‘We will not obey’: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Adding sexual discrimination bans to laws, and then extending it to gay 'marriage', cannot in any even remotest fashion be legitimately allowed to replace freedom of religion and conscience under the First Amendment.
If millions of apolitical peaceful Christians and Jews have been asleep while the perverts have been "fundamentally transforming America", now would be a great time to wake up and...
RESIST!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Adding sexual discrimination bans to laws, and then extending it to gay 'marriage', cannot in any even remotest fashion be legitimately allowed to replace freedom of religion and conscience under the First Amendment.
If millions of apolitical peaceful Christians and Jews have been asleep while the perverts have been "fundamentally transforming America", now would be a great time to wake up and...
RESIST!
Margaret Weigel | April 12, 2015Same-sex marriage and children’s well-being: Research roundup
A leading issue in the same-sex marriage debate is the welfare of children raised by same-sex parents. How might a child’s general well-being be affected by these primary caregivers versus having a more traditional family? The question is central to the defense strategy of supporters of Michigan’s ban on gay marriage, which was challenged by a lawsuit and went to trial in March 2014. A federal judge overturned the state’s ban, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of Michigan and three other states to ban same-sex marriage. The issue may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will rule on several related cases in the summer of 2015.
The following are scholarly research papers and studies on psychosocial and educational outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents. For an overall exploration of the challenges and potential lines of criticism in this field, see “Gay & Lesbian Parenting,” a review of the research literature by the American Psychological Association.
———————-
“Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief”
Manning, Wendy D.; Fettro, Marshal Neal; Lamidi, Esther. Population Research and Policy Review, August 2014, Vol. 33, Issue 4, 485-502. doi: 10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6.
Abstract: “Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples only. Social science literature regarding child well-being was being used within these cases, and the American Sociological Association sought to provide a concise evaluation of the literature through an amicus curiae brief. The authors were tasked in the assistance of this legal brief by reviewing literature regarding the well-being of children raised within same-sex parent families. This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different- sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.”
“Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian”2013 study from Tufts University, Boston Medical Center and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health published in Pediatrics.
Abstract: “Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members.”
“U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents”
2010 study from the University of California-San Francisco, the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of Amsterdam published in Pediatrics.
Findings: “The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts… Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated… Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.”
“Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School”
2010 research by Stanford University published in Demography.
Findings: “Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”
“Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families”
2009 research from the University of Amsterdam and New York State Psychiatric Institute published in Sex Roles.
Findings: “Children in lesbian families felt less parental pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, were less likely to experience their own gender as superior and were more likely to be uncertain about future heterosexual romantic involvement. No differences were found on psychosocial adjustment. Gender typicality, gender contentedness and anticipated future heterosexual romantic involvement were significant predictors of psychosocial adjustment in both family types.”
“Parent-Child Interaction Styles Between Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Adopted Children”
2007 study from Florida State University published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies.
Findings: “Gay and lesbian adoptive parents in this sample fell into the desirable range of the parenting scale and their children have strength levels equal to or exceeding the scale norms. Finally, various aspects of parenting style significantly predicted the adoptive parents’ view of their child’s level of care difficulty which subsequently predicted the type and level of strengths assessed within their adopted child.”
“Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents”2008 metastudy from Michigan State University published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies.
Findings: “Analyses revealed statistically significant effect size differences between groups for one of the six outcomes: parent-child relationship. Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.”
“Pychosocial Adjustment Among Children Conceived Via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers”
1998 research from the University of Virgina published in Child Development.
Findings: “Children [developed] in normal fashion, and that their adjustment was unrelated to structural variables such as parental sexual orientation or the number of parents in the household. These results held true for teacher reports as well as for parent reports. Variables associated with family interactions and processes were, however, significantly related to indices of children’s adjustment. Parents who were experiencing higher levels of parenting stress, higher levels of interparental conflict, and lower levels of love for each other had children who exhibited more behavior problems.”
Last month, a new study conducted by the University of Melbourne in Australia confirmed what experts have been saying for years: The children of gay parents are just as healthy and happy as the children of straight parents. Actually, the study found that children in gay families are a bit healthier and happier than their counterparts in straight families, since gay parents often “take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into … gender stereotypes,” creating a “more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and well being.”
