Connect with us

Culture

The uncensored truth about homosexual adoption

Bryan Fischer

Published

on

The only state in the Union which cares enough about innocent, vulnerable young children to prohibit their adoption into same-sex households is Mississippi. And now advocates for special rights for homosexuals are going to court to force the state to put kids into gay and lesbian households.

The sad reality is that if the gay lobby is successful in this suit, they will force the state of Mississippi to engage in a pattern of state-sponsored and legalized child abuse.

Marriage is ultimately not about giving adults what they want. It is about giving children what they need. Children need and deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father who are married to each other.

No society that cares about its most helpless and defenseless citizens would ever deliberately place children in a home with a missing mother or father, but that is what every homosexual adoption does.

Robert Oscar Lopez, who was raised by two lesbians, has written forcefully that same-sex parenting has so many downsides that it is a form of child abuse (emphasis mine throughout):

“I am not saying that same-sex parents are automatically guilty of any kind of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse to the children they raise. Nor am I saying that LGBT people are less likely to take good care of children.

“What I mean is this: Even the most heroic mother in the world can’t father. So to intentionally deprive any child of her mother or father, except in cases like divorce for grave reasons or the death of a parent, is itself a form of abuse.”

Eminent social science researcher Dr. Mark Regnerus conducted the most thorough study of same-sex parenting ever done by interviewing adults who had been raised in same-sex environments.

His study is summarized in this way: [“T]he data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council tabulates the findings as follows:

Compared to children raised by their married biological parents (“intact biological family,” or IBF), children of homosexual parents (“lesbian mothers,” or LM, and “gay fathers,” or GF):

■ Are much more likely to have received welfare growing up (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
■ Have lower educational attainment (IBF 3.19; LM 2.39; GF 2.64)
■ Report less safety and security in their family of origin (IBF 4.13; LM 3.12; GF 3.25)
■ Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin (IBF 2.30; LM 3.13; GF 2.90)
■ Are more likely to suffer from depression (IBF 1.83; LM 2.20; 2.18)
■ Have been arrested more often (IBF 1.18; LM 1.68; GF 1.75)
■ If they are female, have had more sexual partners-both male (IBF 2.79; LM 4.02; GF 5.92) and female (IBF 0.22; LM 1.04; GF 1.47)
Compared to children from intact biological families (IBF), children of lesbian mothers:
■ Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (IBF 9%; LM 24%)
■ Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance (IBF 10%; LM 38%)
■ Are barely half as likely to be currently employed full-time (IBF 49%; LM 26%)
■ Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed (IBF 8%; LM 28%)
■ Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)
■ Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting (IBF 13%; LM 40%)
■ Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent; IBF 2%; LM 23%)
■ Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood; IBF 8%; LM 31%)
■ Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others (IBF 2.82; LM 3.43)
■ Use marijuana more frequently (IBF 1.32; LM 1.84)
■ Smoke more frequently (IBF 1.79; LM 2.76)
■ Watch TV for long periods more frequently (IBF 3.01; LM 3.70)
■ Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense (IBF 1.10; LM 1.36)
Spring points out that a careful examination of Regnerus’ findings reveal that children of lesbian mothers fare signficiantly worse in 57 different categories than children raised by a mom and a dad.
Here’s the significance Lopez sees in these findings:

“Like divorce and single parenting, same-sex parenting isn’t merely controversial or untested; we know that children have poorer life outcomes when they are raised outside a married biological-parent household. The data we have, thanks to the work of scholars like Regnerus, make it all the more clear that it’s abusive to force children to live without a mother or father simply to satisfy adult desires.”

Lopez concludes his piece as follows:

“I don’t have a silver bullet tactic for suddenly making low-information Americans aware that all the same-sex parenting propaganda—and more broadly our growing acceptance of non-traditional parenting—is really a cover for systematic abuse. My hunch, however, is that it might be time simply to drop all the masks, put away our strategies, and just state the uncensored truth.”

The homosexual activists challenging Mississippi’s ban on same-sex adoption are arguing that it “discriminates.” Of course it does – it “discriminates” against suboptimal nurturing environments for vulnerable young children.

The state is prepared to take children away from heterosexual parents who abuse their children. Is that discrimination? Of course it is. Is it the right kind of discrimination? Of course it is.

There is a bad kind of discrimination, which is based on superficial characteristics like skin color. But there is a good kind of “discrimination,” which is nothing more wisdom and discernment based on moral principle and the best in research. A ban on same-sex adoption is based on what is best for children by rejecting what we know to be substandard home environments.

Bottom line: reserving adoption for a husband and a wife who are married to each other is the best kind of “discrimination” there is.

Bryan Fischer is a senior columnist for Cowger Nation, and the radio host of Focal Point, where he provides expertise on a wide range of public policy topics.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Culture

THE MOST STUPID THING IN SPORTS/ATHLETICS TODAY: Transgender-women vs. actual women.

Jimmy Zulz

Published

on

I think that women are starting to react and push back a bit. Finally. This is easily the most stupid thing in sports, and it boggles my mind that the people running these events haven’t put a stop to it already. And that thing is: transgender women are competing with God-made women.

I will guarantee you that there are going to be some male athletes (not all and probably not most), who are unable to compete and win in male competition, so they think hey, this is a great way to be more successful in (fill in the blank).  So, they go through the surgeries and whatever is necessary to compete as a woman and… voila! Now, they are up at the top in competition.

I heard a possibly transitioning-man on sports talk radio (I’m sorry they’re even talking about this) call in and he said, “If the man is going to go through the hardship and painful surgery to become a woman, women in that sport are just going to have to suck it up and realize she’s every bit as much a woman as they all are.”

And that’s the problem: he-now-she is much more than the God-made women in that sport, so he-now-she has an enormous advantage. Strength and ability will likely be more than most women can compete with. It’s absolute bull-crap.

The fact that some women athletes are speaking up is why they were talking about it on the radio. At some point, these God-made women are going to have to DEMAND that trans-she-males will have to have their own division, because putting men in competition with women is flat out unfair. I can’t imagine why this wasn’t done immediately.

Continue Reading

Culture

MAKING KIDS GAY? Disney to begin indoctrinating and exposing children to homosexuality.

Caiden Cowger

Published

on

Tonight, Disney Channel is airing an episode of Andi Mack, featuring its “first gay coming-out story.” This episode will mark the primer of the show’s second season, and is directed at children ages 10 and up.

Andi’s friend Cyrus Goodman (played by Joshua Rush) will begin his coming-out journey as a homosexual. Disney is using a 15-year-old boy, Joshua Rush, as an instrument to promote the homosexual lifestyle, while also exposing Rush to homosexual behavior in the process. Disney Channel is actively participating in the corruption of a minor.

It is expected that this plot-line could potentially lead to underage, teenage boys participating in same-sex kissing. This perversion will broadcast to millions of teenagers and children across America, exposing them to homosexual behavior. Such programming can cause confusion in minors, leading them to question their sexual preference, starting at the young age of just 10 years old.

“‘Andi Mack’ is a story about ‘tweens’ figuring out who they are,” Disney Channel expressed in a statement earlier this week. “Everyone involved in the show takes great care in ensuring that it’s appropriate for all audiences and sends a powerful message about inclusion and respect for humanity.”

The story line also gained praise from the GLAAD LGBT advocacy organization.

“With more and more young people coming out as LGBTQ, Andi Mack is reflecting the lives and lived experiences of so many LGBTQ youth around the country,” the organization’s president and CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, released in a statement. “Television reflects the real life world and today that includes LGBTQ youth who deserve to see their lives depicted on their favorite shows. Disney has been a leader in LGBTQ inclusion and there are so many young people who will be excited to see Cyrus’ story unfold.”

The first episode airs October 27, 2017, at 8:00p | ET.

Continue Reading

Culture

THE CO-ED SCOUTS OF AMERICA

George Lujack

Published

on

On October 11, 2017, the Boy Scouts of America’s board of directors unanimously agreed to allow girls to join the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, giving girls the opportunity to earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout.

“I’m saying that the Boy Scouts have a standard. You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.”

“Where is that written though?”

“In the name, ‘Boy’ Scouts.”
– Ben Shapiro

Not anymore, Ben. This is 2017 and this is the new progressive Boy Scouts of America, who announced that they will begin to allow girls to join their ranks.

What Ben Shapiro said however, is nonetheless true, “You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.” If the ‘Boy’ Scouts do not change the name of their organization to “The Scouts,” or something similar, the organization will be taking a stand in the cultural war on the side of liberal progressives over the issue of gender neutrality. Any girl who states, “I am a ‘Boy’ Scout,” will be unwittingly stating that she is a boy, even if she is a genuine scout, the type of girl who likes the scouting activities that the Boy Scouts provide and are involved in.

Although the Boy Scouts’ board of directors voted to allow girls to join their ranks, they were within their First Amendment Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association to deny them entry.

The Girl Scouts of America could wind up being a casualty of the Boy Scouts’ decision to recruit girls into their membership rolls. Back in August, the head of the Girl Scouts accused the Boy Scouts organization of a “covert campaign to recruit girls,” as a way to boost declining membership. If girls across America decide to join the Boy Scouts, en masse, it could mean the end of the Girl Scouts as a viable organization.

Other than the issue of a girl calling herself a “‘Boy’ Scout,” conservatives should not be overly concerned with co-ed scouting. Boys and girls have enjoyed a long history of sharing summer camp activities together in America, without becoming gender neutral. Boys will still be boys and girls will still be girls (most of the time).

“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls it’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world…”
– The Kinks, “Lola

However, the gender-neutral minded cultural elites would like to redefine the gender roles of boys and girls in society and confuse the gender identity of boys and girls, when possible, which is the real issue that is rightfully alarming to most Americans. Progressives have long sought to corrupt and neuter the Boy Scouts through social engineering, as they have likewise done in other institutions, and have now succeeded in doing so.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Most Popular