Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Homosexual parenting is bad for kids

Children are being stolen away from the two most important people they will ever know – their own biological mother and father. When this happens by accident we rightly show pity for them and seek to get them into the closest thing to that situation.

Yet when we do it deliberately we call it “a lifestyle choice” and “diversity” and “tolerance”. The homosexual war against children may be one of the greatest outrages of this militant movement which cares for no one and nothing, but simply wants its own adult desires fulfilled – at any cost. Who gives a rip about the welfare of the child?

Nature designed the rearing and raising of children just one way: through a mum and dad. Yet those in sterile homosexual unions think they can ignore nature and the wellbeing of the child in order to fulfil their own selfish wants. And the children suffer big time in such situations.

In my recent book I discuss many such tragic cases and offer plenty of documentation on this. Consider these two stories from my book: One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: “I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can’t provide, but I’ve been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say ‘like mother, like daughter.’ Most of us become promiscuous to prove we’re straight.”

Another woman says this of her upbringing by two homosexuals: “From 40 years of experience, I can tell you that, even though my father loved me, his homosexual orientation handicapped my ability to learn to relate to life in a healthy way. My homosexual home stunted my growth as a person and as a woman, not to mention the damaging effect of 16 years of drugs and alcohol abuse on my early childhood development. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a family that nearly destroyed me and the last 20 years analyzing and being analyzed in order to make sense of it.

“The bottom line is: I was dearly loved by my father. His love alone was not enough to give me the foundation that I needed to grow into a secure young woman…. My father and I have looked back through the past and discussed the issue of homosexual parenting. With great remorse, he agrees the homosexual lifestyle, no matter how conservative, is not healthy for children. My father and I agree: homosexuality and raising healthy children exclude each other.”

One woman has written an entire book about her life of abuse, confusion, turmoil and despair being raised in such a household. I have reviewed her important book here.

And there are plenty more such stories which you will never hear in the mainstream media, but these are stories which nonetheless must be told far and wide. The militants and their cronies in the MSM will not dare to tell these truths, so I and others must do it instead.

Consider this heart-wrenching tale by Robert Oscar Lopez, “Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View”. You really must read this entire article, but let me offer a few snippets from it. He laments being raised in such an environment:

“I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.”

His journey was a rough one, especially because of how the militants operate: “In terms of sexuality, gays who grew up in traditional households benefited from at least seeing some kind of functional courtship rituals around them. I had no clue how to make myself attractive to girls. When I stepped outside of my mothers’ trailer, I was immediately tagged as an outcast because of my girlish mannerisms, funny clothes, lisp, and outlandishness. Not surprisingly, I left high school as a virgin, never having had a girlfriend, instead having gone to four proms as a wisecracking sidekick to girls who just wanted someone to chip in for a limousine.

“When I got to college, I set off everyone’s ‘gaydar’ and the campus LGBT group quickly descended upon me to tell me it was 100-percent certain I must be a homosexual. When I came out as bisexual, they told everyone I was lying and just wasn’t ready to come out of the closet as gay yet. Frightened and traumatized by my mother’s death, I dropped out of college in 1990 and fell in with what can only be called the gay underworld. Terrible things happened to me there.

“It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, through coincidences that shocked everyone who knew me and surprised even myself. I call myself bisexual because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up “straight” after almost thirty years as a gay man. I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, ‘closet cases,’ or ‘homocons’.”

He is also well placed to discuss the recent war of words over the research conducted by Mark Regnerus, showing how children do indeed need a mother and a father. I discussed that story here:

And for daring to publish his research, the thought police immediately sought to discredit him and hound him out of his job. I discuss the ugly backlash he received from the militants here.

Says Lopez: “Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

“Like my story, these 248 people’s stories deserve to be told. The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

“So why the code of silence from LGBT leaders? I can only speculate from where I’m sitting. I cherish my mother’s memory, but I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.”

He concludes, “The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange. We owe them, at the least, a dose of honesty. Thank you, Mark Regnerus, for taking the time to listen.”

And thank you Mr Lopez for taking the time to tell your story, and being willing to face the wrath and the hatred of the militant homosexual lobby.  But truth must be told, and children must be protected. Both these things are not at all priorities for the militants, but for us, they rank very high indeed.


Skegness seaside resort: Health and safety officials ban Jolly Fisherman statue's 'dangerous' arms...

Given the excesses of Britain's "no win no fee" lawyers and the unpredictable British courts, it's actually a reasonably well-founded precaution

He has been an icon of the British seaside for more than a century – but now Skegness’s carefree Jolly Fisherman has run into a storm of trouble with health-and-safety officials. 

