RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/23/2006

What does TVC report say of gay adoption? (hint: 'just swell' not it)

by Jeremy Hooper

In a new Traditional Values Coalition report tersely titled "No Homosexual Adoptions," the California-based "pro-family" group attempts to refute homo kid-acquiring in the only way they know how: unapologetic duplicity. In the report's most soundbite-ready quote, TVC's Andrea Lafferty says "We have had a national discussion over the past decade about welfare mothers without a husband and the impact this has on children. Why is it damaging for poor kids not to have a father, but it’s okay for kids in a wealthy lesbian home to not have a dad? Studies show kids invariably suffer without a father regardless of family structure.” Let's start there.

A) The issue with "welfare mothers without a husband" raising children would seem to have much more to do with the WELFARE part than the husband-less matter. If your stance in this national discussion on one-parent homes has been that single mothers raising children is innately a bad thing, then Dan Quayle we'd have to say that we've taken the Murphy Brown side in this chit chat. But that's an entirely different debate. Comparing a single welfare mother raising a child and a rich lesbian couple doing the same is food stamp-purchased apples and organic, expensive oranges. If you want to make a more accurate juxtaposition, pull the poverty card altogether and compare a single, wealthy investment banker raising a child on Manhattan's Upper East Side with a lesbian couple rearing a tot in a Palm Springs mansion. While the single mother might wish she had an extra hand every now and then, and the lesbian couple may have to explain their family structure more than they would in a heterosexual set-up, neither of these situations are damaging in and of themselves.

B) So Andrea, you boldly state that "studies show kids invariably suffer without a father regardless of family structure" (despite the fact that you entered the variable of poverty/wealth), so you must next quote some studies to back up your notions, yes? So it makes sense in the paragraph following your quote, the author of this report would introduce Drs. A. Dean Byrd and George Rekers, who you guys say "are both experts on family structures and understand the importance of children being reared in two-parent homes with a mother and a father." But wait a sec -- do you mean the same George Rekers who is a "repartative therapy"-advocating ordained minister in the southern Baptist convention, who helped found the anti-gay Family Research Council, and who backs up his flawed claims about homosexuals with research from discredited "researcher" Paul Cameron? And the same A. Dean Byrd who is the vice president of the National Association for Resarch and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization whose "ex-gay"-encouraging work is discredited/ condemned by every major medial and mental health organization in this country? I mean, of course these two are free to share their opinions on homosexuality, but presenting them as mere doctors is like presenting your humble scribe as a non-opinionated writer with only a passing thought or two about gays.

You guys would never try to just present folks with the "Dr." title, knowing that most of the readers to whom your missives are intended won't research the matter beyond, "oh, they're a doctor -- must be smart," would ya? And you would never precede to cite a study from some folks named "Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, & Kotler" that suggests homosexuals tend to be molested more as children, without first explaining to readers that the survey was nonclinical, and that the researchers gathered their data by setting up a booth at a gay pride parade, with the signage and description used to incite participation unknown. And you guys would never try and present a study from "pro-homosexual" researchers, summarizing the complex results as if they stated unequivocally that same-sex parents. I mean, yes the study does suggest that kids of gay parents reported "having a homoerotic relationship" and "would consider having a same-sex relationship" in greater numbers than those raised by heterosexual parents -- duh! They weren't raised to believe such things to be the embodiment of evil; if they had the feelings, they would be more apt to act on them, rather than keep them closeted. But of course it's easier and more conducive to TVC's cause to just present these studies at their most simplistic levels.

C) Mr. Reker's assertions that "children in homosexual households may endure unusual stresses because of exposure to homosexual sex toys and pornography as well as potential threats of molestation by a homosexual partner or visitor to the home. Children placed in homosexual households may also experience the stress of living with HIV-infected or chronically ill individuals who are suffering from the consequences of sodomy," are almost too offensive to even acknowledge. Almost. While we do hear that butt plugs and poorly acted sex films help colicky babies sleep, we think we'll refrain from peppering the nursery with the sex shop's latest product line. Of course in the eyes of the "pro-family" types, we gays use dildos and porn as paperweights and background noise. And who knew you could even paint gays as infected, sex-driven, and molesters using only two sentences? Here, let's try a similar approach with heterosexuals: "children in heterosexual households may endure unusual stresses because of exposure to the "rabbit" vibrator that the females seem to love, or to the uber-popular "Girls Gone Wild" series of videos and celeb porn tapes that seem to catch wide attention. If childhood exposure to various gym teachers taught me anything, it's that fathers should really keep an eye on the way adult males relate to the lass. Locker room memories of Mr. [name redacted to protect the lecherous] waxing pathetic about my ninth grade friend's boobies is a recollection of which my adult mind would certainly like to be freed. On an unrelated note, my heart goes out to anyone who is suffering the ravages of a cruel disease, the causes of which are unknown and possibly suspect." Damn, that was four sentences.

D) Bizarrely, the report as we received it just ends mid-sentence; keeping with that spirit, we will now precede to...

New Report: ‘No Homosexual Adoption’ Now Online [TVC]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails