Posted on 03/18/2004 10:38:54 AM PST by bigsky
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?
because children naturally know what's right and wrong. Every child living in a 'homosexual' home knows that homosexaulity is wrong at some deep point within them.
If we assume that they don't then they'd need to be removed form the home. Any parent committing sexual perversion is not a fit parent
BTW my children will never attend a public school.
Well, in my experience, children have to LEARN what's right and wrong. Yes, they learn some of it from schools and other institutions, but they primarily learn it from their homes. Look at all the kids who defend parents who molest and neglect them. It's natural to see your own situation as normal.
I still say, give these kids the message that the school won't judge them for whatever happens at home, and you stand a reasonable chance of exposing abuse that even pro-gay people will call wrong. As for your not putting your kids in public schools, bravo for you, but there are (and for the rest of our lifetimes) millions of children in government schools. You can't wish that away any more than you can wish homosexuality away.
I've found that pro-gay people don't call much abuse wrong (if any). Where are they protesting against NAMBLA et al?
Well, perhaps the term "pro-gay" might have been a misstatement on my part. Sure, there are those sexual libertines who defend the right to any orgasm at any time, under any circumstances, and you might have gotten the idea that I was talking about them when I used the term "pro-gay". What I really meant was ordinary, everyday heterosexual, monogamous people who have a gay friend, neighbor, co-worker, or close family member, who do not have religious reasons to condemn gay people.
Some of them might feel a bit uncomfortable with the term marriage applied to a gay relationship, but they still support the rights of a homosexual adult couple to live in peace, without legal harrassment or discrimination. Nearly all of these people are adamantly against any form of adult-child sexual behavior, and some are even to the point of wanting the death penalty for child molesters.
As for protesting NAMBLA, if I knew of any NAMBLA members, or NAMBLA headquarters, etc., in my daily life, I'd speak out loudly against them at every turn. Hell, I'd even be willing to consider firebombing such an office dedicated to promoting child rape. First, though, I'd make sure the community was up in arms about it, and would hound the landlord of the premises until they evicted the pervert organization.
Frankly, I've heard far more about NAMBLA from Free Republic than I've ever seen in real life about it. Maybe it exists in a few big cities, and maybe local citizens in those communities need to deal with it. All I know is that NAMBLA, or anything like it will never be tolerated by Middle America, and even the gay organizations know it, and often draw the line at supporting such nonsense.
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.