The new research is unlikely to persuade hard-core conservatives that gay couples really can make good parents. These reactionaries don’t care how much your silly peer-reviewed “studies” contradict their anti-gay views, since “the factors that really matter” are their own breathtakingly antiquated (and totally unscientific) views of gender stereotypes. It’s easy to laugh at this deliberately ignorant, Putin-esque nonsense. But in the long run, it’s really a shame that anti-gay conservatives are so unwilling to reconsider their bigoted views—since it’s them, not gay parents, who are inflicting the most harm on the children of same-sex couples.
How can homophobes reach into a family unit and actively denigrate children’s lives? Easy: by constantly demeaning the dignity and worth of gay families, thereby perpetuating the anti-gay stigma and teaching children that their families are wrong, immoral, disadvantaged, even diseased. That stigma isn’t some liberal myth sprouting from concerns over political correctness. It’s a real, observable phenomenon that risks seriously impairing children’s health and well-being.
The University of Melbourne study touches on the stigma question, noting that “perceived stigma” against gay people and their families is the one factor of same-sex parenting “negatively associated with mental health.” But a study last year by researchers at University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Pretoria in South Africa took a deeper dive into the effect of stigma on gay families, finding that:
As that quote suggests, the study only confirmed what previous research had borne out: Gay parents don’t disadvantage their children—but conservatives’ smear campaigns against gay parents do. This insidious harming of children at the hands of conservatives is pretty easy to understand. Anti-gay activists debase gay families as a whole by opposing equal rights for same-sex couples, singling them out for disfavored treatment and thus marking them as inferior or defective. Children begin to wonder why their parents are subject to such opprobrium and legal impediments, and translate legal inequality into moral deficiency. Their status as children of gay parents hangs like an albatross around their necks, impairing healthy development and fostering grief, anger, and depression.
All this could end if conservatives simply stopped demeaning gay people and their families. But because the shrinking core of anti-gay conservatism refuses to surrender its rather pitiful animus toward gay people, the vicious cycle will continue unabated. Gay couples make perfectly good parents. That drives the Christian right crazy—so they continue to inflict their phobias on otherwise happy children. There’s a perverse irony to all this. Conservatives have been claiming for years, in one form or another, that gay people are hurting children, and that kids need to be protected from gays. But in reality, it isn’t gays from whom kids must be protected. It’s conservatives themselves.
Top Comment
Anyone who gave this a moment of thought would know it already. Unlike straight couples, gay couples almost never accidentally have kids.
The new research is unlikely to persuade hard-core conservatives that gay couples really can make good parents. These reactionaries don’t care how much your silly peer-reviewed “studies” contradict their anti-gay views, since “the factors that really matter” are their own breathtakingly antiquated (and totally unscientific) views of gender stereotypes. It’s easy to laugh at this deliberately ignorant, Putin-esque nonsense. But in the long run, it’s really a shame that anti-gay conservatives are so unwilling to reconsider their bigoted views—since it’s them, not gay parents, who are inflicting the most harm on the children of same-sex couples.
How can homophobes reach into a family unit and actively denigrate children’s lives? Easy: by constantly demeaning the dignity and worth of gay families, thereby perpetuating the anti-gay stigma and teaching children that their families are wrong, immoral, disadvantaged, even diseased. That stigma isn’t some liberal myth sprouting from concerns over political correctness. It’s a real, observable phenomenon that risks seriously impairing children’s health and well-being.
The University of Melbourne study touches on the stigma question, noting that “perceived stigma” against gay people and their families is the one factor of same-sex parenting “negatively associated with mental health.” But a study last year by researchers at University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Pretoria in South Africa took a deeper dive into the effect of stigma on gay families, finding that:
The children were not upset that their parents are gay. In fact, most of them embraced it. The negativity that children with gay parents experience is rarely the result of having gay parents. Instead, it's the cultural stigma that causes all the problems. Any concerns they had were the result of how they would be treated in the public sphere. Research constantly shows that children with gay parents are normal, healthy, well-adjusted people. It's the social scrutiny and stigmatization that children have to negotiate and contend with.
As that quote suggests, the study only confirmed what previous research had borne out: Gay parents don’t disadvantage their children—but conservatives’ smear campaigns against gay parents do. This insidious harming of children at the hands of conservatives is pretty easy to understand. Anti-gay activists debase gay families as a whole by opposing equal rights for same-sex couples, singling them out for disfavored treatment and thus marking them as inferior or defective. Children begin to wonder why their parents are subject to such opprobrium and legal impediments, and translate legal inequality into moral deficiency. Their status as children of gay parents hangs like an albatross around their necks, impairing healthy development and fostering grief, anger, and depression.
