Children will win the fight for same sex marriage and adoption by gays!

Nobody is fooled by this game

 

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/hrc-c...phil-bryants-statement-of-support-for-lgbt-ad
August 12, 2015 by HRC staff

I found this story out of backwards Mississippi particularly disturbing in light of the enormous gains made by LGBT people in recent years and culminating in the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. This stance on adoption not only goes against the tide of the evolving standards of human decency by perpetuating discrimination, but also harms children who are in need of a loving home as well as those who are currently in the care of gay people and who could benefit by a second parent adoption by the legal parent’s partner.
This policy is especially irrational and hateful in view of the fact that Mississippi is the only state in the country with such a ban in place. Moreover, many states have been allowing adoption by gay people long before marriage was even on the radar. In my state of New Jersey, joint adoption by same sex couples has been allowed since 1997, the first state to officially do so. It was not much of an issue then and it certainly is not one now. How is it possible that two states in the United States are existing is such a disparate moral, logical and legal reality?

 

It is interesting that virtually no one draws any distinction between lesbians and gay men. Stunning as it seems, they are not identical.

It also is believed by some people that gays are sterilize. In fact, a lesbian couple has twice the fertility as a heterosexual couple. Then again, many people see relationships as singularly about the act of having sex, equating marriage to the relationship between two fruit flies, existing singularly for the act of sex and nothing else.

So hang onto your seats, but lesbians actually can become pregnant, hard as that is for some to believe.

Since single people are now allowed to foster care and even adopt, I don't see any issue at all about gays adopting.

 

You asked in another thread for me to prove my assertion that children of gays are against gay adoption:

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court

"CNSNews.com) – Four adult children of same-sex parents have submitted amicus curiae briefs in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage."
The Court, in New Orleans, La., heard arguments on Jan. 9 as it considers whether to uphold traditional marriage – defined as being between one man and one woman -- in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or father.

In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household.

“I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.”

“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.”

“As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”

“I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”

Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”

“At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.”

“I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.”

Robert Oscar Lopez who was also raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, had a different experience which he described as the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple.”

“Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, “behind these facades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.”

He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.

“I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males,” he recounted, saying he “wanted to have sex with older men who were my father’s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing.”

“The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me certain spending money beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mother’s [psychiatric] clinic,” he states in the brief. “But the money was not as impactful as the fact that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour.”

“As early as ten years ago, I developed a clear stance on homosexual relationships. A civil union or some kind of state recognition would have helped my mother and her partner,” Lopez writes.

“Yet the traditional marriage laws in New York State as they existed back then prevented my mother and her partner from entirely cutting my father out of my life,” he explained. “The latter reality proved pivotal because my re-establishment of ties to my father in 1998 led to a transition in my life, from being lost and sexually confused to being stable and romantically fulfilled.”

Katy Faust, who grew up with a lesbian mother and her partner also testified against gay marriage but clarified that “my advocacy against gay marriage and for the rights of children will never include condemnation of my mother and her partner or details about their private lives.”

“When we institutionalize same-sex marriage,” Faust writes, “we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of marriage.”

“Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”"

 

Save it. I've seen this crap before. A few kids with an ax to grind does not prove squat. I could post enough peer reviewed, empirical studies that show that kids do just fine with gay parents, to crash the server.

 

Dude, you're the one who asked for me to provide it. Then you tell me to save it. You get proven wrong and then become dismissive.

You can save your empirical studies.

Why don't the peer reviewed researchers have a talk with the children raised by gays who spoke before the Circuit Court?

 

People lose credibility when they think 1 piece of anecdotal evidence makes their claim.
There will always be good and bad parents. Gay, straight, single, married.

 

More worthless, anecdotal so called "evidence" A few kids here and there versus million who are in the care of gay people and doing just fine. You favor these sort of stories because you know that the actual scientific evidence refutes your claim.

If there was credible evidence that gay parenting was harmful, why do 49 (soon to be 50)states allow gays to adopt?

Why have they been allowing it for decades? Why are we not hearing about a lot more problems?

Why did the state of Michigan, in trying to justify their ban on gay marriage have to employ a discredited phony who was liked out of court to claim that kids of gays do not do as well as others?

