tumblr_mohfuuLiRS1rfwfq9o1_1280

The Six Most Offensive Things about Same-Sex Parenting

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

After doing a panel discussion on al-Jazeera last night, and coming across countless more articles about same-sex parenting today, I’m a little tired of being diplomatic. Maybe there are moments when a bit of bluntness is appropriate.

In a best case scenario, there is a widow who comes out of the closet after her husband dies, and then gets help from a lesbian lover while raising her children. She makes sure not to trample on their father’s memory, and doesn’t force them to call her new lover “Mom.” In that one rare, specific, unintentional case, yes, same-sex parenting is okay.

Every other scenario involving a same-sex couple with exclusive custody of small children is adult misconduct at best or a crime against humanity at worst. If it happened because of divorce, then the gay parent and a former heterosexual lover failed to resolve their differences and didn’t stay together for the children. The gay parent, who’s now a single parent because the opposite-sex partner left, has no business moving in a homosexual lover not related to the children and forcing them to deal with that new presence.

If the gay couple adopted, they did a disservice to the child, even if the adoptee turns out okay and seems, on the surface, not to object to what happened. Children in the adoption system landed there because of a tragedy and need to be placed in a home with as few complications as possible. A same-sex couple brings moral controversy and also lacks either a father or a mother, to which every child has a right.

There are long waiting lists for heterosexual couples who want to adopt. If the list runs dry, the adoption agency’s job is to recruit appropriate homes, not scout for available children to satisfy gay couples. Adoption professionals need to get off their rumps and look for functional heterosexual homes for children in need–in other words, do their job – rather than sit in their office collecting bribes from gay couples impatient to find available babies to take home.

If we’re talking about lesbians who went to a sperm bank, that’s wrong. The child has no father in the home. If the child knows who donated the sperm, there’s a third party destabilizing the home and often confusing the child’s identity and emotional connections. If the child doesn’t even know who the sperm donor was, that’s a haunting origin mystery that no person should have to carry for their whole life. Lesbians who do this are selfish.

If we’re talking about gay men who hired a surrogate mother, that’s unconscionable. It is illegal after the abolition of slavery to buy, sell, or traffic human beings, so the entire business of surrogacy represents a massive lapse in the moral judgment of twenty-first-century civilized societies. In the case of this gay male couple, they are denying the child a mother, plus forcing the child to imagine the primal trauma of having been sold.

But I’ve commented on all these things a million times. I’d like to add something new here: the six most offensive things about same-sex parenting advocates.

1. Social science says you have no disadvantages being raised by a same-sex couple, so shut up and be grateful. On Al-Jazeera last night, I had to be on a panel with yet another “expert” on adoption who talked about the “thirty years of research” proving that children of same-sex couples “have no disadvantages.” I don’t play this game anymore; nowadays I cut right to the chase and say, “the metrics are vague, those studies measure superficial things like ‘do your parents listen to you?’, and anyways I’m not a statistic.”

There is no way to attach a number value to a mom or a dad, just as you cannot attach a number value to a human life. Social scientists who tout these data do so, in order to shield the gay couples from criticism for having stripped their children of a father or a mother. Following the logic of the social scientists, the experts have the authority to force children to ignore their sense of loss at not having a mom or dad. In fact, the kids are cast as ungrateful or having personality problems of their own if they feel like they lost out, since all the studies say they didn’t miss out on anything at all.

You can’t put a price tag on motherhood or fatherhood. Nor can you calculate what losing those things means to a kid. To Hades with social science.

We are not statistics.

2. Gay couples who want kids have become entitled, bossy, and self-righteous, and nobody seems willing to challenge them. When I hear same-sex couples say they need to have a “right” to adopt, the way a person has a “right” to a tax refund, I want to puke. One lesbian couple sent a video message to al-Jazeera showing off the baby they just adopted, and whining that because of homophobia, they weren’t allowed to adopt a second one. 

Give me a break, gals. I only have one kid, and I became a father the right way, by building a relationship with my child’s mother and raising her with her mother in a loving relationship. I would have loved to have a second child, but we didn’t get pregnant for several years and then my wife decided she didn’t want to have any more. So I devoted myself to the child I had and was responsible for.

Do you really think your civil rights are violated because you refused to live with a man, strong-armed adoption authorities to give you a baby even though there was no father in the house, and then couldn’t get a second one?

The entitlement. The selfishness. The narcissism. The arrogance. I long for the days when the gay community’s visceral struggles kept them somewhat down-to-earth and humble. I never imagined the community I grew up in would end up becoming such a tribe of self-centered brats.

People aren’t property. There is no such thing as a right to adopt. Society doesn’t need to fulfill your desire to have children. And don’t tell me it’s about love. If you want someone to love and you want it right now, and you don’t want to make compromises with your life goals and build a life with the opposite sex, then you shouldn’t be in the business of acquiring a human being.

Go to a dog pound and pick up a puppy.

3. Too many gay couples use their children as human shields. Stop trotting out your kids when it’s time to testify at a hearing. Stop inviting photojournalists to do pictorial essays of your family. Stop showing off to everyone that you’re a same-sex couple with kids.

You know what’s really annoying, when heterosexuals do it? Demanding that people give you things based on the fact that you have children. Exploiting them, in other words. Like when you hold everyone at Thanksgiving hostage by saying that now you and your lesbian lover have kids, so everyone has to refrain from making any references to religion, and you have to be given first-class treatment by everyone all night. Like when you say that you need to be given civil marriage status because you have children.

4. Too many gay couples and their allies assume that the kids are happy with what’s going on. You made a decision to deny a child the experience of having a mother or father. Think about how many moments that thought will cross your child’s mind — these people who raised me just assumed I’d never need the parent of the opposite sex. And if I don’t love them for having done this to me, I don’t get to eat.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for some kids to face this reality about the people raising them? Nobody wants to think ill of the people who love them. Nobody wants to see that love cut off as punishment for not feeling the way that their guardians expect — that is, grateful, loyal, and happy about being stuck in a household with two selfish lesbians or two selfish gay men who want everyone to validate their relationship with each other, and never do anything to validate the emotional ties between a child and a child’s mother and father. He was just some guy who masturbated at a sperm bank, why do you care about who he was? She was just some poor woman in Hyderabad, India, who took $7,000 to hand you over to me along with a few gallons of breast milk — why should you care about who she was? WE’RE YOUR REAL PARENTS?

Which brings me to #5:

5. Gay couples with children tend to have totally different standards for themselves and the children they raise. 

For the gay couple with children, civil unions aren’t enough. They must get the top of the lines — marriage! First-class status. Everything that straight people get. That’s usually why they have kids in the first place. It’s part of not losing out on anything.

The gay couple insists that everyone respect their internal emotional compass and vindicate their loving ties to the most important people in their lives — i.e., their same-sex partners and their children.

For the children, a bowl of porridge and a wooden spoon are good enough. The emotionally fraught kinship bonds that beckon them to the missing biological parent, and the missing cousins and siblings tied to that missing parent, are like litter to be left at the curb on garbage day.

When challenged, here is what the gay couple will often say: You can’t expect me to have to live with the opposite sex, when that’s not who I am. Who are you to ask that of me? You’re just a kid. I won’t give that up for you.

Instead of the gay adult giving up homosexuality and a gay lover for the sake of a child, the child must give up a father or mother.

And gay couples intoxicated with this same-sex parenting fad don’t even see the contradictions. It’s sickening.

6. None of this was necessary.

All of the complications, strains, discomforts, primal trauma, emotional abuses, hypocrisies, and pushiness that go along with #1-5, were totally uncalled for. Nobody forced gay couples to do this. Nobody needed gay couples to do this. The universe would have been better had they not bullied everyone around them into accepting these horrible social costs and collateral damage.

It was all because of something the gay couple wanted. And like leg warmers, the Berlin Wall, and pet rocks, same-sex parenting will pass as a long-forgotten fad one day. The yuppies who came up with this idea in leftie enclaves like Austin, Texas, and Berkeley, California, will be dead, and their grandchildren will be agonizing over the broken branches of the strange family trees passed down to them.

All for whims and indulgences that will mean little to the ones who created the mess, and mean quite a lot to those who will be left cleaning it up.

First published Nov. 2013

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • thisoldspouse

    Here’s the basic argument of a homo-fanatic: children do not need a mother or a father.

    They can’t deny that this is their argument.

    • Tara

      Gays believe that kids do just fine with 2 moms or 2 dads, which is what the evidence shows. It is society, which makes single parenting (mostly by straight women) legal, that states that children do not absolutely need a mother and father.

      • garybryson

        these people hate the truth and facts.

      • thisoldspouse

        And you say exactly what I said you are telling us. That children don’t need a mother or a father.

        What idiots.

        • Tara

          I am saying, along with loads of social science research, that children do best with 2 loving parents. What is your evidence to the contrary?

          • Rory

            Probably some bible verses that they made up

          • Weta

            Didn’t you know that every single child ever raised by heterosexuals turned out to be perfectly adjusted and wonderful, contributed members of society. Single parents are a obviously a silly myth, like climate change that some less intelligent people (obviously raised by same-sex parents as all heterosexual-raised children are perfect) believe in but everyone else knows is patently false.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Loads of social science? That children do best with two (Gay) parents as opposed to, or as in no differance to thier to opposite sex biogical parents who stay married for life?. How about you show us your loads of “evidence” cause I say your full of BS. The sodomy lobby is as full of pathological liars as the drug legalization crowd.

          • Weta

            Unfortunately a lot of academic material is essentially paywalled but if you have access to online journals then it’s not hard to find at all. Most studies on the matter compare kids raised by same-sex parents to kids raised by opposite sex parents. One of the notable areas in which children raised by same-sex parents consistently out-perform those raised by opposite-sex parents is self-esteem. Most other areas are pretty much equal I think, but I’m operating off memory and it’s been a while since I gave any of them a thorough read through.

          • Tara

            Patterson had a very popular study. Your turn, please share with us. Who are these pathological liars? What is your proof that they are lying?

          • ReidDA

            Loads of no difference while we can’t post links on here the ASA, APA and AAP have a fully cite available on their websites or any of the briefs filed in Windsor v. US available form the American Bar Assoc. Website.

    • garybryson

      Here’s the argument of the heterofascist; Gays are evil and kids are better off in foster homes or orphanages rather than with a loving gay couple. Makes perfect sense..NOT>

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

        Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

        The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

        Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

        Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

        Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

        And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

        Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

        • garybryson

          even more spam from ray ray

    • Nos Rob

      Oh dear, you really should think before you write.

      You’ll find that every child has a mother and a father, as a matter of course – they’re the ones who brought the child into being.

      Do children always need to live with their biological parents? No, it isn’t always possible and that’s why we have adoption.

      • thisoldspouse

        Oh, dear, what I purported is exactly what you’re saying.

        How can you not see that?

    • ReidDA

      Well this straight married “homo-fanatic” doesn’t have that argument at all. Rather the argument is that children do best in a stable household with 2 loving parents. Studies have shown that the sex of the parent is fungible and the qualities that each parent brings to the up-bringing isn’t tied to the sex of the parent. I used to believe the same as you, due to the industries that my parents worked in (married to each other for over 30 years) I spent a lot of time with their colleagues which included a higher proportion of “out” gay people than others. While I liked them, didn’t discriminate against them I didn’t think they should be able to adopt children I though like common sense would seem to dictate that the benefits are unique to a mother and a father. When I got older I read the research for myself. Ended up finding out that I had more than a couple of friends who had same sex parents. Became friends with some same sex parents. While the last 2 anecdotal points don’t make a consensus (despite what the author may want you to think), I have now changed my mind and my argument to what I’ve stated above.

    • David Mora

      Actually, it is your side that is now screaming that children are better off with no parents than to be adopted out of the foster care system into loving homes with two fathers or two mothers.

  • Tara

    You are basically saying that despite over 30 years of research, over 150 studies looking at gay parenting and having remarkable consistent results that since you don’t like what those studies say so you’ll flatly dismiss them. You have no evidence of your own to refute those studies, yet you go on in number 4 that kids of gay parents really dont like their families. This is contradictory.

    You have no evidence of you own beside your personal opinion, yet you demand submission to your ideal. And gays with kids are the selfish ones? It is not selfish to ask for equal protection and treatment under the law, it is a constitutional right. What is selfish is believing in one’s self superiority and advocation for the subjugation and humiliation of others.

    • Truth Offends

      Evidently, what you’re “basically saying” (telling us) is that you didn’t read (or comprehend) the column.

      • Tara

        Make an argument, or stop bugging me

      • garybryson

        Sorry but lopez is a raving lunatic who compare same sex parenting to slavery.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:

          • One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

          • One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

          • Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

          • Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

          • Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

          • Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

          • Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

          • garybryson

            more spam from ray ray

          • ShellyBuchanan

            Why have homosexuals stopped using condoms? Not very bright, eh?

          • garybryson

            Where is your proof or just another mindless acusation?

        • ShellyBuchanan

          Their demands for children is akin to slavery.

