A verbis ad verbera
Posted on 06/28/2009 9:38:41 AM PDT by freed0misntfree
CNN -- Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers' right to marry.
Levey is part of the "gayby boom" generation. The 29-year-old management consultant is the son of a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through artificial insemination. He's their only child.
Critics of same-sex marriage say people such as Levey will grow up shunned and sexually confused. Yet he says he's a "well-adjusted heterosexual" whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family.
"You can imagine what my parents thought when I was 13 and listening to Rush Limbaugh everyday," Levey says. "But my family had strong family values. I was raised in a loving, caring household that let me be a free thinker."
The modern gay rights movement began 40 years ago June 28 during the Stonewall Riots in New York City. While much of the controversy surrounding gay rights today has centered on same-sex marriage, a battle is brewing over another family issue: Is it bad for children to be raised by gay or lesbian parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Are the going to form a new group? COP? Children of Perverts........
Cheney also believes this.
shame these folks are letting personal prejudice cloud empirical judgement
Little Boy Blue Devil. This story should create the alternate 'Matthew Shephard'.
WEll, I’m having a good morning just before the Brazil US Finals but the “cliche” piece was insulting. CNN had to “miraculously” produce a GOP-leaning, straight child out of nowhere to attract both sides for the story. They must’ve hunted high and low to find one who listens to Rush.
Well, Levy is certainly a sample of one. I’d be more interested in seeing a summary of a statistically significant sample from this “Gayby” group. Methinks the larger population are not self proclaimed Cheney Republican conservatives.
I hope they did not choose their sperm donor using any racial criteria, if so I want them charged with a hateful crime.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
The exception being held out as the rule. No agenda there, nope.
History tells us that sexual preference can be rather fluid, and is molded by societal norms, or the lack of them. These activist types, and yes I think this guy is just that, want to delude the public into disbelieving what has been known for thousands of years. Remove the taboo, and you get just what the Bible describes of many ancient societies, along with the disease and dysfunction that attend such a breakdown. That’s why a loving God forbids it.
Mankind never learns, it appears.
Tell it to the 5 year old adopted son of the Duke University freak who raped and offered his son to fellow perverts.
Notably, the University that shunned and harassed the innocent lacrosse players has not spoken out on this.
One way to bring down the postmodern GOP is to populate it with liberals like this one, as well as with others like Meghan McCain. Just one of many fronts on which the war on America is being fought.
“....Yet he says he’s a “well-adjusted heterosexual” whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family.”
Bullshit! He’s Leftist feminized, doesn’t know it, weak of character (NO, being feminized doesn’t constitute “weak of character, what constitutes “weak of character” in this particular application is the lifelong indoctrination to Leftist feminism, which is the course the gay “Parents” set off with in the first place. To promote their own agenda.
These sorts need not be given any credence whatsoever. They are unfortunate and brainwashed freaks.
I believe in imprinting. The roles and emotions — the subtext — are imprinted on the child. The child may eventually disagree with the imprinted material but there is an emotional connection or attachment. It is hard to intellectually fight what is imprinted on you because it becomes part of your emotional makeup or default position. You can be a soul divided because of this tension. I’m no psychologist but I believe first impressions like this are extremely important, and they affect you throughout life for good or bad.
That’s for sure - this definitely screams “exception” and not “rule”.
actually, I’m going to have to disagree with most other posters here.
I am against gay marriage....not because I think its amoral...I don’t care either way, really....but only because most gays are liberal, and they pushed the corrupt, piece of trash Usurper down our throats, and the Usurper is steadfastly against gay marriage, and then they turn around and protest bans on gay marriage, so the hypocrisy is mind boggling. So I protest the hypocrites.
However, in terms of parenting.....I know lots of very level minded and good gay people. And if you’re going to talk about unfit parents...um....you do need to bring into the discussion the MILLIONS of WACKO STRAIGHT parents in this world who have no business whatsoever bringing children into the world. You know the ones....irresponsible, lazy, no jobs, anger issues, drug and alcohol abusers.....
If a gay couple is loving, and responsible, I would say they are a much better choice than a 16 yo unwed mother with no job, on welfare, with an unknown father. with all the orphaned children in the world, what is wrong with a responsible loving gay couple raising them?
A "Republican activist" perverting morality, family values and conservative virtues. I ain't buying this load of garbage.
I’m always a little skeptical when a state run media piece begins by telling us someone is a “Republican.” Most liberal DemocRATS say that they are “Republicans” these days when they are talking to the media. I’m not saying this guy isn’t a Republican. I was just pointing out a trend I’ve been noticing over the past 2 or 3 years.
Going out on a limb rather early in your tenure, I see.
'Duke University official accused of offering son, 5, for sex'
Friday, June 26, 2009 7:57:24 PM · 155 of 174
2nd amendment mama to Republic.
This Duke Univ official was a homosexual man who lived with another homosexual man and they were ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN...he got his little African American as an INFANT, and a FIVE YRS of age was molesting him ON VIDEO over the internet and invited others to his home or hotels to have their way with this little fellow, too....make ya sick? IT MAKES ME SICK THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALLOWED TO ADOPT.
So I understand your point. You are saying that we should accept a perversion of morality and natural order as a normal lifestyle choice based on the deviant exceptions of the normal rule and the seemingly normal exceptions of the deviant rule?
I don’t personally know any gay male couples who have children, but I know 3 lesbian couples who do. In all 3 families, one of the women stayed home full time to care for the child at least until the child was old enough for for full-day school. That’s a lot better percentage than the hundreds of heterosexual couples I know who are raising children. I think it’s mainly because gay couples don’t have children unless they’re really, thoroughly committed to centering their lives around raising them, while a lot of heterosexual couples have children just because most everybody does it, or they always assumed they would, etc. Sort of like how most high school graduates go to college, whether they really have any serious interest in higher education or not, and many end up focusing on partying during the years they are calling themselves “college students”. Just seems like having children is much less of a huge life decision for most heterosexual couples.
But that sort of criminal-sociopathic behavior is hardly unique to gay parents. Remember that woman in Maine just a couple of weeks ago who was caught running live webcasts of herself sexually assaulting her preschool-aged children (and she had 4, from 18 months to 5 years). There are actually quite a lot of heterosexual parents using their children to make money via porn and/or prostitution — many seem to be doing it to support a drug habit.
You’re presuming the exception to prove the rule, again.
Lesbians have a much higher incidence of domestic violence, committing and being victim of crime in general, and substance abuse than women as a whole, statistically speaking.
Why do you have so many homosexual couples in your acquaintance, by the way? Hoping to convert them or something, lol?
Percentage wise, a homoosexual male is something like 70% more likely to molest a little boy or underage boy. WHY? I think because most homosexuals have themselves been molested as children.
You cite moral failing to rationalize acceptance of moral failing.
Illogical.
Don’t let flamers chase you off FR. You’re not alone in thinking the government shouldn’t be running a giant religious-conservative social engineering program, any more than it should be running a giant atheist-leftist social engineering program. Government should be facilitating the free choices of responsible, non-criminal, economically self-sufficient citizens.
As for gay marriage, what we really need is to get government out of marriage altogether. The idea of government regulating and licensing people’s family arrangements should be abhorrent to anyone who values freedom. Government regulation of marriage has an ugly history, including barring marriages (and in former times, simultaneously making sexual relations illegal) in conflict with people’s ethical and/or religious beliefs — the miscegenation laws, and the federal military intervention to stop the 19th century Mormons from practicing polygamy, are two key examples. Another was the state of Ohio refusing to recognize marriages performed by Mormon clergy *before* the practice of polygamy had been introduced, on the grounds that the Mormon religion was not a “legitimate” religion.
Considering that I know hundreds of heterosexual families who are raising children, and only 3 homosexual families, that’s hardly statistically unexpected. I don’t think there’s any objective evidence to support your claim that lesbians have a higher incidence or domestic violence, substance abuse, or being victims or perpetrators of crime than the general population. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly male-in-female, and violence in general is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.
“So I understand your point. You are saying that we should accept a perversion of morality and natural order as a normal lifestyle choice based on the deviant exceptions of the normal rule and the seemingly normal exceptions of the deviant rule?”
_______________________________
So.....that STRAIGHT father who bit out and ate his little son’s eyeball..... that is not considered a “perversion of morality” or “deviant” to you..... and does that man have any right being a father, and would that child not be better off being raised by a gay couple, who are responsible, loving, working full time?
What I am saying is.... you can’t possibly say that every heterosexual couple is not deviant or perverted as well, and in some cases, more so. Just because you are straight, doesn’t mean that you are moral.
the question is....what is best for children.... a moral gay couple, or an immoral straight couple? And don’t try to say that “moral gay couple” is an oxymoron..... there are lots of good gay people out there.
Same-sex cohabitants report significantly more intimate partner violence than do opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
Today, Levey sees his parents’ choice not as an expression of rebellion, but as a desire for something that’s actually a conservative virtue — a loving family.
Charles Manson put together a loving family too.
I suspect that’s a reporting difference, not an occurrence difference. Very few lesbians would choose not to report such an incident, whereas a lot of wives and live-in girlfriends of male partners accept domestic violence and let it continue as regular feature of the relationship. Most lesbians are steeped in feminist philosophy, which is very heavy on the unacceptability of domestic violence or any violence. Also, a lesbian is less likely to be financially dependent on her partner, or to have children that she can’t afford to support alone. Many heterosexual women allow domestic violence against them to continue because they don’t know how they would support themselves or their children alone (and their violent partners often encourage this line of thinking).
BTW, I can’t figure out what on earth “stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner” means. How can you be stalked by somebody you’re living with?
You're certain steeped in the worldview. Have you considered that reporting such a thing would reveal their sexual preference?
Your suspicions do not come close to negating statistical evidence, as much as you might like that to be so.
And, as far as your bizarre inability to figure out how a live-in or spouse can stalk, you're being deliberately obtuse. What is being followed or otherwise monitored while outside the home, if not stalking?
Take the more statistically typical male aggression, combine it with female vindictiveness, and there you go. Lesbians beating the crap out of each other, workplace shootings, murder. Denying it doesn't make it go away.
Now, if Janet Napolitano would just go away, the homeland would be much more secure.
So.....that STRAIGHT father who bit out and ate his little son’s eyeball..... that is not considered a “perversion of morality” or “deviant” to you...
Did I make that assertion? Please!
...you can’t possibly say that every heterosexual couple is not deviant or perverted as well,...
Where did I say that? In all of human history, in every society, in every group or subgroup of people from every walk of life, there have been immoral, detestable, evil things perpetrated regardless of laws and moral standards. Why destroy the standard and make exceptions for one deviant lifestyle choice because of examples of decent behavior in a specific circumstance?
And don’t try to say that “moral gay couple” is an oxymoron..... there are lots of good gay people out there.
Ah, and here is where we have issues. So, despite your objections, I will say it if you don't mind. I believe that homosexuality is immoral. It is an utterly deviant lifestyle choice. Period. Regardless how moral they are in other areas of their lives, they are living an utterly immoral lifestyle.
So, do I want my moral standards, standards and institutions that have been successful models of human decency, development and convention actively impugned and dismantled by a minority of immoral people? This is the goal of the gay community and their advocates. Their lifestyle, if accepted as the norm, only leads to further destruction of our society. I refuse to have this shoved down my throat!
Nope...I didn’t misunderstand your question or your assertion, and I see your point. And no, I am not a lefty.
What I am saying is...... there are PLENTY of children out there who are being raised by straight parents who have no business pro-creating..... these children themselves will grow up to be criminals, liars, wife beaters, hell...they might even be President!
you talk about norms and exceptions. So....what is the norm of a 16 yo pregnant girl? I would say that she is unemployed, on welfare, uneducated, and not exactly sure who the father is. So should we change our perceptions for the norm, or the exception?
I am not talking about changing your moral code. I am saying that those children, or children in foster homes with no future, or orphans.....would be better off living with a gay couple with good jobs and loving homes. Let’s just talk about THOSE children, who have no other place to go....can you honestly say that you would rather have them bounced from foster home to foster home, instead of living a stable life with a gay couple (who has been properly background checked and followed up upon)?
what other solutions do you have for these kids? Please fix our foster care system, no one else has.
I think the point DecentAmerican was trying to make (please, correct me if I am wrong) is that, percentages aside, there are straight people who make wonderful parents, straight people who have no business raising children, gay people who have no business raising children, and gay people who might make wonderful parents. Since the point is to ensure that children who need homes get loving and supportive homes, shouldn't we be making these decisions on an individualized, case-by-case basis, determining whether a given prospective adoptive parent would make a good parent, regardless of whether that person is gay or straight?
I did not imply you were. I will say that those, conservative or not, who use anecdotal examples or "exceptions to the rule" arguments to impugn traditional family arrangements and champion homosexual arrangements are playing into the hands of those who want to radically redefine moral or the social norms. This is the tactic they use in their arguments and to forward their political and societal agenda.
What I am saying is...... there are PLENTY of children out there who are being raised by straight parents who have no business pro-creating..... these children themselves will grow up to be criminals, liars, wife beaters, hell...they might even be President!
And you think that it would be any different if both parents were homosexuals? How is being raised by homosexuals more advantageous than heterosexual parents? The homosexuals get their way and society's ills are mitigated? You can't convince me of that one.
So....what is the norm of a 16 yo pregnant girl? I would say that she is unemployed, on welfare, uneducated, and not exactly sure who the father is. So should we change our perceptions for the norm, or the exception?
Really? You will have to clue me in on what this has to do with having homosexual parents. Furthermore, you seem to have this proclivity of painting the traditional family in the least favorable picture while lauding the homosexuals. I believe the norm is, more often than not, the 16 year old pregnant girl having support from her family in the midst of these circumstances. Of course, it is easy to be carried away when all you here is the bad stories while the innumerable cases of traditional families go on quietly dealing with these unfortunate circumstances.
I am not talking about changing your moral code.
You don't understand. The homosexuals are!
I am saying that those children, or children in foster homes with no future, or orphans.....would be better off living with a gay couple with good jobs and loving homes. Let’s just talk about THOSE children, who have no other place to go....can you honestly say that you would rather have them bounced from foster home to foster home, instead of living a stable life with a gay couple (who has been properly background checked and followed up upon)?
I don't accept your premise here. Again, you are implying that traditional families are worse for children than the homosexual couple. You can't tell me that there are homosexual couples out there adopting any and all unwanted children out there and mitigating these social ills. They aren't anymore, if at all, than traditional families are.
what other solutions do you have for these kids? Please fix our foster care system, no one else has.
These wonderful parents that you are holding in high esteem here don't seem interested in doing that. They didn't adopt their son....one of them was artificially inseminated.
As for gay marriage, what we really need is to get government out of marriage altogether. The idea of government regulating and licensing people’s family arrangements should be abhorrent to anyone who values freedom.
Good points.
Indeed. I have about as much sympathy for pro-social-engineering “conservatives” who are now wailing and moaning about liberal-directed social engineering as I do for any other variety of idiot who is suffering the readily predictable consequences of his folly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.