It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
Originally posted by bobafett
I was raised by lesbians and I don't think it was really a good thing, I was left quite confused, and got heavily bullied over it. Of course I got over all that in the end, but really, that part of my childhood is not the good memories.
So, what conclusions are being jumped to?
Vote that way if you like, but over 60% of Americans are fat, so I think the ridiculing would be much less than bringing my two mommies or two daddies to school on parents day, don't you?
Originally posted by Griff
I vote we ban fat people from adopting then. Because they'll make the kids fat.
These are issues of culture, not sexual orientation. This could be beneficial rather than harmful to a child.
How about black people adopting a white kid? White people adopting Koreans?
My point exactly, kids can and will be cruel. Why put them in such a volatile situation if it's avoidable?
How about unclean parents? I remember the kids making fun of the unclean girl at school.
All different but still get teased for these differences.
Social science evidence agrees that the best environment for the well-being of children is a household with both a mother and a father. A homosexual environment, on the other hand, can model homosexual behavior to children. In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that “by creating a climate of acceptance or rejection of homosexuality within the family, parents may have some impact on their children’s sexual experimentation as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.” The state’s interest in protecting children should continue prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children. Although gay advocates say that some children will be “languishing in foster homes,” if willing, any homosexual could apply to adopt these hard-to-place children. This is because single persons — including a homosexual — can already qualify to be an adoptive parent (this is already occurring, primarily in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas). Therefore, the push for homosexual couples to jointly adopt children is actually a back-door strategy to gain the rights and benefits of homosexual “marriage.” In addition, unmarried heterosexual couples living together should not be allowed to adopt because how can they commit their lives to a child when they refuse to commit to each other in marriage? California needs to continue the current policy where children are adopted by married couples first, and second by singles whom case workers judge to have a healthy home.
Why I am Proud to be Homophobic
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
November 2, 2001
I'm "coming out" as a homophobe and I urge more people to join me. I am defining "homophobe" as someone who is afraid of homosexual activists, hence the suffix "phobia." Gay activists use this term to bludgeon opponents. Let's embrace it instead.
I had always accepted the mass media's portrayal of gays as a colorful minority like the Croatians, who have a special "sexual orientation." They meet each other at their bars and do their thing. As long as they kept it within their own community, what did I care?
But they don't. To my surprise I recently learned that most gays prefer heterosexual males. My source is a book, The Caricature of Love, (1957), by Dr. Hervey Checkley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia. A gay friend also confirmed this fact to me. That would explain the amount of gay porn on the Internet found by searching the term "straight men."
I also learned that many gays prefer youths, and these experiences often turn victimized children into homosexuals and/or distort their lives. A survey of readers of the gay magazine The Advocate indicated that 21% of respondents were sexually abused by an adult by age 15. This seems to be one way that homosexuals "propagate." My source is an extraordinary research paper by psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman entitled Crafting "Gay" Children: An Inquiry, p. 9.
According to Reisman, the 1991 US Population Statistical Abstracts indicate that between 1-2 million gay males (2% of the adult male population of 90 million) abuse 6-8 million boys. The ratio is 3-5 boy victims to one gay male compared to one girl victim per eleven straight males. This is based on data on 33 million boys and 32 million girls under the age of 18. Reisman says that since 100% of the gay males do not sexually assault boys, the 2% homosexual population harbors a vast pederast subculture committing multiple repeated child sex offences. (8)
Before I continue, I want to say that I have known the gay friend I mentioned since I was 11-years-old, and not once in 40 years did he make an improper gesture. No doubt, there are hundreds of thousands of gays like him who behave with dignity and have no predatory agenda, personal or social.
Nevertheless lesbian feminist and gay activists, by their own admission, are dedicated to recasting society in their own image. (See my columns: "The Other Attack on Our Manhood" and "American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation.") The mainstream media is assisting by suppressing all negative information about gay life. In her monograph, Reisman refers to the suppression of data on gay violence against children, child pornography, sex rings, serial murders, and inter-gay domestic battery.
Another example of media complicity is the Boy Scouts' ban on gay scoutmasters. There was no mention that about 100 cases of sexual molestation by Boy Scout leaders occurred every year. According to the Washington Times, (June 15,1993) between 1973 and 1993, 1,416 scout leaders were expelled for sexually abusing boys.
The Boys Scouts' action belatedly recognized their obligation to protect their wards. Is there any question they are liable? Yet amazingly the Scouts have come under scathing attack for "discriminating" against gays. The pederast magazine "Palaver" advises pedophiles to take positions like Boy Scout leader: "If you want to spend your time with children you must have a legitimate reason for doing so; as a teacher helping children learn... as a play or youth leader helping children to enjoy their leisure time" (Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.19). In 1992, the North American Man/Boy Love Association specifically targeted the Boy Scouts. They passed a resolution calling on the Boy Scouts "to cease in its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in its appointment of scoutmasters" in order to "permit scouts to be exposed to a variety of lifestyles." (See "The Nazis in America" in "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams). In their literature, gays portray adult advisors as playing a hands-on role in initiating the young to homosexuality.
According to "The Pink Swastika", the moral courage exhibited by the Boys Scouts of America is not shared by all youth organizations. The Girl Scouts allows lesbian leaders in its organizations and has expelled at least one heterosexual leader who refused to keep this policy a secret from parents. "Big Brothers" and "Big Sisters" actively recruit homosexuals in many cities and lobbied the Boys Scouts to do the same saying "non traditional volunteers can serve the best interest of children." And of course, all of this mirrors the push into public schools where youth are prematurely introduced to sex education and introduced to homosexuality as a lifestyle option.
"Gay rights" activists have targeted the Boy Scouts. An ostensibly "spontaneous" outcry against the Boy Scouts has arisen across the country, led by the United Way Agency, which pulled its funding of BSA in many cities. Homosexuals at the highest rank of the US government attempted to intimidate the organization. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders used her post to castigate Scout officials (USA Today June 2, 1994) and Interior secretary Bruce Babbitt signed an order prohibiting Boy Scouts from volunteering in national parks (Washington Times, May 28,1993). As of June 2001, at least 359 school districts in 10 states have forbade the Boys Scouts from using their facilities, according to a gay organization quoted in the Washington Times, Nov. 1, 2001. Congress has just tabled legislation to deny funding to these school districts.
Homosexuals, both feminists and gays, have gained incredible power by successfully disguising their true character and their true agenda. This is how subversive movements such as Nazis and Communists function. Under the guise of being a persecuted minority seeking human rights, homosexuals are actually using the state to persecute heterosexuals. They are waging successful war against all the institutions of masculinity, femininity and the nuclear family. (As someone pointed out, the Boy Scouts train boys to become men.)
Their goal is to supplant Judeo-Christ heterosexual values with their own. Society is in a state of denial about this vicious subversion, which takes practical form in the actual seduction of heterosexual youth.
As the father of a 14-year-old son, I am afraid of the power of gay activists. I guess that makes me homophobic. But I am not afraid to say so.
Exactly. So one more ridicule is worth it to make that child suffer not having a home? Not having a home isn't the worst thing that can happen to a child, but growing up emotionally crippled and confused can be devastating.
Originally posted by LLoyd45
Obviously we disagree on the subject, but that's cool with me. I'm not all knowing, and I don't claim to be.
Originally posted by optimus primal
actually i would say that growing up with no parents is the worst that can happen to a child.
It's not the same issue, but your still entitled to your opinion. I'd appreciate though if you could leave the personal attacks out. I didn't call you ignorant, so please don't cast dispersions my way.
Originally posted by optimus primal
i would submit to you that denying a couple a child because of their looks is the same thing as denying a homosexual couple a child. they're both rediculous reasons. you can't stop childhood bullying, and you can't base who gets to have kids off of it either. the very idea is sickeningly ignorant.
Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by mybigunit
but they aren't gay lions, or any other kind of gay animal. they're people just like you and I. and they're perfectly capable of raising healthy, happy children, just like you and I.
Originally posted by mybigunit
First off I feel anyone can choose the lifestyle they want to live gay straight bestiality I really dont give a damn.
If you want to smoke and big fat joint while gambling with 2 prostitutes on each side that is a human beings choice and I or anyone cant tell anyone how to live their lives.
How many gay lions do you see raising cubs to adulthood. There is a female there.
Would some gay people make good parents? Im sure they would you will not get any arguments from me, but you do have to think about the kid in this matter and how awkward it would be to bring friends home instead to mom and dad but to Adam and Steve.