JunkScience2

And They Call This Research?

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

OK, another set of banner front-page headlines telling us that children do just peachy keen in homosexual households. Yep, it must be some rock-solid research there. After all, the mainstream media has run with it, and the homosexual activists are delighted with it, so it must be true.

What a joke. But the homosexual activists and their supporters do this all the time. We hear so many brainless headlines about how children just thrive in their alternative lifestyle households, and it always gets massive media coverage.

But is this really science, or simply propaganda? Well, I will let you decide. Consider the latest “study” which all the MSM outlets have trumpeted. Indeed, the media from around the world has picked up this University of Melbourne study big time, with no questions asked as to the adequacy of the methodology.

Here is just one such headline: “Children with same-sex parents happier and healthier than those from traditional families, study shows“. And what was the sound scientific method used for arriving at such conclusions? Oh, they asked for “volunteers” from their own homosexual buddies to answer a few questions.

Self-reporting was their “scientific” means for getting this info. Um, do you think there might have been a bit of bias in this whole affair? What if I told you that three of the five-member “research” team are in fact homosexuals or lesbians, raising children in their own households? In fact, the lead researcher Dr Simon Crouch is one of these three homosexuals!

Well, that ought to be a fair, non-biased and solidly objective bit of research then, shouldn’t it? No conflict of interests there! No agenda pushing there! Totally free of any concerns about the outcome there! Here is how they in fact describe “Recruitment“:

Initial recruitment will involve convenience sampling and snowball recruitment techniques that have been successful in other survey-based Australian studies of same-sex attracted populations including the Work, Love, Play Study and the Lesbian and Gay Families Study. This will include advertisements and media releases in gay and lesbian press, flyers at gay and lesbian social and support groups, and investigator attendance at gay and lesbian community events. Discussion pieces and interviews with mainstream media outlets will help target families not engaged with the gay and lesbian community, as well as rural and remote families. Primarily recruitment will be through emails posted on gay and lesbian community email lists aimed at same-sex parenting. This will include, but not be limited to, Gay Dads Australia and the Rainbow Families Council of Victoria. Any parent over the age of 18 years, who self-identifies as being same-sex attracted, lives in Australia, and has children under 18 years of age will be eligible to participate in the study. Children aged ten years or over will also be asked to complete a questionnaire.”

Yep, that’s some pretty scientific and objective research methodology there! Simply ask homosexual parents if they think homosexual parenting is a good thing! Mind-boggling! And this is passed off as “research”? You might as well ask a group of jihadists if they think jihad is a good thing.

You might as well ask a group of KKKers if they think their activities are worthwhile. You might as well ask a bunch of leaders in the tobacco industry if they think smoking is a neat thing. You might as well ask people involved in the porn industry if pornography is harmful or not.

Yes sir, that is some mighty fine research. Let’s just look at the quality of such research in similar areas. I know, let’s find out if kids in polyamorous homes are happy. Hmmm, now how can we do the research here? I know, let’s just ask the parents what they think! Yep, that will give us some solid, impartial results.

But this is just par for the course with the homosexual activists. The truth is, almost always when such research is conducted, it is either conducted by homosexual activists themselves, or by those fully sympathetic to the homosexual agenda.

And are they actually looking for the truth here? Of course not, they are simply seeking to confirm their pre-committed biases on this topic. They simply want to get results they are looking for. And surprise, surprise, they get those results every time!

They are simply skewing the whole process, in other words, to get their predetermined outcomes. They want to defend their own lifestyle, and things like homosexual parenting, so they set up “research” which is guaranteed to give them exactly what they want. It is that simple – and that bogus.

Forget how actual research is done, with control groups and large randomly-drawn samples, and longitudinal studies and so on. Let’s instead just ask a few of our homosexual and lesbian buddies what they think about their own experiences. Yep, then we can pass that off as research.

And if it is not just asking the parents who of course will have an extremely biased and skewed way of looking at these matters, then ask the hapless young children. You know, ask a clueless 5-year-old who may have never known any other kind of upbringing if he or she is happy.

Of course they will say they are happy, as meaningless and unscientific as that all is. They have known no other way of being a child, and very few young children are going to start dumping on their own “parents” anyway. So yep, more credible and scientific research going on here.

Consider some more cases of parallel “research”. Imagine if some research was being conducted on bank robbing. I know, let’s ask the bank robbers what they think about their livelihood. “Are you happy in what you do? Would you recommend this line of work? Do you think there is anything wrong with it?”

Yep, we will guarantee that we get real quality objective social science findings out of a research project like that all right. What a complete and utter joke. All this is a complete farce. The homosexual activists are laughing all the way to the bank on this, and the completely clueless or submissive mainstream media simply run with it with no questions asked.

It will simply make the front page headlines, and be treated as if we now have conclusive, overwhelming proof that kids do just fine, and probably even better, in homosexual households. Of course this sham “research” has established nothing of the kind. It is pseudo-science used to push an agenda. That is all it is.

And of course the thousands upon thousands of social science studies which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that children do best, all things considered, when raised by their own married heterosexual parents is never even mentioned.

Of course not. Truth like this is far too inconvenient, so they will simply ignore it, suppress it, or try, incredibly, to rubbish it. And again, the totally biased and prejudiced mainstream media will never run with these sorts of studies anyway.

No matter how thorough the research, no matter how large the sample group, no matter how lengthy the longitudinal study, if it affirms what we all know by common sense, that children need a mum and a dad, the MSM will simply ignore it.

So all this is not science in the least, but advocacy and agenda-pushing masquerading as science. And all this is not reporting, but a lamestream media which has long ago stopped reporting, and has instead taken to editorializing and opinion making and formation.

That is the war we are in. For those who want to learn more about the fraudulent and laughable methodology involved in this shoddy research, I have several chapters in my book Strained Relations which deal with all this in great detail.

Editors note: The original image accompanying this post (see image here) is a deeply troubling propaganda photograph of two shirtless homosexual men holding a surrogate mother’s new born baby (the homosexuals apparently acquired the child and are represented as the baby’s two “dads” in media stories [biology called and wants its reality back]). While the image has gone viral and been posted on hundreds (perhaps thousands) of other news sites and blogs, the photographer took the time to visit BarbWire (welcome) and has specifically requested that we remove the image. While the image clearly falls under “fair use” (unless the photographer intends to contact each of the sites that have posted the image without express permission and make a similar request), we have, nonetheless, decided to honor her wishes and have changed the feature image. We’re nice that way.

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

comments

  • James Maxwell

    The damage done to young children raised in a homosexual home with adults of
    different sex than the child will lead to a lost, confused and emotional distressed
    child. The formative years at home might appear normal but there will come a
    time when they must enter the real world and fact the trauma of discovering that
    their “family” life is unique and not the norm. At an early age this can lead to
    distress when others will shun them and they will not understand why, they will
    not understand the comments that are made about and to them by others.
    When they eventually reach puberty it will become even more confusing an
    lead to feelings they will not be able to understand. As they reach adulthood
    all the confusion and feelings they have repressed will began to burble to
    the surface and we will have a mentally confused individual who will more than
    likely never be able to develop a true relationship with another human being
    of either sex. To study the effect of this abomination against nature will take
    many years, possible 15 to 30 years before we can even began to assimilate
    the facts of the damage done.

    • Michex

      And being raised by two people of the same sex is basically unnatural and would not occur frequently in nature.
      How would two men get pregnant? How would two women get pregnant? The only way would be by engaging in heterosexual sex, which homosexuals do not even like. They would have to have unloving sex to beget a child. In other words, the baby would come from something the parents don’t like
      How can two men breastfeed a baby? They can’t. The whole setup is unnatural. It’s an experiment on children by homosexuals.

      • helligusvart

        They’re not really interested in raising children anyway. They do this because they want to tempt people into thinking they are normal. They don’t care about the child’s welfare. That child is merely a prop.

    • JaredEthan

      So, basically you don’t think gay people should have children because people like you will mock them and upset them for coming from a family that you don’t approve of? How very loving and tolerant of you.

      • Michex

        Why does the natural world allow only a man and woman to reproduce but not a man and man, or a woman or woman?
        You know better than nature in terms of such a basic process?
        Is it all one big accident? Mother nature made a mistake?

        • helligusvart

          Actually, “Mother Nature” isn’t responsible, God is.

      • helligusvart

        No one should mock or ridicule those who come from same-sex families. This does not change the fact that homosexual relations are abominable to God, and that these children will be spiritually damaged, in most cases for life. It will be very difficult to lead them to Christ—and don’t believe those who say they are Christian and pro-gay; they are liars and will be consigned to the fires of hell—and because they will not accept Christ they themselves will spend eternity in hell.