 

Once again you are being dismissive. Researchers with agendas tend to look for scientific proof that confirms their predetermined outcomes. It wouldn't be politically correct to go out of your way to research the harm done by homosexual parents, so nobody does it.

I'm sure that the states allow gay adoption because the militant GBLT community have successfully sued their way through the courts and bribed their way through the legislatures and extorted their way into positions of power to have their way with adoption. That in no way makes a same sex parenting equal to a child having a mother and a father. Wide acceptance of the practice will only lead to more frequent abuses suffered by children like the ones describe by the children of same sex couples.

 

More logical fallacies in the form of unwarranted and bogus assumptions as well as appeals to ignorance. Please show us how these studies below were biased. Show us some studies that show that gay parenting is harmful. How many states are allowing gay adoption because of law suits? Gay adoption was way out ahead of gay marriage decades ago. New Jersey was the first state to officially allow same sex couples to adopt children together- that was 1997 and there was no law suit involved. You just keep making this crap up as you go.

Any questions?

 

I don't know what to think anymore.

 

Well in fact I have seen studies which say the gay parents are very bad for the children. But as you and I both know, your response as always would be to dismiss, attempt to debunk, or attack the messenger.

I do have one question, yes or no, is a better for a child to have a mother and a father?

 

Anacdotes don't prove anything.

Why? What dothey have to offer
Empirical science? Supposition?

 

Abusive father - then no. Studies show a single mother has a better chance of raising a healthy individual than having a violent father in the mix.
As adoptive gay parents has only been on the books a few short years, there has not been time to study the effects of having married gay parents on
raising children - so your studies would be either poorly conducted or of no scientific use.

 

They won't be exposed to gay sex any more than they are straight sex. Children aren't exposed to sex by loving parents.

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

It has been more than a few short years. We have had same sex marriage on the books for over a decade in some states. In addition, some states have been allowing gay people and same sex couples to adopt for much longer. That includes New Jersey where I worked in an adoption agency

Patriot News claims to have seen studies but has not shared anything except a few anecdotal accounts of kids who claim to be unhappy about having gay parents. The evidence is clear. Having gay parents is not a problem

 

Yes, Yes, you keep jabbering about "studies that you've seen" but can't produce anything but some accounts of a few unhappy kids.

And if you think that my pointing out the fallacies and inadequacies of you so called argument is "attacking the messenger" then you have issues that go beyond my skill level.

I have clearly demonstrated and documented the fact that there are many other factors far more important than having a mother and a father but you either choose to ignore the evidence or are unable to understand. Let's also remember that there will always be children who do not have both a mother and a father, and many who have neither, and same sex marriage will not change that. The question of what children need is not even the right question to be asking. You might want to have a look at this:

Now its your turn to answer some questions if you can

 

Being a kid is hard enough. Burdening him or her with sexual hang ups of adoptive parents seems to be counter productive, and deprives him or her of a mother or a father. Not very fair to a child.

 

What you provided in the context that you provided it would make an argument against all adoptions and all child rearing since none of the activities mentioned by the children who submitted the briefs are ones that would only be limited to same-sex parents. And if it's not limited to same-sex couples, you can't only include same-sex couples in laws and legislation aimed at preventing it. Well, you can try I suppose, but people will call you out for the biased bigot that you are. Which we are.

 

And people will call biased bigots those who try to say that people who are in favor of traditional marriage and against gay adoption are bigots. Homosexuality is a sin in many religions and if people don't agree with their religious beliefs and want to punish them by definition makes them bigots.

If you just called me a bigot, you have violated PF rules. I suggest you edit your comments or apologize and reword your sentence.

 

You sound like a broken record with this “need a mother and a father” mantra. After all that we have thrown at you, you still don’t get it. Yet you can’t come up with a shred of actual; evidence that having same sex parents is harmful. Not one shred! I just don’t know if you are really that dense, if you just don’t understand what evidence is, or if your pretending not to understand anything so that you can keep railing against gay parents. I’m going to try one last time and dumb it down real good for you. Here we go.

It is a given that all families are different and therefor children have different experiences which may in turn affect them emotionally and developmentally. Even different children in the same family have different experiences. Some of the more salient characteristics of the child’s environment to be considered, in addition to the sexual orientation or identity of the parents are:

Race and ethnicity
Socio-economic status and job security
Level of education of the parents
Level of harmony and cooperation between parents and parent figures
Marital status
The number, and ages of other children and birth order of subject child in relation to the others
General family structure
Family and community supports outside of the immediate family‘
Community environment such as urban vs. suburban.
Religious affiliation and the role of religion in the family
Did I miss anything??

Now, without making any judgment as to the effects on the outcomes for children any of these factors might have, suppose that we take a large sampling of children in a particular age range who were with their parent(s) at birth or from a very early age and follow them over time.
Let’s say that we can then identify which family characteristics-from the above list- are the most efficacious on average in producing the very best results and establish that as a base line for the ideal family. Obviously some groups will fare better than others.

Then the question becomes, how far out from that baseline-in terms of the types of families that are best for children- are we willing to go before we start to question whether or not they should be allowed to marry, have or adopt children? What groups are we willing to tell that they cannot or should not have children? Are we willing to adopt a public policy that says that we can scrutinize various groups, or families types with various characteristics determine their general worth and ability as parents and then exclude some groups on that basis.?

Sure, when it comes to adoption by an individual family, we look at their suitability in light of many of these characteristics but we do not exclude any group based on what characteristics they have that may be related, in theory to that groups general suitability as parents.

So why should we do that to gay people-gay people who have already been more highly scrutinized than any other? How can we exclude gays from the pool of those eligible to adopt-while not eliminating others using the same criteria – that the environment for children is not optimal – without that being blatant discrimination. And finally, how can you continue to ignore the volumes of evidence that show that having same sex parents in fact has little or no effect on the well-being of children? Again, unless we are willing to assess all groups equally and only allow those "types of people" who we deem to make the very best parents to adopt, it is discrimination (just in case you care about that)

It is apparent that you will cling to your strange ideas at all costs and fly in face of all evidence that you are pathetically wrong. Please tell me what it is that I have written here that you don’t understand, that you disagree with and that you can refute. Please do not bother to keep repeating that same tired mime about needing a mother and a father and sexual hang ups, whatever you meant by that.

 

I'll have to disagree with you. You never answered the question, "Is it better for a child to have a mother AND a father", yes or no?

All of your studies and reasoning, all of pseudo intellectual progressive theories, everything that you visualize in you mind based on your feelings and better judgments, on justice and fairness, are meaningless in reality. If just one child is deprived of a normal childhood, intentionally, because of some liberal political ideological theory of what is the new normal, then that is one child too many. This kind of social experimentation is fine when we are talking about abstract art, but when it comes to people's lives it makes a difference. Understanding some people have had challenges in traditional families that they have had to overcome, that is no reason to intentionally inflict upon innocent children circumstances which have a higher likelyhood of having an adverse effect on their lives long term. No person should be allowed to make these decisions for a child. A child doesn't get a choice. You can't ask a child, "Would you like to have a mommy and a daddy, or just two mommies, or just two daddies?" Homosexuals who insist on subjecting children to their lifestyles, whether it is a choice or an act of God, are doing a very selfish thing and don't care enough about a child that they may be adopting by the nature of their very selfish act. They aren't considering what is best for the child.

 

The answer is that IT DOES NOT MATTER!

In addition, children who are placed for adoption already do not have a mother OR a father. That is why they are available for adoption! The gay people who want to adopt them are not causing them to not have a mother and a father.

And no, there are not enough families consisting of an opposite sex couple to take in all of the kids in need of adoption AND it is discrimination to exclude gays!

I maintain that the question of parenting outcomes is not even the right or appropriate question to be asking when it comes to the question of gays adopting. The only appropriate question is whether or not an individual or a particular family is equipped to meet the needs of a child who is in need of adoption. You are the one being selfish.




That is it...we are done here. You are a hopeless case. No matter though, the last state in the country to ban adoption by gays, Mississippi is currently being dragged through the courts and that will be that. Your time and your views have run their course. Read my signature line.

 

Well whether you actually think that it doesn't matter that a child is deprived of a mother or a father intentionally, or you know it is wrong to do that, it just goes to show which way your bias leans. It's not like you are some astute objective observer of facts and logic.

A child needs a father and a mother and therefore gay couples are by definition not "equipped" to meet the needs of a child. It is the gay person or couple himself who is the one who is being selfish.