All this could end if conservatives simply stopped demeaning gay people and their families. But because the shrinking core of anti-gay conservatism refuses to surrender its rather pitiful animus toward gay people, the vicious cycle will continue unabated. Gay couples make perfectly good parents. That drives the Christian right crazy—so they continue to inflict their phobias on otherwise happy children. There’s a perverse irony to all this. Conservatives have been claiming for years, in one form or another, that gay people are hurting children, and that kids need to be protected from gays. But in reality, it isn’t gays from whom kids must be protected. It’s conservatives themselves.
Top Comment
Anyone who gave this a moment of thought would know it already. Unlike straight couples, gay couples almost never accidentally have kids.
Sotomayor: We’re not taking away your liberty, because we won’t force you to marry a gay person
Same-Sex 'Marriage' , Sonia Sotomayor , Supreme Court
One moment in the Supreme Court's oral arguments over same-sex “marriage” reveals what an embarrassment Sonia Sotomayor is as a justice.
John J. Bursch, who argued on behalf of marriage, said that the people, not five unelected justices, should be able to decide whether to redefine a pillar of society that predates the government and written history.
“This case isn't about how to define marriage,” he said. “It's about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts? And we're asking you to affirm every individual's fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”
The “wise Latina” immediately interrupted him with the following non-sequitur:
“I'm sorry. Nobody is taking that [liberty] away from anybody. Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation, or who to marry or not marry. I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry that there's some gay people who will choose not to.”
I'll pass over Sotomayor saying that “every single individual..chooses” his or her sexual preference. But don't miss the full illuminating brilliance of her argument: The Supreme Court is not trampling on the right of 50 million people in 35 states to settle their own law as long as straight people are not forced to “marry” homosexuals.
For Sotomayor, apparently anything short of judicially mandated sodomy is within the justices' constitutional prerogatives – a view that would surprise any of our nation's founding jurists, whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.
This would be a laugh line if the Left didn't keep saying it with a straight face. (No pun intended.) The Obama administration made a similar argument about the HHS mandate. In February 2012, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the conscience-destroying provision of ObamaCare strongly upheld individual freedom. “It's important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman's freedom to decide not to use birth control.” (Emphasis added.)
Sebelius basically said, “Hey, be happy we're not stuffing birth control pills down your stupid Catholic face!” Coming from an administration whose Science Czar John Holdren has justified “compulsory abortion” for American women, that comes as cold comfort, indeed.
Same-Sex 'Marriage' , Sonia Sotomayor , Supreme Court
One moment in the Supreme Court's oral arguments over same-sex “marriage” reveals what an embarrassment Sonia Sotomayor is as a justice.
John J. Bursch, who argued on behalf of marriage, said that the people, not five unelected justices, should be able to decide whether to redefine a pillar of society that predates the government and written history.
“This case isn't about how to define marriage,” he said. “It's about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts? And we're asking you to affirm every individual's fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”
The “wise Latina” immediately interrupted him with the following non-sequitur:
“I'm sorry. Nobody is taking that [liberty] away from anybody. Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation, or who to marry or not marry. I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry that there's some gay people who will choose not to.”
I'll pass over Sotomayor saying that “every single individual..chooses” his or her sexual preference. But don't miss the full illuminating brilliance of her argument: The Supreme Court is not trampling on the right of 50 million people in 35 states to settle their own law as long as straight people are not forced to “marry” homosexuals.
For Sotomayor, apparently anything short of judicially mandated sodomy is within the justices' constitutional prerogatives – a view that would surprise any of our nation's founding jurists, whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.
This would be a laugh line if the Left didn't keep saying it with a straight face. (No pun intended.) The Obama administration made a similar argument about the HHS mandate. In February 2012, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the conscience-destroying provision of ObamaCare strongly upheld individual freedom. “It's important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman's freedom to decide not to use birth control.” (Emphasis added.)
Sebelius basically said, “Hey, be happy we're not stuffing birth control pills down your stupid Catholic face!” Coming from an administration whose Science Czar John Holdren has justified “compulsory abortion” for American women, that comes as cold comfort, indeed.
Written by gay militant frothing-at-the-mouth hating slate columnist Mark Stern, who is even criticized by those in the gay movement, for harassing gays who won't call those opposed to gay marriage homophobes.
[h=1]Slate Columnist: 'Yes, Opposing Gay Marriage Makes You a Homophobe'[/h] [h=2]"Those who oppose gay marriage drive the laws that inflict this daily humiliation unto gay couples and their children. That, put simply, is homophobia."[/h] 12.17.2013
News
Paul Bois
137
622
On Saturday, TruthRevolt reported on an article in The Atlantic by gay columnist Brandon Ambrosino titled, "Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn't Make You a Homophobe." In it, Ambrosino politely explored the potential negative ramifications his LGBT allies in the same-sex marriage movement will create if they continue to demonize their opposition as mindless "homophobes."
Unfortunately, Ambrosino's gracious message didn't trickle into the heart of Slate columnist Mark Joseph Stern, who rebutted Ambrosino with his deeply smug Monday article titled, "Yes, Opposing Gay Marriage Makes You a Homophobe." He writes:
The primary problem with this kind of argument is that as easily as it can be trussed up in calls for tolerance, patience, and humanism, it can also be ripped to shreds by one simple question: Can a person oppose equal rights for gay people and not be, in some fundamental way, a homophobe? The answer seems to me to be a pretty obvious no. Opposition to gay marriage isn’t just some abstract principle with little practical effect. It’s a harmful belief with real-world consequences, and it has contributed immeasurable pain, sorrow, and suffering to the lives of gay people throughout history. To oppose gay marriage is to help prevent loving couples from visiting each other in the hospital, from raising a child together, from enjoying the most basic facets of a fulfilling life...Those who oppose gay marriage drive the laws that inflict this daily humiliation unto gay couples and their children. That, put simply, is homophobia.
Later in the article, Stern uses the now cliché comparison of opposition to same-sex marriage to opposition to interracial marriage to illustrate the bigotry of his opponents:
It would be odd, even risible, to argue that opposition to interracial marriage didn’t hinge on racism. Imagine Ambrosino’s arguments transposed to that context: Would anyone in 2013 seriously argue that we should separate one’s race from one’s broader self? That because race “is not the most fundamental aspect” of one’s identity, opposing legal recognition of interracial marriages is somehow not malicious? Of course not; such an argument is clearly intellectually untenable. The only reason the argument holds any water in the gay marriage context is because on some level, most gay marriage opponents refuse to see homosexuality as an intrinsic aspect of one’s identity. Rather than view homosexuality as something you are, these people view it as something you do...
Stern finishes his article agreeing with Ambrosino that the same-sex marriage debate should not be reduced down to vitriolic banter and that homosexual men and women don't always need to call their opponents homophobes - even though he thinks that they really are. "We don’t need to prove to gay marriage opponents that their beliefs are hateful. We need only prove that their beliefs are wrong," says Stern.
His final assertion leaves open a question most LGBT members are not willing to answer: Can their arguments win without the hateful rhetoric?
"Written by gay militant frothing-at-the-mouth hating slate columnist Mark Stern, who is even criticized by those in the gay movement, for harassing gays who won't call those opposed to gay marriage homophobes."
Make up your mind Zit on which fags you want to lend credibility to eh. Gee I wonder what the Westboro Baptist Church thinks of gay marriage. Actually no I don't because they're fucking wackos!
How many studies do you want showing children adopted by gay couples grow up healthy compared to others? So ONE ARTICLE is written by a guy you don't like? And that negates all the studies right? I know by religious dogma you'll respond with a bunch of 'studies' of your own, all with predisposed conclusions based upon the religious ideologues who conducted them. I'm not playing that game. But I'm not the one who drew the false conclusion that gay couples adopting is child abuse. That was you.
Make up your mind Zit on which fags you want to lend credibility to eh. Gee I wonder what the Westboro Baptist Church thinks of gay marriage. Actually no I don't because they're fucking wackos!
How many studies do you want showing children adopted by gay couples grow up healthy compared to others? So ONE ARTICLE is written by a guy you don't like? And that negates all the studies right? I know by religious dogma you'll respond with a bunch of 'studies' of your own, all with predisposed conclusions based upon the religious ideologues who conducted them. I'm not playing that game. But I'm not the one who drew the false conclusion that gay couples adopting is child abuse. That was you.
