Skip to comments.California families are changing, U.S. Census data show (Heather has 3 mommies???)
Posted on 06/26/2011 4:27:41 AM PDT by markomalley
Martha Davis, left, and Lisa Eisenpresser, with their daughter Kate, 4, and Angela Courtin take turns reading a book at Lisa and Angelas home. Families look a lot of different ways, Eisenpresser says by way of explanation when Kate's little friends ask about her three mommies.
On a leafy drive in west Los Angeles, at a newly renovated home with cathedral ceilings and a backyard pool, 4-year-old Kate Eisenpresser-Davis' friends have been known to pose an intriguing question: "Why does Kate have three mommies?"
Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser's ex-partner.
When asked to describe their life, Eisenpresser and Courtin respond with the same word: "Normal." Days are spent searching for the right balance between work and home, and zigzagging through Mar Vista to meetings, school and gymnastics.
Courtin is pregnant. Kate will soon have a sister, Phoebe, conceived from Eisenpresser's egg and sperm from a donor the same 6-foot-1 Harvard grad, who scored a 1580 on the SAT, who served as Kate's donor.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
One big happy screwed up family. Poor kid and now she’s going to get a sibling to join the mess.
How can abnormal people know what normal is?
Oh brother.......I don’t know what to say!
Sodom and Gomorrah keep coming to mind. Waiting for the pillars of salt...
Is there any research on kids growing up in gay “families”? I know that most of the prison population come from single parent homes, but I have no idea how bad the “two mommies” or “two daddies” kids will turn out.
I’m not sure, but growing up in any non-traditional home is very stressful on kids.
Three women getting along??? I doubt it.
Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser's ex-partner [Martha Davis]... Courtin is pregnant... the same 6-foot-1 Harvard grad, who scored a 1580 on the SAT, who served as Kate's donor.Shows what good an SAT score is.
So, when Lisa and Angela split up, and each of them has a new “partner,” will Kate and Phoebe have five “mommies”? Since everyone who’s ever been a sex partner of a bio-mom is granted “parent” status these days, I suppose there could be even more, depending on how quickly they partner and un-partner ...
I hope he ends up paying lots and lots of child support.
Homosexuals practicing eugenics - hmmm.
More like Heather has three daughters from hell, irresponsible, squatting blood sucking critters pretending to be moms. Poor child, exploited and denied.
It must be great when they all get their periods at the same time, or complain about one having one too many child or what not. This is not going to end well.
If the father is so great, then why is he not teaching to read? Oh, I get it, he is a man, you know, he should not get any representation other than donating some meaningless DNA.
I’m probably going to get blasted for saying this, but I don’t care if she has lesbian mothers or 2, or 3, or even 8 same sex parents. I’ve seen the headlines of the parents that have beaten their kid to death for breaking the T.V., drowned their kids because a new boyfriend didn’t want kids, microwaved their infant, sold their daughter’s body in exchange for drugs, or even kicked their child to death while onlookers did nothing.
So my only question is this... Is she loved? Does she feel loved? If so then I just don’t care about the sexual orientation of the parents anymore. That’s the lion’s job to judge and not mine. I don’t have to condone it, but I’m not put here to condemn it either when so much else is so much worse in this world. If the child feels loved and the parents love the child then I’m happy enough to turn my attention to other matters for the time.
As a conservative it’s sometimes difficult for me to see the grand plan when so much has turned to crap in this world. I worry over my children’s future non-stop and watch as liberals tear down everything that is right in this world. It seems worrying over the least of what they do (in this matter at least) would be a waste of energy I should be directing elsewhere.
It is no wonder the state of Kaliphornia is about to be the first state to go bankrupt.
Illinois will be the second state.
It took more that three queer women to get one pregnant! Where is this child’s biological father?
The traditional family sounds kind of icky and primitive, according to the above description from the writer of this article.
Sure. The "research" shows the kids turn out perfectly "normal"--as defined by the same people who commissioned and wrote this article in the LA Times. Of course, anyone with a grain of sense knows that this is not normal at all but WEIRD and INSANE. To inflict it on a child is evil.
I understand your post. I hope these children are loved and THE priority in life for their moms.
The girls will miss their father and everything a father gives to a daughter. Girls learn how to relate to half of the world’s population (men) through that first primary relationship. Three mommies cannot make up for this no matter how much they love the children.
Make it a foursome. Let the pet dog have custody too.
Must be a sight on a Friday night when there is a fight about who gets the vibrator.
To be a fly on the wall when little Kate comes home one day and asks her “mommies” what “QUEER” means..
Lazarus, your tolerance and your great concern for “the children” is duly noted.
But you’re wrong, and your viewpoint is destructive.
Why is he wrong? As long as they are not on the public dole what business is it of ours?
DISGUSTING... poor children!
[i]But youre wrong, and your viewpoint is destructive.[/i]
What a very liberal thing to say... My viewpoint is neither wrong nor right and it’s neither destructive nor constructive. Its MY viewpoint period. Hate is easy to espouse towards those we disagree with and I believe the liberal left revels in such hate. I wonder if we must do the same? Even if hate is not your motive I believe you may be on a slippery slope when you start proclaiming such black and white statements towards others’ viewpoints. We all have opinions and I’m fairly certain none of them are exactly the same as any other.
For me, I believe the child is the more important part of this equation and perhaps you believe the homosexual parents are. That’s fine but I don’t feel the need to say you’re being destructive and wrongheaded in your view.
Take a look at Freemama’s post above your own concerning my statements. She too disagrees with me yet never tells me my views are wrong or destructive. Instead she offers me something to think about without any off the cuff declarations. She has instead, in her way, offered to the debate a new variable. You on the other hand have decided there is no room to discuss or learn. Much like Saul Alinsky would do.
Again. I hope this was not your intent and would like to think that perhaps you were just in a hurry this morning. Either way, I hope your day is still a good one. Cheers.
I agree with you on the father’s part in a child’s growth. Unfortunately this can’t be the case in all children’s lives whether through divorce, death, or poor young choices. Still, I’ve met many good people that were raised without a father as often as I’ve met bad ones that had them. And the same is true for children raised only by a father. It’s not ideal I’ll grant you. But it is a fact of life. If the child is loved and grows to maturity they do have the ability to make informed choices and decide their own fate I believe. This happens regardless of what their childhood placed before them. If this is not the case then wouldn’t it also be true that spewing hateful things at the child’s parents would also degrade the child’s future? I Don’t think for an instance that homosexuality is a viable “lifestyle”. But I don’t think I’ll interfere with a child being given a loving home either.
Are you actually not seriously troubled by the redefinition of the family to include "2, or 3, or even 8 same sex parents"? If so, you are exhibiting an appalling lack of understanding of what a family was designed (I use the word advisedly) to be: the lifelong union of a man and a woman and their children. This is a Truth so powerful and axiomatic to civilization that even pagan civilizations have understood that to tamper with the Divine design is to invite catastrophe.
It is left to jaded, morally bankrupt Western civilization to attempt to "redefine" the family, and we do so at our peril.
Is she loved? Does she feel loved? If so then I just dont care about the sexual orientation of the parents anymore.
Love is so much more than a feel-good photo of three smiling "mothers" cuddling together on a couch. Try to look a little deeper than a puff piece in a publication with an obvious agenda. Do you really have any idea of the backstory of what is going on in this "family"? Do you imagine that happy faces in a carefully-staged photo makes everything "OK"?
Have you heard the heart-breaking accounts of children trapped in such circumstances asking where their daddy is? "2, 3, or even 8 same-sex parents" cannot make up for the intentional deprivation of either a mother or a father. This is the what of homosexual "families" by definition lack, for which nothing will compensate.
Single mothers and fathers can testify to the great void in the child's life as the result of their absent parent. The essential truth is that children need both a mother and a father. Many are forced by circumstances to manage without one or the other, but it is inexcusable that as a society we should be enabling - yea, even promoting - lifestyles that intentionally deprive children of either a father or a mother.
Before you simplistically dismiss the above, I invite you to examine the voluminous research that supports the traditional understanding of the family. The research of David Blankenhorn would be a good start. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of The Future of Marriage and Fatherless America. He actually identifies as a liberal Democrat and is more "tolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle than most conservatives, yet he has inescapably come to the conclusion that marriage is properly defined as the union of a man and a woman.
It’s not a family it’s a mini indoctrination camp designed to infiltrate and disrupt life of real parents and families. It’s a damn crying shame!
Surely you must realize that the above statement is indefensible.
You cannot so easily excuse the possible consequences of your words. The fact is that defending something which causes harm to both individuals and society - as homosexual "marriage" does - is in itself both "wrong" and "destructive."
To imply that those who disagree with your position are guilty of "hate" is specious, and a common ruse by the enemies of truth.
I agree that "the child is the more important part of this equation." However, I wonder how much research and study you have done regarding the effects of the intentional deprivation of either a mother or a father upon children. As noted in my earlier post, the writings of David Blankenhorn would be a good start in that regard.
It appears that your view is in reality based not upon objective evidence but a facile acceptance of the claims of the supporters of homosexual marriage both in the media and among biased researchers.
I have read much of Blankenhorn’s research. It is no different than when they tried to jung up child psychology in the belief that all children are without self and subject to nature and nurture more than reason. And while he does point out that marriage is necessary, he only does so biologically. Meaning he doesn’t really understand the spiritual need of it. On top of that, I never said this was acceptable, and I never said the traditional family is not better. Not to mention it has little to do with the original point of what my post was about. You cherry picked that statement and didn’t include it as a whole with the rest. I never defended homosexuality and several times pointed that out. I instead believe we have more important things to worry about that have an immediate effect on our society than whether this particular family is homosexual. If you wish to turn this into a argument of whether I’m defending homosexuality then you’ll lose.
Now If you wish to discuss the science of this then we can do that too.
It is accepted science now that homosexuality is a genetic misfire. Misfire being my word here. There is a gene that lends to that. Meaning that genetically we’re meant to be heterosexual for a reason. Once in a while a gene misfires and the individual will become homosexual. Instead of spouting platitudes about how wrong or morally reprehensible homosexual behavior is then why aren’t you investing time an energy into finding a genetic cure? Wouldn’t that solve everything much better than condemnations? Provided science is correct on this...
Yet still this too has no bearing on what I posted above. Obama and his Soros puppet master are greater threats to our society than this homosexual family. AT THIS TIME.
And what in the world does the “Western Civilization” comment have to do with the whole thing? Eastern Civilization is full of Islamofacists and communists. So I’m not even sure where you’re going with this. Your traditional view of “Family” is founded in Western Civilization alone. You’ll need to clarify this statement for me so I can understand your point.
I don’t recall mentioning any photos. Must be your understanding of what I posted. I don’t care if they have Xmas cards with their pictures on it or a family album. Doesn’t change my perception or views a whit. What I care about is whether that child is loved. And loved as in feels safe, secure, cherished, and informed. While you see this as an attempt at undermining society (and I agree), you refuse to see that it is small time compared to what’s being allowed to transpire right this moment that will have a much more profound effect on your family than all your traditions can offset. My post was one of priorities.
My own family is raised on christian values, love, respect, and the right of an individual to think freely. Even if I end up not agreeing with them. And I must be doing something right as my children are straight A students, never in trouble with society, and considered some of the most polite kids amongst those that have met them. My oldest wants to pursue Constitutional Law, My son wants to be a Marine Corps Officer an my youngest an RN, so perhaps my understanding of “Family” is pretty solid.
BTW... I hope my posts aren’t coming across as angry, upset or indignant. They are only meant to be a discussion and I don’t feel like you or the others are attacking me or anything. And I don’t want you to feel that way either.
I don’t try to excuse anything. I have my opinions and you yours. Pretty straight forward I’m thinking. I never “implied” anything. Sorry. I’m pretty straight with what I say.
“It appears that your view is in reality based not upon objective evidence but a facile acceptance of the claims of the supporters of homosexual marriage both in the media and among biased researchers.”
Wow. you really must have missed what I’ve been writing. And I’ve been pretty verbose too. I couldn’t even begin to respond to such a misconception as that.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Apparently the number of "mommies" Heather can have is inifinite. But most Americans want Heather to have a mommy and a daddy:
Ignore the mainstream media: Americans still believe in one man, one woman Townhall.com ^ | June 26, 2011 | AWR Hawkins Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:12:08 AM by Kaslin
Link to article:
The messed up assertion already is showing up in the assumption about the sperm donor being a 1580 score on the SAT. I hate to say this, but intelligence and how good of a student a kid is not purely predestined by genetics. Plenty of kids I have known with autism, or who were mentally challenged had well-educated parents. In addition, even decent research on autism shows that there is a significant role from, let’s hear it... nurture. This whole assumption gives random genetics more credit than it really deserves, and is a bad assumption in and of itself. Not to say that some confusing parent arrangement isn’t bad, because it really is, but when you hear people making these unfounded statements about how genetics can turn out, you question what kind of brains they actually have.
Take a good, long look at the stats of domestic violence rates among lesbian couples. Then, check out some of the case studies of abuse of dependent males in lesbian house holds.
It doesn’t matter that there is, occurring at a lesser rate, the same violence in normal households. The rates are exponentially higher among “gay” and lesbians.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Those who reject moral absolutes are liberals and they wander lost within the vacuum between their own ears.
Since when? The left has desperately tried, and failed, to push the idea that they're "born that way."
It's never been proven.
However, an irrefutable fact is that the vast majority of homosexuals are sexual abuse victims.
It's a mental disorder. Deal with it.
Prayers for her for when the lesbian three-way turns into a royal cat-fight and little Heather is used as the means of revenge between them. It won't be pretty.
It's irrelevant. They still needed to borrow the turkey baster to get anywhere.
WELL STATED, tjd!!!!!!!
And cheers to you, too, Lazarus. I am delighted to engage you in an examination of the topic at hand.
Thomas Aquinas, centuries ago, posited that the end (um, the welfare and happiness of innocent children, maybe?) cannot be used to justify the means (say, a practice condemned throughout human history ... i.e., homosexuality).
Whether I am having a good day or a bad day is truly none of your concern, since you have no idea who I am. Yes, I know that you are flowing with the milk of human kindness but please don’t try to buttress your specious arguments with ostentatious demonstrations of just what a really swell guy (or gal) you are.
You are wrong.
That doesn’t make you a bad person, any more than calling you out on it makes ME a bad person.
Finally, to take a page from your playbook -— have a wonderful day!
Well, yes, at the very least, the concern is not that every kid will be raised with such arrangements, but rather how it is presented. I mean, homosexuality is an incredibly rare exception as to how people live together. A decent explanation of it would be to explain, should you be dealing in a public school with a kid adopted by a same-sex couple, that this kid is being raised by a rare exception, and that does not make the kid all bad. However, at the same time, the Two Kings or “Heather has Two Mommies” portrays the whole issue in an incredibly out of context manner. If there are reasons to oppose the material presented to children, one is that it gives an unrealistic projection of how the world is. What needs to be said is a brief explanation of perhaps a kid who has an unusual parenting arrangement, and explain that this does not make the kid a bad kid.
I agree that I don’t care as if everyone will suddenly turn homosexual tommorrow, that’s not likely to happen. What I am concerned about is the disproportionate, and out-of-place priority that is given with presented teaching material. Not to mention the fact that seeing something portraying man and woman relationships required parental permission back in the 90s just for kids in the late middle school/early high school to see it.
I oppose homosexuality for many reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with you to the extent that I wouldn’t try to take the child away from her three mothers, nor would I treat them poorly simply because I disagree with them.
I know a lesbian couple fairly well, and although I disapprove, there’s no reason to be cruel to them. I also know many heterosexual couples who are unrepentant sinners, aka non-Christian. Why should I pick out the lesbian couple for special condemnation? I don’t think I should.
I’m opposed to homosexual “marriage” and do not think the government should give it preferential status. There’s a very good reason why real, traditional marriage is recognized and supported by the state. Real marriage is a fundamental building block of a free society.
My beef against homosexuals is when they try to silence me for my religious and natural law beliefs or when they try to destroy the institution of marriage by expanding the definition to cover virtually any arbitrary relationship.
That’s where the gay rights movement is heading. They ultimately want to silence and condemn me (and others) for not believing the lie that what they do is perfectly normal. This isn’t about live and let live, not when they want to indoctrinate my children and silence all opposition to their sexual choices.
Your original assertion was that you didn't care if a child had "2, 3, or 8 same-sex parents" as long as he/she was "happy." This sounds for all the world like a defense of the lifestyle (as long as the child was "happy," of course).
And who decides whether the child is happy? You are doubtlessly familiar with the pro-gay studies that rely upon self-reporting, i.e., as in asking the same-sex parents: "Tell us what a great job you are doing as parents..."
In the absence of any objective evaluation, such studies, to no one's surprise, conclude that the children of gay parents are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted.
I formerly worked as the Senior Fellow for Policy at a national pro-family organization. In that capacity I conducted research and wrote papers on the subject of homosexual parenting. I believe that there is abundant evidence of the harm done to children raised by same-sex parents.
Same-sex households are notoriously unstable. Homosexual couples that stay together and maintain a monogamous relationship over the long term are as rare as hen's teeth in the gay community. Gay couples who consider themselves to be in "long-term committed, monogamous relationships" have an abysmal track record. One study found that none - as in zero - of the so-called "committed, monogamous" couples were exclusive in their sexual relationships longer than five years, and most lasted much less than that.
There unfortunately exists a great deal of obfuscation regarding the meaning of "monogamous." Many homosexual couples redefine "monogamy" in a way that bears little resemblance to the usual meaning of the word. Thus, they proclaim that they are in a "monogamous" relationship while actually having sex with other people.
Thus we have the tragic situation of children being raised in households with revolving bedroom doors, where they may endure a succession of same-sex partners to their biological mother or father. Even the story that triggered this discussion involved a little girl with three "moms" - including one ex-lover who for some odd reason is still in the picture. In five or ten years, who will this confused little girl be relating to as "mom"? Can anyone claim that this is an optimal - or even an acceptable - setting for the raising of children?
You assert that "we have more important things to worry about that have an immediate effect on our society" than homosexual parenting. Nothing could be further from the truth; there is nothing more critical than protecting the very foundation of our society - any society, which is marriage and the family. Worries about the economy, while very real, take a back seat to this bedrock issue.
We must not allow ourselves to be distracted with the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic while the hull is being rent. One last note: your assertion that "It is accepted science now that homosexuality is a genetic misfire" is not correct, and would in fact be strongly contested by those on either side of the issue. Gay activists, e.g., would find the belief that their same-sex attractions are the result of a "genetic misfire" to be demeaning, as if they could be "cured" with a pill.
"Three old hags surround a basket of new-born babies"
treating kids as commodities...