Some things just hang around like a bad smell

Everyone has an agenda or bias.

That is a fact of human nature.

I certainly do. I stand for Catholicism and its truth and beauty. If you think you will find support for something other than that on this webpage then you will be sorely disappointed.

Journalists also have an agenda as well. And, collectively, it is profoundly left of centre.

A survey of political allegiance amongst journalists has found that the overwhelming majority of them support Labor and the Greens. Surprise, surprise.

Just 14 per cent of the over 600 journalists surveyed responded that they would vote for the Coalition.

At the ABC, over 40 per cent ticked the box of the Green Loony Machine.

This means that, on the whole, journalists are completely out of touch with Australian society. You don’t have to be Nostradamus to foresee that Labor and the Greens will be put on life support by the Australian community at the next Federal Election.

Or that there will be many, many voters who actually want the machine switched off altogether, beaten into a thousand little pieces and finally buried in a toxic waste dump – hopefully somewhere in New Zealand.

However, journalists don’t like being called out of touch. They prefer another term: progressive.

That is how they justify running agendas that the Australian people just do not support. Like gay marriage.

It also explains why large exposure is given to any politician who speaks in favour of the issue, but little coverage is allowed for those who don’t.

So when the supposedly Christian Kevin Rudd jumped on the definitely anti-Christian gay marriage bandwagon yesterday it was predictably large news.

What wasn’t mentioned anywhere, however, was a referendum on whether Australians actually supported the idea of two blokes walking down the aisle together.

That is because Australians don’t support this idea and the media knows it. By the way, so does Julia Gillard. The last thing she wants is to tie the knot with a big concrete block called ‘referendum on gay marriage’ before jumping into the electoral ocean.

You might remember that there were calls for a referendum only a few weeks ago. They were loud, noisy and the story punched out by the media and pro-gay marriage activists was that Australians supported gay marriage.

The cocksure implication was that it was already a done deal – no one but a bigot would say no.

But in the little test run on this issue in Tasmania the majority did say no.

So since then the media has gone all quiet on the idea of a referendum. So have activist groups.

Now, instead, the message on gay marriage has changed. And it no longer involves the Australian people or their views.

It simply involves politicians and the media’s continuous urging that they have the utmost, urgent, vital, pressing need to re-examine their consciences (again) and then again until they vote yes.

And when they do, they will be given glowing reports and column inches to stoke their egos.

And the overwhelming majority of stories will imply that this is what Australians want and that they want it now.

And so the message will be pumped out in a fashion that would impress even Goebbels himself. It will be declared that parliamentarians need to revisit this issue before the election to satisfy the Australian people and their desire for justice, compassion and gay marriage.

But it is not true.

It is also completely hypocritical. If anyone tries to raise other social issues that threaten the victories achieved by radical progressives then they are immediately labelled as divisive. And, firmly, it is declared that the issue has already been decided.

But, as gay marriage shows, it is perfectly legitimate for the media to keep their pet agendas on the table, even after they are defeated over and again.

That means that we shouldn’t expect the gay marriage debate to disappear, even if Tony Abbott is elected on a platform opposing this radical social change.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

43 Comments

  1. “Only slightly more likely, and if I were a betting man, I’d wager that it’s discrimination by self-righteous a**holes that makes the difference. I can give you a clear-cut reason why gay people exhibit slightly higher rates of depression and suicide – PEOPLE EXACTLY LIKE YOU who want to say “No” to allowing marriage, “No” to allowing adoption and people like Bernard who flap about with firebrand rhetoric about the evils of homosexuality. You and your like-minded peers are in fact partly responsible for the exact statistics you’re shoving in my face, especially if you’re the kind of person who’d kick their kid out of home for having the courage to tell his/her religiously inclined parents that they’re gay.” ———————————— So how come homosexual couples who are in a registered domestic relationship are eight times more likely to commit suicide? —————————————- “METHOD: Using data from death certificates issued between 1990 and 2001 and population estimates from the Danish census, we estimated suicide mortality risk among individuals classified into one of three marital/cohabitation statuses: current/formerly in same-sex RDPs; current/formerly heterosexually married; or never married/registered. RESULTS: Risk for suicide mortality was associated with this proxy indicator of sexual orientation, but only significantly among men. The estimated age-adjusted suicide mortality risk for RDP men was nearly eight times greater than for men with positive histories of heterosexual marriage and nearly twice as high for men who had never married. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk appears greatly elevated for men in same-sex partnerships in Denmark. To what extent this is true for similar gay and bisexual men who are not in such relationships is unknown, but these findings call for targeted suicide prevention programs aimed at reducing suicide risk among gay and bisexual men.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033129

    Post a Reply
  2. I’ve been reading through the comments and I guess it just reinforces the fact that statistics can just about prove anything on both sides of a debate.
    I’m a meat and potatoes kind of guy and would like to ask a simple base question of all of you intelligent people. Why do homosexuals want to get married?
    Is it an equality thing? or maybe a justification of their lifestyle? Not sure, please enlighten me.
    The reason I ask is that the majority of people out there don’t see marriage as anything important unless they are religious.
    You either believe in God or you don’t.
    If you believe in God, marriage is important and you probably won’t support gay marriage as Bernard has done.
    If you don’t believe in God who the hell cares if you have a piece of paper saying you are married.
    Why do homosexuals fell that it is so important?
    Oh! and another thing, I may be wrong here, but why does it seem that the majority of pro gay marriage advocates
    are not in fact homosexuals?
    Cheers

    Post a Reply
    • Because we’re pragmatic people who don’t see any point denying rights to other people on religious grounds. Gay people want to marry because a) regardless of your religion, marriage still has symbolism, as an expression of love, of unity, of commitment etc… I’m not at all religious, I still married my wife. B) there are legal and financial benefits to a legally recognised marriage.

      I also know people who ARE religious who are in support of gay marriage because they, like myself, understand that men marrying men and women marrying women will have absolutely *no impact whatsoever* on their own marriage. If they want to stamp up and down about the sanctity of marriage, why aren’t they proposing measures to ensure people have a demonstrable history of commitment before marrying, in order to reduce the incidence of divorce and marriage out of convenience? Because it’s *none of their business*. The only difference is, the drive-through Hollywood weddings that take place a week after the couple meet and break off 3 weeks later usually involve a heterosexual couple. But two men who have been committed to each other for 10 years (I know such a couple) aren’t allowed to marry because it “ruins the sanctity of marriage”. Give me a f**king break.

      So I hope that answers your questions… if not, I’d be happy to elaborate. The bottom line is: I refuse to accept the idea that it’s still permissible or correct, in this day and age, to deny rights to a group of people on religious grounds, especially when the provision of that right would have no impact on those who are so against it.

      Post a Reply
    • Also, please don’t take my language or demeanour personally, I was just trying to answer your questions as honestly as I could 🙂 and I hope I succeeded!

      Post a Reply
  3. So now we know where you stand Bruce ” I think homosexuality is a mental illness and that people who are afflicted with it need psychiatric help”
    Maybe they can send all homosexuals to Conversion therapy but even the American Psychiatric Association has condemened this treatment because its based upon the assumption like yours Bruce homosexuality is a mental disorder.
    The only people that think this therapy can work are fundamentalist Christians groups.
    Do you really think electric shock or drugs are going to change someone?

    Post a Reply
  4. Paul and Richard, who are both barracking furiously for same-sex marriage on the basis that children in such a relationship (I won’t call it a family because it’s not) are not harmed by that parental same-sex relationship might like to read the following report published in the journal “Social Science Research”, by Mark Regnerus.

    See this link:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

    This report is a large-scale study comparing children raised by homosexual couples and those raised by married parents. It found many significant differences between the groups, with outcomes for the former rated “suboptimal” in almost every category.

    Go ahead, boys – read a fully legitimate, fully credentialled paper that confirms exactly how much damage is done to children by them growing up in a same-sex household.

    Then come back in spluttering fury and denial – as will no doubt occur – and tell us all why those academics are wrong.

    Post a Reply
    • Interesting read, Jim… I was especially taken by the conclusion:

      “Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day”

      No surprises there, that if kids grow up in the quintessential family utopia (no divorce, no death, no infidelity, no remarriage), they are more apt to succeed as adults. Not really finding the evidence in that report that suggests children of gay adoptive parents are doomed to failure and a life on the streets, mate. And once again, you’re probably conveniently ignoring the fact that ongoing prejudice accounts for a lot of the hardships of homosexuals, and the kids they may adopt. Poor little Tim has to put up with the kids at school who bully him because their parents said “can’t believe they’re letting those faggots send their adopted kid to the same school”.

      A relative of mine is gay, and his parents were upset… not because they thought it was immoral (which they didn’t), not because they think it’s a mental illness (which they don’t), but because they knew it would mean a tougher life because of prejudice. You don’t see anything wrong with that picture?

      Post a Reply
  5. Once again Richard well said….Bernard where are you?…….Or are you the sort of person that like to start a fire and then sit back and watch?
    Do you support all these comments from Bruce?

    Post a Reply
    • He never replies. At all. Not once have I seen a reply from the B-man. Just as well, I imagine having an argument with him on this subject, much like with old Bruce, would be like trying to play chess with a pigeon. He’ll get up, strut around the board knocking over the pieces and crapping on them, and then proclaim victory (to paraphrase a popular analogy for arguing with idiots).

      Post a Reply
      • You don’t know how to debate, richard. Dissembling and deflecting doesn’t make a sound argument. You cherry-pick your arguments, carefully leaving out the vital information that contradicts your stance. Throwing out your opinions and holding them up as facts. Then there’s the deliberate misrepresentation of what’s put in front of you…

      • OK, so if you wanna take it back to the original debate, your original stance was: “children will be harmed by gay marriage.” So far, the statistics have only supported the one fact – one class will always be on the wrong side of the statistics. Change perspective, and suddenly the tables will turn. Dig deeper and they’ll turn again. The simpler truth is that every marriage has the opportunity to be either a blessing or a curse for the kids who are in the care of the parents, whether they be biological, adoptive-heterosexual or adoptive-homosexual. There are some gay adoptive parents out there who run rings around some heterosexual parents. There’s both gold, and sh**, on both sides. Dig up some stats along your chosen vector (whether it be child neglect, disease, mental health, pick one) and you’ll no doubt find some silver bullet that correlates something appalling with the people you’re out to deny rights to, as long as it helps whip up a little fear in the process. Based on the statistics and reasoning you’ve presented, it’d only be fair to proclaim that STRAIGHT marriage also harms kids. Because it does, right? I mean, there are plenty of heterosexual married couples who have raised kids who ended up committing suicide, doing drugs or committing to a life of crime. So you can sit there at your keyboard, completely disconnected from the lives of the people who are trying to gain the right to marry, and make stupid, overgeneralised blanket proclamations about how what they want is going to destroy the fabric of our society, somehow oblivious (or just wilfully omissive) of the fact you simply don’t like these people. I can promise you this though: progress is inevitable, and gay marriage will be allowed in our lifetime, because it only takes so long to drown out the empty, rattling tin cans.

  6. Bruce if you think raising a child with a father who is a abusive is better off cause he is being raised with a father and a mother rather than being safe with a gay couple then you are a sick person.

    Post a Reply
    • I never said children should be raised with abusive people.

      Post a Reply
      • So would they be better off in care of a gay couple?

      • Nope.

    • Except for the fact everything he said was wrong… 😀

      Post a Reply
  7. Thank you for pointing this out Bernard. I’m sick and tired of the left-leaning media glorifying gay marriage while it attacks those who oppose it. None of the nutters in the media care about the children who will be harmed by gay marriage.

    Post a Reply
    • How are Children in a Gay marriage harmed?
      Are you saying children in a normal marriage don’t get Harmed?
      Im guessing you think the marriage of Britney Spears that lasted all 55 Hours is better than to gays marrying or Elizabeth Taylor who was married 8 times…but wait gays will ruin marriage.

      Post a Reply
      • Now, 2 Pauls commenting on the same site is something I didn’t see coming. lol To the other Paul, the “homosexual marriage is bad for children” is partly based on the mistaken idea that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.

      • Children in a gay marriage are harmed firstly by the suppression of their inalienable right to a mother and a father. If you think homosexuals have a natural right to adopt children that is superior to the inalienable rights of the child there is something very wrong with your ability to reason.

        In response to your your argument that children in a normal marriage may be harmed I say you are being absurd. That is no justification for adoption. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        The other aspect of gay adoption is the short term nature of most homosexual relationships which means the child will most likely not have stability, the danger that he will be exposed to homosexual behaviour at a young age and to men outside the “marriage” who are sexual partners to the parents. Studies show that “gay marriages” tend to be open meaning that fidelity to partners is usually non-existent.

        Children will not benefit from being placed in the hands of homosexual “carers.”

      • So Children will not benefit from being placed in the hands of homosexual “carers”…..of course not cause the child will end up being gay.
        I find it amazing that Parents kick their sons or daughters out of home because they are homosexual.

      • Perhaps queers are thrown out because their parents don’t want them to bring an STD into the household? Homosexuals are highly promiscuous and anal sex is the most dangerous type of sex.

      • Plenty of studies have found that children raised outside of a normal mother-father household are more likely to drop out of school, take drugs, become drunks, end up in jail, carry out a violent crime, commit suicide and become mentally ill. It’s cruel to place children in a situation that is known to jeopardise their safety. Putting the selfish desires of homosexuals ahead of the safety of children is contemptuous.

      • Bernard this is the sort of person that supports you. well done you must be proud.
        What studies? Provide links to back this up.

      • Bruce, that “study” that “backs up” your argument merely talks about fatherless households. How a household came to become fatherless (death, suicide, divorce, the child never even knew their father etc) is up for grabs, and the dubious, stupid bloody article makes no mention of gay parents at all. Face it – you just don’t like gays because the idea is icky to you. The fact is that gay parents (two men or two women) can do just as good a job, and in a lot of cases, a better job, than two hetero parents. And vice versa, of course… I’m sure there are gay parents out there who have the shortfalls and failings, just as there are straight parents.

        Phil – “Children in a gay marriage are harmed firstly by the suppression of their inalienable right to a mother and a father. If you think homosexuals have a natural right to adopt children that is superior to the inalienable rights of the child there is something very wrong with your ability to reason.” What a load of crap. So you’re saying that children are better off growing up either in a) a poverty-stricken, disease-ridden third-world community, or b) in an orphanage, than they are with gay parents who adopt them?

        Bernard, you should be ashamed. Both your horrid, bigoted opinions and the knuckle-dragging dunderheads that support you are a cancer on our society.

      • richard, that wasn’t a study, but an article citing many studies. You fail. They weren’t all about ‘fatherless households. Some of them involved motherless households. Another fail for you, richard. Homosexual families are doomed for failure because a child can only be biologically related to one man. The risk of child abuse increases when a child is raised by a step-parent. A homosexual step-parent, which accounts for at least 50% of all homosexuals who are raising children with their partners, would probably be even worse than a heterosexual one because they’re more likely to be overly promiscuous, mentally ill and violent. You’re a sick person if you think children should be raised in that environment.

      • Bruce, you’re a sick person for applying generalised and ridiculous logic to everyone. By that same “if the shoe fits one, it fits all” logic, we should ban Catholic churches, owing to the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the Church. We should ban parents from remarrying, because step parents are often abusive (load of tripe, I have both a stepfather and a stepmother, both of whom are wonderful people, and the same goes for many of my friends). Maybe we should just ban religion altogether, seeing as there are groups like Westboro Baptist Church and al Qaeda kicking around, both of whom vehemently promote hate and intolerance while spouting about religious justification for said hate.

        “Homosexual families are doomed for failure because a child can only be biologically related to one man.” – What?? What on earth has that got to do with anything? What about heterosexual couples that adopt children who have lost their parents, or were born into an abuse family, or children adopted from third-world circumstances? They’re not biologically related to either adoptive parent then. Your logic here is absurd and irrelevant.

        “The risk of child abuse increases when a child is raised by a step-parent.” – More crap. Here, read this: http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf – a few years old now and from the USA, not Australia, but really, the cultural differences wouldn’t create much variation in the report. Interesting tidbit: “Of the duplicate perpetrators who were parents, more than four-fifths (84.7%) were the biological parents, 4 percent were stepparents and 0.7 percent were adoptive parents.” So you might wanna cram that statistic of yours down the throat of someone else, perhaps someone more gullible and gay-hating than yourself.

        “…they’re more likely to be overly promiscuous, mentally ill and violent”. Statistics, please? Can you substantiate this?

        There are plenty of heterosexual parents who do an APPALLING job of raising their kids, plenty who abuse their kids, plenty of kids who drop out of school, turn to drugs or commit suicide (or all of the above) for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of their parents. You just don’t like gay people because you think it’s icky. That’s it. So, really, that just makes you prejudiced, and for unjustifiable reasons… so to sum up in more succinct words, you’re really just a bigoted pr**k.

        Bernard, between your own rantings and those of your supporters, you certainly paint a colourful (and horribly unsettling and depressing) picture of the Australia you’re looking for. For someone to think its worse to raise kids with gay parents than it is to indoctrinate kids into religion is just dumbfounding.

      • “Bruce, you’re a sick person for applying generalised and ridiculous logic to everyone.” —————————– richard, you’re a loudmouthed punk with no brains and unable to interpret statistics. Learn to read and think before you start shouting like a nutcase. See? I can be rude too! “By that same “if the shoe fits one, it fits all” logic, we should ban Catholic churches, owing to the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the Church.” ——————————– But people do make fun of the Catholic church for its role in covering up child abuse within its ranks. Why should homosexuals be given a pass when they’re doing the same thing? Don’t you realise that the priests who are abusing boys are homosexuals? Straight men don’t go around having sex with boys. “(load of tripe, I have both a stepfather and a stepmother, both of whom are wonderful people, and the same goes for many of my friends)” ———————————– Now you’re just being hysterical and showing that you don’t know the definition of a general rule. I said that step-parents are more likely to abuse children, at least on a per capita basis. The total number of step-parents abusing kids is going to be much lower because the bulk of children are raised by their biological parents, but when you compare the abuse rate with the total amount of biological parents, step-parents and adoptive parents then you’ll see that the percentages line up the way I said they do. If you look at the rate of child sexual abuse then you’ll see that the biggest threat to children is NOT biological fathers, but step-fathers. Did you conveniently leave that one out because it doesn’t go with your hysterical rant? Most forms of child abuse involve neglect, which is why biological parents, in particular mothers, are featured so heavily. I suppose you’re going to argue that women are more violent than men because four of the five catergories of child abuse are dominated by female perps? When you break down the amount of time that men and women spend with children and compare it to the amount of abuse/neglect that they are responsible for then you’ll see that the figures from the ACF then you’ll see why the numbers are the way they are. Please, learn how to read statistics before you reply! “What?? What on earth has that got to do with anything? What about heterosexual couples that adopt children who have lost their parents, or were born into an abuse family, or children adopted from third-world circumstances? They’re not biologically related to either adoptive parent then. Your logic here is absurd and irrelevant. ” ————————————- The bond between a parent and their biological children is so great they’ll often sacrifice themselves for the other’s betterment. People are going to be less likely to put themselves at risk for a person they’re not biologically related to If a kid is adopted by a hetero couple then he/she will be raised in an environment that represents a normal family. It’s not ideal, but it’s the next best thing. To say that a kid having two adoptive “daddies” and no mum is just as good as having an adoptive dad and adoptive mum is disingenuous. I’m not going to even go into it because it’s so damn obvious. “So you might wanna cram that statistic of yours down the throat of someone else, perhaps someone more gullible and gay-hating than yourself.” ——————————- See above. “Statistics, please? Can you substantiate this? There are plenty of heterosexual parents who do an APPALLING job of raising their kids, plenty who abuse their kids, plenty of kids who drop out of school, turn to drugs or commit suicide (or all of the above) for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of their parents. You just don’t like gay people because you think it’s icky. That’s it. So, really, that just makes you prejudiced, and for unjustifiable reasons… so to sum up in more succinct words, you’re really just a bigoted pr**k.” ——————————— http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/nearly-4-million-californians-155413.aspx http://steve-baldwin.com/articles/43-articles/184-child-molestation http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx http://depression.about.com/b/2008/09/23/homosexuality-strongly-linked-to-depression-and-suicide.htm There you go, loudmouth. Enjoy the reading!

      • Yeah, interesting stuff…

        “Several studies suggest that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals, although not to the level of a serious pathology. Discrimination may help fuel these higher rates.” – I especially liked the suggestion that discrimination may kick the rates up a notch.

        “A study found lesbians reported equally strong levels of mental health as their heterosexual sisters and higher self-esteem.” – No problems there…

        “A new study of gay and lesbian youth finds that they are only slightly more likely than heterosexual youth to attempt suicide, refuting previous research that suggested much higher rates.” – Only slightly more likely, and if I were a betting man, I’d wager that it’s discrimination by self-righteous a**holes that makes the difference.

        I can give you a clear-cut reason why gay people exhibit slightly higher rates of depression and suicide – PEOPLE EXACTLY LIKE YOU who want to say “No” to allowing marriage, “No” to allowing adoption and people like Bernard who flap about with firebrand rhetoric about the evils of homosexuality. You and your like-minded peers are in fact partly responsible for the exact statistics you’re shoving in my face, especially if you’re the kind of person who’d kick their kid out of home for having the courage to tell his/her religiously inclined parents that they’re gay.

        With the whole stepfather thing, and the statistics “lining up the way you said they would”, if you dig a little deeper you’ll find the divorce and remarry rate in the USA (where those particular statistics apply) are surprisingly high, and that there are a very large proportion of step-families. Doesn’t really swing that 4% too far in your favour.

        “Biological connection means someone is more likely to give their life etc…” yeah, sure, I could concede that…. I’d die 1,000 times over for each of my kids. But you’re saying it’s better to leave kids in poor circumstances than it is to give them a chance at a relatively normal family life? Furthermore, I actually know a couple who adopted from overseas, and gave a little girl a wonderful chance at a great life. I can tell you right now they’d give everything to protect her without blinking an eye. Conversely there are plenty of complete pieces of trash out there who’d throw their own kids under a bus if it suited them.

        “To say that a kid having two adoptive “daddies” and no mum is just as good as having an adoptive dad and adoptive mum is disingenuous.” – No it’s not, because it entirely depends on the couple! Plenty of hetero couples make TERRIBLE parents. What would be your choice, if you had to choose, on behalf of a child, between a slum in Mumbai or a gay couple in Sydney? If you’d actually choose the former over the latter, you’re the nutcase.

        “But people do make fun of the Catholic church for its role in covering up child abuse within its ranks. Why should homosexuals be given a pass when they’re doing the same thing?” – We’re talking about generalisations here, not tit-for-tat. I was using the Catholic church of an example of why discrimination against the whole for the actions of the few is wrong, but you went right ahead there and basically said “yep, so we’re doing the same to the gays” – thanks, little extra solidity to my case doesn’t hurt.

        Now let me ask you a serious question – do you think it’s wrong for a couple to adopt a child, and then, from a very young, impressionable age, impose their chosen lifestyle and morals upon the child in such a way that the child grows up thinking it’s perfectly normal and even right?

      • “I can give you a clear-cut reason why gay people exhibit slightly higher rates of depression and suicide – PEOPLE EXACTLY LIKE YOU” ——————————- So how come they were healthier 40 years ago than they are today? You cannot argue that homosexuals were treated worse 40 years ago. “if you dig a little deeper you’ll find the divorce and remarry rate in the USA (where those particular statistics apply) are surprisingly high, and that there are a very large proportion of step-families.” ———————————- You didn’t respond to my point about the figure for biological parents being high because one of the categories is neglect. The 2011 ACF study says that neglect accounted for 61% of all child abuse. The categories that are mostly perpetrated by step-parents and homosexuals (physical abuse and sexual abuse) only account for 9.7%. and 6.2% of all cases. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf Single mother households are very common in America. If a child is living with their parent and a step-parent then he/she will usually be in a better financial predicament than a kid who is raised by a single mother, primarily because single mothers are forced to juggle childcare with work, paying off a mortgage and buying food/essentials for her kids. That’s why the neglect figure is so high. You say religion is harmful to children. What about the positive role it plays in keeping families in tact so that children aren’t raised in an unstable environment and squalid conditions? What about the role it has played in caring for abandoned children for hundreds of years? Why not talk about that? I don’t see any homosexual groups donating their time to helping kids. Religion is good because it keeps the amount of single-parent households down.

      • Charity is a cornerstone of religion. No doubt about that. I hold anyone willing to sacrifice what they work for in order to help others, whether you’re Christian, Catholic, Atheist, whatever. But you’re forgetting the simple fact that religion is also heavily flawed – it demands belief and acceptance without proof, and for it to “stick”, it has to be drummed into an impressionable mind. Every “born again” believer I’ve ever met has come out of a traumatic experience of one kind or another. Between that sort of mind, and kids, you have two groups of people who are both vulnerable and impressionable, and open to suggestion. I would argue that if you were to approach a fully-grown person with no prior knowledge of religion or religious history, then tried to convince them of religious “fact” regarding creation, the existence of God, the miracles performed by Jesus and the existence of a hot fiery pit where bad people are magically sent when they die, they’d look at you like you’d gone mad, because it is all completely illogical and utterly unsubstantiated. But that said, I respect people’s religious beliefs as long as they are not imposed upon others. I just don’t respect prejudice that is borne of religious doctrine. At all. Especially with something like gay marriage – denying people the right to join their lives legally and spiritually, simply because it doesn’t gel with your own doctrine, despite the fact it has *absolutely no impact at all* on you whether they marry or not (or you, Bernard. Gays marrying doesn’t hurt you at all. So the fact you oppose it so strongly, and then applaud when it’s held down, just paints you as the worst kind of a**hole in my book. Much like your stance on euthanasia… some poor old cripple, dying an agonising death, wants the right to go out on his own terms but you don’t like it because it doesn’t fit *your* beliefs, so you’ll cheer and applaud when that right is denied. Back to that word again, “a**hole”. OK, end of tangent).

        The reason you “don’t see any gay people giving up their time” is because they don’t necessarily proclaim their affiliation with one another – the Church does, very much so. I’m sure there are plenty of gay people who either donate their time or money to charity… they just don’t wear a sign while doing it. I give plenty to charity, but that doesn’t mean some public and visible institution gets to chalk up points for it. I work in IT though, so maybe you could statistically suggest that people who work in IT like to give to charity? Kind of an absurd correlation, right?

        “You didn’t respond to my point about the figure for biological parents being high because one of the categories is neglect.” – Drawing a bit of a long bow there, aren’t you? That such a massive proportion of child abuse is due to single (biological) parent neglect? Do you think all the single working mothers in America fall under that category, or even enough to explain why the statistics swing so hard against biological parents? I know for a fact that life for a kid being raised by a single mum is *tough*. It’s not easy. But there’s a big difference between “we have to live in commission housing and eat tinned food, but at least you’re getting a public education” and “sorry kid, you’re not eating this week because Mummy wants to buy her smokes”.

        Oh, and how exactly does religion keep the number of single parent households down? Divorce isn’t prohibited in all religions, or even respected by all those who do follow a religion that does prohibit divorce.

      • Up to 15,000,000 American kids are raised without a father. ————————————- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/ ————————–539,647 kids were victims of neglect. —————————— http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf ——————————— I can see how 15,000,000 single mother households can account for the bulk of the 539,647 cases of child neglect. I’m against homosexual marriage because I don’t think it’s in their best interest. I’m not sold on the idea that people are born that way. I think homosexuality is a mental illness and that people who are afflicted with it need psychiatric help.

      • “I think homosexuality is a mental illness and that people who are afflicted with it need psychiatric help.” Righto…. ————————————————————“A study suggests linkage between a mother’s genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is “switched off”. The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al. (2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.”————————————————————“Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.[22][23] This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation.”[24] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus.”————————————————————“Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother’s side tended to have more offspring than those on the father’s side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered would explain about 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this is a highly significant but not the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.”————————————————————“Research conducted in Sweden[28] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were “somewhat confused”) and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men’s sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women’s urine.[29] The conclusion is that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level. Researchers have suggested that this possibility could be further explored by studying young subjects to see if similar responses in the hypothalamus are found and then correlating these data with adult sexual orientation.”———————————————————— PLENTY of evidence very much in favour of biological and genetic predisposition toward homosexuality on both men and women. Unfortunately it’s just easier to say “it’s just a mental problem, it can be treated”. Problem is, when you tell someone that what they “have” is really just an “illness” and then try to treat it, and you fail, you basically rob them of their sense of worth and belonging, because not only have you convinced them that they’re wicked and wrong and sick and need help, they now have to contend with the fact that there’s no way out for them other than to fake it or give up, because the “treatment” didn’t make them any less gay, any more than eating raw fish and seaweed would make me more Japanese. This idea that it’s simply a mental illness needs to be discarded. It’s the social pressures and prejudices that give rise to the ongoing mental and social problems of homosexuality, not homosexuality itself.

      • “A study suggests linkage between a mother’s genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons….. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.” ————————————— Less than 1 in 4 mothers who have that genetic make-up produce homosexual sons. That means 3 out of 4 of them had normal children. I’d say that proves that the genetic make-up of these women doesn’t cause their sons to become homosexual. It could be a case of their genetics increasing the likelihood of mental illness or feminisation, which could lead to some boys turning queer if they’re not raised properly. ——————————— “Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.[22][23] ” ————————————— And you believe that crap? My father had four brothers and he was the second youngest. So that means he had a 99% chance of turning queer huh? He and all of his brothers turned out straight. Either he fell in the lucky 1% who don’t turn out queer or the conclusion reached by the researchers is epically wrong. I know which one I’m inclined to believe. I know plenty of men who have lots of brothers. None of them are queer. I have two older brothers and I’m straight. Seeing queers kissing makes me want to vomit. I feel just as queasy when I think of that Arabic man who was forced to pay a dowry to a farmer after he was caught raping one of his goats. ——————————————— “Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother’s side tended to have more offspring than those on the father’s side….. The connections discovered would explain about 20% of the cases studied” —————————————– So it’s not the cause of homosexuality. ——————————— “Research conducted in Sweden[28] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal.” ————————— There is some merit behind this study. But how do we know it isn’t caused by environmental factors? Or mental illness? What if there’s a mental illness that damages the hypothalamus to the point it cannot recognise scents properly?

      • “Seeing queers kissing makes me want to vomit. I feel just as queasy when I think of that Arabic man who was forced to pay a dowry to a farmer after he was caught raping one of his goats” – Bingo, that’s the admission I was looking for really – “I think gays are icky”.

        “So that means he had a 99% chance of turning queer huh?” – Uh, no. It’s not simply a matter of going 3 x 33%. Think more like… 2nd generation male = 33% chance. 3rd generation male = 33% increase of that 33%. So, you’re old man probably had around a 44% chance (33% of 33% is 11% on the total). Statistics can be funny like that, it’s confusing to the best of us.

        “What if there’s a mental illness that damages the hypothalamus to the point it cannot recognise scents properly?” Doubtful, as the hypothalamus wouldn’t simply switch sides as a result of mental illness – it’s a complicated and specialised brain structure, and it’s tendency to trigger arousal over one scent or another would be genetic, or developmental (think congenital development, i.e. prenatal, not childhood). Physical damage would affect functioning of the hypothalamus but would be too generalised and not precise enough to affect/reverse/alter sexual dimorphism.

        The science is actually pretty interesting: “Several hypothalamic nuclei are sexually dimorphic; i.e. there are clear differences in both structure and function between males and females. Some differences are apparent even in gross neuroanatomy: most notable is the sexually dimorphic nucleus within the preoptic area. However most of the differences are subtle changes in the connectivity and chemical sensitivity of particular sets of neurons. The importance of these changes can be recognised by functional differences between males and females. For instance, males of most species prefer the odor and appearance of females over males, which is instrumental in stimulating male sexual behavior. If the sexually dimorphic nucleus is lesioned, this preference for females by males diminishes”

        “Less than 1 in 4 mothers who have that genetic make-up produce homosexual sons. That means 3 out of 4 of them had normal children. I’d say that proves that the genetic make-up of these women doesn’t cause their sons to become homosexual. It could be a case of their genetics increasing the likelihood of mental illness or feminisation, which could lead to some boys turning queer if they’re not raised properly” – The statistics are consistent and compelling enough to warrant mention by the researchers. Making the leap from that to assume the genetics just causes a mental illness that predisposes kids to homosexuality is a bit of a wild leap for the sake of the “mental illness” argument.

        The simple fact is – homosexuality is not some lifestyle choice, like picking out a car or a pair of shoes. Gay men and women didn’t wake up one day and say “I’m gonna freak out the establishment and make my parents queasy by going out and hooking up with someone of the same gender”. Nor did they wake up one day and decide to rewire their brain chemistry to make them attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. So the biblical argument that homosexuality is “wrong”, “immoral”, “an abomination”, “disgusting” etc is as ignorant, uninformed, irrelevant and as utterly incorrect as saying that women have no place in teaching or leadership, or that people of other ethnicities are intended as a handy source of slaves for the master race, or that the entire universe was magically tossed together in 6 days (all of these come from the Bible, too).

      • “Uh, no. It’s not simply a matter of going 3 x 33%. Think more like… 2nd generation male = 33% chance. 3rd generation male = 33% increase of that 33%. So, you’re old man probably had around a 44% chance (33% of 33% is 11% on the total). Statistics can be funny like that, it’s confusing to the best of us. ” —————————– That’s not what your cut and paste said. It was “Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.” My father was the fourth son. If the formula is as you say then that would put my father’s odds at 58.5% and his younger brother at 77.8%. Neither of them were queer. ———————————– “Doubtful, as the hypothalamus wouldn’t simply switch sides as a result of mental illness – it’s a complicated and specialised brain structure, and it’s tendency to trigger arousal over one scent or another would be genetic, or developmental (think congenital development, i.e. prenatal, not childhood).” ————————————- The brain is so complex and our understanding of it is so basic that I will not rule it out. We still don’t know what causes mental illness. Go ask doctors to explain the biological cause of schizophrenia, OCD, depression and bipolar and you’ll get all sorts of theories, none of which have been proven through rigorous testing. Some of the people who have these disorders share some genes. Others apear to acquire it as a congenital disease. For the majority of people it is a case of nurture and environment. —————————————- “Physical damage would affect functioning of the hypothalamus but would be too generalised and not precise enough to affect/reverse/alter sexual dimorphism.” —————————— The way creatures respond to scents, colours and sounds is impacted by significant events that occur alongside them. eg. if a person is beaten up real bad at a circus then the sound of circus music will always bring back bad memmories. If you have a bad experience eating a banana when you’re a kid then you’re likely to turn your nose up whenever you smell one. When people see a movie star wearing certain clothes it is Human nature for men and women to associate those clothes with sex appeal and success. Same goes for scents. Companies who make cosmetics get sexy, successful people to promote their products because they know people will buy them under the false belief it’ll help them emulate their stars. Homosexual men like the same scents that heterosexual women like because they are sexually attracted to the same thing. ————————————————- “The statistics are consistent and compelling enough to warrant mention by the researchers. Making the leap from that to assume the genetics just causes a mental illness that predisposes kids to homosexuality is a bit of a wild leap for the sake of the “mental illness” argument.” ————————————— You’re missing the point. Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Just because one-fifth of queers share a specific gene doesn’t mean that it’s the cause of their homosexuality. Certain genes bring out certain characteristics while masking others. It could be that this gene, which is shared by one-fifth of queers, could be just one of many uncommon, yet to be discovered genes that make a person’s sexuality more malleable. Not all homosexuals remain queer until the day their die.There are plenty of examples of queers thinking they were straight for the bulk of their lives and then turning queer during middle age. Some become straight after living the bulk of their lives as homosexuals. I think homosexuals and bisexuals are as unsure about their sexuality as autistic children are about empathy. It would explain why homosexuals and bisexuals are so promiscuous and don’t seem to gain any happiness from monogamous relationships. Homosexual “marriages” aren’t monogamous like straight ones.

      • Social workers forced a boy to live with his paedophilic homosexual ‘dad’ and partner, even though he made six complaints against them. I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought he was just a ‘homophobe’. —————————- “During his ordeal Mr Cannon was repeatedly plied with Ecstasy and cannabis before being molested by David Cannon and John Scarfe. His complaints to care workers were ignored and at one stage he was wrongly diagnosed as having mental disorders. Both men were eventually arrested and charged after Mr Cannon was readmitted to into council care following a domestic incident, at which point he managed to persuade a Forster carer he was being abused. Cannon, 54, and 31-year old Scarfe were each jailed for 30 months in 2006, for inciting sexual activity with a child.” ——————————————————- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9959950/My-gay-fathers-sexual-abuse-was-swept-under-the-carpet-says-victim.html ——————————————————— It’s not the first time authorities have turned a blind eye to homosexuals raping boys are after adopting them. The Not even the homosexual propaganda machine could stop this brave young man from having his homosexual ‘dad’ locked up for raping him. Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were given free reign to abuse boys. ————————————————————– http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

    • It doesn’t necessarily follow that allowing gay marriage will allow gay adoption. Obviously, the gay community wants to be able to adopt, but the government could theoretically allow one without the other. I think the biggest thing the gay community really wants is to stop families of their gay partners from having more say over their affairs than themselves, and legally recognized marriage is one way to do that. Now, I don’t give a hoot if homosexuals get the right to marry or not, what I do care about is that their relationships are recognized when it matters (legally, financially, hospital visits, etc.) and that unsupportive families can’t legally interfere in those situations, assuming a close relationship actually exists.

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!