California families are changing, U.S. Census data show (Heather has 3 mommies???)

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.

...I never said this was acceptable ...I never defended homosexuality...

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.

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.