        • JaredEthan

          Your opinion about your God is not fact. And telling people who don’t agree with you that they will burn in hell is not going to change anyones minds.

          • helligusvart

            The Bible IS fact. And I got saved because a friend had the goodness to tell me I was going to hell if I didn’t get saved. By the way, “anyone’s” is spelled with an apostrophe.

          • JaredEthan

            It is only your opinion that the Bible is fact. It is my opinion that it is not. I don’t know your history, so I don’t know what you needed saving from. If the Bible and your religion gives you comfort then I have nothing against that. But in my opinion I don’t need saving from anything, as I am doing no-one any harm.

          • helligusvart

            Everyone needs to be saved from sin. We are all sinners. Sin is not merely doing others harm; it is disobeying God. We’ve ALL done that; therefore, we all need to be saved.

          • Consider…

            If you had been raised by Muslim parents, or Hindu parents, or Baha’i parents, or Wiccan parents, or atheist parents, your opinion of the Christian Bible would likely be far different.

          • helligusvart

            And I would be fixing to become a crispy critter in Hell.

        • Consider…

          God is imaginary. Hell is imaginary. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

          • helligusvart

            Atheism is imaginary. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

      • thisoldspouse

        Here’s a biology lesson for you since you apparently failed the subject big time: homosexual couples can’t HAVE children. Never could, and never will. Children are ONLY the product of the union of a man and a woman, of their gametes.

        • JaredEthan

          Here’s a lesson for you since you apparently have no education at all. People adopt and people use surrogates. Gay couples are and will continue to have families whether you like it or not.

          • helligusvart

            And they will continue to go to hell, along with you, whether you like it or not.

          • Teri Simpkins

            And you will too, because of your judging them. Hell is sure going to be one full place.

          • helligusvart

            You’re somethin’. I don’t know what, but you’re somethin’.

          • thisoldspouse

            Again, you don’t seem to understand basic biology. A surrogate means that the couple had to go outside the relationship, to someone of the opposite sex, in other words, an opposite-sex relationship, in order to obtain the ingredient need to produce a child. Are you really denying this unchangeable reality?

          • helligusvart

            And they will go to Hell, whether you or they like it or not.

          • helligusvart

            Sorry, I didn’t realize I already made this same comment to you.

        • haroldwhiting

          Thankfully procreation isn’t necessary for marriage.

          • thisoldspouse

            That’s not the issue. Pretending that two males can reproduce is the discussion. That’s psychosis, big time.

          • haroldwhiting

            No. The discussion is about whether or not gays make good parents not whether they actually produced a child or not. Many heterosexual couples use IVF and surrogates, etc due to infertility. I guess they shouldn’t be parents either?

      • James Maxwell

        Who I choose to associate is my choicer, I know people of many

        varied backgrounds and Lifestyles. But I do not choose to

        confuse my children with some touchy/feelgood BS from some
        Left wing Liberals who is confused and doesn’t want to tell the

        truth or possible offend some individual or group. The Truth

        is not always nice but it will set you free. Homosexuality

        is an abomination in nature and cannot not survive unless they
        seductive other to join their perversion. As for the individuals
        I do not hate them, just the lifestyle.

        • Teri Simpkins

          And lying is also an abomination, yet you continue to do that. Who is the bigger sinner? In God’s eyes, both are equally wrong. Congratulations. You’re on the same level as those you keep calling trash.

          • James Maxwell

            Based upon your comment I suspect that you are a past

            master at that skill. I do not see where I called them “trash”
            as you refered to them. Must be hell to be confused all the time and a troll at the same time. Are you confused about your own gender?

    • David Thompson

      And it isn’t damaging to raise a child to think they are worthless scum who deserve to burn in hell because their ancestors ate the wrong fruit?

    • tomd

      And your evidence to support these ideas is where?

  • Michex

    Homosexuals and their allies in the media will resort to any trickery or dishonesty to get their way.
    It was almost predictable that homosexuals would claim that they are better able to raise children than are heterosexual couples.
    In fact, watch homosexuals try to claim that children should be taken away from heterosexuals and raised by homosexuals, who are allegedly more sensitive, open-minded, and affluent. The homosexuals will bring up the kids to be genderless and without any sexual orientation at all. Homosexuals will attempt to coerce all births to be initiated in a lab and transferred to homosexual uteruses.

    • JaredEthan

      Wow! It’s really crazy in your head. Keep that tin foil tight. Think hetero thoughts, think hetero thoughts, think hetero thoughts…

      • Michex

        It’s hard to do when you homosexuals plant ridiculous stories in the media to fool people.

        • JaredEthan

          Next you’ll be coming up with the ridiculous notion that we’re going to round you all up and put you in re-education centres. lol

          • Truth Offends

            Our government already “rounds up” children in government indoctrination centers called public schools where impressionable schoolchildren are taught that homosexual behavior is perfectly normal and acceptable and that it is wrong to oppose such behavior.

          • JaredEthan

            That’s because it is perfectly normal and acceptable and there’s nothing wrong with it. Someone has to speak the truth instead of the lies told in indoctrination centres in every town called Churches.

          • Michex

            No society has ever had same sex marriage. The very idea is absurd.
            It is an experiment, especially with kids. Homosexuals are Ok with that.
            As for re-education camps, if you discriminate against homosexuals, a judge can and will send you to such a camp or classes.

          • JaredEthan

            Same sex marriage is all over the world. You obviously don’t get out much. The very idea that your Bible should have any relevance when it comes to other peoples lives is what is absurd.
            And if you think you should have the right to discriminate with no consequences then go right ahead. But I don’t think you’ll find much support outside of your tiny little circle of fanatical friends.

          • haroldwhiting

            Our society has had it for over ten years and the sky hasn’t fallen and nobody’s marriage has been harmed

          • Truth Offends

            JaredEthan,
            Surely, you know there are compulsory attendance laws for schools (government indoctrination centers)–and that there are no compulsory attendance laws for churches.

          • JaredEthan

            Children need an education. They don’t need intolerance.

          • Truth Offends

            Yes. Children need an education. But, public schools are so intolerant(!) of opposition to homosexuality that they silence voices of dissent.
            That’s not “education.” That’s indoctrination!

          • helligusvart

            I wouldn’t want to be you on judgment day.

          • JaredEthan

            I wouldn’t want to be you on any day.

          • mitchw7959

            Game, set, and match to Jared.

    • mitchw7959

      “The homosexuals will bring up the kids to be genderless and without any sexual orientation at all.”

      Gee, I have know more than ten gay and lesbian couples active at our parish who raising kids—both traditionally conceived and adopted—and none of them have done anything like that.

      In fact, each child has been happy and well-mannered, intellectually curious and smart, and the older ones are now highly functional, caring young adults attending college or employed. All of them are comfortable in their gender and sexual orientation and exhibit no reasons for concern for their personal welfare or continued professional success.

      Care to share *your* anecdotal evidence or peer-reviewed data?

    • Teri Simpkins

      The mental gymnastics you must go through to get to where you ended up would be incredible to watch. Just to see the tricky twists and turns, I’d give you an 8 in ingenuity alone.
      That being said, homosexuals have never claimed that they are better able to raise children. Nope, people who have issues with children being raised by homosexuals say that all by themselves. And LGBT people have never said that children should be taken away from their families.
      It’s amazing how most of you have no problems with heterosexual couples that can’t have children using whatever process they can in order to have a family, simply because they are heterosexual. Yet when two men or two women use the same process, it automatically raises a huge outcry. The problem isn’t what you keep saying it is. It’s not that whole claim of a child needing a mother and a father and keeping the biological family intact. It is totally to do with children being raised by people that you simply don’t approve of.

      • helligusvart

        Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Heterosexuality isn’t.

        • Teri Simpkins

          Lying is an abomination to God, too.

  • Martin Rizley

    This is the reason why so many people respond with skepticism when LGBT activists cite all the ‘research evidence” which allegedly demonstrates that the only thing children need for their optimal emotional maturation, socialization, and psycho-sexual development are “two loving parents” not a mom and a dad.

    When the underlying facts of this latest research study are brought out– the fact that three of the five researchers are fully committed to living a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle and raising children in their own home– the farcical nature of this allegedly “objective” study is patently clear. Does anyone seriously believe there could be any objectivity whatsoever on the part of these researchers– especially when their questionable data-collecting method is considered?

    No wonder our founders established our civil code on something more solid than the unstable, uncertain and biased conclusions of “social research studies.” They looked to self-evident truths made clear by the design of nature itself, a design revealing principles of proper functioning which they called “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Looking at the design of a bird, they said, “It is a self-evident truth this creature was designed to fly.’ Looking at the design of a fish, they said, “It is self-evident truth this creature was designed to swim.” And looking at the design of man as a sexual being who comes in two complementary varieties, the male and the female, they concluded “It is a self-evident truth that this creature was designed to function heterosexually and to use his/her sexual powers in the ordered, regulated context of a social institution that binds couples together for life– for their own good, the good of society, and the good of any children produced by them. Such an institution insures that a given couple will take mutual responsibility for any children they conceive together, and it insures that children will receive the input of both halves of humanity– — the male and the female. This is obviously how sex was designed to function, to the maximum benefit of human beings; that is obviously how society was designed to be structured.

    Of course, this is exactly what the Bible taught all along– but why should one assume that if something is in the Bible, then it obviously lacks the support of reason and common sense? Must our nation pass laws that violate reason and common sense, simply to avoid passing laws that are in harmony with Biblical teaching? The ‘message’ that the natural world is shouting at us concerning the design of sex and its proper functioning is crystal clear; the problem is in man himself– his willful blindness to self-evident truth, his refusal to see what he ought to see because of his willful suppression of what he knows to be true. Nothing but the intervening grace of God will deliver the U. S. from our present suicidal course of ‘willful blindness’ to the truths of general revelation. It is this alone that explains our society’s present confusion over sex and marriage.

    • Consider…

      God is imaginary. The bible is a work of many purely human authors. It is not a reliable source of morality or history or much of anything else.

      • Martin Rizley

        These are idle claims that contradict the amazing proofs that confirm the utterly unique character of the Bible as a revelation of God from mankind.

        One of the most amazing proofs of the Bible’s inspiration is the very thing you point out– that it was written by “many human authors.” It was written by approximately 40 different individuals, in fact, from different cultural, social, educational, and linguistic backgrounds over a period of about 1500 years. Yet despite being so widely separated from each other in time and space, their writings manifest a structural harmony, thematic unity, prophetic accuracy, historical reliability, doctrinal profundity, and spiritual power that is truly astounding. Together they develop one unified picture of God’s redemptive purpose for the human race, progressively unveiled, which centers on one greatly anticipated figure known as the Messiah.

        Erwin Lutzer, in his book, “Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible,” says of these human authors that they “came from a variety of occupations: kings, fishermen, tax collectors, shepherds, prophets, and even a physician. In all it would be difficult to find a more diverse collection of writers. They run the gamut from Moses, who was highly educated, to Peter, who was a fisherman. Though they wrote at different periods of world history, their writings dovetail with one another, not superficially, but intricately and brilliantly.”

        Then Lutzer goes on to give this beautiful analogy to describe what we have in the Bible:

        “Imagine various pieces of a cathedral arriving from different countries and cities, converging on a central location. In fact, imagine that investigation proves that forty different sculptors made contributions over a period of many centuries. Yet the pieces fit together to form a single magnificent structure. Would this not be proof that behind the project was a single mind, one designer who used his workmen to sculpt a well-conceived plan? The Bible is that cathedral.”

        I suggest you read the Bible some day, and you will be amazed at what you discover– a collection of books written by men who were clearly writing under the animating direction and impulse of one and the same Holy Spirit, who moved them to communicate in writing the exact message He wanted them to convey.

        • Consider…

          Reading the ENTIRE Bible — not just the convenient parts preached about in church on Sunday — reveals not a “cathedral”, but perhaps the surest way of becoming an atheist.

          • Martin Rizley

            I do read the entire Bible. Moreover, as a pastor, I do not pick and choose to preach only on the “convenient” parts of the Bible; rather, I preach expository sermons through entire books of the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments, without omitting the ‘hard parts.’ The more I study and preach on the Bible, the more “blown away” I am by the intricate unity of its structure and the profundity of its message, which defy human explanation.

      • helligusvart

        *yawn* another atheist.

  • helligusvart

    The picture on the top is vile. Wait ’til they get to hell.

    • thisoldspouse

      It looks like they are pretending that that poor baby just popped out of one of their anuses – seriously! Is that what they’re trying to pull off? Why are they half naked? Will they “try” to breastfeed the poor infant?

      • Dawn1257

        Uumm, in case you missed the news flash, breast feeding is no longer necessary to feed your child.

        I see vulgarity is something you’re particularly good at though.

        • thisoldspouse

          Why are both men half naked, or more so, in the picture? What is the setting here?

          • Dawn1257

            In my estimation, they are bonding with their newborn. Not any less differently than a mother does after child birth when the child is placed in her arms for the very first time.

          • Woman XX

            Hahah. Except a mother has some bonding hormones. These men bought a live human that belongs to a woman. They are slave traders. Bet you think that’s progressive–rich white men owning other people–ring any bells

          • Dawn1257

            More boogeyman science behind that research model, right?

            These men have only participated in an act of emotional love toward another human being. They do not “own” the baby any differently than any heterosexual couple “owns” their’s.

          • Woman XX

            Good grief what stupidity–stunning. Oh you have some new hereto wit unknown science that says selling children and using 2 women’s bodies as reproductive slaves is now mens’ rights–oh yeah gay dudes it is discrimination if they can’t have access to women’s body parts–Their new civil right to put women in cages to breed for them. They are not parents they are slave owners–period. Maybe you’re late to your Nazi rally okay their ideas seem to inspire you–they also were very sophisticated and like junk science and the idea they were “progressive” and sold babies and used womens bodies, Every person on the planet has 1 mother and 1 father–and those men having a pile of cash and pack of lies does not change that reality. Everybody knows they are not both related to the baby only one is related and the other guy is just a guy. Sorry sweet pea they bought a baby and the child will figure it and will hold them in contempt. Which is exactly where they should be held–they are misogynistic narcissist role playing jerks–get a clue that is not parenthood that demeans every women and every child and that is why it is outlawed in all but the most backward countries.

          • Teri Simpkins

            You need to learn to take a breath every now and then. Your hatred consumes you and will kill you in the end.

          • Woman XX

            Everyone should hate slave traders and the people that turn women into breeding stock, such as those men–that needs hatred and a whole lot of it because it is hateful to exploit people and buy and sell humans. It demeans every women and every child. Heard of ethics?

          • Teri Simpkins

            Yes. And I know of couples that buy eggs in order to have children, yet you wouldn’t call them out the way you are this couple, merely because they are heterosexual couples. Congratulations. You’re as confused as everyone else is.

          • Woman XX

            And you know that how? -Because that how it suites you. Nobody should be buying humans in part or in whole–got that? But only arrogant white males will be trying to do it on a large scale and women will die. They already are, but hey the rich dudes they want and that is all that matters. And how horrifying you support that–sick it is demented to support the exploitation of women and kids. All that matters is that it works for them and you go right ahead and support it and tell yourself some nonsense that is because they are gay. Get this very clear NO HETS NO GAYS NO MEN NO WOMEN can buy people or their parts–does that compute. Here is the hard truth those men because they have money and power and are white and connected and others, rich and hets included are the biggest threat to human rights of women and kids since the Nuremberg laws. So you keep supporting victimizing other people and you pretend there is one shred human decent–it is clear your lack of care or ethics for women or children–

          • haroldwhiting

            The only one victimizing anyone is you with your outright ignorance and hate

          • Woman XX

            What hate would that be? The hate of slavery and selling people–yes it is hateful and not to be tolerated. Nobody owes the rich their body or parts and we do not sell babies.

          • haroldwhiting

            Nobody is selling babies or body parts. Your paranoia will soon overwhelm you.

          • haroldwhiting

            Did they force the woman to have their child under duress? Very doubtful. Nobody turned anyone into breeding stock. Stop with the hysterics.

          • Woman XX

            Being poor and a women is duress sir. Dead women sir. Harvesting eggs from 17 year olds girls. Cancer cases. Yes women are hysterical in your world view–no surprise you are a misogynist.

          • haroldwhiting

            Nope. Just you ….not all women and not my wife. Just you with your ridiculous accusations of buying babies

          • Glen

            Do keep talking.

            Loudly and often.

            Thank you.

          • Woman XX

            Have been in case you have not been following recent rulings. And will continue to do so. Women and children will be considered equal and not subjected to the whims of the wealthy. Game over–equality for women and kids too. A real downer for some mens interests no doubt.

          • helligusvart

            You’re lecturing someone about hate, Ms. “I hate everyone who doesn’t bow to my goddesshood?”

          • Teri Simpkins

            You saw a lecture in two sentences? Wow, how …. interesting. And gee, thanks for calling me a goddess. So vastly different from how I actually see myself. Have a great day, LPSOS! :-)

          • Dawn1257

            And you all think I’m a ‘left leaning loon’?

            I couldn’t top this!

          • Woman XX

            A libertarian of some kind who thinks everything even poor women’s bodies are for sale because hey they are free to feed their kids or die in 5-10 years from being tanked up on massive amounts of hormones that have not been tested. I mean why make laws to protect people it is a dog eat dog world and the white guys with money what they want and can pay for trumps any ethical issues–no ethical issue at all–just the market place.

          • haroldwhiting

            Heterosexuals have been using surrogates for many years due to infertility issues. Are they buying babies?

          • Woman XX

            Yes, of course they are buying babies and using women as breeders. It is the flesh trade and reproductive slavery. Right now the main push for it to get be legalized is from gay men. Given that it is poor women at risk and there is a lot money behind the men it really puts women at huge risk. That’s why people are fighting it.

          • haroldwhiting

            sure it is……………….

          • Glen

            Nobody is buying your absurd and ridiculous rhetoric.

            You clearly do not know the first thing about parenthood, and it most certainly does not hinge on nor revolve around genetic relation.

          • Woman XX

            Of course it is buying. It is reproductive slavery that buys eggs from “smarter” women with good genes and implants an egg into poor exploited women who are need money. It is about money and is a billion dollar industry that uses women. You think people don’t see rich white men buying other humans as a problem? Wake up dude this in not a Christian argument that you can mock. This is feminists and children’s rights activists saying gay men are exploiting women, causing their death, causing them cancer and infertility and buying babies. This is all of Europe and the UN saying no. Got that, no. You can’t buy another human.

          • Glen

            Cite your sources where the UN and the whole of Europe oppose surrogacy. Some European countries do, others don’t. The UN has taken no official positions on the practice broadly, as far as I can find. I see concern expressed for exploitation, but many surrogacies are not exploitative at all.

            Giving a child a loving home (even if born through surrogacy), and raising him or her to be a happy healthy educated independent freethinking individual, is NOT “buying a human being” in the crass way you wish to refer to it as though this was some sort of slavery situation.

            Though again feel free to continue using such language because you DO help the cause enormously.

            Now, I can see if there is concern for the millions of children in need of adoption. Which, in my opinion is a valid concern and a better alternative to creating even more children in an already overpopulated world. So unless you are in favor of gay men and women (couples or singles) adopting children, then you have zero credibility.

          • Woman XX

            The UN stated every child is born free and cannot be bought or sold and every child has the right–the
            right to a mother and a father. I think the meaning is pretty clear– they were not talking about those situations when a grandparent is raising the child or a
            single mother.

            No country in the European Union has legalized it and none will. There is not a single bio ethics person
            or group that has found it anything other than extreme exploitation of women and the sale of a child. So yes commercial surrogacy is reproductive slavery and people
            are buying human infants. The more in the open it is the worse the details. In Thailand women are being kept against their will and impregnated –locked up behind a gate and forced to bear children and then have the baby taken from them. The biggest consumer of
            illegal eggs, wombs and babies–Gay men.

            Human rights groups and feminists have noted been documenting all of this. As a class the western white wealthy gay man have committed more human rights abuses against women and children than Boko Haram. Remember 2 women’s bodies and then
            buying a human infant. That equals 3 people that have had all their basic human rights denied to them. But that is the definition of slavery and human trafficking. Nobody as the right to other peoples children or women’s bodies. Educate yourself the world is not teeming with orphans that is a myth and has not been true for 30 years. The UN said it children’s rights to a mother and a father trump adults wanting to buy a human. And most countries agree—they voted for it. There is not an ethical argument to be made. Greed and arrogance and human rights abuses—that is how gay men are starting to be seen worldwide.
            Nobody is supporting the creation of breeder farms of women to supply men with eugenic babies. None of that sounds real “loving home” to anyone. It sounds
            scary and it is.

          • Glen

            There is something very very wrong with you.

            You can’t cite your sources for your information and are making blatantly false statements. The UN says nothing about a child having a right to a mother and father. It defines the rights a child has in relation to his or her parents. Nowhere does it proclaim those parents are exclusively defined as a child’s biological relation. It can be presumed that in large part a child’s parents WILL be his biological parents, but this is not always going to be the case and millions of children have extremely loving committed and devoted non-biological parents.

            In any case you’re also clearly anti-gay and therefore you have lost all credibility. Not that you had much, being someone who hangs out on BarbWire (and not someone who simply comes here occasionally to see what people like you are up to.) Where are the statistics that show gay men are the largest users of surrogacy? You are making things up as a means to attack gay people, and in particular gay men. This, as usual with people like you, is your ultimate goal. You’ve no real concern for children.

            This is the 21st century and you’d better get used to it because we’re only moving forward into the future. Science has demonstrated you don’t even NEED a sper m and egg to produce a child. Two male or two female gametes can be joined to produce offspring. The sper m and egg are only a delivery system. I can only imagine your outrage when people of the same gender are producing children who are biologically related to them both! Sure the fetus will still need a womb to gestate in, but I suspect in time even that will be unnecessary.

          • Woman XX

            An ad hominem, that’s all you got—what a surprise. UN resolution of the human right council—google it. I
            am not your secretary do your own research. What a boring old rag you trot out, call it anti gay. Nobody cares about that rhetoric because men have zero right to other
            peoples bodies and to women’s children. Is giving women and children basic human rights anti gay? If it is, then so be it. It is not a civil right to get to use women as reproductive slaves. That is not progress. Stunning, the arrogance and entitlement of white man, well that dog don’t hunt with the rest of the world. Women’s bodies are not going to be forced into a commercial breeding industry
            because the dudes want it. Men have zero right to 2 women’s bodies. And the progress will be in women’s and
            children’s rights, that’s happening—not going back to white men buying and owning other people. You do not have an ethical leg to stand on. No eggs, no wombs, no
            buying other peoples babies. Back to the drawing board. Feminists world-wide are going to tear the boys a new one on this. You did notice that India has banned gay men from babies— wonder why. The 3rd world sees it very
            clearly and so does Europe and so will the US. Fact Jack as it stands white rich gay men are already the perpetrators of massive human right violations
            against 3rd world women and children. There is no dressing that up, no crying equality, no nothing. An army of greedy lawyers and medical hucksters on some get rich quick scheme do not make for a convincing argument. You have certainly not made any argument, because there is no argument to make that will convince people that it is a man’s right to exploit and preform atrocities
            (super ovulation drugs that are untested, invasive dangerous egg harvesting,implantation of multiply embryos, reduction surgery—ugly stuff) on the bodies
            of women. And even the most left wing is not going to be backing that super size mysogyny. So you wait on that bright future when no egg or womb from a woman is needed—when it arrives have a blast. Until then it is reproductive slavery and massive human rights violations. You go now an explain how a man getting to imprison and
            forcibly impregnate women is a man’s civil right—I am sure the analogy will make a whole lot of sense—you will win hearts and minds. All you have is arrogance
            and entitlement and money summed up in the delusion that men have the right to women’s bodies and to their children. Well to get that the world has to be ready to deny all women and all children their basic human rights in favor of rich spoiled men. I will go out on a limb here and say don’t bet the farm on that happening, dead women, sold children do not convince people. Game change:
            women and children’s rights—how anti gay, so sayeth the man.

          • Glen

            You don’t even know what an ad hominem is. Little surprise there.

            I reject your assertions for lack of evidence or citation, not for your being mentally ill.

            It’s also little surprise that you attempt to disguise your animus in the language of civil rights and the rights of women and children.

            Nobody is demanding a right to use women’s bodies. Those on my side of the ideological spectrum are the champions of women’s rights. (Again something you actually do NOT care about.) And that includes their right to determine what THEY wish to do with their bodies. While there does need to be prevention of exploitation, we are not about to lock women behind closed doors in chastity belts to “protect” them (and protect them from themselves).

            You oppose not only commercial surrogacy (which a reasonable case can be made against), but also altruistic surrogacy, wherein a woman chooses to be a surrogate without any monetary incentive.

            Feminists world wide are going to tell privileged white men like yourself (nice try to disguise yourself Robert), to keep out of women’s business and let them make their own choices.

            Your attempt to conflate actual exploitation of women and children with the legitimate practice of surrogacy is what isn’t going to fly. (Still, while I believe there are legitimate uses of surrogacy, wherein exploitation is not occurring, I prefer adoption be the first choice for infertile – and even fertile – couples, including gay couples, given the high number of children in need of adoption around the world.)

            Now getting back to anti-gay. Please don’t try to hide the fact that you are. It’s not working. Being gay yourself Robert, certainly does not absolve you of the charge.

          • Woman XX

            Are you delusional–I am a woman and a feminist. You are so arrogant that you do not even see us coming. In your mysogynist mind women do not even exists–Who the hell is Robert–did he dump you or something and now you hope to bump into him in your cyber life.

          • Glen

            Sure ROL.

          • Woman XX

            You wish it was ridiculous. But the fact is that men have no rights to women’s bodies or their children.And children have the right to be born free and not sold. Looks like you men hit a brick wall–how are you going to spin it–“not hurting anyone else” does not fly because it does harm 3 people, either does “just between two adults,”so what now big brain please tell me what can be argued that will convince people wealthy white men have a right to reproductive slaves on demand and to buy children.

            LBGT is at this point in history primarily a very well funded men’s rights movement that has turned very toxic and dangerous to women and children. It seeks to exploit poor women reproductive slaves by turning their bodies into a commodity used in the manufacture of children. It seeks to erase motherhood and deny both women and children any basic human rights. Ethically speaking these abuses of human rights have not been seen in the west since American soldiers freed the concentration camps. There is no discrimination and no lack of equality here
            because society does not owe wealthy men other women’s children or body parts. That men can’t have children is not some grave social injustice that requires a correction. Here’s the facts, that are not lost on anyone except some deluded entitled men, the movement that once claimed only to want “equality” now wants to deny even the most basic human rights to all women and all children. I someone how do not think the emotional appeals are going to work when rich white men are demanding that it is their right to commit massive human rights violations against women and children world wide.

          • Auto Jen

            Woman XX, I’m glad that you mention this because you’ve brought to light something I’m struggling with.

            You see, my two good friends are gay men. They want to have a baby. I found out recently that they put my friend “in a cage” for nine months to breed for them, like you said. This slavery is simply not fair to my friend and I think we should immediately call the police to rescue her because she is currently living in a cage and being forced to procreate with men of the gay couple’s choice.

            What should we do about this?

          • Woman XX

            Well, sir here is how the situation stands. The UN just voted the resolution against surrogacy as a human rights violation against women and children. France has also just outlawed it, ditto for the rest of Europe and Canada. I would say your gay friends could use you but you are not a woman–bummer you would have looked so good caged. I think most of the world is realizing that between the G and T we are looking at a screaming rich misogynist mens’ right group. So even this guys faked research was a waste of his time it is a moot point. The dudes will not be getting any babies because they will not be able to use women as reproductive slaves. And you can’t really help out because you are still a man. Comfort each other, group hug–you are all each other have now. Oh the UN also voted every child’s right is to have a mother and a father and to be not sold. Wow gay men and the rich are going to be so down on the UN and the rest of the world for not selling them women breeders and babies. It is going to take a lot of appletinis to feel better.

          • Woman XX

            Oh sir I just wanted to ask. I am getting the feeling the way you follow me all over the internet that you really like me–do you really like me sir? Because it could never work between us. I would rather swim in vomit than be within 200 meters of you. So don’t say I lead you on. You are just a male stalker in a crappy tube dress trying to get into the ladies room.

          • Auto Jen

            Woman XX, thanks for explaining such a complex subject with such logic, common sense, and compassion. And thank you for reminding me that I would “look good caged.” As we both know, I would be better off in a cage because now that I am free to walk in society, my #1 purpose in life is sneaking into “women’s safe spaces” and “violating all women” as you have pointed out before.

            But I digress.

            I couldn’t agree more: even though you have no desire to talk about lesbian adoptions, female to male transgender people or really anything that resembles a fully-thought-out outlook on the world, you couldn’t be more right: gay adoption (by men only, not women because they don’t count) is the equivalent of sneaking into a public playground, kiddnapping an innocent child, and then selling that child for slavery. I mean, it is OBVIOUS that there is very little difference between the two.

            I bet, when you look at yourself in the mirror every morning, you think to yourself, “now there is a person who I am proud to be. There is a person who is respected and looked up to.”

          • Woman XX

            I am explaining how the UN has voted and what they said. It has to do with what the international community has decided is the basic human right of every child–to be born free, not sold and to have a mother and a father. In addition they said that surrogacy is a human rights violation against women and children. You see that thinking is called child centered. It is based on the human rights of a child not on what adults want. People can have their own children or not. They don’t get to take other peoples if they are taking away the basic human rights of the child. Many things do not need to be talked about because they are non an issues. And just because people like to say “but about X and what about Y” does not mean anyone has to discuss them–just derails. You can hit the keyboard until the end of time. It does not change the direction the world is moving in respect to women’s’ (which is not you sir) and children’s’ rights. It is good see social progress and social justice take hold– women and children need to have basic human rights and the world seems to agree. It will not be going back this is a march forward for women and children. It will only get stronger.

          • Glen

            You need to understand that you are talking to people who actually think they DO own their kids. Christian conservatives. They are the exact same people who’ve attempted to own people throughout history. Be it women, slaves, etc… Their religion tells them this.

            So they don’t quite grasp the concept of parenthood being about raising a child to be a happy, healthy, independent, and freethinking adult. Their image of the parent/child relationship mirrors their idea of the God/Them relationship, wherein the child is expected to follow, obey, worship, and serve the parent for life.

          • Dawn1257

            Actually, I understand who these people are and what they want very well.

            I was raised in a family just like what you described. So were my cousins. I never felt more like a slave than when I was growing up and just before I went off to the USAF.

            What these people don’t understand is real freedom. Freedom to think for yourself instead of ‘let God guide you’, i.e. control you. It’s a fake ‘God’ anyway.

          • haroldwhiting

            Ignorance is obviously your virtue. Men can bond with their infant children. A fact you’ve overlooked.

          • thisoldspouse

            Getting the child used to skin-on-skin action, no doubt.

          • Dawn1257

            Now, that? That is just sick thinking. You’re disgusting.

          • Glen

            Who or WHAT made you so averse to “skin-on-skin” contact?

          • Woman XX

            “any less differently”—yeah they denied the child a mother and they bought a baby–that’s a purchase not parenthood. That exploits and uses 2 women and a child–pretty far from “between two people” I count 3 they have bout and used That kinda pushes the “not hurting anyone else lie off the table.” White men buying other people–remember your history? And they dare talk about civil rights.

          • JDH

            What do you think of altruistic surrogacy? One of my friends was a surrogate for her own brother after his wife needed a hysterectomy at the age of 28 for out-of-control uterine fibroids.

            My friend wanted to do it for them, and she was reimbursed for her expenses and time off from work. I don’t see how that is “slavery.” Rather, it is just another example of how the right wing wants to tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.

            If you think surrogacy is slavery, then what do you call it when a bunch of Christian white men (Republicans) restrict a woman’s autonomy and control over her own uterus?

          • Woman XX

            Altruistic surrogacy when no money changes hands and the mother retains rights is not an issue. And that means no money–reimbursed is payment and very slippery. That is a woman’s choice and she is free to make it. But Poor women are not standing six deep to do a favor for a loved one. Women are not saying please shoot me full of super ovulation that have not been tested (and who knows the long term effects) and then please do an invasive procedure to get the eggs. You do know women don’t lay them? So your question is a “derail” and tries to deflect from the real point–mansplain kinda question. What we are looking at is a billion dollar industry–the industrial uterus for profit and that exploits women and sells children–very simple. Commercial gestational surrogacy is a major human rights violation against women and children. Your comparison is faulty. Women have control period–law of the land–birth control abortion are available and legal. Even though they may wish to the fact is no Republican and no Christian is restricting any women in America. On the other hand our more liberal minded rich white folk are in fact committing human rights violations against women and children. What they fail to realize is that somebody elses body in fact 2 bodies is not a civil right. Someone elses child is not a civil right. It is not some major case of discrimination if people can’t buy other peoples kids and use womens bodies. It does not really matter how well men (who can’t have children) do basic child care. The question is whos baby is that?

          • Woman XX

            Your question and example are trite manipulative “derails” makes me want to say–mansplain on dude or get some new material–our eyes are rolling back in our head from bordeom. But anyway– If no money changes hands and the mother retains rights she is free to do what she wants with her body. She is not free to sell a baby to a relative. You have a false analogy. Women have rights in this country we can have abortions, use birth control. You can’t do some cheap swap—not a shell game. That does not mean poor women here get to become breeders for the wealthy. It does not mean we support the use of women in the 3rd world as breeders. There is no equality between the women in the “breeder class” and those in the buyer class. In the 3rd world women are dying on for profit reproductive breeding farms that supply the west with purchased babies. I am neither a Christian nor a Republican. The issue is the rich white men demanding the industrial uterus–commercial gestational slavery as
            some kind of civil right. The fact is men do not have any right to women’s bodies never mind 2 women’s bodies and have no right to buy another human. It does not matter how well they preform basic childcare. The question is whose baby is that?

          • helligusvart

            That baby is just a prop. They don’t care about it. My money is on those two fools breaking up and leaving that poor child in emotional limbo.

      • helligusvart

        They’re half naked so it’s obvious to all that they are homosexuals. That’s what’s really being pushed here, not “two people loving a child,” as Arthur Adams would have us believe.

        • Drew Humberd

          It’s well known that homosexuality is determinable by a person’s torso.

    • Arthur Adams

      How horrible, two people that love a child.

      And if Heaven is filled with people like you, I’ll happily be in Hell with ‘em. Eternity with you would be Hell.

      • helligusvart

        The way you appear to be goin’, you won’t have to worry about it.

        • Arthur Adams

          See you there.

          • helligusvart

            Foolish statements from fools don’t bother me.

          • Arthur Adams

            I feel the same way.

      • thisoldspouse

        Be actuate, at least. Two NAKED men “love” a helpless infant.

    • Consider…

      Hell is imaginary. All we have is real life. Morality comes from empathy and reason, from the simple fact that we’re all in it together on this rock called Planet Earth.
      People invented religions and afterlife stories to try to deal with death and other big questions. We have better ways to answer questions now, ways that actually work.

      • helligusvart

        Atheism is imaginary. Hell is real. You’ll see.

  • Zohydro

    Why are the homosexuals in that photograph naked? Is this a thing now? And why is the child’s mother not in the picture?

    • thisoldspouse

      They’ve rejected the child’s mother, for the child.

      How “loving” is that?

    • concern00

      Because it’s about sexual deviancy. The child is a prop and a commodity. Did you have a better explanation?

  • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

    I see you’re using, once again, a photo without permission. I contacted the photographer for you.

    • thisoldspouse

      Yeah, go tell mommy. She’ll be so mad!

      • mitchw7959

        “Mommy” is gonna be a black-robed judge who has been appropriately educated in trial law and understands copyright infringement and use of images without the artist’s express, written permission.

        I thought you T-bagger fundamentalists were all about inviolable property rights, corporations having human spiritual beliefs and constitutional protections, and professional photographers and bakers being able to make up their own public accommodation laws.

      • Drew Humberd

        It’s a heinous crime against liberty to pay a photographer for her services at a same sex wedding, but if you just steal her work for Jesus, all is well!

        • thisoldspouse

          As the editors posted, inconsistent objection to this public posting (numerous other sites have posted this photo without permission and without objection) has a LOT of weight. The perverted photographer has no legal leg to stand on in this regard.

          • Drew Humberd

            Says Internet Lawyer thisoldspouse.

            But seriously, you really don’t have a problem with people’s work being suborned to causes they don’t support? I mean, as long as those causes are yours?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You are quite correct. She would not have been so stupid to file anything because that information alone would have lost her the case.

          • haroldwhiting

            Are you a lawyer or do you just play one on the internet?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Are you a lawyer?

            It has already been pointed out why she would not have had a case. And I know you are aware. So stop playing games.

          • Teri Simpkins

            I’m not a lawyer because I never sat for the bar. But she did have a case. It doesn’t matter if she doesn’t object to anyone else using her picture. It matters when she DOES object to use of her copyrighted work. Obviously, this was pointed out, because they did remove her picture.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I’m not a lawyer

            Obviously.

            But she did have a case.

            You have no idea what you are talking about.

          • haroldwhiting

            Neither do YOU

          • clarknt67

            No. I’ve been in the publishing business for 20 years which has taught me the ins and outs of copyright law. The author violated it egregiously and the photographer was fully within her rights to demand it be removed.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Editors note: The original image accompanying this post (see image here) is a deeply troubling propaganda photograph of two shirtless homosexual men holding a surrogate mother’s new born baby (the homosexuals apparently acquired the child and are represented as the baby’s two “dads” in media stories [biology called and wants its reality back]). While the image has gone viral and been posted on hundreds (perhaps thousands) of other news sites and blogs, the photographer took the time to visit BarbWire (welcome) and has specifically requested that we remove the image. While the image clearly falls under “fair use” (unless the photographer intends to contact each of the sites that have posted the image without express permission and make a similar request), we have, nonetheless, decided to honor her wishes and have changed the feature image. We’re nice that way.

            This is why you have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, and Matt Barber, the guy who created this site? He *IS* a lawyer.

          • haroldwhiting

            And again, why were her comments removed so quickly?

          • Teri Simpkins

            Sorry, Matt Barber isn’t that good a lawyer.

          • Michael Senesac

            That’s right Teri. Matty is employed by “Liberty U. School of law. A 3rd tier law school and the lowest ranking in the U.S.

          • helligusvart

            Oh, is that so? Please document.

          • haroldwhiting

            Why then was it removed so fast and second, why did they delete her comments?

          • clarknt67

            Methinks the author realized stealing is stealing.

          • Glen

            What exactly is ‘perverted’ about the photograph?

          • helligusvart

            The two men are homosexuals, that’s what. And one of the men looks like he has a bad case of hemorrhoids.

  • Lindsay Foster

    I love how just above the comments it has the Posting Policy…….

    Well, here is mine:
    Remove that image of mine that you had no rights or permission to use. ……..now.
    or else there WILL be a battle on your hands.
    No joke!!!!

    Lindsay Foster

    • thisoldspouse

      Are you afraid of your “art?” Afraid, now, for some reason, that it doesn’t convey the right message?

      • Lindsay Foster

        I am not afraid of my “art” at all. What I am afraid of, however, is how the writer of this article used my copyrighted image without asking or getting permission.
        Mr. Bill Muehlenberg, you might want to learn what happens when you use a copyrighted image…..

        • thisoldspouse

          I don’t think it was Bill’s decision, so at least get your knives aimed at the responsible party.

        • thisoldspouse

          By the way, the photograph is vile beyond description; tantamount to XXX pornography. That you are the author of it and allowed it to be displayed publicly at all speaks directly to your disgusting lack of character or morality.

          • Drew Humberd

            If it’s so disgusting, why are you continuing to frequent a site that displays it?

          • thisoldspouse

            The purposes for which photographs are displayed are highly relevant. Trying to garner emotional sympathy for a sterile relationship which can never produce a child but pretending that it can, or as an example of this depravity. The latter is the use in question here.

          • haroldwhiting

            That old excuse is so beyond ridiculous. They are in no way sterile but you can keep projecting if you care to. It matters not because that factor is irrelevant to ths discussion. Procreation is not and never has been required in order to get married.

          • thisoldspouse

            Their relationship is sterile – end of story. You cannot refute this.

          • Drew Humberd

            Ah, so copyright laws are void if their violation suits your desires, and it’s okay for you to look at “XXX” images as long as it’s on BarbWire. Got it. I bet your Internet history tells some great stories.

          • XbonzHD

            You how some serious issues. Please seek help. And meds.

          • thisoldspouse

            Let me guess, you think that two naked men holding a baby is just sweet and innocent.

            And you think that I need meds?

          • Teri Simpkins

            Seriously? You’re comparing two shirtless men holding a newborn baby to people having sex? And you think she’s vile? Wow.

          • Glen

            This should give you great insight into the minds of these people. There is something very wrong there. Inculcated from where, one might wonder.

        • Sam

          Go Lindsay! Go Lindsay!

        • Matthew T. Mason

          And speaking only for myself, you are speaking more about your position on the issue than anything else.

          I am sure the image will be changed. Quit whining about it.

          • haroldwhiting

            No she’s not. The lady is protecting her work from being used by the master’s of indoctrination. Hopefully she sues and cause old bill a lot of headaches.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Bill has zero control over the photos posted on this site.

            And I hate to pop your balloon, but nobody is suing anyone.

          • haroldwhiting

            you know this how? psychic? I just love prognosticators!

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Because it was changed. Told you. Idiot.

          • haroldwhiting

            Thanks. Idiot. Is that a standard christian reply??

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Calling me names is not doing you any favors.

            Yes, I know I called you that first, but that is only because you chose to have a snarky attitude when I knew good and well what was going to happen.

            Which means it was called for.

            Which means if you don’t wish to be called an idiot, don’t act like one. It’s really that simple.

          • haroldwhiting

            Not calling you names. Just reiterating what you wrote. I dont want any favors from you or yours, but thanks anyway. I didn’t think christians acted in the manner that you all do on this forum. christians……Hrrrrmfffff.

          • Guest

            ..

          • Matthew T. Mason

            The above guest post is from Vorpal, trying to attempt a ban evasion. Please flag so Brian knows and can act accordingly.

          • haroldwhiting

            How old are you? What a whiny tattletale. You need to go back to mommy’s basement.

      • Consider…

        The picture originally at the top of this article was a willfully altered version of Ms. Foster’s photo, with text added to convey the message that good same-sex parenting is “junk science.” I easily see why she demanded it be taken down.

        • clarknt67

          That Muehlenberg thinks Jesus is one his side will be irrelevant in a court of law. Something he knows, and why he took it down. Stealing from gays and their friends is still a crime.

      • clarknt67

        Why is this website deleting the comments of the photographer whose work the author stole? Why are they afraid to acknowledge reality and respect copyright law?

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Saying the same thing over and over again makes me think you are trolling.

          • haroldwhiting

            the same could be said of you with your litany of comments only meant to provoke and insult……..yup…sounds like a troll to me.

    • mitchw7959

      Thank you, Lindsay Foster, for standing your ground against the fundamentalist, ignorant anti-gay mob mentality. While it would best serve his interests to remove this image, I nevertheless would love to see Bam Bam hauled into court and prosecuted for illegal copyright infringement. By the way, your photograph is beautiful art and documents a wonderful moment in the lives of this new family.

      • Matthew T. Mason

        Thank you, Lindsay Foster, for standing your ground against the fundamentalist, ignorant anti-gay mob mentality.

        I am quite certain we have yet to display any such thing. You simply believe you should be able to do whatever you please, and we are supposed to sit on the sidelines and allow it.

        How about no?

        • haroldwhiting

          You and yours display exactly that on a daily basis here. As far as the sidelines are concerned, you can sit there or stand up and shake your fist but in the end, equality will win the day, irregardless of what you think sir.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You and yours display exactly that on a daily basis here.

            equality will win the day

            **massive eyeroll**

            *sigh*

          • haroldwhiting

            You can roll your eyes right out of your head and it won’t help you. State after state after state are dropping marriage bans like bad habits. There are some fringe hold outs like yourself but they are few and far between and have little to no effect on the outcome.

          • Consider…

            What makes you think “equality” actually means “conservative Christian privilege”?

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Look, mom, a troll! Can I keep him?

          • haroldwhiting

            Pot meet kettle

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You are aware the website you are at is a Christian conservative website, right??

          • Teri Simpkins

            You are aware of the Constitutional right to free speech? You and most Christian conservatives love to use that qualifier for your most vile words. But I think you forget that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You are aware of the Constitutional right to free speech?

            This is what I mean by being intellectually dishonest.

            This is a Christian conservative website. We did not go to him. He came to us. But you knew that already.

          • haroldwhiting

            No, this is a free forum open to the public. You can go on about your whining about opposing points of view but that’s life.

          • Teri Simpkins

            Again, it’s a matter of the right to free speech. And I was totally honest. Now, of course the moderators can pull any comment they deem unworthy of being posted but then the comment section becomes one of “You go girl” and “I agree with you”. Not much of a discussion there, just “attaboys.” But then again, you seem to have an issue with opposing opinions.

          • helligusvart

            Our issue is vile, hateful, obscene comments, not dissenting opinions. I agree that this site should never devolve into “You go, girl,” or “Atta boy.”

          • Consider…

            I am aware that this website purports to maintain “a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.” If they really mean “a courteous public environment where we don’t have to read facts and opinions that challenge our own views” they should say so.

          • Portage Peace

            the reason that this and other political websites that have open posting
            (until a comment makes the group look stupid) is to drive up web traffic to increase
            the rates on the ad card. so if the owners wish to keep away dissenting viewpoints, it is certainly their choice – but the traffic would drop to quite unimpressive levels if they chose that route.

          • Mike H

            Love the picture of Mandy Patikin! He is a straight but is a gay rights activist. Thanks Matt!

    • Glen

      What can you expect from people who have no morals or scruples.

      • Matthew T. Mason

        Project much?

        • Glen

          By their fruits you shall know them.

          Which side brings, and tries to bring, pain misery turmoil and hardship into the lives of others?

          (And not the self-inflicted emotional pain of “Oh I’m SO distressed that gay people have equal rights and can get married!”)

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Which side brings, and tries to bring, pain misery turmoil and hardship into the lives of others?

            That would be the sociopolitical left, Glen. From Obama on down.

            (And not the self-inflicted emotional pain of “Oh I’m SO distressed that gay people have equal rights and can get married!”)

            Homosexuals already have equal rights, Glen. They just think their sexual behavior entitles them with a double helping. And then some.

          • Teri Simpkins

            And you, Matthew, believe that your “firmly held religious beliefs” entitle you to a double helping. Sorry, being human trumps everything.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            And you, Matthew, believe that your “firmly held religious beliefs” entitle you to a double helping.

            Where did I say that? The answer is: Nowhere. You are putting words in my mouth.

          • haroldwhiting

            Your actions speak much louder

          • Teri Simpkins

            And we never said that we wanted a double helping. We want our fair share. It’s your words that imply what I said. If I am wrong, then I apologise…but I don’t think I’m wrong.

          • helligusvart

            And that’s exactly what I’ve tried to tell you regarding abortion.

          • Glen

            Double helping?

            Explain.

      • clarknt67

        Stealing from gays and their friends isn’t stealing, the Bible says it’s ok.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      You know something? I personally just don’t care what you think.

      Just because you may think it is perfectly okay to raise a child in a moral vacuum doesn’t mean everyone else does.

      • Teri Simpkins

        Morals: The knowing of right from wrong. Lying is against most people’s morals, yet every Christian fundamentalist does it without qualm. I think you need to re-evaluate your own life before you talk about someone else’s life. Remember, your job is not to judge but to leave that to your God.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Lying is against most people’s morals, yet every Christian fundamentalist does it without qualm.

          Now, see, this is why homosexuals (and their apologists) can never win in the arena of the free exchange of ideas: They have to be deliberately disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. (Accusing people of lying when one is doing it themselves is just one example.).

          If you have been a long time reader/commenter to this site (and you clearly have not), you would know facts have been continuously presented, only to be scoffed at if not flat out ignored by homosexuals and their apologists. In fact, most of the time you will get personal attacks, up to and including expressed desires to see something horrible happen to another simply because one disagrees, i.e. suicide.

          If the facts were truly on your side, you would not have to do this.

          Remember, your job is not to judge but to leave that to your God.

          In order to know what my “job” is, you need to read the Bible. I can assure you more than one verse is in there.

          • haroldwhiting

            “Now, see, this is why homosexuals (and their apologists) can never win in the arena of the free exchange of ideas: They have to be deliberately disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.”
            If that were anywhere close to the truth, marriage equality wouldn’t be sailing through the court system. It’s actually the opposite of what you are saying. Gays continually win in the arena of free idea exchange. They, unlike their opponents, enjoy the exchange of ideas and facts. You and yours are constantly waving your bibles around as if it trumps civil law and common sense. Reality will hit you all soon enough..

          • Matthew T. Mason

            If that were anywhere close to the truth, marriage equality wouldn’t be sailing through the court system.

            I think it is simply terrific that you seem so eager to prove my point.

            As we all know, all of this is going on due to the actions of a federal judge that was a homosexual himself, and the decision he handed down was biased and self-serving because of this. This has never been anything other than judicial activism, and you know it.

          • haroldwhiting

            So exactly how many federal judges are involved in this global conspiracy to deprive you of your “god given” right to discriminate against gays? I think that the statistics are against you. You can’t seriously believe that many federal judges are plotting to instill marriage equality as the law of the land, can you? Sounds like overt paranoia to me.

          • Teri Simpkins

            >>Now, see, this is why homosexuals (and their apologists) can never win
            in the arena of the free exchange of ideas: They have to be deliberately
            disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. (Accusing people of lying
            when one is doing it themselves is just one example.).

            Except you didn’t point out where I lied in what I said. Seeing as I didn’t lie, because I never said what they lie about, your point is moot.

            >>If you have been a long time reader/commenter to this site (and you clearly have not), you would know facts have been continuously presented, only to be scoffed at if not flat out ignored by homosexuals and their apologists. In fact, most of the time you will get personal attacks, up to and including expressed desires to see something horrible
            happen to another simply because one disagrees, i.e. suicide.

            You talk about facts being scoffed or ignored and accusing people of doing things that they’re pointing out others do. Yet you ignore how often you do exactly the same. And then you accuse me of being disingenuous. I didn’t attack you personally. I haven’t ignored anything you said. I pointed out certain things that you disagree with. And now you tell me to read the Bible more because (I’m guessing here) I used a line from it that you feel was used in error. The truth is simple. The Bible is open to interpretation. If it were as clear as you say it is, there would be no need for the thousands of different churches in society today. My reading of it isn’t going to give the same results as your reading of it, because we are two vastly different people. You see homosexuals as being vile and sinful, while I see them as one of the Creator’s wonderful variants in being human. Have a great weekend.

          • Glen

            Seriously?

            You are extraordinarily deluded or you have your head deeply buried somewhere if you believe that “homosexuals (and their apologists)” are not winning in the arena of the free exchange of ideas.