[h=2]A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights[/h]by Dawn Stefanowicz
within Foreign Affairs, Marriage
April 24th, 2015
68.9K 4001 74.2K
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.
I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.
We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.
I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.
Canada’s Lessons
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.
Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.
Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.
The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood
Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.
Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.
In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.
Hate Tribunals Are Coming
In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.
If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.
Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.
Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.
Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?
Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for theAmerican Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.
Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.
An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscatedat the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”
Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute. Her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is available at[url]http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org[/URL]. Dawn, a full-time licensed accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
within Foreign Affairs, Marriage
April 24th, 2015
68.9K 4001 74.2K
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.
I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.
We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.
I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.
Canada’s Lessons
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.
Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.
Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.
The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood
Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.
Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.
In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.
Hate Tribunals Are Coming
In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.
Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.
If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.
Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.
Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.
Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?
Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for theAmerican Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.
Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.
An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscatedat the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”
Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute. Her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is available at[url]http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org[/URL]. Dawn, a full-time licensed accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
NOM Touts Anti-Gay Spokeswoman Who Claims Same-Sex Parents Molest Their Own Children
July 23, 2012 4:03 pm ET by Carlos Maza
In early 2011, Iowa teen Zach Wahls gave an impassioned speech discussing his childhood with two moms, which quickly went viral and turned Wahls into a powerful example of how capable same-sex couples are of raising healthy, happy children.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has so far stumbled in responding to Wahls’ story. Last December, the organization promoted a column rebutting Wahls’ speech by suggesting that gay people molest their own children. And now, NOM has dredged through legions of anti-gay talking heads to find its own same-sex parenting poster child: Dawn Stefanowicz.
Stefanowicz is the author of Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, a book in which she describes being raised in a severely broken home with a gay father. In her book, Stefanowicz recalls her father engaging in extreme and irresponsible sexual behavior -- child molestation, inviting multiple partners to the house, exposing his children to inappropriate sexual material, etc. Needless to say, her story has made her a star among anti-gay hate groups like the American Family Association and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. She’s also made a career out of testifying against protections for LGBT people, including marriage equality and hate crime legislation.
On Saturday, NOM touted a Catholic World Report interview with Stefanowicz in which she describes her childhood experiences. According to NOM:
1. Linking Homosexuality To Pedophilia. Stefanowicz has no qualms with linking homosexuality to pedophilia during the interview, repeatedly depicting gay men as predators seeking out young boys:
2. Bad Parenting, Not Gay Parenting. What’s perhaps most frustrating about Stefanowicz’s story is that it isn’t actually about the harms of being raised by a gay parent; it’s about the harm of being raised by an irresponsible, seriously unstable parent. Any father who participates in a sham marriage, sexually abuses his own child, and exposes his children to inappropriate sexual material is unfit to raise a kid, regardless of his sexual orientation. As Jeremy Hooper points out, countless children are raised in abusive households by heterosexual parents, but their stories don’t demonstrate that heterosexual parents are somehow generally unfit to raise children.
3. NOM Intentionally Seeks Out Children Of Same-Sex Parents. NOM’s promotion of Stefanowicz’s story isn’t random. According to the organization’s internal documents, NOM planned to spend $60,000 in 2010 alone to try to get the children of same-sex couples to speak on camera:
NOM has so far been unsuccessful in producing these videos, but its reliance on Stefanowicz reveals the lengths to which the organization will go to challenge the idea that gay people actually make fine parents.
July 23, 2012 4:03 pm ET by Carlos Maza
In early 2011, Iowa teen Zach Wahls gave an impassioned speech discussing his childhood with two moms, which quickly went viral and turned Wahls into a powerful example of how capable same-sex couples are of raising healthy, happy children.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has so far stumbled in responding to Wahls’ story. Last December, the organization promoted a column rebutting Wahls’ speech by suggesting that gay people molest their own children. And now, NOM has dredged through legions of anti-gay talking heads to find its own same-sex parenting poster child: Dawn Stefanowicz.
Stefanowicz is the author of Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, a book in which she describes being raised in a severely broken home with a gay father. In her book, Stefanowicz recalls her father engaging in extreme and irresponsible sexual behavior -- child molestation, inviting multiple partners to the house, exposing his children to inappropriate sexual material, etc. Needless to say, her story has made her a star among anti-gay hate groups like the American Family Association and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. She’s also made a career out of testifying against protections for LGBT people, including marriage equality and hate crime legislation.
On Saturday, NOM touted a Catholic World Report interview with Stefanowicz in which she describes her childhood experiences. According to NOM:
Lots of people know about Zach Wahls, whose two lesbians parents seem to have done a fine job raising him, by his own account. How many people know the experience of Dawn Stefanowicz? We don't know how the average child raised by a same-sex couple or gay parent fares, yet. Do we care? Or would we just like to demonize researchers and people who disrupt the nice-nicey images we are always given?
A few things to note about NOM’s promotion of Stefanocicz’s story:
1. Linking Homosexuality To Pedophilia. Stefanowicz has no qualms with linking homosexuality to pedophilia during the interview, repeatedly depicting gay men as predators seeking out young boys:
Once, when I was in the 10th grade, I was excited because my father came to school to watch me perform in the band. He never did before. I saw his eyes bug out when he saw all the teenage boys performing on the stage with me. Then I realized that he was not there for me, but to pick up young men.
[...]
My father liked well-dressed, “clean cut” men, who were about 10 years younger than he was. It was always a younger man, never the same age or older. I knew many gay men who had a preference for adolescent males who had just hit puberty. They would look for boys with absent fathers who were vulnerable.
[...]
I have images in my mind of being sexually abused; I had nightmares about it. My mother did confirm that I was sexually abused as an infant by my father; however, she could not confirm the images in my mind involving my father and other men with me. Other adult children that came from same-sex environments shared with me that they had been [abused]. There is higher risk of sexual abuse in such an environment. [emphasis added]
By touting Stefanowicz’s interview, NOM (once again) directly promotes the myth that gay men molest their own children at higher rates than heterosexual men.[...]
My father liked well-dressed, “clean cut” men, who were about 10 years younger than he was. It was always a younger man, never the same age or older. I knew many gay men who had a preference for adolescent males who had just hit puberty. They would look for boys with absent fathers who were vulnerable.
[...]
I have images in my mind of being sexually abused; I had nightmares about it. My mother did confirm that I was sexually abused as an infant by my father; however, she could not confirm the images in my mind involving my father and other men with me. Other adult children that came from same-sex environments shared with me that they had been [abused]. There is higher risk of sexual abuse in such an environment. [emphasis added]
2. Bad Parenting, Not Gay Parenting. What’s perhaps most frustrating about Stefanowicz’s story is that it isn’t actually about the harms of being raised by a gay parent; it’s about the harm of being raised by an irresponsible, seriously unstable parent. Any father who participates in a sham marriage, sexually abuses his own child, and exposes his children to inappropriate sexual material is unfit to raise a kid, regardless of his sexual orientation. As Jeremy Hooper points out, countless children are raised in abusive households by heterosexual parents, but their stories don’t demonstrate that heterosexual parents are somehow generally unfit to raise children.
3. NOM Intentionally Seeks Out Children Of Same-Sex Parents. NOM’s promotion of Stefanowicz’s story isn’t random. According to the organization’s internal documents, NOM planned to spend $60,000 in 2010 alone to try to get the children of same-sex couples to speak on camera:
NOM has so far been unsuccessful in producing these videos, but its reliance on Stefanowicz reveals the lengths to which the organization will go to challenge the idea that gay people actually make fine parents.
Of course it's a damn lie and any well-meaning libertarians, as well as other 'moderate' neutrals who ridiculed conservatives warning this would happen, need to join the fight.
If gay 'marriage' is legalized, ultimately what will happen is churches who refuse to climb into the sewer will lose their tax-exempt status. And not only churches, their donors as well. That would be HUGE.
One can only pray if Normal America by the millions was going to rise up and make a statement, that would be a time to do it - the point when the militant perverts and their 'progressive' allies have gone one step too far, just like King George and the Tea Act.
This in a country founded on individual and religious liberty.
[ I'm right yet again, I've been predicting for years that if you open the door for homosexual "marriage" you degrade the institution, and it will be a slippery slope to
allow all sorts of deviant "marriage" practices. It's already happening around the world. ]
[h=1]Green Party ‘Open’ to Permitting Three-Way Marriages[/h]
by Nick Hallett1 May 201539
[h=2]Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said her party would consider allowing polygamous marriages and civil partnerships in the UK.[/h] Speaking in a Q&A session with PinkNews readers, the Green leader responded to a question from Redfern Jon Barrett, who asked: “As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”
Bennett responded: “We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”
One of the leading criticisms levelled by opponents of gay marriage was that it could create a ‘slippery slope’ that would lead to marriage being redefined in other ways, including allowing more than two people to enter into a union.
At the time the bill creating gay marriage was going through the House of Commons, Conservative MP Matthew Offord asked: “Why is the government saying there should be same sex marriages? Why should it not also be blood relatives? Why should it not also be polygamists? It seems they are rushing this forward and they have not thought out what the consequences are going to be.”
His colleague Craig Whittaker also said: “What will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future? Polygamy? Three-way relationships? Who knows what else?”
Earlier this week, the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Congress heard that polygamy quadruples the risk of heart disease. Dr Amin Daoulah, with the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said: “We found an association between an increasing number of wives and the severity and number of coronary blockages.
“This could be because the need to provide and maintain separate households multiplies the financial burden and emotional expense. Each household must be treated fairly and equally, and it seems likely that the stress of doing that for several spouses and possibly several families of children is considerable.”
allow all sorts of deviant "marriage" practices. It's already happening around the world. ]
[h=1]Green Party ‘Open’ to Permitting Three-Way Marriages[/h]
by Nick Hallett1 May 201539
[h=2]Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said her party would consider allowing polygamous marriages and civil partnerships in the UK.[/h] Speaking in a Q&A session with PinkNews readers, the Green leader responded to a question from Redfern Jon Barrett, who asked: “As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”
Bennett responded: “We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”
One of the leading criticisms levelled by opponents of gay marriage was that it could create a ‘slippery slope’ that would lead to marriage being redefined in other ways, including allowing more than two people to enter into a union.
At the time the bill creating gay marriage was going through the House of Commons, Conservative MP Matthew Offord asked: “Why is the government saying there should be same sex marriages? Why should it not also be blood relatives? Why should it not also be polygamists? It seems they are rushing this forward and they have not thought out what the consequences are going to be.”
His colleague Craig Whittaker also said: “What will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future? Polygamy? Three-way relationships? Who knows what else?”
Earlier this week, the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Congress heard that polygamy quadruples the risk of heart disease. Dr Amin Daoulah, with the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said: “We found an association between an increasing number of wives and the severity and number of coronary blockages.
“This could be because the need to provide and maintain separate households multiplies the financial burden and emotional expense. Each household must be treated fairly and equally, and it seems likely that the stress of doing that for several spouses and possibly several families of children is considerable.”
[h=1]Attorney General Maura Healey calls transgender protections 'the next battleground for civil rights'[/h]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]"[/FONT]Transgender rights [FONT=Georgia, serif]is the important next battleground for civil rights," Healey, a Democrat, said in an interview with The Republican / MassLive.com. "We need to do more, and we need to do better in this state, starting with a public transgender accommodation bill."[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]===[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]I hope you enjoyed having single sex bathrooms, because they are the next target. They will be either outlawed, or changed to accommodate transgendered people, within the next 10 years.
Have fun taking your daughter into the bathroom when a "girl" like Bruce Jenner is in there fixing herself up. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]"[/FONT]Transgender rights [FONT=Georgia, serif]is the important next battleground for civil rights," Healey, a Democrat, said in an interview with The Republican / MassLive.com. "We need to do more, and we need to do better in this state, starting with a public transgender accommodation bill."[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]===[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]I hope you enjoyed having single sex bathrooms, because they are the next target. They will be either outlawed, or changed to accommodate transgendered people, within the next 10 years.
Have fun taking your daughter into the bathroom when a "girl" like Bruce Jenner is in there fixing herself up. [/FONT]
A gay guy admits that children need a mom and a dad, not gay parents.
[h=1]Kids Need A Mum And A Dad[/h] 98
2
171
by Milo Yiannopoulos7 May 2015312
[h=2]Every child should have a gay uncle, to teach them how to dress, take them clubbing and give them their first line of coke, but gay parents? As a party-hard homosexual myself, I’m not so sure.[/h] We learned this morning of a mother whose child has been taken away from her, even though the baby was not at risk of any harm, and given to a gay couple with whom she had a surrogacy arrangement that seems to have broken down.
A woman and two gays in a legal agreement. What could go wrong? The mum in question was accused of using breastfeeding as a weapon against the gay wannabe dads, though it’s not clear from the reporting how this might have been the case.
Even worse, she has been gagged by the High Court, so she cannot tell her story. It is essential to the British understanding of justice that it should be seen to be done, but in this case the public has been denied the right to hear from her and make up its mind about the case.
Justice Alison Russell apparently objected to the mother’s claims that they gay relationship in question was “on-off” and that at least one of the partners was “promiscuous.” But the mother was almost certainly right.
The fact is, most gay relationships are not exclusive, whether by arrangement or cheating. A disproportionately high number involve domestic violence—a fact rarely reported on by the media, which prefers to depict gay relationships as glistening utopias full of rainbows, love, progressive politics and Britney Spears.
It’s bizarre to me that the legal system in this country seems to discriminate so blatantly against fathers… unless, of course, they’re gay, in which case there’s a presumption that they must be well-adjusted, groovy “community leaders” with alphabetised CD collections and perfectly coiffed hair.
The reality is different. Lesbians, in particular, are famous for kicking the shit out of each other, but gay dads too can be cruel and we are starting to see children brought up by single-sex couples share their stories in the media. On the whole, the results are disturbing, and suggest a disproportionately high number of miserable kids.
It isn’t bigoted to point out these things, but worryingly it seems as though the judge in this case is out to prove what a modern, accepting person she is – branding an innocent mother “homophobic” in the process.
That gagging order is sinister, isn’t it? I mean, I’ve been given a gagging order by a judge before, but it didn’t relate to anything as serious as child custody and wasn’t dished out just to protect him from scrutiny. (We had different paperwork for that.)
A friend of the mother, who spoke to the Daily Mail even though it could mean he is imprisoned for contempt of court, said she was a loving parent: “Any accusation that she is homophobic is utter nonsense.
“When we first went to court we could not believe this was happening, and that losing her baby was an option. It is astounding.”
I wouldn’t adopt a child, because I don’t think two dads is the right start in life for a young baby. As a gay man, obviously I’m not a homophobe. And I’m not hugely worried about the prospect of “turning my son gay,” as that seems relatively unlikely.
But it’s worth pointing out that no scientist claims to know the precise balance of nature and nurture that go into deciding whether or not someone will be gay. And there are people who do choose it, as a result of their early life experiences, rather than having it thrust upon them.
The objections to same-sex parenting and adoption are practical as much as moral or scientific. Imagine the ridicule that poor child will be exposed to at school, for example, when it is discovered that dad is really mum—and that there’s another dad at home. And imagine the confusion the child will experience trying to work out why he or she is different from all the other kids around him.
There will be people who say: with so many children needing a good home, surely all that matters is that a household is stable and loving? Well, first of all I’d question, based on my own experience, how stable a gay household can ever really be.
It’s hard enough being bullied in school because you’re adopted. But the stigma being adopted by Adam and Steve is a recipe for social suicide. At least one study says that children with gay parents grow up with more emotional problems.
As for loving, I’m sure there are plenty of young people who had perfectly happy childhoods growing up with two mums or two dads. But there are many, too, who didn’t. And where we can avoid these odd and possibly harmful set-ups, I think we ought to.
All else being equal, there ought to be a presumption in favour not only of biological parents but of heterosexuals, and possibly even single parents. Plenty of gay couples say they want kids, but from the child’s point of view this ought to be a last resort.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think babies need a mum and a dad. In this case, where there was, by the court’s own admission, no risk to the child, I find it appalling that a baby has been snatched from his mother’s loving care and thrown into what could be a deeply dysfunctional home life.
If you don't think zealots such as Attorney General Maura Healey are going to sue churches to either force them perform gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status within 3 months of SCOTUS ruling gay marriage a "right" you need your head examined.
She can't wait to do this. And, it is going to be funny to watch all those fake Catholic Democrats in the MA Congressional delegation hem & haw over this issuing mealy mouthed bullshit press releases.
She can't wait to do this. And, it is going to be funny to watch all those fake Catholic Democrats in the MA Congressional delegation hem & haw over this issuing mealy mouthed bullshit press releases.
From Fox News:
Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity
Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity
One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.
face)(*^%
face)(*^%