The gambolling seaman famously appeared with arms joyously outstretched on classic posters above the slogan: ‘Skegness is SO bracing.’  But now council officials have decreed that a new statue of the much-loved character must have his arms reined in.

‘Unfortunately, we can’t have the fisherman with his arms  outstretched because there is an issue with health and safety,’ explained Lincolnshire County Council’s ward member for Skegness, Ken Miller.

‘People would try to clamber all over it and if someone fell off or if one of the statue’s arms broke, then we would be the ones to take the blame and that is too big a risk.’

And to complete their health and safety vigilance, the council has removed the Jolly Fisherman’s pipe, for fear it would encourage smoking.

The statue, due to be built next spring, will be located outside Skegness railway station as part  of a £750,000 refurbishment.

But outraged locals say the county council’s design – depicting the stationary fisherman holding a beachball, with his other arm by his side patting a seal pup – looks more like a garden gnome than the iconic figure on posters fondly hung in thousands of homes.

‘When a photograph of the proposal was passed around at a council meeting, people were in hysterics laughing at how bad it is,’ said Skegness Civic Society chairman Steve Kirk.  ‘The design looks horrific and  does not resemble the fabled Jolly Fisherman at all. I have received more than 100 emails and comments about it from people who are desperate to have it changed.  ‘The Jolly Fisherman is a symbol of the town and people are proud of it. But this image looks like a gargoyle and will become a laughing stock.’

And Skegness mayor Mark Anderson added: ‘The statue looks like a garden gnome. We are known for a being a jolly seaside town but we are being dictated to by health-and-safety rules.  ‘The fisherman is an icon and we are mightily upset that he’s being changed in case some drunk idiot decides to hang from his arms and falls off or hurts themselves.

‘We have told the county council to go back to the drawing board. The town council holds copyright of the image so nothing will go ahead without our approval.’

But the county council remains unmoved. ‘Nowadays, people will sue at the drop of a hat and the council cannot afford to be fighting legal claims for negligence,’ said Mr Miller. ‘We are aware that some people are unhappy with its appearance so we may have to refine it but even then it will not have outstretched arms.’

Celebrated poster artist John Hassall drew the picture in 1908 after being commissioned by Great Northern Railways to promote travelling to Skegness by rail. He was paid 12 guineas for his work. In 2008, the Queen sent a letter to the resort to mark the 100th anniversary of the town’s mascot.

Mr Hassall’s original hangs in Skegness town hall and was formally given to the town by British Railways, along with the copyright, in 1966. Mr Hassall died in 1948, 80 years old and penniless.

The new statue has been commissioned by Lincolnshire County Council and funded jointly by the European Regional Development Fund, Network Rail’s National Stations Improvement Programme, East Midlands Trains and Lincolnshire County Council.


Obama and feminism

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has an old story that she likes to tell about her days as Speaker of the House: My chair was getting crowded, it begins. She was at her first White House meeting as the first woman Speaker when she found Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth, among others, all sitting in her chair. I could hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were gone.

It's too bad Anthony wasn't able to stick around long enough to have a conversation about the trajectory of modern feminism and Pelosi's role as a leading advocate of legal abortion. Anthony and other suffragettes, after all, recognized the rights of the vulnerable unborn as clearly as they did their own rights as women.

At about the same time as there was buzz about Pelosi's sisterhood seance, President Obama was in Denver, being introduced by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law activist who has become the poster gal for the controversial health-care mandate. Obama made the point, that this mandate is both equivalent to and at the core of women's health, but insisted that he had reached a reasonable compromise with Catholic schools and hospitals. The truth of the matter is quite different, however. Even the University of Notre Dame, which once honored Obama, is now suing him to protect its religious rights, and a former key ally, Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, is rejecting administration claims that an acceptable accommodation has been drawn up.

The primary women's health claim that is at the heart of this drive -- in which managing fertility has become a preventative service as part of Obamacare's regulatory scheme -- is one that would be foreign to the women who crowded Pelosi's chair.

Let's look at Charlotte Lozier, a 19-century physician whose life Chuck Donovan is currently honoring, having just established the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an educational outgrowth of the pro-life political group the Susan B. Anthony List.

Lozier secured a medical degree, against the staunch resistance of the scientific establishment of her day, served as a vice president of the National Working Women's Association, bore three children of her own, stood for women's suffrage alongside Susan B. Anthony and other contemporaries, and was profoundly pro-life, is how Donovan makes the introduction. Lozier viewed abortion as an assault on the healing profession and clearly did not see it as a pathway to women's equality or freedom, Donovan explains.

Dr. Lozier, Donovan, emphasizes, fought against a tide that told her she could not be a mother and pro-life feminist and still win a degree in medicine. We have something of the opposite problem now; we are told ... that women cannot realize their ambitions in the world of work without having abortion available. Charlotte Lozier and her allies rejected that idea -- in an era where women's options for dealing with sexual behavior, pregnancy and career opportunities were far narrower than they are now.

Donovan cautions against the perils of leaving these issues entirely to politics. The goal must be to make progress no matter who is in power. If consciences are dulled, we have to sharpen the instruments we're poking with. But consciences are not political property.

Of course, this necessitates well-formed consciences in the first place, in order to address these issues with moral honesty and scientific truth.

Which brings us right back to the presidential election this year, which Obama has made a battle over conscience rights, forcing a fight over the definition of religious liberty.

Has this become a fundamental American value? Insisting that women are only free when we've all been forced to embrace abortion, sterilization, and contraception as basic health care? A value so fundamental that religious liberty can be cast aside, redefined, and subject to punitive fines?

Pelosi's spiritual visitors can offer some guidance here, if we're up for a longer reflection. And one trailblazing doctor in particular, who was known to demonstrate as much compassion as conviction in her work to protect the lives of children and mothers and the integrity of her medical profession, may have a winning prescription. Free& contraception propaganda obscures what we really face today: choices about matters of basic freedom, cultural conscience, and the very soul of our nation.


There is something good in the Anglosphere

Comment from Australia

Our Foreign Minister can be very emphatic. Bob Carr told an audience last month it is "too risky" for Australia "even to glance in the direction of talk of an Anglosphere".

That is, to even think about talking about the deep relationship we have with the English-speaking world would be international relations suicide - we would offend our neighbours and lose our friends.

It was clear who Carr was criticising. His speech didn't mention the Opposition Leader, but Tony Abbott is a big fan of the Anglosphere. Earlier this year, Carr's predecessor Kevin Rudd was explicit: Abbott's belief in the Anglosphere is one reason he must be kept out of government.

But Abbott is right. Our heritage is not something to be ashamed of. It is not a coincidence the oldest surviving democracies are in the Anglosphere. Or that a tradition of liberty, stretching back to the Magna Carta, has given English-speaking nations a greater protection of human rights and private property. We ought to be proud, not bashful. Sure, it's more fashionable to talk of the "Asian century". But the Anglosphere will shape Australia's cultural and political views for a century. It's a shame only conservatives feel comfortable talking about it.

To accept that old relationships should endure isn't to close us off from the Asian century. Instead, the acceptance will allow us to engage that future more confidently.

Because the Anglosphere is not about the language. It is about a collection of values - individual liberty, the common law, parliamentary democracy and open markets - we share with Britain, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the US. It recognises that different nations are joined by a common political culture. Carr and Rudd can protest all they want: the existence of that common culture is beyond question.

Yet in his speech, Carr threw every barb he could at the Anglosphere, dragging up the spectre of Pauline Hanson. This is a standard trope when anybody raises our English-speaking heritage - a suggestion that conservatives are not so much interested in the Anglosphere, per se, but the Anglo-Saxon race.

That charge is total nonsense. The English-speaking world includes the most successful multicultural nations. All but Britain and Ireland are built almost entirely on immigration. And their success is entirely due to their institutional heritage - a liberalism that says all people, regardless of background, can peacefully coexist under a legal system that treats them neutrally. It is thanks to our inheritance that Australia's multiculturalism functions as well as it does. We must not forget the former while we pursue the latter.

And spruikers of the Asian century ought to be cautious. A highly praised book was published in 2005 titled Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century. That didn't work out. Likewise, the Asian century may turn out very different from what our best and brightest predict.

For instance, if China's economy takes a dive, the region may well be led by India - a country almost as big, certainly more free, and more closely integrated with Australia.

Geography is less important than ever. And regions are less important than ever. Globalisation, technology, and near-zero shipping costs have taken care of that. The 21st century will be about relationships and ideas, not proximity.

The Labor Party's intellectuals have said for decades Australia must assert its independence. You know the drill. We must not play deputy sheriff for the US. We ought to pursue a strong, self-sufficient foreign policy. We must be confident in our identity.

So it's bizarre to hear our Foreign Minister claim that Australia should downplay its historical relationship with the English-speaking world - not because that relationship doesn't exist, but because simply stating it might offend our neighbours.

You would think that was the opposite of what a confident nation should do



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCHAUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.


No comments: