Wednesday, January 02, 2008

The Latest on David Parker

MassResistance reports the latest on the David Parker federal civil rights lawsuit against the Town of Lexington, MA and its public officials.

Click HERE for full story.
I only have one question from being personally involved with Mr. Parker and his family in spreading the truth about his case:
What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality? Anything, other than FORCING children to listen and participate in a social experiment wrapped up as a civil right???

52 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

“What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?”

Before I can fully answer your question I need something answered; what are the benefits of leaving children ignorant about sexuality in general?

“Anything, other than FORCING children to listen and participate in a social experiment wrapped up as a civil right???”

You must excuse me but I didn’t know homosexuality was a “social experiment.” I thought it was a type of sex; kind of like S&M. I also didn’t know that children were being forced to participate in homosexual activities; wouldn’t that be rape? Isn’t the definition of rape something akin to being forced to participate in a sexual activity against one’s will?

Ken Weaver

4:41 PM, January 02, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

Allowing children to be ignorant of the types of people that live in their community is detrimental to their well-being, as well as the well-being of their peers, who may or may not have gay parents/be gay themselves. Just because you don't like gay people, doesn't mean that you can pretend they don't exist. Teaching children that there are different types of people on this planet, and that it 'takes all kinds', so to speak, is what makes them well-rounded, tolerant, accepting human beings.

7:01 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"Allowing children to be ignorant of the types of people that live in their community is detrimental to their well-being, as well as the well-being of their peers,who may or may not have gay parents/be gay themselves."

Then all schools should teach CHILDREN about being "tolerant" and "accepting" of rapist, pedophiles, drug addicts, gang-bangers and other types of thugs and then tell those children that accepting these types of "community" dwellers is going to make them a well rounded person.

Why don't we teach children about the above mentioned types of people now, because many children with parents that fit the above description may feel left out if the schools do not????

You said:

"Just because you don't like gay people,..."

When did I ever say I didn't like gay people or is this something that you "translated" on your own??

9:26 AM, January 03, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

"When did I ever say I didn't like gay people or is this something that you "translated" on your own??"
It's kind of hard to believe that you don't, considering that you just finished comparing us with "rapist, pedophiles, drug addicts, gang-bangers and other types of thugs".
What am I supposed to glean from that?
That you would compare queer people to those law-breakers listed above shows that you really have nothing but comtempt for those of us who weren't fortunate enough to be born just like you (straight).

9:36 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"(W)hat are the benefits of leaving children ignorant about sexuality in general?"

Many school systems are not leaving children ignorant about sexuality because they are currently teaching students about how to engage in NORMAL sexual acts in a responsible and safe manner and other school systems are teaching about abstinance.

Homosexuality is a type of sexuality, but it is not deemed a NORMAL type of sexuality, so therefor why do we need to teach the "tolerance" and "acceptance" curriculum regarding dangerous and abnormal behaviors?

You said:

"I also didn’t know that children were being forced to participate in homosexual activities..."

TEACHING about homosexuality, not FORCING to PARTICIPATE in homosexuality. There is a big difference that you are trying to juxtapose.

So, what are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?

9:51 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Can you answer my question or are you going to continue to translate my words (catagories of people who do live in our community JUST as gay and straight people do) into something that they are not (me attempting to compare you to a rapist, ect - which I am not attempting to do)?

9:57 AM, January 03, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

What you did was compare teaching children acceptance and tolerance of gay people with teaching acceptance and tolerance of violent criminals. Gay people are not the same as violent criminals (i.e. rapists, pedophiles, gang-bangers, etc.), but in your argument, you infer that they are. Conversely, I gleaned that since you DO feel that gay people are in the same category as those other groups of people you mentioned, you must harbor some sort of dislike for gay people. Can you explain to me why I shouldn't have, and how I could have possibly misinterpreted that?

10:09 AM, January 03, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

Let's put things into perspective and then you can answer my question as this is the proper thing to do when a question is presented to you, but let me clarify my confusing comments:

I WAS comparing ABNORMAL behaviors (homosexuality and rapists) that do exsist in our society, BUT I was NOT comparing homosexuals TO rapists and suggesting that they are in the same ballpark. I could see where you, and many, many others do, would think that I was comparing homosexuals with rapists, ect as I looked over my comments again, but that was NOT my intention. My intention was to prove to you how irresponsible it is to teach our CHILDREN about ABNORMAL behaviors and then stick an "acceptance" and "tolerance" stamp of approval on them.

I expect you to answer my question with your next set of comments:

What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?

3:38 PM, January 03, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I asked: What are the benefits of leaving children ignorant about sexuality in general?

Scia responded with: Many school systems are not leaving children ignorant about sexuality because they are currently teaching students about how to engage in NORMAL sexual acts in a responsible and safe manner and other school systems are teaching about abstinence.

I must clarify my statement. I wasn’t worried about what kids are being taught in that context; what I was asking was is there any benefits to leaving children ignorant about sexuality regardless of what is currently taught. So I’ll ask more clearly (I hope) should children be taught about oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation and the different ways they can protect themselves from the various STD’s and unwanted pregnancies?

“Homosexuality is a type of sexuality, but it is not deemed a NORMAL type of sexuality”

And who should get to decide “normalcy?” Is masturbation normal? In previous years kids were taught that it could cause blindness, facial paralysis and hairy palms. It was considered an abnormal sexual behavior, yet we now know it isn’t. Shouldn’t as a society we move forward instead of backwards. Some people today find bondage exciting and after a while it would seem “normal” but if a person won’t even try it, they would likely see it as perverted and abnormal.

“TEACHING about homosexuality, not FORCING to PARTICIPATE in homosexuality.”

That wasn’t what you wrote in your post. I’ll quote “Anything, other than FORCING children to listen and participate in a social experiment wrapped up as a civil right???”

You said not only forced to listen but also to participate in the “social experiment” which I read as you meaning homosexuality; was I incorrect?

“My intention was to prove to you how irresponsible it is to teach our CHILDREN about ABNORMAL behaviors and then stick an "acceptance" and "tolerance" stamp of approval on them.”

