 1 Corinthians 7:21-24. This should clear up Paul’ actual views on slavery, and while reading, please also understand that the practice of slavery and bondservice at that time was unlike the practice of slavery in the United States. The documentation on Jefferson’ abolitionism is so great that it would be difficult to cover it here.

    On gay parenting and gay marriage…

    Dr. David Popenoe–”We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies, ‘just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies’…The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary, culturally and biologically, for the optimal development of a human being.”

    In explaining how mother and fathers both help their children to grow up to be women and men–Suzanne Frayser, anthropologist–”Each process complements the other. The boy can look at his father and see what he should do to be a male; he can look at his mother and see what he should not do to be a male…The importance of contrasts in gender roles and specification of gender identity may be clues to the psychological importance of sexual differentiation [male and female] in all societies.”

    Mary Clarke, Center for Law and Social Policy–”Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents…Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step or cohabiting-parent households.

    On the American Academy of Pediatrics and research on families…

    “These [same-sex] families closely resemble stepfamilies formed after heterosexual couples divorce…the consderal research literature that has accumulated addressing this issue has generally revealed that children of divorced lesbian mothers grow up in ways very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers.”–American Academy of Pediatrics

    Children from such families are eight times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with two biological parents.–Michael Stiffman

    Children from such families are forty times more like to become a victim of abuse than children living with a biological mother and father.—Martin Daly and Margo Wilson

    Children from such families are likely to have greater emotional, behavioral, and academic problems than children living with their biological mother and father.—Nicholas Zill

    The CDC states that a child raised by a homosexual parent has a 65% of developing AIDS.

    Generally, nullifying the significance of marriage in society has had a negative influence on the family, the basic building block of society. Benefits exist for children raised by a mother and a father, while divorce and same sex parenting put children at higher risks.

    On religion…

    I am not sure why religion keeps appearing here. Has anyone on this blog quoted scripture from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or some other religious scripture concerning gay parenting or homosexuality? What does religion have to do with whether redefining marriage is the proper way to proceed or not?

    “The Christian church has murdered more people than Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden combined.”

    In a 500 year period, 1450-1950 AD, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and witch burnings killed approx. 200,000 people.

    In a 100 year period, 1900-1999 AD…

    Nazi Germany-10 million murdered (not killed in action). Communist China under Mao-approx. 70 million deaths. Communist Russia under Stalin-approx. 20 million deaths. Communist Combodia-approx. 1.5-2 million people, one-fifth of the country’ population. North Korea under Kim Jung Il-deaths continue to climb.

    Lastly, 90% of Americans, an exceptional majority, are convinced of God’ existence which would make them the prevailing norm in the United States. A definition of faith is “holding onto a truth, found through reason, despite one’ changing moods.” In my opinion, people who have reached the conclusion that God exists through logic and reason, such as Anthony Flew, would qualify as rational.

    Comment by JeremiahA — June 29, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

34. YAY!!!

    JeremiahA is leaving this blog! He sais so as in “last words”.

    Gee I wonder if anyone read his post.

    Good ridance you vile,, ignorant and hateful bigot!

    Comment by James — June 29, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

35. There will be NO consideration of your words “JeremiahA”. The experts say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, choice or abnormal and that same-sex couples make good parents as well as heterosexuals.

    Any “information” that says otherwise is found to have been distorted as such.

    Here at this website anyone can see where those professionals have spoken out about their distortions: http://respectmyresearch.org/scientists/

    Look “JeremiahA” you’re wrong, pure and simple. All of the studies ALL of the studies done by EVERY RESPECTED MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION have said that homosexuality is not a mental illness, not a choice, is not abnormal, and yes same-sex couples make good parents as well as heterosexuals.

    AND children who have been raised by same-sex couples have actually spoken out in defense of their gay/lesbian parents. Numerous studies prove that they are no likely to turn out any different.

    Now who is “Michael Stiffman” and “Margo Wilson”? You don’t even quote from reliable sources.

    I had a look at the Child Welfare League of America’s website which has some articles from the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the other 5 or so organizations that agree that same-sex couples make just as good parents as heterosexual couples.

    Here is what the Child Welfare League of America says about same-sex parenting: http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

    Oh and where does the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) say that children raised by same-sex couples are 65% likely to get AIDS? Please show me the source and I want to see the source from the CDC themselves, not some religious organization who happened to “quote” the CDC. That will ensure that it is not a distortion.

    And when I said the “Christian church” I meant from the very year it was started up until today. From the 2nd century to 6th century AD, Christians had killed hundreds of thousands of pagans. Of course, that was BEFORE the 1400′s (the random timeline you conveniently coin for yourself).

    Now I’m probably not gonna get any answers from you because you said you were gonna leave. You’re probably just gonna come back later when you wanna cause trouble again, read this, and continue. And yes, you are causing trouble, this website, emphatically opposes EVERYTHING you are saying. I don’t go to “Focus on the Family’s” Website and start harassing everyone on there on pro-gay matters do I? Of course, it’s necessary for YOU to come HERE and do it because the more lies you spread, the better it is for your side.

    I don’t got to go on Focus’ website and troll their blogs with my information because I don’t need to “promote” anything. The truth is on my side.

    Comment by James — June 29, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

36. Well heck, I go to the One News Now site and leave polite but truthful comments when they tell lies about lgbts.

    They invite comments and I put them down. James – thank you for that CDC mention. I was going to ask it myself.

    Comment by a. mcewen — June 29, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment