Posted on 03/18/2004 10:38:54 AM PST by bigsky
The debate over homosexual marriage has gone on loudly in this nation for a while now, and the Leftists in the establishment media, specifically those in the newspaper industry, have made their biases known to the world -- from the front page to the editorial page. But yesterday the Washington Post declared a new frontline in this cultural battle -- KidsPost
KidsPost, as you might be able to discern from the title, is the page in the Washington Post dedicated to news for kids, providing issues of the day written in a way that they will understand. For example, today's KidsPost covers March Madness, Tuesday's KidsPost looked at what's going on at the National Zoo in D.C., and Monday's KidsPost was about children in Indonesia going to school.
What was Wednesday's KidsPost about? Gay marriage. The page contained two articles on the subject by Fern Shen: "Defining Marriage" and "What's Best for Kids?"
"Defining Marriage" offered a look at the life of a 10-year-old boy, Justin McGuire, who, along with his infant half-sister, is being raised by his mother and her lesbian partner. In it Shen labels the mother's partner as "Justin's other mother" and writes that though Justin lives with his "two mothers" he also sees his father on the weekends. Shen notes that "Justin says it doesn't feel like a big deal, being in this kind of household."
The author goes on to write that "Justin doesn't understand how come his parents can't get married. They consider themselves married, but they would like to be legally married. They'd like to have a wedding. And Justin really wants to be the ring bearer."
According to Shen, "families like Justin's are not unique. The 2000 Census counted 15,000 same-sex couples in the Washington area and 600,000 nationwide. Still, a majority of Americans remain uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage." KidsPost does not mention whether these "common" families include two children -- a 10-year-old boy and an infant girl.
Shen goes on to lecture the young readers of KidsPost that "People who are against [gay marriage] say it would weaken traditional marriages and society as a whole if same-sex marriage were made legal. Many religions also teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman."
The author subsequently notes in "What's Best for Kids?" which religions are offering such teaching: "Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, traditional Muslims and some Protestants." She does not, however, mention any religions that teach marriage to be between anything other than a man and a woman. Shen mentions that some ministers and rabbis are performing ceremonies for homosexuals, but fails to concede that that does not mean that Christianity (Catholicism or Protestantism) considers gay marriage permissible.
The article also goes on to blame our culture for not allowing homosexual marriage: "For at least 2,000 years, Western societies have considered lifelong marriage between one man and one woman to be the ideal arrangement for families and children." ("Why the reference to the last 2,000 years?" you ask. Well, what significant religious event happened 2,000 years ago and serves as the basis of one of the world greatest religions? Hint: see The Passion.)
As KidsPost criticizes Western Civilization and the United States' Judeo-Christian heritage in its own ways, it argues (subtlety, of course) for a change in the law. How? By letting Justin's fellow 10-year-olds know that he told Maryland lawmakers his feelings about letting his moms get married, and that he thinks "if his parents and others like them could marry" then "maybe people would see that his family is like any other."
Interestingly, Fern Shen fails to mention that most Americans not only are "uncomfortable" with same-sex marriage, but still oppose it by a margin of almost 2-to-1, as revealed by a recent Gallup report titled "Opposition to Legalized Same-Sex Marriage Steady."
So, since liberals like those at the Post can't get most adult Americans on their side by presenting some sort of reasoned debate, they are going after their kids. If only they can get the kids to buy into it . . .
Justin must not understand the term 'parent'.
Higher suicide rates, higher juvenile lawbreaking for boys, higher promiscuity and pregnancy rates for girls.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
"Sheltering people" is very different from opposing the indoctrination of children.
Ban childhood. It fosters serenity and a sense of trust. Teach your children about all of the evil in the world, from the moment they come home from the hospital. And see how happy they are when they reach adulthood.
Actually, I like the "greenhouse theory" of raising kids.
Children are delicate and impressionable new life.
Protecting them from the real world does help them to grow into strong adults and then they have the strength and balance to handle adult issues.
Of course, it's impossible to completely hide things like homosexuality from them, but all they need to know is a very basic definition and then they should get back to the things children should be doing to grow healthily: learning and playing, and being surrounded by unconditional love.
They will learn the rest soon enough.
Her children --
The oldest is a 12 year old male. He's a hoodlum like his mother. He has no respect and pushes his two younger sisters around, curses them and hits them often. He is hateful and has been institutionalized a couple of times for his anger.
His two younger sisters fare slightly better. They are 11 and 9. Both have horrible butch haircuts, dress pitifully and come to my home seeking food often. They are not underfed, but they are malnourished.
Our hearts go out to these children, even the hoodlum boy. We know that with love and parenting, and perhaps a consistent male role model, they could be relatively normal. They have 3 different fathers and none of the kids has seen theirs since long before christmas. We offer nothing but kindness when we see them, but there's no way we can improve their situation. I can assure you that allowing this woman to marry her partner on a weekend pass from the hoosegow will not help. She obviously had no taste in men prior to lesbianizing, and has no taste in women now. I don't know if there is any hope for this bunch......
Bull-Corn! Homosexuality is the result of childhood sexual abuse. Most normal folks know that homosexuality:
Anyway, the simplistic "logic" of "I like it therefore it's good" ignores the fact that there are other living arrangements and lifestyle choices that the gov't does not officially recognize. All behavior is not equal. Pornography is legal, but we do not stock it in our libraries. Smoking is legal but we frequently ban it in public places. Many kids have one parent in jail. Should we make them feel better about their situation by forcing other kids to think incarceration is just another lifestyle choice? No, we accept and love the kid inspite of his parent(s). We do not throw a cheating spouse in jail, but we do not offer him a group or dual marriage license either. If we are going to "tolerate" homosexuality (something increasingly looking like a mistake) then it should be on that level.
This kid's parents can of course marry. They do not want to. The kid's mother can have perverted sex and be proud of it in front of her kid thanks to the Supreme Court. But it ceases to be about privacy when the public must put a stamp of approval on it. The lie that Lawrence was all about privacy couldn't be more clear. I wonder why the media misses it.
Thanks for using the words "forming their views on sexuality" rather than "sexual orientation", it brings up a good point I'd like to make.
When it comes to the kids growing up in heterosexual households, who themselves are (or will in all probability be) heterosexually oriented, what do we want them to do regarding a classmate who is living in a same-sex two-adult household? How do we want them to treat such classmates? Calling them "fags" and "dykes" because of what their parental figures do is not going to make things any better for anyone. It damages both the kids being called names, and the kids feeling peer pressure to join in the ridicule.
How do we teach kids to respect their peers who come from "different" households? Whether or not you hold the parental figures responsible for the kids' living arrangements, you cannot support ridicule of the children. I can't think of any religious position that disapproves of homosexuality that also supports using kids to send their classmates home in tears.
What would be the best way to teach all kids to respect each other in school? I don't think this KidsPost article is a bad step in that direction. Any official condemnation of homosexual households only stigmatizes the kids who live in those households. Even ignoring the existance of these households seems to invalidate the kids that come from them.
Can't we separate the issue of tolerance of homosexuality from the issue of tolerance and acceptance of kids who come from homosexual households?
I would suppose that the same-sex couple is teaching their kids to be strong in the face of peer predjudice, somewhat like kids of mixed race parents have had to do for decades. If gay parents teach their kids that straight people are sometimes hateful, why should the rest of us play into that?
Perhaps its not fair that the schools are the dumping ground for our social problems, but that's just the way its been for a long time. Many kids don't learn how to get along with others from their homes, so in order to avoid everything from playground fights to Columbine massacres, the schools have to make an attempt to teach civility.
Why not just have teaching that emphasizes that different kids come from different households, and its OK to believe that the way your household does it is right for you, while its not OK to ridicule another person for the way their household operates? It's what we already do with accepting people of different religious traditions, each family is free to teach its children that other religions are wrong, but that you can't become Torquemada in the lunchroom over it.
I believe we have been teaching that way for a long, long time now. The difference being in the whats OK. The fact being that it is not OK to live that lifestyle, no matter how polite society may be.
True it is not right to ridicule how another home is run, my point was there is really no way around the fact that most people feel disgust towards that lifestyle will most definatley be visited upon the kids. Therefore causing confusion and problems that the "parents" brought upon those kids by their choices - not schools or society.
I hope this was just a theoretical question. The media does NOT want to expose the homosexual agenda to Americans.
When I hear people who consider themselves to be tolerant of homosexual behavior, even to the point of marriage, say "I'm not against it. I don't know how it will affect my marriage," I realize that they have not given any thought to the remifications of making same sex "marriage" the law of the land.
One of the first changes will be the prohibitions on certain use of language. Any discussion of the idea that men should not marry men, for example, will be called 'hate speech.'
On local talk radio this morning was a discussion of a book in a public school library, suitable for 6 year old readers, called "King and King." It is about a prince who does not like any of the princesses who his mother brings for his approval, and how he finds his true love with another prince.
This is the evil which will not be able to be stopped if same sex marriage becomes law.
Little children, during the stage of their natural emotional development, will be forced to consider that feelings for a person of the same sex can mean that one is 'gay.' and should be looking at ALL their friends, male and female, as potential future mates. This is EVIL.
I agree completely.
But on the other hand any failure to officially condemn homosexual households leaves these kids in an environment that is hazardous to their proper development as mature healthy people. They are far more likely to be molested or abused or to have one/both of their 'caregivers' violently murdered.
The children should be removed (forcibly if necessary) and placed in a suitable foster home where they will have married foster parents (one man and one woman) so they have a chance at a normal life.
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
The 15-year-old stood before almost every news camera in Northeast Ohio as he eyed his mother for the first time since escaping from home last spring.
Mary Rowles barely returned her son's look. Neither did her partner, Alice Jenkins. In minutes, the two would learn how long they would be imprisoned for abusing the teen, his four brothers and a sister.
``My entire life has been horrifying because of the abuse, neglect and mistreatment that both of you have inflicted,'' Darrell Rowles began.
``You are both hurtful people and need to be put away for a long time so that no other child has to go through what I went through,'' he said. ``I hate you both for everything you put me through.''
The ``long time'' the teen wanted was translated into 30 years in prison by Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia A. Cosgrove, who called the women ``perhaps the coldest, most unfeeling, least empathetic criminals I have ever seen.''
Before the teen walked into court Tuesday, Rowles and Jenkins sat at a table for about 40 minutes, smiling, chuckling and whispering to each other. The tears they shed at previous court hearings where absent.
``I hate you in the worst way, and it's not desirable to hate someone,'' Darrell told his mother and Jenkins when he stood to speak. ``I never want to see either of you ever again. If you happen to get out of prison soon, I don't want either of you to come near me.''
Time and a string of appeals will tell if the sentence or the women's pleas to a 55-count indictment hold up.
They pleaded guilty in October to kidnapping, felonious assault, child endangering, corrupting another with drugs, and marijuana possession.
In court, attorneys said the women will appeal last week's decision by Cosgrove denying their request to withdraw their guilty pleas and take their case to trial. An appeal on the length of the sentence is also likely.
For now, the women must serve the entire sentence without a chance of parole, prosecutors said.
They will probably be sent together to the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, where 1,737 of the state's female prison inmates live.
A prison spokeswoman said the couple would likely be housed in separate units inside the 250-acre compound northwest of Columbus.
During the sentencing hearing, prosecutors Gregory Peacock and Mary Ann Kovach told the judge about the life the children lived inside their Florida Avenue home, and about ``a household of chaos and deprivation.''
Before a mass of cameras, they told how Jenkins targeted the five boys because of their gender, and one boy in particular because he is biracial.
They told the overflowing gallery filled with family, friends and curiosity-seekers about the windowless, 3-foot-by-5-foot closet where the boys were forced to sleep in their own urine-soaked blankets for days or weeks at a time.
They told how the boys were forced to swallow human and animal feces, lick toilet bowls as punishment for urinating on the toilet seat, and eat cat food when Jenkins became angry.
Prosecutors showed pictures of the frail, waiflike boys, their ribs and collarbones protruding throughtheir skin. They showed photos of the family's refrigerator and pantry, overflowing with food.
Rowles looked at the photos but showed no emotion. Jenkins didn't look, her eyes focused downward on a piece of paper.
Peacock described the night last April when Darrell and his two younger brothers, 8 and 10, broke out of their upstairs closet, and how the youngest, stuck on the roof, begged not to be left behind.
``They were not simply running away; they were escaping their home,'' Peacock said.
All the children are in foster homes. A juvenile judge last year refused to give Rowles visitation.
One father walked out of court and passed reporters in tears without commenting. It was unclear if the other children's fathers were there.
Darrell told the court that Christmas and birthday memories were of the abuse he and his brothers endured in 2002 and parts of 2003.
``For example, on Christmas you beat us, then gave us gifts, but the next day you grounded us and destroyed our gifts. I remember not even getting gifts on Christmas. That really hurt,'' he said.
``I hate my birthday. I have no memories of a birthday. All I can remember is Alice hitting me in the face with a shoe and saying, `This is for good will.' ''
The bespectacled teen, dressed in a navy blue sweater and gold chains, laughed and shook hands with his brother when he was done speaking.
Cosgrove commended the courage of the boys for escaping their home and telling their story to authorities.
She also asked the women if they had anything to say prior to sentencing.
Rowles, 31, replied defiantly: ``Not a thing.''
Jenkins, 28, said simply, ``No, your honor.''
Well, in the abscense of classical physical abuse, we all know that's not going to happen. Which would be better for the kids in those households: to have a situation where they don't feel personally persecuted at school, where they feel safe reporting physical/sexual abuse or neglect; or one where they feel that the school and everybody connected with them is against them, where they feel absolutely compelled to defend everything that goes on in their households?
If you ever want to have the statistics you need to back up the contention that homosexual households are poor places to raise kids, then you had better hope for the former, rather than the latter.
On local talk radio this morning was a discussion of a book in a public school library, suitable for 6 year old readers, called "King and King." It is about a prince who does not like any of the princesses who his mother brings for his approval, and how he finds his true love with another prince.
Article posted here:
Parents of first-grade girl angered by children's book about gay princes
The lie that Lawrence was all about privacy couldn't be more clear. I wonder why the media misses it.
I hope this was just a theoretical question. The media does NOT want to expose the homosexual agenda to Americans.
Indeed. The propaganda coming from GLSEN is that Lawrence v. Texas ensures the safety of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students in public schools:
"NEW YORK - June 26, 2003 The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, today hailed the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision finding the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, discriminatory and an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In a concurrent 5-4 decision, the Court overturned the basis for all remaining sodomy laws, and, according to GLSEN, these decisions will bolster efforts to ensure the safety of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students.
Today’s historic ruling affirms the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people before the law and sends a powerful message to LGBT youth," said Executive Director Kevin Jennings..."
I can always hope and pray and work to get this country back on a sane footing again
Which would be better for the kids in those households: to have a situation where they don't feel personally persecuted at school, where they feel safe reporting physical/sexual abuse or neglect; or one where they feel that the school and everybody connected with them is against them, where they feel absolutely compelled to defend everything that goes on in their households?
It's not an either or situation. They can be made to feel perfectly safe and educated that their caregivers are committing abomination at the same time.
If you ever want to have the statistics you need to back up the contention that homosexual households are poor places to raise kids, then you had better hope for the former, rather than the latter.
The statistics already exist. see scripters database.
So, when your kids are told by some teacher (or other authority figure, if you homeschool) that they're fools for believing in your religion, or that the guns you keep in your home (for your own family's protection) kill people who are just trying to eke out a living, or that eating meat is murder, who are they going to trust? Hopefully, its you and your spouse, and not someone trying to undermine the only home they have ever known.
How can you think it would be any different with kids from homosexual homes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.