            Take a good look around you outside of whatever rightwing media sources you keep yourself deeply ensconced in.

            People are clearly seeing who, in fact, are the ones that are deliberately disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. And it’s most certainly not us, it’s you!

            Your lies HAVE been exposed and people have seen who speaks the truth and is in touch with reality, and Christianity has been taking quite the beating lately because of it, even as liberal progressive sects of Christianity try to adjust to these realized truths.

          • Woman XX

            Well Glenn, you need to get out more. This is only an issue in America. In the rest of the world there is a large secular movement of feminists and children’s rights activists that includes children from gay homes and children of surrogacy that are saying no. Perhaps both sides need to take their head out their of the sand. I am not a Christian and I know that buying humans is wrong. Most of the people I know are not Christians and they know buying babies is wrong. And it not something anyone can claim is their civil right. Marriage does not mean children for men who can’t bear children. Any man that thinks otherwise is far more deluded than any Bible thumper.

  • Woman XX

    Oh sure people who buy other peoples children are just great at making sure those kids put on a good dog and pony show. Wait a few years and these kids give us all the 411 about the joys of being used–the new parenthood because it is all about the adults all the time. As for that pic what Orwellian nightmare is this? Okay the pic is repulsive but look behind the picture and it far worse. Two narcissistic frauds trying to play acting parenthood for the camera. Here are the facts rich white men had a reproductive slave and purchased a human. Wow haven’t we heard that story before. Reality check, poor women recruited and manipulated into slave service are dying and being rendered infertile because of super ovulation drugs invasive surgical massive egg harvest and the creation of the industrial uterus.

    Under what delusion is any of this ethical? This billion dollar industry creates a lower cast of reproductive slaves available for wealthy men to buy someone else’s
    child and then deny that child all basic human rights, to be born free and to
    not be bought or sold. It is somehow lost on the wealthy progressives that it is
    not okay to sell people. Make no mistake this is disregard basic human rights
    never mind for civil rights. The entitlement required to do that only pales in comparison to the misogyny needed to use women as breed animals and to buy a human infant. The fact that men don’t get pregnant is not a form of discrimination that needs to be addressed by providing men who partner with men or do not partner at all with women as breeders. Parenthood is not a right and society owes these men squat what next they cry “oppression” and claim they are the new civil rights while at the exact same time they use two women as reproductive slaves and buy another human.

    This is a violation of women’s human rights and demeans all
    women and all children. Children have the right to be born free and not to be
    bought or sold. Some new civil right—these men brought back slavery. These men
    will be setting up industrial breeding farms with women in cages. The will
    demand their civil right to the unfettered access to women’s bodies. Welcome to the new civil rights movement, very progressive, slavery and human trafficking—why didn’t we think of that before. This practice has to be stopped it is killing women and that child will grow up and know what it means to have been bought and denied a mother as well as all other rights. But hey the dudes are all happy and that is all that matters.

  • Zohydro

    I saw the uncropped original colour photograph on GoOgle Images which shows the “surrogate mother” of the infant…

    It’s disturbingly surreal and orwellian to see an innocent newborn, still in vernix, wrested from its mother and delivered into the arms of a pair of naked homosexuals solely for a publicity stunt!

    • Woman XX

      Take note the child’s life is going to be one publicity stunt after another. Those men will have that kid trained like a circus seal. What a cruelty to do to a child and to cherry pick women so fragile with so little insight into how how they how they exploited her. She should ask herself “why they didn’t want her eggs” –only the eggs come from someone smart. Disgusting to allow people with money and power to turn women into breed animals and to sell children.

      • Glen

        You oppose surrogacy and egg donation? From women who are fully capable of making these decisions for themselves.

        What if it was for an infertile heterosexual couple?

        • Woman XX

          Correct oppose making women into breed animals at great risk to their own bodies. No selling of women’s body in whole parts. If a woman’s sister wants to give her sister some eggs that is her choice or even carry a baby out of kindness that is between them and the birth retains all rights as a mother. But that is not what is happening and has become a situation where many many Gay men are using 2 often very poor young women, with very poor medical treatment as reproductive slaves, as breeder animals. Women have died. It is illegal in Europe and the UN has called surrogacy a human rights violation against women and children. There could 10,000 studies showing men can provide basic child care but until those men can get pregnant themselves it is slavery and the buy and selling of children. And someone else’s children is not a civil or human right. How very sad that it turns out that gay men are posing the most misogynistic threat to poor women world wide. At lest most countries see the danger and are saying no and outlawing it. When law makers here move past the cute pic and get to the body count of women then it will be outlawed here also.

      • helligusvart

        That’s why these men will be screaming AAAAAGH!!!!! in the flames of Hell.

  • Michael Senesac

    Where is the pic everyone is talking about?

    • thisoldspouse

      THe porn photographer threw a hissy fit, and demanded it be removed. I guess the propaganda angle was showing through.

      • Michael Senesac

        Porn? Why would BarbWire post porn?

      • Teri Simpkins

        The photographer rightfully requested that her copyrighted work not be shown where she hadn’t given permission. I guess you can call that a hissy fit if you want but in the legal world, it’s called cease and desist.

        • thisoldspouse

          She openly discriminated when numerous other websites were using it without explicit permission as well and she tacitly allowed it.

          Don’t ever let a sodomite tell you they are really against discrimination. They are the worst offenders.

          • GC

            Other websites didn’t add a “junk science” banner across Ms. Foster’s photo, completely reversing its intended message.

      • clarknt67

        And by “hissy fit” you mean exercised her legal right to her own intellectual property. Heaven forbid. What will America come to if Christians can’t just steal everything they see?

      • tzika

        ATTENTION MODERATORS:
        Why does Jeremy hooper get banned but this guy’s posts stay up? HIs comments are far from respectful(as per your posting guidelines) and do more harm than good for your movement

        • helligusvart

          thisoldspouse tells the truth. I’ve never seen Jeremy Hooper’s posts.

    • Consider…

      It was Lindsay Foster’s heartwarming photo of two dads and their new baby, altered and posted here without permission and with “JUNK SCIENCE” plastered across it in rainbow lettering. She demanded that it be removed.

      BTW, as she explained elsewhere:

      “-Milos fathers are topless, not naked. And they are topless for skin to skin contact which is very beneficial for a newborn baby.
      -Also, the surrogate mom was in no way related to Baby Milo. She did not use her own eggs and she was very happy to have given this gift. Her, her husband and two children are all doing great.
      Another FACT: The baby is LOVED very very much!”

    • Consider…

      It was Lindsay Foster’s heartwarming photo of two dads and their new baby, altered and posted here without permission and with “JUNK SCIENCE” plastered across it in rainbow lettering. She demanded that it be removed.

      BTW, as she explained elsewhere:

      -Milo’s fathers are topless, not naked. And they are topless for skin to skin contact which is very beneficial for a newborn baby.
      -Also, the surrogate mom was in no way related to Baby Milo. She did not use her own eggs and she was very happy to have given this gift. Her, her husband and two children are all doing great.
      Another FACT: The baby is LOVED very very much!

      (Note: I’m reposting a deleted comment. It is not violent, racist, crass, profane, or discourteous — unless some new, uncommon definition of “discourtesy” or “unreasonable discourse” includes stating an inconvenient fact such as the “JUNK SCIENCE” lettering.)

      • helligusvart

        You are morally depraved. What will all of the homosexuals and their allies be saying when they’re standing in the flames of Hell with their flesh burning and falling off their bones? I know what they’ll be saying. AAAAAGH!!!

      • Jeanette Victoria

        I actually happen to agree with that one when I saw the photo I knew there was going to be trouble. While I agree with Bill’s sentiments about junk scientist the photographer has a right not to have her work used in a way she doesn’t want it too

        To bad the homosexuals aren’t will to give me the same consideration as they steal my photos and alter them the time. As usual the hypocrisy is glaring

    • clarknt67

      Turns out even gays and their allies are protected by the Copyright Law of the United States of America.

  • Portage Peace

    have you ever read a research methods book? i would be embarrassed if i were one of your professors at any point.

  • Portage Peace

    a first year social science methods course would clear up your confusion. there are many different research design methods, and simple random samples are totally inappropriate for studies of hard to find populations. any researcher (i.e. mr. regnerus) who chooses quantitative srs design for such populations better have an unlimited budget and include the entire frame’s population in order to get enough respondents who fit the requirements. mr. regnerus chose to make stuff up to bolster the numbers he could not find – not really the best methodology.

    i suggest you spend a little time (even an abstract from one article in one journal related to qualitative or mixed methods research. so many wasted words above that only serve to highlight the gaps in your understanding of the matter. but i’m sure it plays well with your audience

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!