You can’t compare criminal behaviors to homosexuality. That’s apples and oranges.

“What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?”

I will definitely attempt to answer this question, but I need to know your stance on my questions so I can explain it in a proper manner.

Ken Weaver

5:25 PM, January 03, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

"What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?"
Well, first of all, what you consider 'dangerous behaviors' and what I consider 'dangerous behaviors' are probably two very different things. When I hear you say 'the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality', I'm thinking 'unprotected sex'. But you are probably referring to ALL sex between two gay people. If that is the case, I can be pretty confident in saying that no one is teaching small children how to have gay sex.
Second of all, I think one of the benefits of teaching children that gay people exist is that we end up with tolerant kids who don't hate someone simply because they're gay. Not to mention, if these children encounter a kid with gay parents, that kid won't be ostracized they way he/she would be around less tolerant kids.
On top of all that, it teaches our children that not everyone loves the same, but we are all human, deserving of the inherent worth and dignity that should be afforded to everyone.

7:44 AM, January 04, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"So I’ll ask more clearly (I hope) should children be taught about oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation and the different ways they can protect themselves from the various STD’s and unwanted pregnancies?

The teaching of how to protect oneself from various STD's and unwanted pregnancies is what most schools are teaching there students now, not WHAT type of acts to perform when they are engaging is sex (anal sex, vaginal sex, ect). ---Shrugging my shoulders in confusion why you need such obvious answers ---

You said:

"That wasn’t what you wrote in your post. I’ll quote “Anything, other than FORCING children to listen and participate in a social experiment wrapped up as a civil right???”

When I said "participate", I meant participate verbally/cognitively in a discussion regarding homosexuality, not actually engaging is the sexual act of homosexuality, which no school systems would allow --- Again, shrugging my shoulders in confusion ---.

You said:

"You can’t compare criminal behaviors to homosexuality. That’s apples and oranges."

I am not. I already explained this in my comments to Katie.

Ken, let's stop with the cat and mouse tactics here, because it is obvious that you are just dodging to answer my original question.

4:07 PM, January 04, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

The dangerous behaviors of homosexuality/same-sex "marriages" include the following:

1. Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family. During the past decade, same sex "marriage" has become law in Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and most recently, Canada. Each county has seen a sharp increase in cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty, and drug use.

2. The claim that a homosexual’s “marriage” doesn’t “hurt” anybody else is based on false logic. One could make the same assertion about other modes of behavior, in which I am NOT COMPARING homosexuality too, such as pedaphelia, child pornography, bigamy, incest, or sex with animals. One could claim that as long as there is mutual consent that none of these behaviors are unlawful and should enjoy all the same legal protections that traditional marriage enjoys. After all, how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town the cynic might ask. Anytime that we as a society condone specific modes of behavior we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable. Just because we may never come into direct contact with a pedaphile doesn’t mean that we must by that measure alone condone such behavior by granting it legal approval. Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior. I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of family configuration. Thus, the assertion that a homosexual couple’s marriage does no harm to a heterosexual’s marriage is a false choice based on false assumptions and presuppositions.

3. The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another. While it is true that men and woman are capable of providing love for children, it is also true that no child should deliberately be deprived of either a mother or father, which is what occurs as the result of homosexual “marriage”. The small amount of research available regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in terms of well being to those in single parent households. (F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995)

Children raised by homosexuals, based on studies, demonstrate that they are more likely to develop homosexual tendencies themselves. (T. J. Dailey, “Breaking Ties that Bind.” Family Research Council Insight, Feb 18th, 2000.)

Men and women are uniquely different. Research has shown that the presence of a father in the household affects children’s cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health. (D. Blankenhorn, Fatherless America. (New York: Basic Books, 1995) See also, K.D. Pruitt, Fatherneed, (New York, Free Press, 2000).

A plethora of evidence exists which also demonstrates the importance of the mother-child bond. (B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love, (Colorado Springs, Waterbrook Press, 1997).

4. Of all the essential elements which lead to a child’s proper development (access to health care, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and love) the most important factor is the marital status of the parents. According to Dr. Pitirim Sorokin, founder and first chair of the Sociology Department at Harvard, proclaimed the importance of married parents half a decade ago:

“The most essential socio-cultural patterning of a newborn human organism is achieved by the family. It is the first and most efficient sculptor of human material, shaping the physical, behavioral, mental, moral and socio-cultural characteristics of practically every individual. …From remotest past, married parents have been the most effective teachers of their children.” (Glenn T. Stanton, “Why Marriage Matters for Children,” Family.org, May 22, 2003.)

The current research comparing the outcomes of children raised in homosexual homes and in traditional heterosexual homes is young, plagued with methodological problems, and therefore inconclusive. Homosexual marriage and adoption is an unproven social experiment that is historically and culturally radical. What the vast majority of empirical data does show is that the optimal environment for the healthy development of children is by two heterosexual biological parents.

I could go on and on Katie. My intention is to not lable you as a "bad" person. I do not think that is the case at all. I like the conversations that we have and I do think about them even when I am away from my blog. Your concerns are real and quite frankly, I envy you greatly for your courage in talking about your lifestyle.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

God bless,

Scia

4:33 PM, January 04, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being a father I’m aware what is taught in the schools in my area, and from what I hear Massachusetts is quite similar, so I don’t so much need to know what is taught Scia, but I need to know if you approve to be more able to answer this question you posed: “What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?”

“When I said "participate", I meant…”

How does one verbally participate in a social experiment?

“I am not. I already explained this in my comments to Katie.”

“Then all schools should teach CHILDREN about being "tolerant" and "accepting" of rapist, pedophiles, drug addicts, gang-bangers and other types of thugs”

In this comment you are writing about tolerance for homosexuality and tolerance for criminal activities.

“I WAS comparing ABNORMAL behaviors”

You had already stated that you believe homosexuality is an “abnormal behavior” All of the things you mentioned except homosexuality create a victim. None of us should be tolerant regarding criminal activity, that tolerance fosters a criminal’s mindset that they can get away with anything. I’m open to almost everything except actions that create victims.

“Ken, let's stop with the cat and mouse tactics here, because it is obvious that you are just dodging to answer my original question.”

I am very willing to answer your question, but for me to answer it in an educated manner I need to know how you feel about kids being taught about sexuality in school.

“The dangerous behaviors of homosexuality/same-sex "marriages" include the following:”

1: Where did you get your info if I may ask?

2: pedophilia, child pornography, bigamy, incest, or bestiality all creates victims. We’ll never know if an animal would agree to a sexual encounter so it’s safe to assume that it wouldn’t. And even if a child or a person under the age of consent would agree to a sexual encounter they are not educated enough to be able to make a proper decision regarding the risks associated with that choice.

“Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior.”


And just who among us is so wise that we should follow their perception of morality? We are supposed to be the land of the free, yet you want to limit freedom based on your views which do not agree with my own. Are we to start voting on freedoms? That’s less American than communism.

3: When I was in my teens I remember hearing about the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) and their wish to label music that they believed was objectionable. One of their main arguments was that they believed that young people would emulate what the songs were about; be it violence or sexuality. Frank Zappa said the funniest thing in response to that “I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?”

“Children raised by homosexuals, based on studies, demonstrate that they are more likely to develop homosexual tendencies themselves.”

Is that a crime?

4: Marriage doesn’t create children as children don’t create marriage. This argument is meaningless.

“I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.”

That’s cool for you Scia, but I have no wish to worship the god that Christians tell me exists. he seems so…unloving.

Ken Weaver

6:43 PM, January 04, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

1. "Each county has seen a sharp increase in cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty, and drug use."
Prove to me that all this was caused by gay marriage. Considering that countries who HAVEN'T legalized same-sex marriage have also experience increases in the same, logic tells me that all that would have happened with or without gay marriage.

2.As Ken has already mentioned, those other 'behaviors' you point out all create victims. Being attracted to/loving/marrying someone of the same sex creates no victim. They are simply not in the same category.
3. "The optimal environment for a child is one in which the child’s biological mother and father are married to one another."
I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this 'optimal' situation is not always possible. For example, my situation would not be made better by marrying the biological father of my daughter. Other than the obvious (my being queer), he also was not willing to be a part of her life. Therefore, my being married to my loving, devoted wife and raising our daughter together is still better than me raising her alone.
4. First of all, this article was written by, and posted by, a completely biased and one-sided organization. I did, however, notice that no mention of a one-man, one-woman marriage was made.
Just 'married parents', which my wife and I are.

I'd also like to address this: "Children raised by homosexuals, based on studies, demonstrate that they are more likely to develop homosexual tendencies themselves."
I call bullsh*t. You seem to be forgetting the fact that the vast majority of gay people were conceived by, and raised by, STRAIGHT people.
By the way, I DO live my life as though there is a God. I, however, also believe in my God's ability to create things and people as he/she sees fit. Gay people are here for a reason. God/dess only knows what that reason is, but who am I to argue?

10:03 AM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

KatieKat, can you tell me who your god is? Explain to me what he's all about and where I can reference what you say. Does your god have a name?

Thank you

6:10 PM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

David Parker is a true American hero. Somehow certain people and groups have come to believe that OUR children become wards of the state when they enter the school premises. Then they lock them in and in many instances begin social indoctrination against parent's wills.

The schools are academic facilities not a place for social engineering.

6:14 PM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The schools are academic facilities not a place for social engineering.”

I couldn’t agree more!! Keep prayer out of school, stop teaching creationism, and can we please remove “under god” from the pledge?

Ken Weaver

8:43 PM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to make sure kids are ready for the big world out there. Whether people agree with Islam or not, it's existance is taught. Whether people believe in God or not, the ideas are taught to exist.

The fact that GLBT people are out there is key to the idea of equal representation being taught in schools. Pretending GLBT people don't exist by not addressing the issue in school sends a very negative message. That message could be easily interpreted as government sactioned discrimination.

This is why we need to make sure we cover the topic with our kids. They need to know how to keep their beliefs intact without compromising their civility.

4:58 PM, January 10, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

There is a HUGE difference in teaching students about a groups "exsistance" and teaching that the groups belief structure must be accepted.

I agree with you that students need to understand that homosexuals exsist in our world BUT to teach them that homosexual behavior is O.K. to experiment with is NOT O.K. That is like saying radical Islam and its religion exsists and you should follow the radical interpretation of the Quran verbatim.

As for the rest of the comments left by Ken, ect:

I will be responding to your comments later tonight.

Thanks for your patience,

Scia

11:09 AM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"I am very willing to answer your question, but for me to answer it in an educated manner I need to know how you feel about kids being taught about sexuality in school."

I have answered this question in past comments on this same thread of comments. Go back and read.

As a result of your inability to answer my question I, and many others who are following this thread, have come to the conclusion that you know there are no benefits to teaching children about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality.

You ask:

"Where did you get your info if I may ask?"

You need to be observant of the citations that are indicated in parenthethese after each fact that I presented.

You said:

"And just who among us is so wise that we should follow their perception of morality?"

Your regurgitating again. This issue has been covered in length in previous posts and I am not going to re-answer them such that you can continue to subvert your responsibility in answering my question.

You responded:

"Is that a crime?" in response to my comments of:

“Children raised by homosexuals, based on studies, demonstrate that they are more likely to develop homosexual tendencies themselves.”

It is not a crime but it is dangerous of which I already explained...subverting your responsibility again Ken...answer the question.

7:55 PM, January 11, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia are you in a bad mood or what? I hope it wasn’t me who p------- in your cheerios.

“You need to be observant of the citations that are indicated in parenthethese after each fact that I presented.”

There are no parenthesis on numbers 1 and 2.

I said: I am very willing to answer your question, but for me to answer it in an educated manner I need to know how you feel about kids being taught about sexuality in school.

You replied: I have answered this question in past comments on this same thread of comments. Go back and read.

Not once did you say if you approve. That is the crucial piece of information I need to answer your question. If you don’t say so now it’s pretty obvious that it’s not me who’s hiding from questions.

