Arkansas Blog

Thank God someone is trying to protect the children.

I'm sure Max and Arkansas Families First appreciate your thanks, strangelove. I'm glad someone is defending the children from the depredations of the anti-adoption forces.

We've been through this issue, in excruciating detail, on an earlier thread on this blog. To quickly rehash: there is not one shred of scientific evidence from any neutral scientific body anywhere that same-sex couples are unfit for parenting.

The only objections come from religious bigots.

That, in a nutshell, is it.

No doubt our religious bigots here, who love to see their comments on line, will once again weigh in with their moronic rants.

They're the only ones who care what they have to say.

The objections come from people who have moral scruples that don't agree with yours. The objections come from people who want children to grow up in a morally and mentally healthy environment. Children need a family of a mother and a father.

Arkansas Families First reminds me of the expression 'pro choice'. They are both euphemisms that hide their true and dark agendas. Good intentions don't matter when you hurt children and expose them to an unhealthy or immoral lifestyle that doesn't promote what God intended for the family.

Norman Bates: People that can't deal with the issues resort to name calling----docholliday.

These are the same people who believe God commands us to beat our children and that women should never be in authority over men. That's not morally or mentally healthy.

My mother and my step-father lived together before they were married, and while all us kids lived at home. Are you saying that they weren't fit parents? This amendment does, and I resent your implied judgment of my parents -- who obviously did a better job with us than yours, given your hateful attitude.

Children should be raised in a home with their biological parents who are united in marriage or by two step parents, a man and a woman, who are united in marriage.

Since I am opposed to "legal marriage" for religious reasons, won't this violate my federal rights?

"Children need a family of a mother and a father."

So how are the better off with NEITHER in the custody of the state and being moved from one foster home to another?

So you think people aren't married unless the governments says they are? God can't marry people without the government? Do you realize how insulting that is to God?

1. The objections come from people who have moral scruples that don't agree with yours. The objections come from people who want children to grow up in a morally and mentally healthy environment.

I hope you're not saying that those who do not object lack moral scruples.

I hope you're not saying that everyone who objects has moral scruples.

2. Children need a family of a mother and a father.

No.

There are a lot of problems with that statement. Not all people are fit to be parents, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Having the marital status "M" does not necessarily a good parent make.

Having the capacity to love and be loved, having the emotional capacity to support and care for dependent children, having the ability to provide domestic and financial support--those are things that children need. Those attributes are not exclusive to married heterosexual couples.

Don't bring god or religion into the issue. God and religion may be real to you, but that doesn't make him/her or it real to a kid who just wants a home. You can do that with your own kids or with kids you foster (bless their hearts), but you can't do it with kids that you don't foster. If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of homosexual Christians out there who will one day be brainwashing--er...I mean endoctrinating the kids they foster--and I'm talking about endoctrinating the kids into church or temple or synagogue, not endoctrinating them into *the gay lifestyle*, which is a laughable concept to anyone with any sense about them.

I agree that the fostering system needs some fine-tuning to get ample qualfied foster parents, but sexual orientation should not be a factor.

For your musical enjoyment, click for "It Ain't Necessarily So"

Of course I should have named other religions besides Christianity since I used other religious meeting places, but you know what I meant.

Not all people are fit to be parents, yes, but that is not the issue. Healthy children require being raised in a normal environment. A normal enviornment requires a mother and father who are married to each other.

Only God can join together a man and a woman in holy matrimony. That does not preclude obedience to the laws of the society we live in that require a legally sanctioned ceremony that is consistent with one man and one woman united.

No sir. Wrong again. I know healthy children who have been raised by homosexual couples (and homosexual singles, for that matter).

Do you know any unhealthy children raised by their married Mommy and Daddy? Ever heard of a seemingly happily married Dad who screwed his kid?

"Only God can join together a man and a woman in holy matrimony."

Allrighty. But JPs, judges, boat captains, probably notaries public in some places can legally marry people. I'm kidding about the notaries public.

Strange...links please to cases where Gay parents abused children in their care.........
I can't recall one, but, OMG.....every day I read/hear of straight, hetro, so called
christians who abuse, rape, impregnate under age girls, beat to death, kill, leave brain
dead.........do I need to go on???
I think the man who locked his daughter away, in an underground bunker, for years and had
7 babies from raping her, was married to a woman upstairs.........
Now that is what I call, *Upstairs, Downstairs.*

Max, don't let on too much about your financial support of the homos. There are more people against it than there are for it.
Shame on you, Max!

There are bad parents. You know that. There are no guarantees due to human nature no matter what you do but to do the best that you can do to give them a healthy envionment then you must put them with a married man and woman. You are just trying to be evasive.

So strangelove, what do you propose happen to the adopted children of a married couple once they get divorced? Over 50% of marriages (including Christians) get divorced.

Should the state take them out of the home and put them in an orphanage upon their divorce?
Should the state removed all children from the homes of couples that divorce?
I mean if you really are concerned about them having two parents married and living together, why not?

We all know, and so do you, that you don't care about the children needing a home. You just don't want gay couples adopting children, so stop lying (ever heard of thou shalt not lie?).

What do you do with the natural children of parents who divorce? Why should adoptive be any different? Divorce is evil and destroys the child. Why don't you argue against divorce?

What about the 14 year old boy who was raped and murdered by two homosexuals here in Arkansas?

I'm kinda slow tonight...lightbulb just went off,,,,strange is a 3 incher..........LOL

Why don't you argue against divorce? Is there any question in your mind relative to the harm it causes to children? Why do we tolerate how easily we end a marriage when children are involved? Why do we put the parents before the children?

My Mother fled with me, from an abusive, drunk, when I was 4 years old, and filed for
divorce,,,I was never so happy in my young life.......I didn't have to be afraid anymore.
I divorced after 27 years of rule by a man 13 years my senior.
Guess women should just stop whining and TAKE IT, huh???

I find it curious that Max supports a group which will check to verify a group of names on a petition is legal, while lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court allowed the state of Indiana to check IDs at the polls.

Peace Be Upon Him

I raised my children by myself after their father died at a young age. Hubby and I lived together for two years before we married. He became their second father. Lots of love here in my house. It's like the Brady Bunch grown up.

That being said, I see mo problem with unmarried people being able to foster and/or adopt children who need a loving home.

And that includes gay people, who are the most loving, giving, folks I know.

I pray for you folks who would deny a child a loving home.........you are sadly too lost in your own bigotry to see what's best for our children.

Glad to see this thing is being challenged. No one has ever tried to stare down the bully that is Jerry Cox.

Why don't they try to pass a law that disallows adulterers, abusers, and racists from serving as foster/adoptive parents? I would vote for that one. I sure hope AR voters are smart enough to see through this ridiculous bill.

I think it's pretty cool that it's being challenged, but my guess is we get a chance to vote on it.

Strangelove I am against divorce. That's why I don't believe in "legal marriages." You are saying people must be legally married to be good enough to adopt.

Since we agree on divorce, answer my questions.
You didn't answer my questions, because you can't.

Unlike skin color or sex, homosexuality is a hidden trait. Closeted gays can enter into sham marriages, have children, abuse their children due to frustration of being in a sham marriage, and it would be darn near impossible to attribute that abuse to a homosexual. Thus, it is impossible to know how many children have been abused by gays. The abuse also has to be reported to be counted. Given the embarrassment of being raped by a member of the same sex, I would suspect that abuse by gay parents is rarely reported. We really don't know the extent of child abuse done by gays.

Certainly there are some gay couples who have done a fine job, but we really don't know how many are incompetent. Perhaps the answer is to have more frequent visits from social workers for non-married couples rather than total banishment.

I think we'd need to check on the married couples with the same frequency. Marital status isn't the right marker to be focusing on.

Once again, there is not one piece of evidence that proves that gay people are inherently harmful parents. Not one. I should know, as I studied this and similar topics for years while earning the tiltle "licensed clinical social worker."
I worry about the kids who wont't have stable homes. Who will bounce from foster home to foster home to juvenile detention to group homes to ???
The foster care system is broken, anyone in the field will tell you that. And one way to fix it is to permanently place children wilth loving adults=parents. Kids need parents who are stable and love them. Such a need is simple, and unsurprisingly, the research backs it up. Whether a chld has one loving parent, a hetero couple, or a homosexual one, all can and do meet the requirement of "parent." I thank God for adoptive parents. I often wonder how many conservatives against abortion and same-sex adoption solve the problem by adopting these children themselves?!

I think the only people worried about gays adopting are "closeted gays."

Perhaps strangelove and Severus are gay and like children so they assume everyone else does too?

Severus makes an interesting argument, that child abuse in man-woman marriages is to be attributed to closeted gays in "sham marriages". Does he actually believe that? If so, then he should work for the full acceptance of gays and lesbians so they don't have to engage in "sham marriages".

It's a silly argument, of course, because it doesn't explain which closeted gay men would rape their daughters. I simply point out the consequences of consistency for Severus.

By the way, could I ask the decent folks who post here to stop suggesting everyone that disagrees with them is a closeted gay? That's a little like saying all the racial bigots are light-skinned blacks who are passing.

This issue of whom should adopt should be done on a case by case basis by a *properly funded* DHS that isn't stacked with fundie/Dominionist workers and supervisors. The Dominionists on this board (STRANGELOVE, L A R G E A S S. CHASV) continue to jones for yet more discriminatory laws much like their seg ansestors last Century.

Max: can folks in AR check whom signed these petitions on a county by county basis?

"I sure hope AR voters are smart enough to see through this ridiculous bill."

Me too, rockstar, but sadly this will pass overwhelmingly, and you need go no further than this thread to see why - Morons rule in Arkansas. There is a reason we're at the bottom of % with college degrees, have the worst state legislature imaginable, have people with the "beliefs" of Strange, chasv and fellow travelers in positions of authority and who have to invent ridiculous bogeymen like "sham" marriages by gays so they can abuse children out of whole cloth. It's called willful, intentional ignorance.

They NEVER respond to the facts as presented here regarding the supposed "danger" to children in the custody of gays. We know many gay parents, coupled and single. They are fine parents and singularly unremarkable, just like everyone else who is "normal," to borrow a word from a Moron...
|
|

RIGHT ON, Ms_Haley!!! Says it all.

It's gonna be awful quiet around here when multi-strangleLuv-voices crawl back in their hole November 5.

"Strange...links please to cases where Gay parents abused children in their care.........--jazzy

Obviously, jazzy, he has none.

Yup, larry, she says it all.

I do have a prejudice: Sanctimonious, religious zealots who hide their twisted, hate-filled ways behind an innocent little God. I struggle with it...but when someone starts talking God ya can count down till the hate/judging starts. I'm sure there are some good Christians out there...but I've only met a handful. The rest are the town's closet perverts, bullies and thieves. 'They'd sell their own momma for a dime.' And, I just hate the way they're trying to take over our country. You'd think they'd try to assimilate if they wanted to live here...become a thinking American who appreciates/respects the Constitution...learn to speak the language of respect, openness and a non-religious government.

You know what is interesting here? The sheer passion of the people against this.

I think the amendment will be soundly defeated. People may not know any gay parents, but they will know of an unmarried couple who are doing a fine job of parenting. And they're going to strongly disagree with those who say those parents are bad and the children are suffering.

Zelda: If it's any comfort to you, and, admittedly, it may not be much, some of us Christians out here are just as disgusted with those "other Christians" as you are. We're embarrassed to be lumped together with them--and wish we weren't!

I don't endorse sanctimoniousness. I don't believe in hate. I don't endorse hiding behind God to foster hate. I don't approve of profanity in the name of God. I don't even approve of name-calling in the name of God.

And I don't believe everyone else is obligated to believe what I believe.

And I especially don't believe that it is the responsibility of government--at ANY level--to impose my religious beliefs on society as a whole--not even on my next-door neighbor, let alone the whole society.

In fact, if I can't convince someone of the value of my beliefs by demonstration and persuasion, I would seem to be admitting my own ineffectiveness if I had to rely upon the government to do it for me by force!

I think that when "the church" turns to government to enact its beliefs into law, that is an admission of its own ineffectiveness--actually, its defeat. In effect, it's saying, "We surrender. We can't do it by persuasion. We have failed. You'll have to do it for us by legislation."

Anytime God has to turn to secular government to do His work for Him, He's in pretty bad shape.

It's hard for some Christians to grasp, but the Constitution of the United States is a secular document. And those who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States are swearing only that; they're not swearing to uphold the Bible.

Personally, I believe in the Bible; I believe the Bible. But my governmental representatives are not responsible for imposing that on anyone else. In fact, it was a sad day for Chritianity when Constantine FORCED his soldiers to become "Christians." They weren't any more Christians when they came up out of the water than they were before they went down into the water.

Anytime the government gets into the God business, it's a sad day for that government AND for God.

There's just something out of joint about hate expressed in the name of the God of love!

But I guess you can figure out the reason the funDAMentalists don't particularly care for me. I'm not welcome in their circles.

IF homos are so in need to adopt a child let them adopt a child from other counties where children are straving to death each day. Children are so famished that their arms and legs look like sticks. Their eyes are sunken from being very malnurished.

If you really care go to www.rodparsley.com and donate to help the famished children where hundreds die each week. Fifty two dollars feeds a child for a year.

I believe it is an abomination for our government to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have fighting wars when it could feed the whole world.

IF homos are so in need to adopt a child let them adopt a child from other counties where children are straving to death each day. Children are so famished that their arms and legs look like sticks. Their eyes are sunken from being very malnurished.

If you really care go to www.rodparsley.com and donate to help the famished children where hundreds die each week. Fifty two dollars feeds a child for a year.

I believe it is an abomination for our government to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have fighting wars when it could feed the whole world.

Comrade John A Arkansawyer,

You can certainly twist what I say, but the point is that being homosexual is an invisible trait. Certainly gays can let it be known that they are gay by their behavior, but unlike race or gender, it can be easily hidden. If Barry Obama experimented with sex with other men in his younger days as is rumoured to be true, and if he happened to abuse his children (not likely, but hypothetically), would it count against the heterosexual or the homosexual community?

I did not say that ALL child abuse exists in sham marriages, I said that some is. On paper, such abuse would be falsely attributed to heterosexuals rather than homosexuals. The social worker doesn't know if "Uncle Max" is just a roommate or a gay lover. This was just an example of why it is impossible to quantify abuse by gay parents. Given that liberals like to twist things, I will further explain what I just said. We don't really know if gays are more likely or less likely to abuse children. There is no data available. Then of course there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that says that when you measure something, you fundamentally alter it and limit the precision with which you can measure it. When no data is available, we have to resort to theory and speculation. You libs do it all the time, so don't be surprised.

I suspect that our conservative friends at the American Family Council believe that gays want to adopt/foster children with the hidden agenda of indoctrinating them about the homosexual lifestyle, or at the very least teaching them that homosexuality is a morally acceptable alternative to a heterosexual lifestyle. The communists and liberals know the importance of indoctrinating children at an early age, homosexuals want to do the same to shape future public opinion.

"There you go again," as senile old Ronald Reagan loved to say.

"We don't really know if gays are more likely or less likely to abuse children. There is no data available."

That statement is either completely ignorant or a flat lie. But Severus has repeated it at least twice, now, on this thread as if it were true. This tactic has been used so often by the right (repeat a lie over and over and hope that the dunces will start to believe it) that it's become synonymous with Republican.

In fact, there are TONS of data from decades of research and study by our own government (and many other clinical sources).

The DHS, Child Services Division, whether from D.C. or right here in Arkansas, has consistently shown and refined the facts -- which I will continue to trot out everytime a bigot here lies about this topic.

95% of all child sexual abuse is heterosexual males against underage girls.

"What about those two gay guys in Podunk who molested that little boy?" (paraphrasing). If the point is to paint all gay men as child molesters, it's as stupid as asking, "What about all those priests who molested all those children?" as representing the Catholic priesthood, or asking, "What about that guy who shot his wife?" as representing heterosexual males.

Only the uninformed and unthinking would even make such a meaningless statement. Only the uninformed and unthinking would accept it as in any way meaningful.

Typically, Severus sets up his straw man with a lie about "there is no data" then spends an entire paragraph falsely citing the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, trying to sound intelligent but actually exposing his own shallow idiocy to imply that nothing can "really" be measured (and repeating his lie that there is no data to start with).

If that were true, which it's not, then there would be no such thing as accurate scientific measurements and thus ALL of physics, engineering, etc., could not possibly lead to building airplanes, satellites, rockets or getting mankind to the moon.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.

That's ALL it states (though it is, in fact, far more profound than that). But in no way does it invalidate all measurements and data, as Severus ignorantly implies, nor has it anything to do with sociology, psychology, or statistics but, rather, quantum physics.

That's the problem with people who know nothing, but boy-oh-boy do they have opinions. Dumb ones, but opinions nonetheless. It's also the problem with ignorance pretending to be well-educated and informed, yet still wrong.

You hear it every day in conversations with people who don't know the difference between "him and me" and "he and I." Or people who say, "I feel badly about that," instead of (correctly) "I feel bad." To say you "feel badly" means there is something wrong with your sense of touch. They don't know better because they're ill-informed. But in their pretentious minds they think "he and I" or "feel badly" sounds more high-falutin' so they always use it even when it's incorrect. It's nothing more than pretentious ignorance.

Exactly as Severus falsely states there are "no data" and incorrectly cites the Heisenberg Principle.

You're welcome.

"I think the only people worried about gays adopting are "closeted gays."
Perhaps strangelove and Severus are gay and like children so they assume everyone else does too?
Posted by: eark | August 20, 2008 12:54 AM"

I personally believe this "closeted gay" thing is the biggest reason for most of the prejudice against gays and lesbians. Or probably more accurately described as latent homosexuals; these are the ones who have the biggest "hate" for the g/l community. The most likely resent the fact that they can't be out, for whatever reason, AND by letting on that they hate this portion of the population the average Joe doesn't realize just WHY they hate it. Thou protesteth too much.

Aw, Norma, you disappointed me. You're too kind and gentle.

I was expecting you to go ahead and nail him on, "There is no data available."

Although you correctly phrased it in your final sentence, "there are no data."

Severus is arguing statistics--or something--when he isn't even aware that data are plural.

Homos live twisted lives so it is common knowledge they will twist everything anyone says about their twist lifestyle.
O the proof can be read on this blog any time.

One day soon God will shut their mouths because He will be fed up listening to their twisted lies.

It is true, you can't tell a homo from those who are not until word gets around about 'em. I have known some who died an unexpected death from health problems.

Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, but he says a lot about wealth and greed.

But then again, most "Christians" couldn't care less what Jesus said.

chasv sure makes homosexuality sound really hot! I'm wondering more and more what I'm missing?

I think the solution here is making it much more difficult to join the Family Council. Now all it takes is a Bible and a white hood. I think everyone connected to Family Council and any future members should be required to take a blood test to make sure their parentage is pure, you'd be surprised how many good Christian families have one kid with an unknown different father.

I think they should take a lie detector test to make sure they have never cheated on their spouse or engaged in a homosexual act (no matter how much fun it was) or had an abortion and they should be required to bring their own wooden cross and can of gasoline.

Only those who pass these tests would be admitted into the exalted Family Council.

normabates said: "Severus sets up his straw man with a lie about "there are no data" then spends an entire paragraph falsely citing the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, trying to sound intelligent but actually exposing his own shallow idiocy to imply that nothing can "really" be measured (and repeating his lie that there is no data to start with)."

Again a liberal has attempted to twist my statement because it knows that I am correct. I must have hit a nerve. I never said that "nothing can really be measured." Because so many homosexuals are embarrassed of their sexual orientation, they keep it hidden. It's not like race or gender, homosexuality can be hidden.

Homosexuals and liberals do like to take studies that have serious methodological flaws and limitations, and attempt to generalize to the entire population of homosexuals when it suits them.

I can imagine that for every child in Arkansas who is in danger of being adopted by a gay person(s), there are thousands of children birthed by impoverished, immature mothers and deadbeat fathers into less than adequately christian homes and environments. What are they doing about that? Abstinence training? They're stepping on ants and the kids are getting run over by elephants.

Wouldn't a creep just snatch a child rather wait for an adoption process?

These days the primary ones who keep it hidden are preachers (Haggard) and pols (Craig) and their ilk. There is no reason to keep it hidden (once you're an adult), but the damage done to gay minors is chilling - often manifesting in suicide. I sure hope RfO is correct and I'm wrong on the potential of the ban ballot issue!!! SkyPilot should be commended for that treatise - THANKS!! DBI as always cuts to the core about the hypocritical bigots in FC and their man Jerry Cocks.

The result of the fear of gays (which spawns the hatred) when embodied in a "closeted" gay is SELF hate, which is probably the most destructive part of this ridiculous conundrum that them "religious proclaimers" have created. Love thy neighbor as thyself plus the Golden Rule would seem to cover it ALL.

Since we can be CERTAIN that the usual suspects don't personally know any gays/lesbians (would any WANT to know these buttwipes?!!) we can be certain they've set up a self-fulfilling prophesy which allows them to characterize, stereotype and marginalize fellow citizens. Clever! Self-delusion, but clever...
|

bugeyedlittlefreak - if you want to indoctrinate a child with pro-homosexual views, it takes time. It certainly helps when the government validates that it's "ok" and gives its approval.

On the surface "being human" in fact IS OK. One man's indoctrination is another's education, but what we have here is the intentional ignorance of those who shun critical thinking. No person should seek (or NEED) "government approval." What a crock!
|

"Again a liberal has attempted to twist my statement because it knows that I am correct..."--severus

Damn...she knew you were right and went on and kicked your argument's ass. Great persevering, norma!

...like it needed to be twisted, ha!

More and more I'm convinced that chav, Severus, strangelove, and LargeAss are members of the Phelps family. Why don't you all do your blogging in Kansas where you live and leave us Arkies alone!

GOD HATES PHELPS's!

Click on my name for a detailed critique of the studies that abnormal and other liberals are quoting about the supposed equality of homosexual parents. The web page is quite comprehensive. The findings aren't surprising. Here is a small excerpt:

"A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias....."

Severus and chasv are clearly bigots. Their illogical arguments have been debunked in numerous posts. They'll never address a logical argument. All of their arguments completely require that you believe in their invisible god, and their cherry-picked old testament rules. They can't make an argument that makes sense to a non-believer. To top it all off, they're proud of their ignorance.

Oh, please, Severus. Anybody knows (and can see from your link) that every one of those "studies" is backed by a fundamentalist religious organization with a biased ax to grind.

As I stated earlier, there is not one single objective scientific study to back your bigotry.

Not one.

In fact, several reputable scientists recently excoriated the Family Research Council for falsely "citing" and twisting their studies in their propaganda (lying, in other words) and demanded they be removed.

Remember the one about not "bearing false witness?"

Of course you don't.

Lies are all your side has on this issue, precious.

I wonder which is more pathetic.

The self-serving circular arguments?
The feigned obliviousness?
The evil mean-spiritedness?
The outright lies?

The best argument against God?
Look at what they're saying in his name on the Blog.

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson

hoggerneck, God is a spirit and he can be seen in all of His creation and if you'd open your blind eyes you can see many things that He made.

A fool said in his heart there is no God... a FOOL said that.. all fools will burn is hell fire.
As the apostle Paul said I am a fool for Christ... me too...
Any child knows there is a God but you old fools think you're smart and are deceiving yourselves.
I hate to be there when you are face to face with God when he judges you.

DBI how would you know what God hates? You don't know him and He doesn't know you.

Rave on Chas. V. Phelps......I haven't been to Kansas in years and I don't plan to get near yer state in the future either. Don't bother telling yer Pa hi for me neither. Scat!

There are turds in the punch bowl... I'm waiting for the open line.
|

Those turds looks and sounds like dbi and larry... yeah it is. stinks.. to high heaven.

Worth a read...

clicky

Severus:
I changed a word. Can you find it?

"...We don't really know if STRAIGHTS are more likely or less likely to abuse children. There is no data available. Then of course there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that says that when you measure something, you fundamentally alter it and limit the precision with which you can measure it. When no data is available, we have to resort to theory and speculation."

Severus and Chasv:
You will lose. If you don't lose in Arkansas, you'll lose elsewhere. Your ways of thinking, your ways of oppression--these things are dying, wasting away. You and your beliefs will continue to lose more and more ground, more and more strength as humanity marches forward toward acceptance of it's various creeds and peoples. You will loose nationally, you will lose politically. One notch at a time. One day at a time, we progressives will whittle. Slowly some days, quicker on others.

But you WILL lose. And you will watch yourselves lose, and you'll become angrier more frustrated. Causes like yours always lose. It's inevitable.

And I, a gay man, will smile at you in the sunshine. And I will thank those who helped us.

And you will have LOST. :-D

spunkrat said: "Severus: I changed a word. Can you find it? "
"...We don't really know if STRAIGHTS are more likely or less likely to abuse children. There is no data available. Then of course there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that says that when you measure something, you fundamentally alter it and limit the precision with which you can measure it. When no data is available, we have to resort to theory and speculation."

You have not changed the meaning of what I said. I'm glad to hear that you agree with me.

The studies that Normabates loves to reference are not generalizable due to the way that they sampled. Even the definition of homosexuals is problematic. Do you include people like DBI that experimented in his youth when he was spaced out on drugs? Given that gays don't have to declare that they are gay, how exactly do you develop a sampling frame to ensure that the population of gays is representatively sampled? Results based on a sample of convenience are not in general applicable to any other population. Are the results the same for gay males and lesbians? One lib has already made the point that household resources may be more important than any other factor. If so, did the studies sample gays from a range of income levels?

Servus,
Take a trip to Fayetteville some weekend. I know a knock out looking babe, about 30 who sports the finest rounded bosom in a ruffled low cut blouse you could hope to gaze upon. It goes by "Le" and is pronounced "Lee." But I must add that as a regular straight guy don't grasp Le in the groin area and risk ruining your reputation or at least have the embarrassment of your life.

Le and boyfriend could easily be assumed as man and woman, married if necessary and totally blow away your "hidden" gender issue.
The above is 100% true.

That story out of the way, I did rent to a couple of lovely women about my age twenty years ago. They had cute, witty young daughter. Wendy is now a normal woman who is heterosexual, a skilled web designer, and only dates men. She likes artistic fellows, musicians, creative types.
Back in the 80s the two gay parents had their lovely,cute and clever Wendy in church every Sunday.
.
Norma is correct. A widely disproportionate number of sexually abused children occurs in heterosexual marriages.

Springdale recently discovered two teen boys who had been sodomized by their Jr High coach. The coach is a married man with a family, 41 years old.
.

Sorry eLwood but anecdotal evidence doesn't meet the standards of research. The Jr High coach sounds a lot like the guys in Brokeback Mountain. Who's to say that the coach isn't a closeted gay?

Elwood,

While I consider the ideal to be the heterosexual married couple, and I consider anything else to be inferior, I will stipulate that there is a subset of gay/lesbian and unmarried straight couples that probably won't do too bad of a job.