          • Boo

            How, pray tell, is wanting children akin to slavery?

          • garybryson

            lopez has made this statement repeatedly in the past

          • Boo

            Ah, and so repeating it makes it true, is Shelly’s argument I guess?

          • garybryson

            What are you even talking about? Have you been reading lopez’s homoerotic porn?

      • Mikey Solominow

        I’ve read and comprehended this column and a lot of Dr. Lopez’s other writings. It seems like he dismisses all research into this subject with a wave of his hand and generalizes his own feelings about his own life to be identical to the feelings of every other child ever raised by same-sex couples in history, with no basis for it.

    • garybryson

      This is also the same man who published a series of homoerotic novels.

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        Please everyone, Gary is talking.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Ray, the absolute worst thing you can do is give Gary what he wants: Attention. I do not give him any, and so he gets more and more extreme to try to set me off. But he is a perpetual failure.

          • Marie

            Thanks Matthew T. Mason. It is a pleasure to run across two guys with decent opinions.

          • ErickMN

            Like the rest of us, I’m sure Gary wonders why you sit around all day and post about homosexuality and gay sex. Do you think your friends – assuming you have any – do that? Probably not. So what’s your excuse? Why do you have such an intensely emotional reaction to those subjects? Talk to us, Matt.

          • garybryson

            coward

        • garybryson

          refute it ray ray

        • edav38

          As normal, a purely CHRISTIAN Response from Ray…..NOT

          Ray, if you are going to make responses like that, Remove “Jesus is the Son of God” from your name, cause that is NOT how Christ would respond

          • Marie

            Oh but Christ would respond that way.

          • edav38

            If you believe that you have NEVER read the Bible, Only been Told what to Believe by some Ignorant pastor

          • Marie

            I believe, contrary to what homo’s believe, that Jesus Christ was not an advocate of pornography. Nothing you are ever going to say will change that. I can assure you Ray – Jesus is the Son Of God is not either. Also, realize that our Father… God… has a wonderful srnse of humor and Ray- Jesus is the Son of God exemplifies that very wit and humor. You are in fact toast. I hope you like warm weather.

          • edav38

            Painting Any group with such a broad brush, shows a Complete LACK of intelligence, show how Little you know, but you Are Good at Regurgitating what your Hate Filled Pastor says

          • Marie

            You are the hate filled “pastor” of your rainbow religion. You speak evil of sanctuary religions that grows your numbers.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          LOL – Awesome.

    • Greg

      BEHAVIOR, such as pervertedness, deviancy, homosexuality, is not a constitutional right, nor do behaviors require equal rights.

      • ErickMN

        However, it does give you something to bizarrely obsess about to fill all your free time.

      • BillTheCat45

        Too bad sunshine, you lose.

      • Tara

        Sex between consenting adults is a privacy issue, and privacy is a right. Since we can live and love as we choose, we also have the right to marry who we choose. The only limitation of human rights is when they interfere or cause harm to others. Gay marriage does not cause harm, so it cannot be limited.

        • Greg

          Good point. Had homosexuality remained a private issue, it wouldn’t be the issue that it has become these days. But since some refused to keep it private, it does have a harmful impact on society. The more tolerant and desensitized the population becomes of immoral behavior, the more the overall decline in society will continue.

          • Tara

            Your statement that behavior cannot be a right is false, as I have explained. What is your proof that SSM causes harm? Dozens of lawyers have been unable to prove this claim and I’m sure they would love your evidence

          • Greg

            One proof is by just observing society today. Are adults and children better off than we were a decade ago, two decades ago? There is more division, hate, intolerance, hardship, poverty, declining education, and more, today, than there has ever been. I don’t know what evidence those lawyers thought they had, but it doesn’t matter, when the majority of courts and government purposefully water down and reinterpret the Constitution and Laws to benefit the agenda.

          • Tara

            This is bizarre logic. Can you connect any of societies problems to homosexuality? Again, what is your evidence?

          • Greg

            I could give more direct evidence in regards to homosexuality, but it’s all been laid out numerous times, and by and large, is not even granted consideration, and ignored. BUT, more importantly, I wasn’t placing all the blame on homosexuality for the decline of society, but it is just one more defining moment, or one more nail in the coffin, of our declining society.

          • ErickMN

            It’s not granted consideration, and it’s ignored, because it’s garbage. Simple as that.

          • Carl Smith

            Actually it’s only been “laid out” by religitards, racists and the lower levels of American economic ladder who need to feel better about themselves by scapegoating one segment of society. All the aforementioned groups are untrustworthy, trashy and generally uneducated.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            And all of this is due to Gay couples??? OMG!

          • Carl Smith

            All of societies ills can be related to gay marriage. Never mind that Norway has had gay marriage for years it is provably one of the happiest nations on Earth. Please ignore that since it doesn’t fit into our agenda of stopping gay marriage. Seriously what idiot planet are you from?

          • helligusvart

            Ask this question of all of the children who have been molested by homosexual men. And before you counter that heterosexuals also molest children, the rate is much higher among homosexual men. Besides, homosexuality is an abomination to God, therefore children should not be raised in such an environment.

          • Tara

            You are wrong. Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than straight people.

          • ShellyBuchanan

            I read most military personnel raped are homosexually raped!

          • Andrew Bensen

            And I read that fish can fly to the moon. Doesn’t make it true.

          • MDB

            proof? Read what scientifically authored and empirically proven study ? You read what… another BS RWNJ article
            on WND ??? I’m sure the Defense Department would appreciate having access to your’ tens of thousands of pages of painstaking documented research.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Besides, homosexuality is an abomination to God, therefore children should not be raised in such an environment.

            You say so; however, those who believe differently have just as much right to their beliefs as you do.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Actually the rate of homosexuals molesting is currently at 6.7% which is MUCH lower then the skewed studies done in the past and done in a scientific manner rather than based on BS!
            Since you insist on quoting a portion of a Leviticus scripture… Can I assume you live by ALL the tenants of Leviticus???

            If the answer is no… Stop being such a HYPOCRITE!

          • Carl Smith

            Oh well too bad it’s happening with or without your insane stupidity.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Your statement that behavior cannot be a right is false, as I have explained.

            That is the most asinine statement of the day: June 16, 2014.

          • Tara

            Umm, free speech is a behavior. That’s not a right? Going to church is a behavior. That’s not a right? I don’t understand

          • Greg

            Speech is not a behavior. We are all endowed by our creator with speech. Thus we have freedom of speech. Going to church is also our right, through freedom of religion and the right to exercise thereof.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Secular law does not recognize your “creator” as the source of rights.

            Keeping and bearing arms is a behavior, protected by the Constitution. So is voting, for that matter.

            Now, where were we again?

          • Greg

            If you did a THOROUGH study of our nations (America) history, you will clearly see that our founding fathers most definitely recognized our creater (God) as our source of rights. Our nation, our foundation, was built UNDER God. Not sure what you are suggesting in regards to the right to bear arms and voting rights, as they are both of utmost importance.

          • Steven Schwartz

            f you did a THOROUGH study of our nations (America) history, you will clearly see that our founding fathers most definitely recognized our creater (God) as our source of rights.

            And they had every opportunity to write that into the Constitution — and yet they did not; I wonder why?

            Here’s a clue: could it be because they did not want the government to consider itself based on religious principles?

            Our nation, our foundation, was built UNDER God.

            Well, religious freedom prohibits specifying beliefs as a grounds for law — since they may well not be shared.

            Not sure what you are suggesting in regards to the right to bear arms and voting rights, as they are both of utmost importance.

            It was said that behaviors were not protected as rights — bearing arms and voting are behaviors that are protected by the Constitution — ergo, the Constitution can protect behaviors.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            WRONG!!! Our founding fathers (the MAJORTY) Believed religion had NO PLACE in government… Perhaps you should do a more THOROUGH study yourself…

          • ErickMN

            If you can’t deal with people that are different from you, stay home and hide under your bed. A win-win for everyone. Maybe if you whine and moan here some more, you’ll help stem the “overall decline in society” that exists only in your head. You’re a riot!

          • ShellyBuchanan

            Good Lord! You must live in your head & the TV!

          • Greg

            I’ve dealt very well with those whom are different than me, including homosexuals, to this day. The problem is, not mine, and possibly not yours, I don’t know, is those homosexuals whom disregard common respect and tolerance of people’s different opinions and beliefs, and insist on their behaviors being accepted and given rights, with the laws protection.

          • Steven Schwartz

            and insist on their behaviors being accepted and given rights, with the laws protection.

            So, as long as they don’t bother you or make you do anything, you can tolerate them, but heaven forfend they should expect *rights* or any such thing? Or the protection of laws?

            That’s not “dealing very well” with, by any stretch of the imagination, so stop patting yourself on the back for it.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            You mean kinda like Christians constantly quoting an archaic verse from the bible that they don’t follow themselves???

          • Carl Smith

            You haven’t dealt with it very well since you’re obviously still crying about it. It makes absolutely no sense for you to say you’ve “done very well”. If everyone was “doing very well” such a demand for rights wouldn’t be necessary. I have pegged you as a self-righteous liar who needs to feel better about himself by whatever means necessary. Go live your life, man. Stop worrying about what other people are doing.

          • edav38

            Greg, when you and all heterosexuals make straight sex Private, then you will have a leg to stand on.
            But, since Straight men are No Less Dregs as Gay men are, that will Never Happen

        • helligusvart

          Privacy is not a right. If a father is downloading kiddie porn in the privacy of his own home should he be allowed to raise a child because of a “right to privacy?”

          • Tara

            Read my comment again. The only limitation of privacy is causing harm to others

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Sex between consenting adults is a privacy issue, and privacy is a right.

          And having sex in public, in broad daylight, is a privacy issue?

          • ErickMN

            Why do you ask? Is that a problem for you? Or are you looking for Tara’s approval? Elaborate please.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            I have yet to see a gay couple having sex in public but have come across a few hetero’s in the act…

      • helligusvart

        Thank you!

    • Matthew T. Mason

      You are basically saying that despite over 30 years of research, over 150 studies

      What research? What studies? The paper they are printed on is only good for one thing, and that’s when you run out of toilet paper.

      To state children who are raised in a moral vacuum turn out okay defies common sense and common decency. These are children, you turds. Not toys. Keep your hands off of them.

      • garybryson

        You’re the one who speaks about pedophillia constantly. We worry more about you being around kids

      • Boo

        Yes Mathew, these are gay couple’s children. Keep your hands off of them.

      • Steven Schwartz

        To state children who are raised in a moral vacuum turn out okay defies common sense and common decency.

        No one said anything about a “moral vacuum”. You’re the onle who claims that a same-sex relationship is that.

        And “common sense” once held that black people were clearly biologically inferior, so it was up to white people to take care of them. “common decency” once held that women shouldn’t do things like vote.

        Given the choice between solid social science research and your notions of “common sense” and “common decency”, I know which I’d pick as a basis for a society to live in.

    • Clint Batterton

      This time out, Mr. Lopez seems to focus more on his naked hatred of gay people rather than on his alleged concern for children, which is misplaced. For an excellent comprehensive summary of the social studies covering gay parenting, see Judge Friedman’s opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, finding Michigan’s ban on marriage equality unconstitutional (March 21, 2014). As he put it, “decades of social science research studies indicate that there is no discernible difference in parenting competence between lesbian and gay adults and their heterosexual counterparts.” Good parents have good parenting skills, regardless of their sex or that of their spouses. It is not selfish for same-sex couples to share their homes and their lives with adopted children. Mr. Lopez should stick to his other works of fiction, which oddly include those homoerotic novels he writes.

      • Tara

        Excellent point

      • Truth Offends

        “parenting competence”
        Yep. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about what’s best for children! It’s not about what children need. No. When it comes to children, the pro-homosexuality supporters talk about “parenting competence.”
        It’s all about THEM! Just as Mr. Lopez said in his column!
        How sickening!

        • Clint Batterton

          So the fact that there is NO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE between gay and straight parents would have no bearing on the welfare of their children? Huh? If you had actually read the judge’s opinion, you would have seen that the incontrovertible evidence is that the children of both types of parents do equally well. Mr. Lopez offers NO evidence, because he has none, that gay parents are “selfish” and unconcerned about the welfare of their children, or that the children suffer as a result. After background checks, interviews, home visits and long waits, adoptive parents then must accept a lifetime commitment, and sometimes a lifetime financial commitment, if they are awarded children, it is no surprise that gay adoptive parents are as serious as their straight counterparts. .

          • ShellyBuchanan

            What about the Canadian study which showed the graduation rates of children raised by same-sex parents was abysmal. Apparently, there is a definite problem with same-sex parents.

          • Boo

            Cite this “study” or you’re just bluffing. And if it’s the guy who deliberately changed another study’s metric then don’t even bother.

          • Tara

            This study (Allen, right?) Was addressed in the Michigan trial and was basically dismissed by the judge as it did not really study children of stable same sex homes, but children from previous relationships whose parents now have a same sex partner. This is the same mistake the Regneres’ study made. The researcher was also heavily baised personally and said on the stand that he believed gays are going to hell. Not the best impression from a guy who is supposed to be a scientist.

        • ShellyBuchanan

          Obviously, we should stick children in adoption centers, since they raise children capably.

        • Steven Schwartz

          It’s not about what children need. No. When it comes to children, the pro-homosexuality supporters talk about “parenting competence.”

          I don’t know about you, but I would put “parenting competence” as higher on the list than “two parents of different genders” on the list of things that it would be good for a kid to have. Two same-sex competent parents are going to be *much* better for a kid than two opposite-sex incompetent ones.

      • ShellyBuchanan

        What about the Canadian study which showed the graduation rates of the kids of same-sex parents was abysmal! They’ve been adopting longer than USA.

        • Clint Batterton

          If there were such a study, apparently it was not presented in the Michigan case. Instead, Judge Friedman, who was appointed by Reagan, found that:

          “Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to
          children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent
          Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute.”
          The defendants did not contest that finding.

  • Nos Rob

    One of the most offensive things about gay parenting has got to be this constant anti-gay rhetoric from so-called Christians.

    • thisoldspouse

      Why don’t you ask the children held hostage by these selfish hedonists how they feel (out of earshot or range of retribution of these deviants.) You’ll get a different story. Mr. Lopez has. And he is one.

      • garybryson

        lopez has become such a fringe right winger that boobwire and american thinker are about the only places that will publish his material. He’s as much of an authority as Kermit the Frog.

        • ShellyBuchanan

          Apparently, Boobwire appeals to you incessantly.

          • garybryson

            Pure entertainment sugar britches!

        • MDB

          Hey, don’t insult the Muppets. It’s not easy being Green. :-)

      • Walt NYC

        Hey…good idea. Maybe you could ask Daniel Martinez-Leffew. At the age of 5, he was stuck in the system and was told by the foster care agency that he was considered “unadoptable” because he has Goldenhar Syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the left side of his body. Then, he was adopted by two gay men. Now, at age 13 he is doing quite well. In his own words, “Family is thicker than blood. It’s not just the people you are born with, it’s the people who care about you and love you. Because anyone can have a kid.”

        • thisoldspouse

          Age of 13, huh? Yeah, no undue influence there. I’ll bet his “parents” even wrote the script, like that lying lesbian who approached Michelle Bachmann at her book table and nudged her “son” to ask that question about “gay” parents.

          Go sell crazy to the gullible.

          • Walt NYC

            “Go sell crazy to the gullible.” Said the guy who believes Robert Oscar Lopez.
            I guess you’d rather “unadoptable” children remain in the system.

          • thisoldspouse

            The “unadoptable” meme is a concocted fiction of the homosexual left, like many other of your lies. The only thing “unadoptable” means is “we got here first.”

          • Walt NYC

            Now you’re just lying. No surprises there.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Homosexuals prey on children.

            • 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            • There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            • Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester (19).

            • 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            • Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            • Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • garybryson

            spam

          • ErickMN

            So you’re spending ANOTHER day obsessing about homosexuality, creepy old man obsessed with homosexuality? Hilarious!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8). [This is a reduction in the length of life by 44% (33/75 = 44%)

            • The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            • Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            • 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            • 50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            • About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).

          • ErickMN

            Glad gay people make you so miserable, Ray. Keep the whiny posts coming!

          • Tara

            Spammer

          • garybryson

            spammer

          • BillTheCat45

            You would know “concocted fiction”, being a bible thumper.

          • helligusvart

            Why do atheists tend to be so mean, angry, and intolerant? Answer: they don’t have God.

          • BillTheCat45

            haha that’s hilarious. The amount of vitriol, anger, VIOLENCE, and hatred spewed by your side is plain for the world to see. The article above is the personification of “mean, angry, intolerant”, so go cry to someone who cares.

          • L1011

            Oh I’ve had a God a few times, his name was Jim, and he was so awesome, I was known to call out to him from time to time, “Oh God, Oh God, Oh Jesus, Oh God…”

          • Steven Schwartz

            Then why, pray tell, do we have orphanages and adoption agencies full to bursting?

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            • Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            • 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            • 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            • Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

          • garybryson

            and more spam from ray ray

          • ShellyBuchanan

            I read they’ve stopped using condoms, since they assume an AIDs virus is about to be invented, so now they’re spreading syphilis. I think the rate among homosexuals is 65%. AIDS kills homosexuals 20 years sooner.

          • garybryson

            nopers. just lies for christ

          • ShellyBuchanan

            Since a Canadian study showed kids of same-sex parents had abysmal graduation rates, they’d be infinitely better off in adoption centers.

          • garybryson

            now your just trolling

          • Walt NYC

            So then, you believe a child is much better off remaining in the system and being led to believe that, through no fault of their own, they are “unadoptable” because no “loving” heterosexual couple wants to be bothered. And, that will have no lasting negative effect on the child, whatsoever. How lovely.

            Since you brought it up, there a few things you should know about the Canadian study you mention and use as the basis for your bigotry. The study was conducted by economist Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University.

            Allen used data from the 2006 Canadian census. Same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in Canada until 2005 – just one year before the census on which Allen based his findings. As a result, the study compares the children raised by stable, married heterosexual parents with children almost entirely raised by unmarried same-sex parents. When comparing children raised by same-sex parents to opposite sex common law parents – a more appropriate comparison, the children of gay parents actually perform better, with children of lesbian parents performing only slightly worse.

            Douglas Allen, himself, admitted that his study can’t establish a causal relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and school performance:
            “Within the child development literature and pop culture, there is a belief that mothers and fathers provide different parenting inputs that are not perfectly substitutable. These results would be consistent with this notion, but further research is necessary to show any causality.”

            Allen has ties to major anti-gay organizations. He sits on the board of NOM’s Ruth Institute, consistently repeats the tired right-wing myth that gays are far more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals, and has argued that lesbian couples are inherently unstable because their menstrual cycles will eventually become synchronized. He is also a staunch proponent of the widely discredited Regnerus study, which suffers from many of the same methodological flaws in Allen’s research.

          • ReidDA

            so then surely the same applies to parents who trot their kids out to pro-life rallies or anti-same sex marriage rallies?

          • Steven Schwartz

            But of course any testimony by anti-gay people must be taken at face value, because we know *no one* would influence them.

            You trust testimony when it supports you, and dismiss it when it doesn’t — thus showing that your respect for evidence and reason follows well behind the importance you put on confirming your own beliefs.

        • L1011

          Walt, I just watched Daniels vid on YouTube; it’s was very touching. I’ve met several gay couples with kids, and many of them adopted the “unadoptables.” When I was in the military, I attended an open church that has several gay couples, and one couple adopted 3, their oldest in a wheelchair, and their two youngest were born to a mother addicted to crack and have mental disabilities. There are so many children in orphanages that few heterosexual couples want that even in deeply red states, the orphanages are happy to get gay couples willing to adopt them.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

          • 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

          • Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

          • 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

          • The Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

          • 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

          • It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

          • garybryson

            spams a lot

      • BillTheCat45

        Shut up gramps, your time is short, and we are winning.

        • Paul Hue

          Yes, the hedonists are winning.

      • Trollop

        This article implies gay bribery makes the adoption process easier for professionals whose job it is to place children into homes. I see you bit into it hook, line and sinker. I have no idea where you people(?) get your ideas of dogmatic and social supremacy (other than the poison you’ve been fed) but I guess it is not your fault? Mr. Lopez is an unlovely creature and so are you! What made you so bitter?

        • ShellyBuchanan

          So sayeth the person wasting his family’s time posting here.

          • garybryson

            And you are what……

      • Andrew Bensen

        How about gay, lesbian, bi, or trans children that are adopted into non-supportive right wing families who disown them as soon as they come out? What about THOSE children??
        You sound like a miserable, negative, hateful old person. I hope you change and actually enjoy what time you have left.

      • Dani Murphy

        Hedonist? God damn, religious people are full of hate.

    • helligusvart

      A Christian believes that the entire Bible, from the first word of Genesis to the last word of Revelation, is the absolute, inerrant, verbally inspired Word of God. The Bible says that homosexuality is always wrong. Therefore, Christians should engage in “anti-gay rhetoric.” Those who disagree are not Christians.

      • Boo

        Nor are they True Scotsmen.

      • Steven Schwartz

        I’m sure a Christian does believe that. I’m sure there are plenty who don’t. ;)

        And before you get all het up — so to speak — remember that this is *why* we have the separation of church and state — so that neither you, nor those that disagree with you can use the State’s power to strike against your beliefs. Your actions, the State has some right to manage — but not your beliefs.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      If you think “real Christians” would support something that is explicitly condemned in the Bible, you are sadly mistaken.

      • garybryson

        you wouldn’t know a real christian

      • Nos Rob

        I expect ‘real Christians’ to be doing as their savior commands: giving sacrificially to the poor, constantly going the extra mile, always turning the other cheek, giving to anyone who asks, offering their belongings to those who would sue them, tending the sick, imprisoned, hungry and thirsty… but I don’t see it.

        It’s easier, I guess, for you to ignore just about everything Jesus demands and to set your own agenda, maligning a minority.

  • Pingback: The Round-Up (June 16, 2014) | Entreating Favor

  • Walt NYC

    Much like his series of fictional homoerotic novels, Lopez continues to describe all sorts of diabolical scenarios that exist solely in his imagination. This is a man who once said, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that the late Tyler Clementi probably “had liaisons with men who were older than eighteen and committing statutory rape.”
    We get it already, Robert. You had an unpleasant childhood and your mother just happened to be a lesbian. Your repeated attempts to project your experience onto the entire gay community is ridiculous. Bad things can happen in ANY home, irrespective of parenting circumstances.

    • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

      The homosexual agenda:

      •The homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (25).

      •Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington: “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives” (27).

      •Part of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity:

      • garybryson

        and more spam from ray ray

      • Martin Rizley

        You are correct in your understanding of the goals of the LGBT movement. That is why it is so crucial for people to recognize and stand against the Orwellian brainwashing methods that our government is employing in order to “break down” the public’s objections to sexual perversion. Through relentlessly exposing the public to images of men kissing on television, etc., and through the use of euphemisms such as ‘marriage equality’ and ‘sexual orientation’ to make what is truly contrary to nature appear “natural,” our Machiavellian leaders– ever the control freaks fanatically devoted to ruling the world and remaking society in their own image through social engineering– are “pulling out all the stops” to desensitize the public to the truly evil and diabolical goals of the “binary gender destructionists” who want to replace Judeo-Christian values in our legal system with pagan values based on the denial of absolute morality and design in nature. Those who eyes are opened to the great evil being perpetrated on our nation by the corrupt leaders at the helm– men of debased character with seared consciences– must sound the alarm as to what is happening and continue to call sexual perversion by its name in the public square, making arguments against the deconstruction of marriage and the demolition of our American cultural values, even as we seek to win homosexuals to Christ, who is the only one who can save them from their lifestyle given over to disordered sexual passions.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          The signs of the end times are everywhere…

          As we witness such things as the spread of globalism, the building of a one-world church, the increase of wickedness, the breakdown of the traditional family, the destruction of that priceless bastion of liberty called America, the normalization of homosexuality, the callous murder of babies, the filthy pop culture, the breathtaking increase in governmental surveillance, we become fearful, uncertain, frustrated, angry, and discouraged, but this is because our minds and hearts are too focused on things of this world rather than things above. Too often we have the same short view that “conservative” unbelievers have rather than the long view that comes from the light of Bible prophecy…

          The devil is the god of this world, and his handiwork is evident everywhere, but he is not God and he is not in control of the times and the seasons.

          “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2:20-21).

          We should stand in the confidence that the present evil is exceedingly temporary and will soon be cut down.

          • garybryson

            super spammer

          • Martin Rizley

            I agree with you that believers must be encouraged by the sovereign rule of God over evil and His absolute authority to judge it, rather than discouraged by the “short day” of apparent triumph that the promoters of evil seem to be having at the present time in our benighted culture. The annals of history are filled with the records of corrupt regimes that rose to power temporarily and had their little heyday before being cut down by the Almighty when the hour of judgment finally came. Now, the memory of those regimes is abominated by later generations whose restored sanity enables them to see what was happening at the time, even though many of the ‘brainwashed masses’ living at the time were blind to the mind control tricks being played on them by their propaganda-wielding leaders.

          • MDB

            Did you plagiarize all of this ? If while you are ranting, fuming and spamming, you cut and paste someone else’s text, you should have the decency to footnote the text.

  • regexp

    “Too many gay couples use their children as human shields. ”

    You know who I find the worst abuser of this? Evangelics. Who trot out their children for every thing out there from anti-abortion rallies to anti-marriage rallies. The difference is that gay men and women are fighting FOR rights. And not trying to take them away. Big difference.

    • dhebler

      gays have no rights when it comes to children–they fight for the wrong reasons–they fight for themselves to be accepted by non-gay community–gays use children as a human shield to hide behind! Gays are terrorists…..

      • ErickMN

        How hilarious that you are so threatened by gay people. Maybe a good cry would help you get over things and move on with your life.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Why do the heathen homosexuals attack so frequently and with such venom? Why do they lie every time they move their lifeless life hating lips? Given that homo’s dominate the spawning and spreading of disease [especially incurable sexually transmitted diseases], maybe they have added rabies to their disease ridden menu.?
          Why do homo’s try so desperately to convince what can’t ever be convinced. Why do homo’s insist that 2+2 isn’t always 4? Why do homo’s act as if 2 left legs or two right legs is the same as and equal to one left leg and one right leg?

          What kind of a moronic malevolence would dare say that 2 redundant homosexual men or two redundant homosexual women are the same as and equal to one complimentary heterosexual man and one complimentary heterosexual woman?

          What kind of a dimwit would consider redundancy the same as and equal to complimentary? If 2 men or two women are the same as and equal to one man and one women when it comes to sex; marriage; parenting; family creation; adopting; role modeling; and unlimited unsupervised access to children [the heathen homosexual prey of choice], then isn’t the word complimentary becoming obsolete along with countless other words in lexicons at home and abroad?

          If it takes one complimentary man and one complimentary woman to conceive a new life and naturally become a mother and a father, only the deranged or the demonic would thereafter dare suggest that any unnatural, abnormal, and unhealthy combination is ever an option.
          Why ever settle for an oxymoronic and redundant counterfeit when the real thing is available in great abundance?

          Homo’s hate themselves so much that they have to convince themselves that they love each other while they seek unfettered access to using and abusing children who they use to pretend how normal they are.
          And they hate preeminent people like Dr. Lopez because they see him as a traitor having left the homo havens he was conditioned by homos to frequent and celebrate.

          Is it normal natural and healthy for real men to see their fathers; grandfathers; uncles; male cousins; coaches; male teachers; male business mentors; male teammates and friends as marriage and/or panty punching material?

          • ErickMN

            Were you flailing your arms and gnashing your teeth when you typed out that hissy fit? It’s too bad you can’t post video here so we can REALLY enjoy your misery. By the way, if you get a life of your own, you’ll have less time to obsess about how EVERYONE ELSE is living theirs. Just sayin’!

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Thank you for describing you and your heathen comrades.

          • ErickMN

            Thank YOU for entertaining us with you bizarre obsession with homosexuality. Keep the whining and moaning coming!

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Squirm on!

      • BillTheCat45

        Manage to type that without drooling too much cupcake?

    • CajunPatriot

      Who are “evangelics?” Never heard of that before. Is that a new therapy? A medical regime? it must be something like that, right?

  • Martin Rizley

    Thank you for exposing the injustice that is being done to children in our country, in order to satisfy the narcissistic desires of homosexual couples. I know you will get ‘flayed’ for writing this by those who hold to an empiricist view of knowledge– who believe that empirical science alone produces ‘knowledge.’ That is a self-defeating philosophy since belief in empiricism does not rest on an empirical study; or if it does– that is, if someone appeals to an empirical study to show that empiricism alone produces knowledge– that it is a completely circular argument. Your way of reasoning and making moral judgments based on “common sense” and personal observation of life is completely in line with the way our founders reasoned when they affirmed belief in “self-evident truths”– in other words, your way of reasoning is totally AMERICAN in character. No doubt, your arguments will be rejected as “worthless opinion” by atheists who hold to a materialistic, empiricist epistemology (theory of knowledge) and who want America to become a “scientocracy,” (a country in which the men in lab coats are the sole purveyors of knowledge, and the masses are rejected as ignorant buffoons in constant need of enlightenment from those “in the know” because of their data, research, and statistics.) Thank God our founders rejected that arrogant way of thinking when they said, “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED EQUAL and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights. . .” That foundational truth of American law was certainly not based on an empirical research study! How refreshing to hear from our founders the bold affirmation that “self-evident truths” exist. What a rebuke to our insane culture which tells us at every turn that every belief we hold to be “self-evident” is nothing but the fruit of ignorance and prejudice– that the average citizen knows nothing, and that the only people who possess knowledge are social scientists. I reject that elitist way of thinking, and I hope our country will do the same.

    • Michael Gorka

      You have a very deep mistrust and misunderstanding of science. You seem to hold a very backwards view, held by the ancient greeks. Namely, that you can talk your way into accepting any view of the universe by pure reasoning. That is simply false.

      What if I were to say that clouds are nothing more than freely moving blobs of white jello, held in the sky by great anchors. Could you dispute my claim? Sure. But why? Based on evidence!! We have been in the sky and have seen that there are no great anchors. We TESTED theories and looked for empirical evidence.

      We got into a lot of trouble (scientifically) by simply assuming things that ‘seemed reasonable.’ Like the motion of the earth, the shape of the earth, the size of the universe, what happens when objects burn, etc, etc. Hell, who would ever reason that electrons are both waves and particles? No one, it required a great amount of testing.

      Things only seem self evident because you have in fact done some science yourself, you have LOOKED at a situation and drew conclusions based on what you have seen.

      • Martin Rizley

        I did not say that evidence is to be ignored; I only said that empirical science is not the only avenue of knowledge. I doubt many atheistic empiricists would agree with you that my PERSONAL experience of “looking at situations and drawing conclusions based on what I have seen” constitutes science. They would probably say that science can only be properly conducted by qualified researchers with the necessary scientific credentials and training to “do science.” They alone are capable of attaining the prize of knowledge by their “controlled studies” which they set up according to their own criteria. The rest of us simply have to wait on their research and accept “by faith” whatever conclusions these experts draw, since our personal observations, which are not gathered through “controlled studies,” do not constitute evidence of anything and are totally worthless as an avenue of knowledge. That is the theory of knowledge I am objecting to– the elitist, empiricist view which takes naturalistic science by credentialed scientists as the only avenue to knowledge, and relegates as totally worthless the personal observations (evidence) and conclusions of the man on the street.

        As a Christian, I believe that God created the world and wants to communicate with us, so He has made the world in such a way that the most important matters of life– that is, matters of fundamental morality and the fundamental ‘duties’ that human beings owe to one another (social duties)– are of the nature of ‘self-evident truths’ impressed on the human conscience through what the Bible calls ‘general revelation’– God Himself addressing the conscience of men directly through the natural order that He has established. By means of general revelation, men universally “know” that certain things are wrong, without any social scientist telling them so– things like murder, theft, lying, adultery, disrespect for parents, gossip, slander, etc. In those matters, we do not need to wait in suspense to see what ‘revelations’ the social scientists will make known to us, so that we can finally learn after all these centuries of ignorance how society should be structured. Men may deny the truths made known to all by general revelation by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, but that does not make the truths of general revelation any less true or self-evident. I believe the knowledge that children should not be deliberately deprived of one of their biological parents– just to satisfy the wishes of a homosexual couple– is of the nature of a self-evident truth. No social scientist needs to tell me what is right and wrong in that matter. I know what is right here, not apart from, but because of the evidence; on the other hand, that ‘evidence’ and the proper interpretation of it does not at all depend on what a “credentialed social scientist” has to say.

        • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

          “I did not say that evidence is to be ignored; I only said that empirical science is not the only avenue of knowledge.”

          —Big claim, zero follow-through. Stop vomiting onto the rest of us, sicko.

          • Martin Rizley

            Your habitually abusive language does not constitute an argument, and as long as you persist in using it, do not expect any reply from me to your comments– just to let you know.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            I’ve CRUSHED your theocratic verbiage numerous times; I see little need to go into more detail if you have not changed your fascist tune.

            You will ALWAYS fail… and you WILL get out of the way of a more just world.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I believe the knowledge that children should not be deliberately deprived of one of their biological parents– just to satisfy the wishes of a homosexual couple– is of the nature of a self-evident truth

          And when two alleged “truths” collide, the one that is based on something other than your opinion is the one the rest of the world should respect. You find it “self-evident”. Other people do not. It is, therefore, not self-evident to all.

          You want to claim that you have access to truth that other people can’t dispute; you don’t get to have that.

          • Martin Rizley

            Truth is not the same thing as opinion. It is not my opinion that two plus two is four, nor is it my opinion that something will never come out of nothing. Those are self-evident truths, though people may choose not to acknowledge them. What do you tell someone who refuses to admit that something never has and never will come out of nothing? There is nothing else you can say than that he will not recognize self-evident truth. Lots of people agree with me regarding the self-evident truth that children deserve to be raised by their biological parents and are designed to receive the input of a mom and a dad, and are wronged by a person who deliberately deprives them of one of their biological parents, because they want to ‘create’ that child for some other narcissistic purpose– and what the child deserves is of secondary importance. Those are self-evident moral truths.

            I don’t say other people don’t have access to that truth. I say that when it is abhorrent to people’s desires– when they do not want to acknowledge it because it condemns what they want to do– then they may hold down the truth in unrighteousness and refuse to acknowledge it. Nothing else can be said to such individuals other than to bear witness against their willful suppression of truth.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Those are self-evident truths, though people may choose not to acknowledge them.

            Ironically, depending on the context, they may or may not be “true” — quantum mechanics deals with the latter, and the former depends on whether you’re referring to a purely mathematical context — or, indeed, if you’re in a base higher than 4. After all, in the right context, 2+2=10 (base 4).

            And given how even your *obvious* examples have complications, how much more complicated are your other allegedly “self-evident” truths?

            There is nothing else you can say than that he will not recognize self-evident truth.

            Or that your truth is not so self-evident. Again; you claim to have these truths, but other people disagree with them — how are they then “self-evident”?

            Those are self-evident moral truths.

            Again — you give me no reason to believe them other than that you say so and you claim lots of people agree with you.

            So what? Not enough reason for me to believe it, and since you can’t derive these “self-evident” truths, and they are contradicted by *evidence*, there’s no reason for me to accept your word.

            Nothing else can be said to such individuals other than to bear witness against their willful suppression of truth.

            As, indeed, clearly you are suppressing the truth of science willfully in order to maintain your bigoted and inaccurate views.

            See? Both sides can play that game, save that I actually have some evidence on my side. ;)

          • Martin Rizley

            Your way of reasoning proves too much, Stephen, for if what you are saying is true– that self-evident moral truths are not so self-evident, after all– then that means we have no basis for condemning some of the most atrocious crimes of history on the ground that they violated self-evident moral truth. Let me ask you– do you believe the self-evident truth affirmed by the founders of our American Republic that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc.” Do you believe that? Because our founders considered so clear and incontrovertible they were willing to hold a monarch accountable for actions which denied that truth by fighting a bloody war of resistance against him.

            The fact is, there have always been in history, people who sincerely claimed they did not regard that ‘self-evident truth’ as so self-evident, after all. In fact, they said the scientific evidence pointed in the opposite direction– that there is no ‘unity of value, dignity, and equality’ binding together all who claim the title human being, but in fact, the different races represent different streams of evolving organic life, some of which are more advanced than others. Moreover, they believed that the history of evolution– which they accepted unquestioningly as an established fact– shows that progress has always been made through the stronger surviving at the expense of the weak, so the stronger have a natural right to express their superior strength, intelligence, etc., even by dominating– and if necessary– eliminating the weaker races that threaten to corrupt the gene pool of the stronger races. These individuals have said– there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove the sentimental but totally unscientific assertion that ‘all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ They have very sincerely said, “Tat allegedly self-evident truth isn’t self-evident to me. If it were self-evident, it would be acknowledged by all. When these two truths collide– the alleged equality of all men, and the scientifically fact that evolution advances as the strong survive and dominate the world at the expense of weaker beings being dominated by them and even eliminated, then the establishment of what is true must be “based on something other than your opinion which the rest of the world should respect. Since not every one finds the alleged truth of all human being “equal” and entitled to the same rights, therefore, it is not self-evident to all.

            Now, I have a question for you. How would you prove to people who make these claims that they are in fact suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That is without any doubt a matter of self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? Are such people right in saying because the principle of all men of all races being entitled to equality under the law is not ‘self-evident’ to them, therefore, it is not really self-evident? What sort of common sense arguments, available to the man on the street, and not merely in lab coats, would you use to prove that these individuals are suppressing self-evident truth?

            I stand by my claim– the mere fact a self-evident truth is not acknowledged as such by all men everywhere does not make it any the less self-evident and clear, and corrupt societies inexcusable for denying it. That applies as much to the self-evident of children, as it does to the self-evident rights of blacks or Jews.

          • Steven Schwartz

            that self-evident moral truths are not so self-evident, after all– then that means we have no basis for condemning some of the most atrocious crimes of history on the ground that they violated self-evident moral truth.

            We can condemn them on the grounds that they violated agreed-upon laws, rules of ethics, and human rights.

            . Let me ask you– do you believe the self-evident truth affirmed by the founders of our American Republic that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc.”

            No, because I don’t believe in the endowment of rights by a Creator. Ergo, no self-evident truth in that statement.

            Do I believe that the rights listed afterwards are rights? Yes, I do.

            Because our founders considered it so clear and incontrovertible a truth they were willing to hold a monarch accountable for actions which denied that truth by fighting a bloody war of resistance against him.

            Ironically enough, I suspect you’d find that George III agreed that people (at least, white men of property) had those rights as well — what they differed on was the *application* of said rights. Which gets us back into the same problem we’ve had before.

            How would you prove to people who make these claims that they are in fact suppressing self-evident truth in unrighteousness?

            Since I don’t find the notion of “self-evident truth” in these circumstances useful, I don’t consider this a useful question.

            You have spent a lot of verbiage to say “If it’s not a self-evident truth, we can justify anything.” I recommend to you ethical systems such as Kant’s for a counter to that.

            We are at an impasse; you believe that somehow you can define “self-evident” truth that is not evident to everyone, and, indeed, runs counter to what other people believe just as strongly as you do is true, and that that is somehow a useful category.

            I find neither statement true, and consider your so-called “self-evident” truths a mixture of consensus-agreed-upon rights and things you *wish* were true, against which there is significant evidence, both philosophical and scientific, and for which your only basis is what you *feel* is true.

          • Martin Rizley

            You say we can condemn atrocious crimes on the ground that they violated “agreed-upon laws”? Whose agreed upon laws? Whose rules of ethics? Whose understanding of human rights? For generations in our country, the agreed upon law of marriage defined marriage in all fifty states as the union of a man and a woman. Even the Republicans and Democrats under Clinton “agreed upon” that view of marriage enough to sign DOMA by an overwhelming majority of both parties. Rosa Parks violated the “agreed up laws” of the Southern state in which she resided when she refused to sit at the back of the bus. Is she, therefore, worthy of condemnation?

            You say George III agreed in principle with the colonists on the issue of human rights. He only differed in the application. The same thing could be said of white supremacists (like some Neo-Nazi groups). They agree in principle that all “human beings” are entitled to the same rights; they simply deny the application of that principle to Jews, blacks, and others, since they believe some races which have been traditionally classified as human are in fact “sub-human” (in other words, highly evolved animals), and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as full-fledged human beings (that is, members of the white race, whom they regard as the cream of the evolutionary processes). Kantian ethics, I believe, really has no way to combat the lie of those who would agree in principle that the ‘categorical imperative’ would require us to treat all “men” equally, but at the same time, deny that all beings commonly classified as “men” are entitled to that classification or deserving of equal treatment. In their view, some beings commonly classified as human beings are in fact “sub-human” and do not fully meet all the requirements entitling them to be regarded as fully human. Kant’s ethics certainly did not prevent the German people from embracing the lie of Arian supremacy.

            Thus, the bankruptcy of empiricist views of knowledge and rationalist ethics stands exposed, and the need to acknowledge self-evident truth– including the self-evident truth that all men are made equally in the image of God and therefore possess equal dignity and are entitled equally to equality under the law– as the only real safeguard to protect God-given and unalienable human rights.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Thus, the bankruptcy of empiricist views of knowledge and rationalist ethics stands exposed, and the need to acknowledge self-evident truth– including the self-evident truth that all men are made equally in the image of God and therefore possess equal dignity and are entitled to equality under the law– is established, as the only real safeguard to protect God-given and unalienable human rights for all people.

            Actually, what you’ve just demonstrated is the “bankrupcty” of any insufficiently precise system of ethics & morals. Doesn’t matter whether you’re claiming them to be “self-evident” or derived from a categorical imperative — “Act as if your actions could be made universal law”.

            All you have done is said “Bad people make bad laws” or “moral principles can be twisted”. Certainly enough Christians have done atrocious things in the name of their God to disqualify a God-given *anything* as a basis.

            And, as always, you fail to indicate how one can identify a supposedly “self-evident” truth, other than, I suppose, listening to what you say, since what you claim is “self-evident” doesn’t hold up when subjected to other tests of “truth”.

            Congratulations — you’ve demonstrated that bad people make bad law. Nothing more, nothing less.

          • Martin Rizley

            I agree with you that Kant’s “categorical imperative” is woefully imprecise system of ethics and morals– “Act as if your actions could made universal law” in itself is an insufficient ethical principle unless it is joined with the acknowledgment of other truths– for example, the truth that all human beings are made in God’s image and therefore are entitled to equally just treatment according to the law. Without that affirmation, a white supremacist could say to himself, I am not violating the ‘categorical imperative’ when I treat humans like humans and animals like animals– and in my understanding, blacks and Jews, are animals, not humans. Only a Christian worldview provides a sufficiently ‘full’ view of the nature of the world and man and the duties that man owes to His neighbor, to the animal kingdom, to the environment, His Creator, to provide an “adequate and precise” system of ethics and morals. When Christians have done atrocious things in the name of God, that is not owing to an inherent failure or weakness in the system of Christian ethics, but to human failure to live in accordance with that system or to apply adequately or consistently all the principles of justice contained in that system.

            Your philosophy seems to rest on the self-defeating premise that it is an absolute truth that men cannot know anything absolutely. That seems like a rather dogmatic position for a finite being like yourself to take. It makes much more sense to say that if we are going to make any dogmatic claims at all about the world or what human beings can know, etc., it can only be from a position of reliance on the self-authenticating revelation of the omniscient being who made the world.

            The self-evidently true character of the Christian worldview and Christian ethical teaching can only be discerned by those who are willing to abandon their intellectual and moral autonomy from God’s rule and bow in submission to His supreme wisdom and sovereign will. This is something rebellious man refuses to do as long as he clings to an attitude of rebellion. That is why Jesus said, “If any man wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my authority” (John 7:17). In other words, there is a moral precondition to the discernment of self-evident truth, and that is a willingness to stop deifying oneself and placing oneself on the throne of omniscience as the supreme arbiter of truth, and a willingness to take a position of humble subservience to a superior being than oneself, and superior wisdom to one’s own wisdom. If God truly exists, that is exactly what we would expect.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Only a Christian worldview provides a sufficiently ‘full’ view of the nature of the world and man and the duties that man owes to His neighbor, to the animal kingdom, to the environment, His Creator, to provide an “adequate and precise” system of ethics and morals.

            Nonsense. To pick an example totally at non-random, the Jewish law presents an equally full view. Indeed, in its workings-out in the Talmud, it provides a *fuller* view; and one you will find much less friction and fraction over.

            The Christian ethical system is anything but “precise” — indeed, there are huge numbers of different “ethical systems” contained under the Christian banner. To some, homosexuality is a grievous sin — to others, it is a manifestation of love, and approved; and that is but one example. Some Christians are crusaders — others are pacifists. Some Christians believe that the death penalty is just and good — others that is is cruel and unjust.

            I know you have your answers for each of those, and can trot out your scriptural justifications — as can the people who believe each of those positions. Which has been my point from the beginning.

            Your philosophy seems to rest on the self-defeating premise that it is an absolute truth that men cannot know anything absolutely.

            I can see no route to absolute certainty; I have heard claims for it, but none that have lived up to the claim.

            it can only be from a position of reliance on the self-authenticating revelation of the omniscient being who made the world.

            Ah, presuppositionalism! Of course, there is no way to know that such a being exists, or that if it did, it wasn’t lying to us, since all we have are our finite senses. Claiming such a being exists doesn’t solve your problem.

            can only be discerned by those who are willing to abandon their intellectual and moral autonomy from God’s rule and bow in submission to His supreme wisdom and sovereign will.

            In other words it’s only self-evident if you accept it. That’s what you’re saying here — you have to accept that it’s true, and then you’ll see that it’s true.

            I hope you can see why that is useless as a guideline for anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, and makes any claim to validity of “self-evident” truths as a basis for law risible.

          • Martin Rizley

            ;I am not saying you “just have to accept it’s true” as though I were saying you must embrace Christianity as a reflex act without any thought process involved at all. I am not saying, you must just take a leap into the dark and leave your mind behind. What I am saying is that, owing to the fact that faith is as much a moral act as an intellectual one– it requires not only mental intelligence but humility of heart to come to faith, an attitude of “willingness’ to submit to God’s supremacy in every realm is as much required as intellectual curiosity in order to “see” the truth. God has made an understanding of and recognition of His truth contingent on a right attitude of heart, and not merely on intellectual acumen. By that I mean it is not enough to be “smart” or “highly educated” in order to see the truth of the Christian gospel– for many wise people world remain blind as moles their whole life to the truth, whereas people who are not nearly as “wise” as far as worldly standards of wisdom, perceive the truth of the gospel.

            What I am saying is that the ability to perceive self-evident truth begins with a humble recognition of the absurdity of your own position– the claim you are making, that you, a finite being surrounded on every hand by an infinite sea of reality and not having within yourself as an autonomous being any infinite reference point, could make dogmatic pronouncements of any kind concerning the nature of ultimate reality, including the possibility or limits of human knowledge and human certainty. That is clearly a most absurd position for anyone to take, and it is as contrary to the way human beings were made to function as it would be for birds to try to live under the water or for fish to try to fly in the air. We simply were not made to function in intellectual and moral autonomy from the infinite and incomprehensible Being who so obviously and self-evidently is the source of our being.

            But notice, I am not saying, like the Mormons, that faith is a blind leap– that you must “simply belief” for no other reason than that you feel a “burning in your bosom.” I am inviting you, instead, to consider the “many infallible proofs” which confirm the truth of the gospel– such as the evidence of Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the extraordinary unity of the Bible, which was composed over a 1500 year period by approx. 40 authors in three different languages, etc., but exhibits the most amazing unity of message and theme. At the same time, I am saying that you must examine the evidence with a right frame of heart, a truly humble frame of mind that says, “My entire life may be built on a false foundation, I may in fact be in high handed rebellion against the Almighty, and if I am, I am willing to throw down the arms of my rebellion, turn from my evil path to the God who made me.” As long as you “steel” yourself against the possibility of ever experiencing a change of heart and a change of mind because you keep saying to yourself that you already KNOW the truth about all religions and their patent falsehood, etc., you will simply go right on in your unbelief, refusing to acknowledge the utter absurdity of your dogmatic arguments against the very possibility of knowing Truth. That is why Jesus said, “Unless you change and become like little children (that is, with a trusting and unpretentious attitude, willing to admit error and receive the evidence God has given confirming His truth) you will never enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 18:2). Jesus also said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” (John 9:39).

          • Steven Schwartz

            God has made an understanding of and recognition of His truth contingent on a right attitude of heart, and not merely on intellectual acumen

            In other words, if you accept that God exists, you will see so-called “self-evident” truths.

            They’re not self-evident. They’re “God”-evident.

            any infinite reference point, could make dogmatic pronouncements of any kind concerning the nature of ultimate reality, including the possibility or limits of human knowledge and human certainty

            All my statements exhibit a knowledge of limitation — it is the claims of access to some infinite, infallible knowledge and power that reek of dogma — and that you have shown no method of proving or knowing within those limits.

            We simply were not made to function in intellectual and moral autonomy from the infinite and incomprehensible Being who so obviously is the source of our being.

            Well, considering that by merely stating the question in terms of “made” you’re presuming a Creator, the rest of your statement becomes irrelevant.

            I am inviting you, instead, to consider the “many infallible proofs” which confirm the truth of the gospel– such as the evidence of Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the extraordinary unity of the Bible, which was composed over a 1500 year period by approx. 40 authors in three different languages, etc., but exhibits the most amazing unity of message and theme.

            I’ve read “Evidence that demands a Verdict”, and all it does is demand a lesson in reasoning for its author.

            I am saying that you must examine the evidence with a right frame of heart, a truly humble frame of mind that says, “My entire life may be built on a false foundation, I may in fact be in high handed rebellion against the Almighty, and if I am, I am willing to throw down the arms of my rebellion, turn from my evil path to the God who made me.”

            If you examined the same evidence with the frame of mind that said “Is this really convincing, or do I merely *want* it to be so to shore up my beliefs?” you would get a different answer. Again, you’re asking people to accept your worldview, *then* regard the evidence to see if it confirms it.

          • Martin Rizley

            Truths are “self-evidently true” if they authenticate themselves to a properly functioning human mind and heart, just as the sun is self-evidently radiant to a properly functioning eye. Or do you do reject the very concept of a properly functioning mind and heart? Do you even believe that man has a “heart”– a soul or a moral faculty? No, of course, you couldn’t consistently believe in these things as having any objective reality if you are an atheist– for to the philosophical materialist like yourself, everything about man has been put together by a mindless, amoral blind watchmaker called nature, so everything about man is ultimately absurd and meaningless, including whatever he calls his moral faculty. But I guess you would say that the illusion of meaning and morals with which weak minded souls cushion the absurdity of their existence makes life more bearable for them.

            I disagree that I believe simply because I want to believe. I was not raised as an evangelical Christian– the Lord convinced me of the truth, in part, by impressing on me the rational force of the evidence of the truth of Christianity– evidence which nevertheless transcends my mind’s ability to fully analyze or grasp. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ is so compelling, that even many people who refuse to embrace the Christian gospel or regard Christ as God incarnate reach the conclusion that the apostles were not liars or myth-makers, but honest eyewitnesses to the events to which they bore witness. It makes no rational sense whatsoever that they would make up Christianity as a hoax– they had nothing to gain by that but death. Nor does the explanation that they were subject to mass hallucination make any sense at all. No one can honestly dismiss the evidence of the resurrection with a wave of the hand. Therefore I refute your implication that I believe for no other reason than that I want Christianity to be true. I am thrilled that it is true, but I am convinced that it is true because of the evidence for it is compelling. Because the evidence transcends what can be exhaustively analyzed by man’s finite mind, however– for that reason, it must be accepted by faith. To the mind prepared to receive the truth, the gospel is self-authenticating– just like the brightness of the sun is self-authenticating to the eye prepared to receive sunlight.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Truths are “self-evidently true” if they authenticate themselves to a properly functioning human mind and heart, just as the sun is self-evidently radiant to a properly functioning eye.

            OK. You’re using “self-evident” in a very odd way, then. The evidence that the sun shines can be detected in any one of a number of ways — it’s not reliant on a “properly functioning eye”. A person without eyes could be persuaded that the sun exists, through other experiments and references.

            Your “properly functioning” is where you smuggle in your “if you agree with it, it’s clearly true” — because to you anyone who doesn’t agree with your claim to truth isn’t properly functioning. It’s a perfect circle: To see them, you have to be properly functioning, so if you don’t see them as true, it’s *your* problem.

            so everything about man is ultimately absurd and meaningless,

            Nonsense; I don’t agree that meaning needs to be created from the *outside* — if something has meaning to you, it has meaning. We are the creators of our own meaning.

            evidence which nevertheless transcends my mind’s ability to fully analyze or grasp.

            This makes no sense — if you can’t analyze it or grasp it, it’s not *evidence*.

            , but honest eyewitnesses to the events to which they bore witness.

            Citations, please. I have never run across this conceit before.

            It makes no rational sense whatsoever that they would make up Christianity as a hoax– they had nothing to gain by that but death.

            People are very prone to believing what they want to believe — and fooling themselves. After all, isn’t that your claim about people who deny the evidence for Christianity? That they’re fooling themselves? Why are Christians somehow immune from that condition?

            (Oh, wait — they’re not; because you (and many others) define so many Christians as “not Christian” and fooling themselves. It’s just the narrow percentage of you who somehow manage to avoid this…and those, we somehow can trust despite their extraordinary claims with minimal evidence.)

            Because the evidence transcends what can be exhaustively analyzed by man’s finite mind, however– for that reason, it must be accepted by faith.

            And there we are — you have to accept it by faith, at which point it becomes true. You have to agree to it before it becomes true.

            To the mind prepared to receive the truth, the gospel is self-authenticating

            As before: if you want to believe, if you are prepared to believe, you will find it to be true; otherwise, you won’t.

            Well, I don’t consider your “self-evident” truths to be true, and see no reason, as we have said before, to treat them as true when it comes to making law and policy.

          • Martin Rizley

            You ask for citations. That suggests to me that you have not read the New Testament, because explicit the claims of John and Luke is that what they are writing is based on eyewitness testimony. (In John’s case, the eyewitness testimony is his own, since he was himself a witness to the events that he describes– John 21:24-25; see also 20:31; and in Luke’s case, the eyewitness testimony is that of the people he presumably interviewed to write his gospel (see Luke 1:1-3). There is also much internal evidence confirming John’s identity as a first century Palestinian Jew.

            When I said “hoax” I should have said deliberate hoax, for it would have be a deliberate hoax– not a case of ‘self-deception’– for the claims made in the gospel to be be false. I say that, because the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are not a few ‘questionable’ sightings by people in highly emotion-charged settings– like people who claim to see ‘ghosts’ in creepy old houses or who claim to see Big Foot from a distance in the dark in some backwoods swamp. We are a talking about a series of historical appearances in which Jesus repeatedly appeared and engaged in extensive dialogues and intensive periods of instruction with his disciples over a forty day period following his resurrection. This took place after those same disciples had seen Him killed by the Roman government, cruelly whipped with a Roman flagellum, nailed to a Roman cross, run through with a Roman spear so deeply that the gathered fluid in the pericardial sac around his heart burst and the watery fluid from that sac came forth along with coagulated blood, proving he had suffered a major miocardial infarction; they then saw Him wrapped in the typical burial cloth with some seventy-five pounds of aromatic spices, then placed in a tomb which was sealed with a massive stone, after the Jewish custom, with a contingent of armed guards placed by the tomb to prevent any robbery of the body.

            It was after that, mind you, that Jesus appeared on numerous occasions to His disciples, when they were alone and in group settings, at morning, night, and during the day, indoors and out of doors. In those appearances, they not only met Christ, but ate with Him, handled him, saw him, heard him, and were instructed by Him with extensive teachings; and the disciples were all in unanimous agreement about the things they saw and the things they heard taught by the risen Jesus.

            I’m sorry, but delusional or hallucinatory experiences do not fit that description. Your rejection of the gospel is therefore unwarranted in light of the evidence that God has given which conclusively supports it. I urge you therefore to throw down the ‘intellectual arms’ of your rebellion against God and to embrace Jesus the Son of God as your own Savior and to bow before Him as your Lord, based on the fact that he Has risen from the dead and has thereby proven himself to be the promised Messiah of Israel, the ‘seed of Abraham’ promised of old in the book of Genesis, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed. I sincerely hope that you will hear and respond to His call.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I have read the NT. The citations I was asking for was for people who, despite not believing in the Christian God, accepted that the Gospels were valid eyewitness testimony.

            As for the rest — you are taking as true all the things you hope are true, when there is considerable evidence that they were not. You have only a couple of sources (the Gospels borrow from each other, and are not independent), and people who are highly motivated to belief and mutual support.

            I find it amusing that you can be so specific about medical details for an event only documented in retrospect, many years later.

            And, given the choice between “a group of people lied” — and it need only be a small number — and “someone was resurrected”, the odds still favor liars. After all, we have *thousands* of occasions of small groups lying for their own benefit, and no reliably-documented resurrections.

            I urge you therefore to throw down the ‘intellectual arms’ of your rebellion against God

            I am not rebelling against anything — I do not have any useful evidence that the thing against which you claim I rebel even exists.

          • Martin Rizley

            Well, I’ll leave you with your own words, then; and perhaps God will bring to your remembrance some of the words I have spoken to you, at a later point in your life. I cannot believe that the resurrection narratives are the fruit of a deliberate lie– that makes absolutely no sense– nor can any possible motivation be imagined why a group of unlettered fishermen would conspire to make up a lie about a man whom they had seen so cruelly killed by the Roman government. It beggars belief to suggest that they sat around and said to one another, “I know! Let’s make up a story that Jesus rose from the dead, so that we can get rich on the basis of deceiving gullible people and have our own show on the christian t.v. network!” C’mon Steven– you don’t really expect me to believe that is what you believe, do you?

            Regarding non-Christians who have accepted the historicity of the resurrection, apparently, the Jewish Orthodox scholar Pinchas Lapide– whose book is available on Amazon– accepted the resurrection as an historical fact supported by the evidence– though he never became a Christian or bowed to the Lordship of Jesus. That shows that people can believe intellectually in the historical facts upon which the Christian faith is based, without coming personally to faith in Christ. That is sad, but it has happened on various occasions.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I know! Let’s make up a story that Jesus rose from the dead, so that we can get rich on the basis of deceiving a gullible public and have our own show on the christian t.v. network!”

            All it takes is *one* person removing the body from the tomb, and for everyone else to draw their own conclusions.

            After all, who’d believe that a bunch of people would follow a guy who put on magic spectacles and translate things by staring into a hat?

            Yet a lot of people did, and do, in a far more skeptical age than the one that existed back then.

            And remember — the narratives are written with *hindsight*; it’s much more dramatic to go “We were all at a loss, then….” as opposed to “Well, we were kinda bummed out, but…”

            Pinchas Lapide is an interesting case; I will have to research him further. And I *do* understand his case as to why Christ, if resurrected, is not automatically the Messiah. It’s a very unusual take.

            But I’ll leave it at this, because it’s very clear neither of us are going to convince the other, and I think anyone reading this exchange has ample information on which to judge our positions.

            Be well.

          • Steven Schwartz

            (repeating, as my previous response appears to have been eaten by Disqus.)

            Only a Christian worldview provides a sufficiently ‘full’ view of the nature of the world and man and the duties that man owes to His neighbor, to the animal kingdom, to the environment, His Creator, to provide an “adequate and precise” system of ethics and morals.

            Nonsense. The Jewish system provides just as detailed a system, and a far more precise one, in terms of guiding behavior — also a far less *fragmented* one. Islam does the same, and I suspect you’ll find many other religions do as well.

            You have your definition of “Christian” worldview — so do many other Christians, and they disagree with you on many issues. This alone disqualifies it as a useful basis for, say, law.

            I note you also take up the familiar apologetic approach of “If Christians did bad things, it’s because they were bad at being Christian” — blaming the people in order to keep the system protected. Given that many of them did things on the basis of different interpretations — consider Luther’s anti-semitism, for example — this is a dodge.

            Your philosophy seems to rest on the self-defeating premise that it is an absolute truth that men cannot know anything absolutely.

            Ah, presuppositionalism — I do not claim that it is absolute truth — I merely claim that no one has ever provided evidence for a mechanism by which one *could* know something absolutely that does not become self-defeating. The “How do you know you’re not wrong?” question presented against any other philosophy still holds up against people claiming “God said so”.

            The self-evidently true character of the Christian worldview and Christian ethical teaching can only be discerned by those who are willing to abandon their intellectual and moral autonomy from God’s rule and bow in submission to His supreme wisdom and sovereign will.

            In other words, in order to see what is supposedly self-evidently true, you have to agree to it beforehand. “How is it self-evident? Because I know it is. How do you know it is? Because I accepted it as true.”

            This is codswallop. Your “self-evident” truths come from nowhere that anyone can access that doesn’t already agree with you, *by your own admission*.

            And you wonder why I prefer scientific truths over this patent nonsense?

          • Steven Schwartz

            It would appear some of our comments have vanished into the ether, and I’m not sure why. Nonetheless, I think we’ve reached an impasse, and can leave it at that.

    • ErickMN

      Thank you for again exposing your bizarre obsession with homosexuality and how OTHER PEOPLE live their lives. You richly deserve your self-imposed misery.

    • BillTheCat45

      People say your opinion is worthless, because it is. No one cares what you think princess.

    • Tara

      I accept a lot of biblical wisdom because we can see that wisdom reflected in society. Issues such as adultery, divorce, pre marital sex all have evidence that it is harmful. Same sex marriage and parenting does not have this evidence. When gays, who are also citizens, ask for equal protection under the law they are asserting their self evident rights. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement?

      • Martin Rizley

        I disagree that they have a right to marry each other, much less a right to adopt children. Why? Because to marry each other is in fact a contradiction in terms, once you define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman”– which has historically been the statutory definition of marriage in all fifty states before lawless judges started to impose by an abuse of judicial power their own definition of marriage on the states by declaring state marriage laws and state marriage amendments unconstitutional. I was raised by a mother and a father, so I have the experiential evidence of my own upbringing to know that I received from each of my parents distinctive and indispensable input that no child should be deprived of deliberately by adults. Children need a mother and a father, because they need the nurturing daily input of society’s two halves, the male and the female. The two are not interchangeable– that is a self-evident truth. Each contributes out of their own distinctive gender that which is essential to the well-rounded development of the child. It is not that children raised without the benefit of a mom and a dad cannot attain to maturity– only that is not the best situation for children, and certainly not that which our legal system should promote. Since homosexuals have no natural inherent right to marry each other–nor is it even linguistically coherent to speak of them doing so, based on the historic definition of marriage– ,they have no natural or inherent right to adopt children, either. Our laws should not permit that.

        • Tara

          History shows that polygamy existed in most societies at one time or another. Incest is acceptable in some cultures, as is arranged marriages. Your argument that marriage definitions are self evident is completely incorrect, as marriage conventions have changed dramatically. This argument has been tried many times, and has always failed.

          • Martin Rizley

            The fact something is self-evident truth does not mean that all individuals or all cultures will always recognize it as such. You are forgetting the extreme depravity and wickedness of the human race. Because human beings (both individuals and entire societies), are fallen and sinful, are quite capable of “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness,” and behaving in the most atrocious manner by the denial of self-evidently true principles of righteousness and social duty. Look at how the inhabitants of Sodom and denied the self-evidently true principles of hospitality to strangers. They were willing to treat the two strangers who visited Lot’s home as involuntary sex objects, in order to gratify their corporate lust. We read in Genesis that the entire male population of that city– adults and boys– gathered at the house of Lot in order to sodomize these two visitors– to use them for their sexual pleasure. The entire society was corrupt. It is interesting that even polygamist societies have recognized the need for children to have the input of a mother and father, for polygamy involves a man being married to several women at the same time and having children by each of them– thus each child in a polygamous home has a father and a mother; they have the nurturing influence of both biological parents– though polygamy, for other reasons, is clearly wrong. Thus, self-evident principles can be rejected altogether (as in the city of Sodom) or imperfectly grasped (as in polygamous cultures). But no culture, to my mind, has flatly denied the need for children to have the input of a mother and father, or regarded the gender of the parents as an entirely irrelevant issue, until the Western world lost its marbles and went insane by severing the link between sex and gender identity and declaring gender to be nothing at all but a ‘social construct.’

          • Tara

            When your self evident argument was debunked your counter argument is since they don’t agree with you they must be wrong. Sorry to say, but you sound very self righteous. The sins of Sodom has nothing to do with committed same sex relationships with children. There is no comparison. If your claim is immorality, then what is your evidence of harm to society? Polygamy has a lot of evidence that shows how it’s harmful, gay marriage and parenting does not.

          • Martin Rizley

            My self evident argument was not debunked, simply denied by you through your illogical claim that if something is self-evident, then it will be universally acknowledged by all people. That is not debunking my argument, it is simply denying the gross wickedness of the human race; for human beings, in their rebellion against God, deny many truths that are in themselves self-evident, if those truths are “inconvenient” and challenge the lifestyle they are already living.

            I used the example of Sodom to show how entire communities can be blinded to self-evident truth. Communities which deny that every child needs a mother and father may not yet have reached as deep a level of degeneracy as the inhabitants of Sodom who denied by their actions the self-evident principles of hospitality, but they are still degenerate communities, for they willfully deny and turn a blind eye to what is in the best interest of children. They have reached such a low level of self-centeredness, that they are willing to use modern reproductive technologies to ´create´ children to satisfy the desire of homosexual couples to raise children, even though that means deliberately separating the child from one of his/her biological parents at conception or birth.

            You say I sound very self righteous. How is it self-righteous to recognize self-evident truth? I would think it rather the reverse– that is arrogant for human beings, out of their own narcissistic desires to deny what obviously is in the best interest of children– letting them have a mom and a dad, instead of deliberately depriving them of one parent at birth, then brainwashing them to think they do not need the input of their opposite sex parent and that there is something wrong with them if they feel they have been deprived of something of value. That is self-evidently a wicked, debased, and corrupt thing to do to children.

          • Tara

            I used the term “self righteous” carefully because for all of your evidence you cited YOURSELF. I will need a alternative source. What is your evidence that same sex marriage/parenting causes harm.

          • Martin Rizley

            You need an alternative source for me to prove to you a self-evident truth? I don’t think so, for you are suggesting that the burden of proof is on me to prove the goodness of the institution of marriage as understood historically by our Western culture. I would allege that the burden of proof is on you for claiming that the institution of marriage as it has been legally defined by all Western nations for millennia– “the union of a man and a woman”– is somehow harmful to human beings. All the evidence suggests otherwise, and as the old adage goes, “if something ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

            Marriage has worked quite well for millenia as the ideal matrix for the begetting and bringing up of children in a stable environment, with the emotional security and well-rounded nurture that comes from having a mother and a father. Those who believe that God is the author of marriage do not find this surprising. It cannot be claimed that marriage laws are discriminatory, for that would only be true if they are unequally applied, which no one can claim unless a different definition for marriage is first arbitrarily ‘assumed’ and substituted for the historic definition by a rhetorical device called “bait and switch.” That is when you substitute the definition of a term subtly by rhetorical sleight of hand and then claim the law is being unequally applied on the basis of your redefinition of terms. That is what has happened in America; judges have arbitrarily imposed their own preferred definition of marriage on society like clever magicians– substituting the definition “the union of any two people” in the place of “the union of a man and a woman,” and then, on that basis, have argued that the law is being “unequally applied ” when two particular or two particular women are not allowed to marry by virtue of a state law. That is the most contemptible form of judicial skullduggery imaginable– the very opposite of justice.

            Any argument against “exclusively heterosexual” marriage (a redundancy in terms, from an historical standpoint) is an argument against any marriage eligibility requirements at all, for there are always people in our society who can claim that their sexual needs or preferences or orientations are not being ‘accommodated’ by our existing marriage laws, and that that laws must be changed to guarantee “equal protection under the law.” Americans have been snoozing while those who hate our culture have been systematically dismantling it by sophistical arguments like that, and I am sick of the deception. The fact is, you cannot “deconstruct” the institution of marriage partially, without someone wanting to deconstruct it further. You cannot logically cast out the gender requirement as irrelevant and allegedly ‘unconstitutional’ (what a laugh!), without logically throwing out the number requirement and consanguinity restrictions, as well, as both irrelevant and unconstitutional. May God have mercy on us for our high handed rebellion against Him and against all logic, reason, and common sense when it comes to the interpretation of the law.

          • Tara

            “I would allege that the burden of proof is on you for claiming that the institution of marriage as it has been legally defined by all Western nations for millennia– “the union of a man and a woman”– is somehow harmful to human beings”

            Couple problems, 1st is that marriage equality supporters never have said that straight marriage is harmful. 2nd, marriage in this country has only recently been defined as between a man and a woman in some states . Marriage also recently allowed for interracial marriage and no fault divorce. Marriage is constantly changing, so your argument of tradition is incorrect. You believe that your version of marriage is correct, and that is fine, but you are crossing the line in limiting marriage for others who do not cause harm. Your refusal to provide objective evidence is fishy, especially when the crux of your argument against gay marriage is something you expect us to accept without question as fact. I don’t. What is obvious to me is the gay friends I know who have long term committed relationships with beautiful kids who seem perfectly normal and happy. You’re wrong, and I know because it’s self evident to me;)

            The banning if gay marriage, even if you believe it to be immoral, is unjust because it causes undue burden on gays. Unless you can prove that they cause harm then we must allow them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal protection under the law.

          • Martin Rizley

            When you say “marriage in this country has only recently been defined as between a man and a woman in some states” I can only assume you are referring to states in which a sizable part of the population is Mormon and which therefore allowed for polygamy in the historical past. I can’t think of any group of notoriety other than the Mormons who ever challenged the monogamous heterosexual character of marriage in American law. Can you name an historical figure of note in our history other than Mormon leaders who promoted polygamous marriage? Can you name any in past generations who promoted so-called homosexual marriage, polyamorous marriage, adult child marriage, etc.?

            It is true that the legal age of marriage has been lower in some states than others– but can you point to a single state has explicitly promoted ‘adult-child’ marriages– such as has been practiced historically by Muslims, for example, in countries in which adults Muslim men have been permitted to marry pre-pubescent girls?

            Marriage, for all practical purposes, in the United States, has always been defined in terms of monogamous heterosexual unions (with the exception of the Mormons, who were forced to abandon polygamy because it was unacceptable by American legal and cultural standards).

            Those who wish to change our marriage laws do so on the basis that they claim the historic definition of marriage– the union of one man and one woman– is harmful. They believe it is to harmful to adults and children, and therefore, they want to substitute a different definition of marriage altogether as “the union of any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex.” If that definition is accepted, then obviously, man-woman marriage is permissible according to this new definition, but it is no more permissible, no more normative, than so than man-man “marriage” or woman-woman “marriage.” There are not two kinds of marriage, then, according to this new definition, but one and only one kind of marriage– the marriage of consenting adults, regardless of their sex. That is a COMPLETELY different definition than the one that has prevailed in our historical past, and the reason it is being promoted by leftists is because they view the traditional definition of marriage as positively HARMFUL to people from a psychological/ emotional standpoint, because of the way it establishes ‘heteronormativity’ in the culture. In the eyes of sexual anarchists, heteronormativity is the real sexual “perversion” in our society, the real assault on human rights and justice– so it must be demolished!

            It is pure lying bunk, therefore, to say that “binary gender abolitionists” simply want to ‘expand’ the definition of marriage by “adding” a modest appendix to the existing definition in order to accommodate the needs of sexual minorities. Baloney! They want to explode the existing definition of marriage to smithereens, with the ultimate goal of destroying ‘heteronormativity’ in our culture, along with binary gender thinking. Redefining marriage is really a frontal assault on the influence of Christianity and the Bible in our culture. It is an attempt to wipe out of the minds of our citizenry a view of human sexuality that sees sex as a creation of God, who has a divine design for how He wants human beings to use their sexual powers, in order to maximize human blessedness, provide for the needs of children and secure the future prosperity of society.

          • Kyle

            Child marriage: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Confucianism.

            Polygamy: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Jainism.

            Same-sex marriages: Roman Syncretism, Greek Hellenism, Confucianism and various pre-Columbian American religions.

          • Martin Rizley

            I was talking about the historic reality of what marriage has been “in this country”– that is the United States, not in pre-Columbia America and elsewhere.

          • Tara

            I actually was referring to recent laws passed in stated in the last 10 years or so “defining” marriage as between a man and woman. That was actually a “redefinition” of marriage.

            I keep hearing about this ominous “gay agenda” as designed to warp American and Christian morals, but have you ever considered the much simpler explanation that gays simply want the advantages and protections provided to straight people? Gays spend thousands extra in taxes, have to go to great legal lengths to ensure that their spouse can make medical and legal decisions in the event of their death. Their children do not have access to their own parents property, often times do not have both parents on their birth certificate, if one parent dies they could end up in foster care. Could you imagine the humiliation? And why? Because it might cause emotional harm. Seriously? Pro life signs can cause emotional/psychological harm to others but they still have the right to carry those signs. Your demands of other citizens to comply to your particular interpretation of your religion causes an undue burden, and is immoral and Unconstitutional. I’ll let you have the last word.

          • Martin Rizley

            The current deterioration of our legal system is being promoted by the use of poorly defined terms like those you use in the paragraphs above– like the term “gays.” You say, “Gays simply want the advantages and protections provided to straight people.” Is there actually a legal definition of the word “gays”? If so, does the legal definition of “gayness” define a ”gay” in terms of inward inclination or outward lifestyle choices people make– for example, the choice to seek out and engage actively in a relationship with someone of the same sex involving sexual activity? If the definition of gayness is based on lifestyle choices, the question is, why should the fact that certain people make wrong choices in life involving the embracing of immoral behavioral patterns in any way affect our legal system or demand that we as a society accommodate or accept such behavior as it were normal, right, or moral. I don’t accept that way of reasoning, and neither do millions of other Americans, and the sentimental arguments aimed at trying to erode a Christian moral conscience in our country leave me and millions of others totally unmoved. The idea that our legal system has to change in order to accommodate a ‘new morality’ involving ‘new’ moral obligations to people, contrary to Christian obligations, is totally unconvincing and leaves me cold. Such arguments have no justification or logic in terms of our American cultural history and legal tradition.

          • Steven Schwartz

            How is it self-righteous to recognize self-evident truth?

            It is self-righteous to claim self-evident truth, based solely upon your view that it is self-evident. Since you insist that other people don’t need to believe it for it to be self-evident, all we have is your say-so; and claiming superiority over science and other people’s moral and logical judgments entirely on your own say-so is self-righteous.

  • Michael Gorka

    This has to be the most disgusting, backwards and illogical piece I have read in a long…long time. There are so many things to argue here, but lets just take a few examples, shall we?
    Point 1.:
    -The metrics are not vague! They are don’t simply take the child’s opinions into consideration. They measure things like mental health, grades, social skills, etc. But what you’re saying is that you don’t care. You take all that data, all that information and refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Because it doesn’t suite your opinion. That sir, is bad, bad science. And a horrible way to live life.
    -If you cannot put a value on having both a mother and father in a child’s life, how can you say that having a same-sex household is worse than an opposite sex household? You have no level to compare to! Just a gut feeling.
    Point 2:
    -Who is the arbiter of the proper household to raise a child? You say that homosexuals who aren’t willing to live their life with a person of the opposite sex are being selfish and don’t deserve a child. What about divorced couples? Do they not deserve to have their child?
    -Why is the 1 father and 1 mother the ideal for child raising? What about 2 fathers and 3 mothers? Those heterosexual couples who aren’t willing to share their life and home with atleast 4 other adults in a loving relationship don’t deserve a child and are being selfish (see how silly that sounds?).
    Point 3:
    -heterosexual couples do the same thing!! They can trot their children out for the world to see. But not all heterosexual couples. And in the same way, not all homosexual couples!
    -You seem to imply that the only thing keeping you from discussing religion at your thanksgiving table is ‘that lesbian couple’. Hold on to your hat but…gays CAN be religious! Oh dear, sorry to shatter your world. What is more likely to derail thanksgiving are the religious extremists who want to shove their version of religion down everyone’s throats.

    Please don’t let your bias cause you to write horrible and illogical pieces please.

  • BillTheCat45

    Self-hating closet-case Lopez, writer of gay erotica, throws yet another temper-tantrum. Too bad no one else in America cares what he thinks, you lose bigots.

  • DC/Tex

    The homosexual (not PC gay) “AGENDA” is the worst disease infecting and
    destroying the morals, family values, and children (their agendas main target)
    of the USA and the world.
    Homosexuality will NEVER be natural, healthy (mentally or physically), normal,
    accepted, or OK!
    Homosexuality is the worst of the worst of destructive lifestyles.
    Homosexuals WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY, they CHOOSE their unnatural destructive lifestyle, so, homosexuality does not qualify as a civil rights discrimination issue.
    Homosexuals had equal rights, now they have special rights and want more. Every
    special right awarded to homosexuals infringes on our rights.
    God loves everyone, as we all should, including homosexuals. God hates all sin,
    as we all should, including homosexuality and He says it is an abomination.
    The silent Christian majority must put on the whole armor of God and battle
    against the radical homosexual agenda, that is why God provided his armor.

    • Michael Gorka

      Wow, you have been able to wrap all the crazy talking points into one short comment. If I may…

      Homosexuality is in fact natural. it is found all over the animal kingdom including humans. There are distinct evolutionary benefits to having homosexuality in a species.

      It is not unhealthy. In fact, there is nothing unhealthy about homosexuality. What I think you are referring to are your observations about an increase in alcoholism/drug abuse etc in homosexuals. But isn’t it more likely that the issue is that people are looking for a release because they have been told their whole life that they are bad and wrong for feeling like they do? But based on your argument, you should be all in favor of lesbian couples, because they have the fewest number of STD transmissions.

      There is a very large body of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biologically determined, and not a true choice. It’s hard to understand for some people, but a gay man is attracted to other men in the same way that heterosexual men are attracted to women.

      But you’re probably right, homosexuality should never be acceptable socially. Who would ever want a subset of the population well adjusted and happy with themselves. And why would we want an increase in the number of marriages and families?

    • Trollop

      That’s funny because “it happened” naturally to me.. So what is the basis for your claim? Are you unnaturally homosexual yourself or are you talking out of ignorance? That’s funny too because destroying the country isn’t apparent to me in my day to day activities.. Am I forgetting to do something??! Christians are a baffled lot, I must say..

    • Weta

      Google bonobos. The apes, not the clothing company.

  • docrt925

    “The entitlement. The selfishness. The narcissism. The
    arrogance.” … a surprisingly accurate description of your very own article.

  • Trollop

    Gee, my comment to Mr. Lopez got deleted. I guess I forgot about the posting policy. Sorry BarbWire, the OpEd left me with fewer words. Who are these miserable creatures and who before them filled their heads with this supremacy drivel? These sentiments will take time to die but rest assured, they are impermanent. I pity you and your masters..

  • Randy Bobandy

    Studies prove that the dog that barks the loudest always wants the bone the most.

  • Marie

    Mr. Lopez!!!! Write on, sir!!!! Thank you!

    • Steven P Chiolan

      Yeah! We need more ignorant, misinformed articles from bigots out there. Too seldom do I read nauseating op-eds that make me want to puke.

  • Me

    And people wonder why the LGBT people call right wing idiots like Mr. Lopez hateful… because you are, Blanche! You are!!!

  • helligusvart

    Homosexuals should not be permitted to raise children, period. And not because of any studies showing that this is bad for the children, but because homosexuality in and of itself is grossly immoral. The fact that we even have to debate this shows how sick our society is.

    • Tara

      Would you say the same of single parenting, or divorced families? Should we make them illegal?

    • BillTheCat45

      Too bad cupcake, you lost. Go cry us a river.

    • iconoclast12

      According to whose morality? Yours, mine, the Bible’s, some other Bible?

    • Kyle

      I for one cannot wait until you try to get that one passed. Can you imagine the optics of children being dragged away from the only families they have ever known kicking and screaming for their daddies and their mommies while their parents struggle as they are held back? The same-sex marriage debate would be over over night, as would far right wing fundamentalism in America!

    • Steven P Chiolan

      You shouldn’t have children

  • Andrew Skidmore

    And, breath…. Goodness me, so much anger.

  • Sam

    I wonder how gays teach morality to their children since they have none?

    • magic1114

      They teach them the first rule of liberalism: If it feels good, do it.

      • L1011

        Just remember to party with a party hat.

  • iconoclast12

    Gee another day another article about gays. How about more articles on how we can feed the hungry and house the homeless.

  • Boo

    And this, children, is why it’s important to take your medication as the doctor prescribes it.

  • LegalizeLezMarriage

    Obviously I disagree with everything in this piece (and nearly everything on this site), and I’m not going to try to change anyone’s minds, but… are you guys sure you want a guy who self-publishes gay erotic pulp novels to be a front-and-center “fighter against the homosexual agenda” on your site?

  • Pingback: The Six Most Offensive Things about Same-Sex Parenting

  • Steven P Chiolan

    The most offensive things about same sex couples is articles like this.

  • aCultureWarrior

    “In a best case scenario, there is a widow who comes out of the closet after her husband dies, and then gets help from a lesbian lover while raising her children. She makes sure not to trample on their father’s memory, and doesn’t force them to call her new lover “Mom.” In that one rare, specific, unintentional case, yes, same-sex parenting is okay.”
    Matt Barber, did you read what this guy wrote? Homosexuality is NEVER “okay” nor is raising children in a pro homosexual environment.
    Get rid of this guy Matt, he’s a cancer to your website.

  • Nos Rob

    I expect ‘real Christians’ to be doing as their savior commands: giving sacrificially to the poor, constantly going the extra mile, always turning the other cheek, giving to anyone who asks, offering their belongings to those who would sue them, tending the sick, imprisoned, hungry and thirsty… but I don’t see it.

    It’s easier, I guess, for you to ignore just about everything Jesus demands and to set your own agenda, maligning a minority.

  • Brian

    Actually, the research shows how poorly children fair when raised by same-sex parents. There is spin out there and real science. Regenerus’ study has been replicated and it proved that in 30 ways, children in same-sex parenting homes are severely disadvantaged.

    • Tara

      Regnerus’ study did not study kids raised in stable same sex homes. Out of over 2000 kids, only 2 actually came from stable same sex homes. These 2 kids turned out fine according to Regnerus. This study was a hoax, and has been laughed out of court numerous times.

  • Dani Murphy

    If more people, gay and straight, taught their kids that love is the most important thing, less intolerant people like you would exist. Why does it matter who we love? My husband and I are polyamorous and have every intention to have children one day. Those children may have one father and two mothers, or two fathers and one mother, or even two fathers and two mothers. And they will be loved, and taught that everyone loves differently and we shouldn’t judge them based on where they put their penis. I’ve met more emotionally stable kids that came from loving gay parents, than kids that came from broken families of straight, divorced parents. If you were really worried about the kids, you would be more angry with divorced parents, than with gay ones.

  • james

    All who deny God’s standards will wake up in the lake of fire.

  • Tara

    Shelly, Regnerus did not study children of same sex homes, but mostly compared children of divorce or a previous relationship whose parents had at some point dated a same sex partner to children of stable heterosexual homes. In fact out of around 2000 kids studied, only 2 came from stable same sex homes. Regnerus even admitted that those 2 kids did just fine. This study was a hoax. It was designed to mislead people in thinking that same sex families negatively impact children, when all along he was repeating studies comparing children of broken homes to kids with stable homes. We already know that children in divorced homes don’t fair as well, and that is all this study compared.

  • Andrew Bensen

    I love how you right wingers always draw out ridiculous conclusions like having incestuous relationships or engaging in beastiality as the end result of marriage equality. Makes me laugh that you seem to lack basic common sense and logic.

    • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

      Please clarify a few things for me, then;
      1. What is your definition of a ‘correct’ human relationship? Or, failing that, IS there such a thing as a ‘correct’ human relationship? Call these situations “love” if that helps channel your thoughts.
      2. What do you use as a basis for that/those definition(s)?

  • Tara

    No, read my comment. The limitation is when harm could be caused. Society understands that relationships with power imbalances often lead to abuse. So, doctors are not allowed to marry patients, prison guards cannot marry prisoners, parents can not marry their childre, ect. Not to mention that children from incestuous relationships have a much higher risk of abnormalities.

    • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

      I did read your comment, Tara – that’s why I wrote what I did. Let me clarify your thoughts a bit;
      1. Doctors CAN marry their patients, it’s just discouraged. I know this is true as I work with them on a daily basis and see it all the time.
      2. Prison guards CAN marry prisoners, it’s just discouraged (and more difficult, for obvious reasons). I know this is true as well, as I have been involved in prison ministry for decades and have personally seen it happen.
      3. While it’s true that parents cannot legally marry their children, this position is legally tenuous at best. I state this because it is a direct result of the stupidity of reasoning used by the current court systems in this country.
      Once you toss God and His Word out of your reasoning (as has happened in this country) then anything is fair game. Why do you think there is current litigation demanding polygamy? Multiple/group marriages? The slide will continue until one of two things happens;
      1. People come to their senses and return in humble repentance to the God of creation through His Son Jesus Christ, or
      2. Society becomes more and more corrupt and deranged, paving the way for the Man of Sin.

  • Tara

    Your most recent comment is still held up in moderation, you may not want to post your website to every retort. You are incorrect. Prison guards are not allow to marry prisioners. If they have sexual relationship with them then it is rape. If you honestly know of a doctor marrying a patient then you should call your state licensing board. A psychologist in my area recently lost his license for an inappropriate relationship with a patient. The only exceptions is when they sever the physician/client relationship. A parent and child can never do that.

    What does polygamy have to do with gay marriage? If you are referring to the “Sister Wives” lawsuit then they are not suing for polygamy, but to decriminalize religious cohabitation. It is not a crime to live with multiple adults and have sexual relationships with them, but this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Think about it, what are the main arguments for polygamy? I would say it would be an argument to historical traditions, religious freedom, and the “conjugal” marriage argument. Now, what are the anti marriage equality supporters main argument? Yup, same as the polygamists argument. Bet you didn’t even know that you were helping polygamists! In all honesty I don’t believe polygamy will ever be legalized due to the strong historical evidence of harm and abuse that goes along with those relationships. Gay marriage has none of those problems, just unsubstantiated speculation. Also, many mainstream religious organizations support SSM. Where are their rights?

  • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

    WOW! the sheer nonsensical inanity of that comment is…. ridiculous!

    • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

      OK, please educate me as to why you state that.

      • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

        I would be happy to…
        You are using deflection to try and change the subject and/or trying to make things into something they are not.
        1. There is a HUGE difference between homosexuality and incest…
        2. There is a huge difference between homosexuality and bestiality… One of them is that the animal is not capable of giving consent which makes it an act of force and violence, not to mention the inter-species aspect.
        3. YOUR God is not the belief of everyone… Many have different beliefs which they have as much of a right to as you do yours…

        4. Religion has NO place in civil law…

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          It’s not deflection, it’s called logical progression of thought. You should read up on it, it’s interesting. :)
          1. WHAT is the difference between homosex and incest? And why do you make that distinction (based on what reasoning and/or standard)?
          2. Are you a vegetarian? Also, I would appreciate some clarification of “the inter-species aspect.”
          3. Everyone has a right to believe however they desire. I don’t recall ever stating people HAD to believe any particular way.
          4. History would seem to contradict that statement.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            You are so seriously demented that it is just not worth my time… Perhaps I will make way back to you after this dang migraine is gone…

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            I hope you feel better soon.

          • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

            Thank you… Nothing has knocked it out yet :(

          • Marie W

            Thessa: You really have WYNEMA and Tara going. You have reached a milestone when your comment is held up for moderation! Congratulations … and why are you here in he11? What on earth are you telling these people? Good grief!
            Just remember what the anon. sage said: “When you are going through he!!, keep moving.”

          • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

            LOL, nice to chat with you again. :)
            It’s all just part of my ‘job,’ sharing light to those in the dark. ;)

          • Marie W

            Good “job!” :)

      • Carl Smith

        You deal out fables, unprovable mythology, magic, invisible beings, and 2000-year-old legends. It’s impossible to have a sensible conversation with you because you’re not sensible.

        • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

          You’ll have to be more specific in what you mean. I’m ‘stupid,’ remember?

  • sabelmouse

    is this satire?

  • Paul Hue

    Amen. The author appears to be a very impressive person.

  • Carl Smith

    “Their Creator” Not “a” Creator. Not “our” Creator. Some of us consider their Creator to be a happy accident of natural forces, not an invisible space elf. But whatever, the framers of the Constitution wrote and thought in the style of their day. You can’t honestly expect any society to stay 200+ years in the past. They didn’t foresee cars, planes, cell phones, modern medicine, skyscrapers, giant cities, computers, man-made fabrics, shipping, modern warfare, space travel, or that 30,000 people would fill a sports stadium. Shove your space elf krap up yourself: it’s utter nonsense.

    • http://www.truthanchor.com/ Thessalonianguy

      You must read a lot of Nietzsche huh? You’re beginning to parrot his kind of thinking, and you’re also starting to sound just as confused as he did.

  • Carl Smith

    God doesn’t exist. Now, deal with logic and reality. Oops you can’t do it. Because you’re stupid. You need to add mythology to the mix or else your personal feelings fall apart. You’re a silly child, you know that right?

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!