Posted on 09/23/2013 6:01:37 PM PDT by Pinkbell
They are evil. Corrupt. Given over by God to their filthy practices. (See Romans 1:18-32) There is no way they won’t exploit the male children. Sexual deviants are just that — deviant.
The Bible says they deserve death, not the praises of men. But look who is praising, those “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:32)
It's possible they are saints... or they look at it as a business... or as a buffet. Can't tell from here.
“I don’t have them babysit,” Steven said. “Their job is to be a kid. My job is to make sure they have what they need. That they have the skills to be a successful adult.”
These guys sound like they have their act together. This level of normalcy is very hard to generate, given the kids' backgrounds. That said, these guys represent the 2% of the 2%. Kids' need a mom and a dad.
They're essentially cleaning up the liberal mess of sexualization of children, teen motherhood and welfare.
They’ve simply created a harem like they do in a lot of Muslim countries. No surprise.
Everyone thought the ‘loving couple’ in Australia would love and care for the Russian 2 year old they adopted. And yes, there were news articles gushing over them.
This year, they were both sentenced to long prison sentences.
FACT: Kids need mothers and fathers.
I recommend reading this. Appearances are incredibly deceptive. The majority of homosexuals have absolutely zero interest in adopting children (much prefer the responsibility free, short life of anonymous sex cruising and leather bars). The homosexuals who are interested in ‘raising’ children, are likely up to no good, like these two scumbags.
Let’s just ask ourselves a question.
Would we trust zoophiles to raise foster children? If not, why do we trust these individuals? Zoophiles are far less likely to rape kids since their attraction isn’t even to the human species.
This is nuts, and should be opposed at every turn. To raise a child in a sexually depraved environment is abuse in itself.
I bet they would never let a Christian couple adopt those kids.
Same here. I am totally against Gay Marriage and its agenda but not against the person. These children need love, food and shelter. That is all they need. I hope there is a female like a sister of these men to be like a mom. I have no problem with this. It is better for a child to be in a loving home than having to be jumping from home to home. The picture shows them happy.
Many say because they will molest them, but heteros can molest. My mother grew up in a abusive home, and she never got to know her father. My grandmother was a prostitute and would bring home the johns and even give them the keys to her home. My mother told me this which I have never forgotten: “I don’t understand why she hated me to even try to suffocate me with a pillow and beat me. I did not care what she did that is between her and God but I do not understand the brutal beatings I got”.
This tell that a child needs to be in a loving home where there is peace. Though I do not approve of these 2 men lifestyles I say God Bless them for taking in those children who are unwanted.
These men will likely introduce one or more of these kids to sodomy at a very young age. It is just part of their “cult-ure”
Have you ever seen a straight pride parade with nude men waving their wanker at the kids?
Shoving it down the kids throat is very accepted in homo-land
Monthly subsidies stop after adoption.”
Bet they are all covered by Medicaid medical care though - at the taxpayer’s expense as well as TANF and food stamps.
The article does not mention the names of any Christian heterosexual married couples who wanted to adopt each of these kids.
That would not fit the agenda.
Hopefully CPS will check up every week to see what is being done to these helpless kids.
They won't; homosexuals get special treatment. This is why Jeffery Dahlmer was allowed to bring his last victim back home, a 13 yr old Hmong boy who was delirious (drugged), naked in the street, and bleeding from his but. Had this been an under aged girl he'd have been in cuffs. He even told cops that he was his “boyfriend” and he was drunk (drinking age is 21 in WI). The cops were afraid of being labled as homophobes. Social workers are lefties to begin with so would be even more inclined to overlook things....
This the the real reason for the push for homo marriage, the “right” to adopt/abuse/recruit.
Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but an inordinate number of pedophiles are homosexual.
I hope that many more couples here will step up and consider adopting or at least fostering a child. We must all do our part to give these children safe homes. And that means more than lip service.
One question: where’s a mother?
Poor kids!
I bet a several year follow-up will be very, very sad.
Ten years later, Michael is 15 and back living in a group home.
“These children need love, food and shelter. That is all they need.”
See, I disagree with you here. I agree that children need those things. We all do. However, that isn’t all they need. Children need a stable home environment, and they need to be taught good morals and good behavior. This is the family model for these children, and to them, entering into a homosexual relationship is the same as entering into a heterosexual relationship. Look at this:
Nearly 15,000 people were “screened” for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.
What the Study Found
The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with “lesbian mothers” and those with “gay fathers” separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with “homosexual parents” to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of “gay fathers” were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of “gay fathers” used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).
Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is “statistically significant.” This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is “statistically significant.” (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant—just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)
Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways—first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of “intact biological families” (”IBFs”), and second by “controlling” for a variety of other characteristics. “Controlling for income,” for example, would mean showing that “IBF” children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for “LMs” (children of “lesbian mothers”) and “GFs” (children of gay fathers) separately.
There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and “gay” fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones—virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
•Have lower educational attainment
•Report less safety and security in their family of origin
•Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
•Are more likely to suffer from depression
•Have been arrested more often
•If they are female, have had more sexual partners—both male and female
The high mathematical standard of “statistical significance” was more difficult to reach for the children of “gay fathers” in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
•Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
•Use marijuana more frequently
•Smoke more frequently
•Watch TV for long periods more frequently
•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
Differences in Sexuality
When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality—experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves—were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of “statistical significance” as those mentioned above, they remain important.
At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals “are no more likely to be gay” than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.
The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), a ffirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
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.