Are children of gay parents worse off?

townhall.com ^ | 5/21/04 | Mona Charen

[little jeremiah]

I agree. Actually the word "homosexual" was invented by one around 100 years ago (?) for the purpose of propaganda. He wanted a word that would create a sense of "special community" among men who wanted to have "sex" not only with each other but most notably with teenage boys.

It's described in "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, which you should read if you haven't yet.

I would use the more literal words "sodomite" and "pederast" but I'm hoping to influence fence-sitters so I use the word "homosexual". When conservatives use the word "gay" I get slightly nauseated.

Peace to you, brother.

[rrrod]

H-ll with PC..Ive had it with all this "same sex" marriage garbage...to paraphrase a quote I heard recently.."Homosexuals go get cured, fixed or healed and leave kids alone"

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Or as some Freeper said (right after the Boy Scouts narrowly escaped having homosexual scoutmasters forced onto them by a squeaker of a vote in the USSC - 5 to 4) ---

Just which part of, "We don't want our boys spending the night in the woods with homosexuals" don't you understand??

[little jeremiah]

.."Homosexuals go get cured, fixed or healed and leave kids alone"..

My sentiments exactly. Would be a good tagline, I just got a new one so I won't use it. Why not add it to your name? It's short and sweet and pithy.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Like it or not, many, if not indeed a majority, find it acceptable for homosexuals to adopt children, with or without gay marriage or civil unions. Liberals are willing to listen to "studies" that track the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples as compared to regular married couples. So I say, bring 'em on (the studies).

OTOH, as Mona Charen points out obliquely, there is a tendency among liberals to believe politically correct results even when they know there might have been politically correct fudging.

Why does it matter what liberals believe? I think it does. As conservative values and ideas are becoming mainstream, hopefully their patterns of harmful advocacy can be changed.

[Buggman]

I love your tagline! Someone ought to make bumper stickers with it.

[little jeremiah]

I saw the phrase on someone's comments the other day. It is truly inspired. I fervently hope someone makes bumper stickers with it. I'm going to make some home made ones anyway. The country should be flooded with them!

[ArGee]

Like it or not, many, if not indeed a majority, find it acceptable for homosexuals to adopt children, with or without gay marriage or civil unions.

Once upon a time many, if not indeed a majority, found it acceptable to treat people as property.

Unfortunately, we are in the same mess now as then. The emperor is naked, but people are afraid of appearing foolish so they won't say so.

Which makes them stupid.

Homosexuals need treatment, not tolerance. There is no lack of compassion in saying so.

Shalom.

[scripter]

The basic problem is not homosexuality per se, but a cultural perception that sex is the most important consideration.

That's a great point. For me I think the most basic problem is selfishness with sex being an underlying factor. As I see it, selfishness is the root cause with adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc as results of the basic problem or problem symptoms.

[Revolting cat!]

You got it! GRRRR! The answer is in the title! Once we refer to pederasty as "gaiety" we've lost the battle if not the war. There ain't nothing wrong with parents who are gay after all, just as there is nothing wrong with choice. Why would anyone be against "choice" or "gaiety"?!

[scripter]

Glad to see you around lately. I'm too busy to be around of late...

Homosexuals need treatment, not tolerance.

Just wanted to hear somebody else say it again.

The fact that ex-homosexuals exist need to be told far and wide. Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.

[pax_et_bonum]

Yes.

[ArGee]

For me I think the most basic problem is selfishness with sex being an underlying factor.

I am in the process of re-reading "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. His description of the efforts of the education establishment to destroy the notion of universal right and wrong are chilling to read after 517 (a far more destructive date in US history than 911 in my opinion). If Lewis made a mistake, it was in thinking the effort to destroy was inadvertant or unintended.

Turning all notions of reality that can't be proven with a scientific experiment into sentiment, and then reducing sentiment into absurdity, has destroyed what we once were.

Oddly, it sounds much more like libertarianism than liberalism.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

You have a great point.

In a sense, the best answer to "Why can't people be homosexual" would have been, "If you have to ask, you need treatment as much as they do."

Once you try to provide a rational explanation for what is clearly wrong, you have put the two assertions - "homosexuality is good" and "homosexuality is bad" - on equal footing with the winner the one that makes the strongest (or loudest) argument.

There is no argument that makes a universal wrong into a civil right. This statement needs no support, but the modern "men without chests" (to borrow from CS Lewis) can't see it.

Shalom.