“…you know there are no benefits to teaching children about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality.”

Incorrect sir.

“Your regurgitating again. This issue has been covered in length in previous posts and I am not going to re-answer them such that you can continue to subvert your responsibility in answering my question.”

You told me in a previous post who is so wise? I doubt it; I think I would have remembered, unless your answer is voting on it. That would be silly though because we would have to vote on everything every decade or so.

“It is not a crime but it is dangerous of which I already explained...subverting your responsibility again Ken...answer the question.”

I almost feel like Claire from The Breakfast Club. “Answer the Question; answer the question; it’s not a big deal, just answer the question; it’s just one question.” (I hope somebody out there knows what I’m writing about.) Scia as I’ve tried to tell you before I need to know what you approve of when it comes to sex-ed. Is that so hard to understand, or do you just not want to answer that question?

Ken Weaver

8:25 PM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

In response to my footnoted FACT of:

"Each county has seen a sharp increase in cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty, and drug use (as a result of same-sex "marriages")."

You responded with:

"Prove to me that all this was caused by gay marriage."

You need to read the study that gave this information: (Rober Lerner, Ph.D.,Althea Negai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parterning, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/ Ethics and Public Policy Center,2001.)

You said:

"Being attracted to/loving/marrying someone of the same sex creates no victim."

The victims are as follows:

1. Children
2. If do not have children: A SS"M" law -- which still does not exist today in MA -- that would give legal credence to SS"M" and therefor have others who do not recognize it to be legally punished even though their respective religions and beliefs do not accept homosexuality.

This "Hate Crime" law in legislation is a subversion of one's First Amendment right to free speech. Plain and simple.

You said:

"Therefore, my being married to my loving, devoted wife and raising our daughter together is still better than me raising her alone."

While it is true that men and woman are capable of providing love for children, it is also true that no child should deliberately be deprived of either a mother or father which is what occurs as the result of homosexual “marriage”. The small amount of research available regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in terms of well being to those in single parent households. (F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995)

You said:

"I did, however, notice that no mention of a one-man, one-woman marriage was made.
Just 'married parents'..."

'Married parents, Katie, is understood by Mr. Glenn T. Stanton to be between a man and a women.

You said in closing:

"You seem to be forgetting the fact that the vast majority of gay people were conceived by, and raised by, STRAIGHT people."

Can you cite this "fact" please?

8:35 PM, January 11, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

No, I am not pissed. Thanks for asking though.

To answer your concern of:

"There are no parenthesis on numbers 1 and 2."

For 1: (Rober Lerner, Ph.D.,Althea Negai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parterning, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/ Ethics and Public Policy Center,2001.)

For 2: A well educated opinion.

You said:

"I am very willing to answer your question, but for me to answer it in an educated manner I need to know how you feel about kids being taught about sexuality in school."

You previously asked on January 3rd, 2008:

" So I’ll ask more clearly (I hope) should children be taught about oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation and the different ways they can protect themselves from the various STD’s and unwanted pregnancies?"

I answered you on January 4th, 2008with:

"The teaching of how to protect oneself from various STD's and unwanted pregnancies is what most schools are teaching there students now, not WHAT type of acts to perform when they are engaging is sex (anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation ect)."

I don't agree that there are any benefits to teaching children about what type of sex (oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation) they can engage in when engaging in normal heterosexual behaviors. This is not the responsibility of any school system for obvious reasons.

Answer the question Claire.

8:53 PM, January 11, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Scia before I respond to your comments I’m reading “What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Partnering.” Man is it boring. I’m only about a third of the way through and can barely keep my eyes open any more. Would you mind telling me which chapter it is that covers the relationship between SSM and the decline of traditional marriage and all the other bad things you mentioned in other countries?

If anyone else would like to read this book there is one online at

http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.htm
htm
Just click “Full Text” in the upper left corner for an Adobe document.

But be forewarned, it will put you to sleep!

Ken Weaver

5:19 PM, January 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm shocked you would be petty enough to mock my mispelling of the word existence. So much for showing courtesy to newcomers. Do you make fun of people when they stutter too? Nothing defines who you are more than the actions you take.

I doubt I'll bother to comment again, it seems pointless. You seem to always have all the answers, and rarely consider anyone else's thoughts. Ken Weaver must have the patience of a saint with the way you speak to him.

Since you keep sanctimoniously claiming Ken and others can't answer your question, let me show you how easy it really is:

"What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?"

The obvious answer to your loaded question is that we have a responsibility to protect our children from "danger" by preparing them for it. If there is "danger", and you DON'T teach children about it, that makes you both a fool and a bad parent.

Nick
Andover, MA

6:04 PM, January 12, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Keep searching. I am not sure which chapter it is, but it is in there.

A sleepy tail, yes it is.

8:08 PM, January 12, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Nick,

Andover, MA. That is on the other side of MA for me. I am in Springfield. How did you hear about my blog way out east??

You said:

"I'm shocked you would be petty enough to mock my mispelling of the word existence. So much for showing courtesy to newcomers."

Nick: I am terribly sorry that you interpreted my "" around the word exsistance that you used in your original comments to mean that I was making fun of your mispelling. I used the "" around the word to highlight what YOU said NOT to make fun of your mispelling. I did not even notice that you mispelled the word until I went back to your January 10th comments to try and understand what you meant by my "petty(ness)" ----> "" used to highlight what YOU said.

Nonetheless, please accept my appologies and welcome to Know Thy Facts. If anyone mispells words on this blog it is ME by a landslide ;)

You said in closing:

"The obvious answer to your loaded question..."

How is my question "loaded"??

You also said:

"...we have a responsibility to protect our children from "danger" by preparing them for it. If there is "danger", and you DON'T teach children about it, that makes you both a fool and a bad parent."

Like I said a few comments ago:

I agree with you that students need to understand that homosexuals exsist in our world BUT to teach them that homosexual behavior is O.K. to experiment with is NOT O.K.

A way to "protect our children from 'danger' by preparing them for it" when it comes to the beliefs and lifestyles of homosexuality is to teach our children how destructive on an emotional, cognitive, intellectual, physical and spiritual level the life choice of homosexuality is. So, yes, we DO need to protect our children from the dangerous lifestyles of homosexuality, but it is not responsible to teach them that it is O.K. to experiment with homosexuality. We do not "protect" our children by suggesting this.

We do not "protect" our children by teaching them that it is alright to take part in homosexuality. We do not "protect" our children by telling them they should not be ashamed if they have sexual feelings for their same-sex peers. We do not "protect" our children by handing out condoms during a "Day of Silence" seminar and tell them to have fun with their same-sex freinds, which was done in Brookline, MA in 2004 by the pro-homosexual school organization GLSEN.

Let's protect our children, not indoctrinate them with the 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' stamp of approval.

Thanks for stopping by Nick and again, I do appologize for the mix-up.

Scia

8:42 PM, January 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, there must be some mistake. There was absolutely no mention of studies that addressed other countries and the problems they’ve had since legalizing same sex marriage in the source: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting.

All their book did was dismiss the findings of other researchers on the issue of homosexual parenting. They asserted that the current studies that have found that homosexual parenting is not harmful to children are inconclusive because of many different problems in the studies i.e. not enough participants.

I also found that Robert Lerner has been accused by educational groups as biased due to his “past relationships with religious conservative groups.” His wife Althea Nagai is a partner in his quantitative-consulting business.

I also looked at the list of co-authors for this book; David Orgon Coolidge, William C. Duncan and Kristina Mirus. Mr. Coolidge was the founder and director of the Marriage Law Project, Mr. Duncan was Associate director of the Marriage Law Project and Ms. Mirus worked with the Marriage Law Project. The Marriage Law Project is a legal aid organization that on its web page claims "to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

This book was also published by The Marriage Law Project.

Not exactly an unbiased source.

What was your source for the info you provided “Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage…”

Ken Weaver

6:54 PM, January 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After doing some research on some of your other sources I came across the American Psychology Association website.

Here’s a few interesting tidbits I found.

1: …considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

2: Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

3: Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

4: Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem.

5: Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

6: Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out", has been found to be strongly related to psychological adjustment—the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.

7: Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality—whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity—information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.

All this info can be found at

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses

Susan Glombok (whom you mentioned in one of your sources Scia) wrote this on June 15, 2002. “Regardless of the geographical or demographic characteristics of the families studied, the findings of these early investigations were strikingly consistent. Children from lesbian mother families did not show a higher rate of psychological disorder or difficulties in peer relationships than their counterparts from heterosexual homes.”

She seems to have changed her stance from what you quoted her as saying in 1995.
Here is a link to this editorial written by Susan Golombok.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7351/1407

Ken Weaver

If the links don't work let me know, it's only too easy to get them to whoever wishes to confirm what I posted.

8:55 PM, January 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn’t surprise me that you said, “This “Hate Crime” law in legislation is a subversion of one’s First Amendment right to free speech. Plain and simple.” But it’s again sad that anyone actually believes this.

A hate crimes bill is very important to protecting gays, lesbians, and transgendered people from those who would injure them solely on that basis. How in the world could this be wrong? No one could LOGICALLY argue that it’s ok to physically harm someone just because of their sexual orientation. Here’s one vital part of that bill (from the HRC website):
“The act would allow federal authorities to become involved if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. In the hate crime on which the film Boys Don’t Cry was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as “it,” did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, those two men shot and stabbed Teena to death in front of two witnesses, Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were then also murdered. JoAnn Brandon, Teena’s mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest the men immediately after the rape. The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena’s death and characterized Laux’s behavior as “extreme and outrageous.” Had this federal hate crime law been in effect, federal authorities could have investigated and prosecuted the offenders when the local authorities refused to do so.”

The hate crimes subverting free speech is a myth. As you always say, cite your source: where’s the exact wording of this bill that would subvert your first amendment right to condemn gays (unfortunately that’s still intact).

And when you say things like the following quote, it only fuels the fire for people to physically harm and comdemn gays and lesbians. Your are being irresponsible. While you (hopefully) know better than to taunt or physically harm gays and lesbians, many will accept this harmful crap and think that it’s ok to beat up someone:
“A way to “protect our children from ‘danger’ by preparing them for it” when it comes to the beliefs and lifestyles of homosexuality is to teach our children how destructive on an emotional, cognitive, intellectual, physical and spiritual level the life choice of homosexuality is.” ... We do not “protect” our children by teaching them that it is alright to take part in homosexuality. We do not “protect” our children by telling them they should not be ashamed if they have sexual feelings for their same-sex peers.

This type of thinking is so much more dangerous than even your perceived “danger” of being gay. What’s more dangerous: two gay men who love each other and are productive members of society and a lesbian couple who are lovingly raising their children OR a bunch of bigotted drunk guys who have it in their heads (thanks to comments like yours) that it’s perfectly fine to go beat up on the gay couple as they leave the bar.

-Gary

9:56 AM, January 14, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I will find you the source for:

"Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family."

Sorry you are having so much trouble. Give me a day or two and I will provide you the citation.

1:17 PM, January 14, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Why do homosexual males and females believe they are deserving of special protections over and above anyone else? This is really confusing to me.

We already have laws on the books that deal with assault. \

When I was a very young boy I was fat. A gang of kids came along and felt like it was alright to taunt me about it. They had it in their minds that they were going to beat me up just because I was fat. Didn't matter that I agreed with them and did everything I could to prevent it except run. I still took a beating.

Should there be special laws to make it a worse crime to beat up fat people?

My son took a daily ragging from kids and a bus driver about the size of his ears. People would snap them with their fingers. The driver nick-named him Dumbo. This was devastating to him.

Should there be special laws to make it a worse action to make fun of and snap the ears of a person with big ears?

Who determines hate or intention? The thought police?

People get beat up and even killed for all manner of reasons. So it's a hate crime if an American of African descent gets beat up by a white person but it's not a hate crime for the reverse? Or it's a worse crime for a homosexual to take a thumping than it is for a heterosexual?

Do you see how ridiculous this is? WE HAVE LAWS already on the books that address assault on a person. ANY PERSON! Just because someone chooses to particpate in a homosexual lifestyle does not make them any more privileged than any other citizen. Same goes for race or fat people or big eared people or people with freckles or ugly people or little people or geeky people or what have you. We are all expecting a reasonable sense of safety. Hate Crimes legislation is wrong unless it includes EVERYONE not just a group of people seeking special status or privilege.

7:50 PM, January 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should we remove the hate crimes legislation on matters of religion? Should a kid who paints a Jewish Synagogue with swastikas and “kill all kikes” get off with just a graffiti charge? What if it’s a predominantly black membership church and a kid spays it with statements like “all ni--ers should die” and then he breaks all the windows, should a vandalism charge be all he should get?

Ken Weaver

8:06 PM, January 16, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Ken, the answer to that is that we have laws on the books already that address these issues. We already know that there are some that act from real bonafide hate, but many, many are idiotic or idiotic and misguided people that may write something just for the thrill or sadistic joke As much as you may disagree these people will then have a record and repeated offenses and offenders are judged accordingly. This is how our system works.

The problem here is that people are to caught up in what they perceive their "rights" are instead of realizing that it is freedom that we enjoy. Now, think that through and you'll understand what I am trying to communicate. I realize we have "rights." It just goes further than that.

The danger is that as soon as you start cherry-picking certain groups and bestow special privileges and protections then they are placed in a moew advantageous staus than anyone else. That's not right and it does go against our founders intent.

Ken, I understand what you are saying and I may even be a tiny bit in agreement with your sentiment. The greater good for ALL is what needs to be tantamount.

We will never have a perfect system. You know that, Ken. By enacting ill thought out legislation we are ALL in danger of enacting a 'police state' mentality. THEN we ALL lose not only our rights but our freedom.

7:36 AM, January 19, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Well, I didn't specifically answer your question(s).

YES, we should remove ALL hate crimes legislation. We can add harsher penalties to our existing laws. We do not need to enact laws that give some more protection or status than others.

We should NEVER place special rights or protection or status on a group or groups of people that set them aside with, seemingly more rights, freedoms or protection under the law.

You can see what is unfolding now because our state has given a special status to homosexuals. Now the Legislature wants to pass special protections and rights for people claiming to be Transgender. The slippery slope is upon us and the homosexual leadership is first on the slide.

7:45 AM, January 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so that means that child preditors who prey on children under 14 won't get a larger penalty, and those who prey on the elderly won't get special attention. After all, that would be giving an unequal advantage to them, right omd?

12:41 PM, January 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry OMD but I must respectfully disagree.

It is intrinsic to our society to make sure everyone understands that if you are going to act or speak with a belief that others are not as “good” as you or your group, the rest of us will come together and shut you down. We must act with a vengeance against those who seek to demean our brothers and sisters. We must act in a combined effort to ensure freedom and equality to all Americans. If a person or group is brazen enough to target a person based on their race, sex, orientation, religion as a society don’t we have an obligation… a moral duty… to stand up and with one united voice tell everyone we will not tolerate that kind of injustice? You call it special rights; I call it ensuring rights.

OMD, you call yourself a Christian, as I’m no Christian I am in no place to judge; but it seems to me that your cry against the homosexual community is based in your belief in the immorality of the homosexual act. Are you a moral person? By my standards of morality I must say no. The homosexual “behavior” that you call immoral creates no victim, yet by your words you are victimizing them. They are your victims, when you are not theirs. What have they done to you? Why are they worthy of your disdain? As you drive through your city, have you ever seen a drug dealer? That drug dealer will have a much greater direct affect on you than the homosexual community. Do you confront that drug dealer and tell him that his behavior is immoral? If you see a bank being robbed would you confront that bank robber and tell him his behavior is immoral? I doubt you would in either instance and for good reason; bank robbers and drug dealers are known to not back down, they’re willing to fight, they’re also known to carry guns.

Ken Weaver

12:49 AM, January 20, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

In response to anonymous -

In this country, never mind the rest of the world, we murder little children by the millions. So, with much respect for your opinion, please do not talk to me about preditors.

10:28 PM, January 20, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

Whether I'm a Christian or not is irrelevant.

I thought we were talking about hate crime legislation, not about whether you think I'm immoral. So I'm ignoring the 2nd half of your comments.

Regarding the 1st half of your comments; We already do this with laws that have been long established. For some reason you think that certain groupings of people should have special status and special rights and/or freedoms that the rest of us are not entitled to.

10:38 PM, January 20, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“In this country, never mind the rest of the world, we murder little children by the millions.”

1.4 million In 2007. We haven’t had that few abortions in a year since the 70’s.

“I thought we were talking about hate crime legislation, not about whether you think I'm immoral.”

How many times have we been discussing marriage equality and you bring up the “immorality” of the homosexual act?

“For some reason you think that certain groupings of people should have special status and special rights and/or freedoms that the rest of us are not entitled to.”

They’re not given special rights or status, hate crime legislation makes it harder on those that attack homosexuals based on that label. It’s been primarily white people that attack Jew/blacks/homosexuals based solely on the labels they’ve been given. The KKK is a group of white protestant Christians that are well known to attack those with the labels I’ve mentioned plus a few others based solely because of those labels. Hate crime legislation does not grant extra rights to Jews/blacks/homosexuals, it grants a harsher penalty to those that attack them.

Are you jealous? Do you think people with weight problems or big ears should be protected too? Well don’t tell me about it, start a petition for it. I really don’t see how it’s such a big deal though, a few extra protections for the least among us, I thought Jesus would appreciate that?

Ken Weaver

6:29 AM, January 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Parker could have taken his children to another school if he didn't like what is being taught in the one they're in. He got arrested for disobeying a police officer. What's so glorious about that?

Marcus

10:13 AM, January 21, 2008  
Anonymous omd said...

1.4 million murdered babies is 2007!! And you justify it because it's a lower number, Ken???? They were murdered! They had no say. They couldn't even protect themselves! BUT we overlook that and give special protection to the murderers and their accomplices.

The KKK are not and were never Christians. Christians are those that have surrendered their lives to Jesus. The number of real Christians is much lower than is quoted. Not everyone that says they are a Christian or say they believe in God actually really believe that Jesus is who He says He is and follow Him.

One of the problems with hate crime legislation is... who is the determiner of hate? You mistakenly assume that if a homosexual or anyone other than a Caucasian takes a thumping it is hate based. Who determines hate? What about a Caucasian that takes a thumping from someone from a protected grouping? Is that then considered hate? What about black on black or homosexual on homosexual or Latino on Latino crime et. al., is that considered hate?

"I really don’t see how it’s such a big deal though, a few extra protections for the least among us"

Hmmm, it's pretty obvious you do not see those folks as equal to you, or should I say Caucasions? There are plenty of disadvantaged white people all over this country.

Ken, the answer for violent crime (physical or mental) is to enforce the laws we have THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE. If you want the penalty to be stiffer... fine BUT EQUAL for ALL. No special groupings.

10:33 PM, January 22, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not everyone that says they are a Christian or say they believe in God actually really believe that Jesus is who He says He is and follow Him."

I couldn't agree more with this statement. ;-)

btw, hate crimes legislation is necessary. Just one reason is that people's prejudices often play into how a crime is treated. In the case of Brandon Teena, the local authorities did not treat it with the seriousness that it should've been and it resulted in death. If nothing else, such legislation shows that there would be some oversight at such times. These are not special rights. If nothing else, it allows people to feel more assured that if such a crime occurs, it will be handled appropriately. If laws were made tougher, that doesn't address the problem of whether or not the local authorities would enforce those laws, does it?

How can you argue against laws that in the end make victims know that they don't have to live in fear or if something happens, knowing that the criminal would be appropriately prosecuted?

-Gary

7:08 AM, January 23, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“1.4 million murdered babies is 2007!! And you justify it because it's a lower number, Ken????”

I don’t justify it; I say it’s a step in the right direction. Abortion is a necessary evil in our society, get over it.

“They had no say. They couldn't even protect themselves! BUT we overlook that and give special protection to the murderers and their accomplices.”

The Native Americans couldn’t protect themselves from the pilgrims yet we overlooked that?

“The KKK are not and were never Christians.”

Have you ever been to one of their meetings? Did you know that they start and end every meeting with a prayer invoking the name of Christ? Did you know the KKK believe it is their god given duty to punish the Jews for killing Christ? They believe Christ is the only way to god. They believe Christ died for their sins? I would say they are DEFINITELY Christian.

“Not everyone that says they are a Christian or say they believe in God actually really believe that Jesus is who He says He is and follow Him.”

What a convenient excuse! If a Christian does something bad, you can just say he wasn’t a real Christian; how convenient for you. I guess I could use it too, just watch; Pol Pot wasn’t really an atheist, he was just using that moniker to gain popularity with the atheists. He was really a Scientologist. Wow!! That works really well.

“One of the problems with hate crime legislation is... who is the determiner of hate?”

It’s generally not too hard to figure that out. But if we’re not sure innocence before guilt!

“You mistakenly assume that if a homosexual or anyone other than a Caucasian takes a thumping it is hate based.”

No I don’t.

“What about a Caucasian that takes a thumping from someone from a protected grouping? Is that then considered hate?”

It could be but I would need more to go on.

“What about black on black or homosexual on homosexual or Latino on Latino crime et. al., is that considered hate?”

It could be.

“Hmmm, it's pretty obvious you do not see those folks as equal to you, or should I say Caucasions?”

What do you think I am? I’m a white 38 year old male heterosexual American.

“Ken, the answer for violent crime (physical or mental) is to enforce the laws we have THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE.”

A kid who gets caught spray painting “death to all n***ers and kikes” gets a $100 fine and a few hours of community service for defacing private property; do you really think that punishment fits the crime? Do you honestly believe that kid is going to get the message? Is that kid going to understand that we don’t tolerate bigotry? If you take away the hate crime legislation it will do nothing to solve the problem. Maybe hate crime bills take things a little too far and doesn’t outline the parameters for hate but at least it is identifying a problem and trying to address it, if you’ve got a better idea other than doing nothing speak up, otherwise your lack of idea amounts to crap.

Ken Weaver

7:44 PM, January 23, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Omd, before you start saying let’s make all of those defacing crimes and vandalism crimes the same here’s a story for you.

Across the street from me there was a kid named Odie (I know, weird name but his parents were from Minnesota.) Anyway he was riding his bike out in front of his house on the street when another neighbor came driving down the street in his new Camaro. He was driving way too fast and nearly hit Odie. He got out of his car and yelled at Odie for being in the street. From that time on Odie hated this neighbor. One day when Odie was leaving for school he decided to key the new Camaro. Was it wrong; yes, should Odie have been punished; yes, but 5 years in a detention center for juveniles would be way too excessive for what he did, especially when you compare that to breaking windows and hanging a noose in front of a predominantly black church.

Ken Weaver

8:36 PM, January 23, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Hello all,

I will be responding to all questions or comments tonight, Saturday, January 26th.

It has been a little busy with work and all.

Talk with you all very soon.


P.S. Ken: I have not forgotten your original post concerning the APA's fallacious "facts" about homosexuality.

Scia

8:50 AM, January 26, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

“…considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.”

We have been down this rode before. There is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to PROVE that homosexuality is genetically based or that it is NOT. A “significant role” does not cut it because I as well can find you a SLEW of studies that can neutralize your position in an instant.

Sorry Ken, the study of the cause of homosexuality is too new and has not proven any side of the story as “conclusive”.

You go on to sound narrow minded and brainwashed by the APA by saying:

“The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.”

The main problem with the APA is that they think they are CONCLUSIVE. MANY, many other psychologists and scientists have provided contradicting study conclusions to strongly point out that, again, the study of homosexuality is too new to come to ANY conclusions. Go to http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html for more info. Go to “Yet Another Study to Discredit the Spitzer Study Fails” under “what do clinical studies say” icon to see some very strong points that homosexuality IS changeable and DOES require treatment. Also follow this link (http://www.citizenlink.org/citizenMag/A000006026.cfm) to find out the most recent outcomes of the “Exodus” study that says some homosexuals CAN change.


You go on to say:

“Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?”

This question, and its conclusive OPINION that this class of people can be good “parents”, comes from the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) 2002 report that is flawed and inconclusive. The report itself cautioned that "the small and non-representative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve," and that "research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning." (Ellen C Perrin, MD, “Technical Report: Co-parent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, Vol 109 no.2, (2002). Thus, the report's conclusion that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual," contradicts the fact that the authors of the study acknowledge the newness of the research.

The report concludes that the same-sex “families” closely resemble step-families formed after heterosexual couples divorce. Strong empirical evidence exists that suggests that children fare better with a single biological parent than in a step-family. Thus, if children raised in same-sex homes resemble children raised in step and divorced families as the AAP Technical Report concludes, there is very little research to indicate that same sex parenting is healthy for children. This “conclusion” also is contrary to their own mission of "attaining physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults" (As stated on the masthead of American Academy of Pediatrics’ website, http://www.aap.org/).

You finish off by saying:

“Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality—whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.”

What is this “accurate” information, Ken, and do “young people” believe that they are homosexual if they think they have “feelings” for someone of the same-sex especially when they are TAUGHT this by an authoritative teacher figure? Is the “it’s O.K. to be gay” statement all the “accurate” information that all “young people” should be subjected to Ken or should we balance out health class with a lesson on the dangers of homosexuality as well to give all the “accurate” information, such that CHILDREN can make up their own minds? Why is it important to teach children what their sexual desires are under the school bell? Is it because MA thinks same-sex “marriage” is legal and they have the responsibility to engage in a social experiment because they THINK their homosexual curriculum is justified in the law books?

By the way, have you answered my original question?:

“What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?”

9:33 PM, January 26, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Marcus,

How was Mr. Parker disobeying a police officer?

9:41 PM, January 26, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Scia, you give me way too much credit. You responded with statements like “I said” and “I wrote” when all I did was leave information. You don’t want to believe the APA? That’s fine. But the APA deals with all aspects of a human mind while NARTH is an exclusively anti-homosexual organization. NARTH has devoted itself entirely to not so much studying the homosexual mind but to “debunk” any theory/research/studies that conclude homosexuality as anything but immoral. Ever since the APA removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric problems it has been targeted by groups like NARTH, Focus on the Family and the like. The APA has been called “pro-gay”, “anti-traditional marriage”, and “purveyors of the homosexual agenda”. It’s funny how an organization can go from being a respectable source for information by everyone and when studies point to the theory that homosexuality is not a sign of mental illness all these little groups demonize them. To be honest I didn’t put up the APA as the be all end all decision of marriage equality. I put it up to show that for every study you promote as “proof” that marriage equality is bad for kids/America/marriage/etc. there is another showing the exact opposite. The problem is that the studies that show marriage equality as not bad for kids/America/marriage/etc. were performed by mainly neutral groups while the studies that show the opposite come from groups with an agenda of their own i.e. NARTH.

I’m not so much pro-marriage equality as I’m pro freedom. As pro-freedom I am against any group or organization that wishes to limit freedoms based on tradition or religion or culture. I believe that every person should have the freedom to choose their own partner for marriage and that others that don’t like their choice in partners should have the freedom to not choose a similar partner. Live your life as you wish, but leave others to live life as they see fit.

Since I still don’t know what you feel should be taught in schools I’m going to find it difficult to answer your question “What are the benefits to teaching CHILDREN about the dangerous behaviors of homosexuality?” but I’ll try anyway.

Children should know about the “dangerous” behaviors of homosexuality because kids need information to make educated decisions about sexuality. If a child sees the aspects of homosexuality as less than appealing they just won’t embrace it. If kids are curious they’ll explore their own sexuality to see if it is attractive. If not they’ll move on. I think parents should be the primary information about sex to their own kids, but too many parents are embarrassed by the subject or are only too willing to give out false information in the hopes of avoiding a calamity. So society has been forced to pick up the slack. And really what are the benefits of not teaching kids about homosexuality? Don’t tell me you disagree with the APA and believe teaching kids about homosexuality will make them homosexual.

http://midwestteensexshow.com/

I found this to be a great source of info for kids, although I will admit their episode on syphilis is quite vague.

Ken Weaver

4:00 PM, January 27, 2008  
Anonymous Marcus said...

Parker was arrested for trespassing when he was asked to leave and refused. The police were summoned and he still refused to leave, even when instructed by police. That's how he was arrested for disobeying a police officer.

"The meeting ended with Parker's arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail.

Yesterday, Parker was arraigned in Concord District Court on one count of trespassing..."


Parker in the Globe

10:15 AM, January 28, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Marcus,

I know Mr. Parker's story VERY well as I have heard him speak in Purto Rico and provided security for him there as I am a diplomatic securtiy agent out of Springfield, MA.

Do you think that Mr. Parker should of been arrested for trespassing when all he wanted to do was talk with Superintendent Paul Ash of Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, MA? Trespassing? Why should someone be arrested for trespassing when all they want is for the superintendent to ANSWER a question? Should ALL parents be subjected to the same outcome just because they will not leave an office until a question is asked?

How ridiculous sounding is that??

11:32 AM, January 31, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I'm glad I didn't miss this one.

Scia, if you are a guest somewhere and through your rudeness are asked to leave, what right have you to stay? The school addministration told this man to leave, and they have that right.

Yes, I would expect anyone who does not follow the law to be arrested for it. Parker had other avenues he could have followed, but he chose to disobey the police too. That is what a criminal does, not a responsible parent.

By the way, if you were in "Purto" Rico with Parker you have now outed yourself as a member of MassResistance. Were you standing next to the translator they made fun of because of his weight? Nice group of people to be friends with, they even make fun of people trying to help them.

10:07 AM, March 02, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com