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


Path to parental fitness: Gastric bypass or Gay-stric bypass?

by Jeremy Hooper

So in your opinion, which is more of a parental impediment: A couple in which one parent is 500 pounds, or a couple in which both parents are perfectly healthy and in love with one another, but who just so happen to have a raging case of "the gay"?

I know, if you had a dime, right?

MbarberBut we're honestly not asking this seemingly ridiculous question rhetorically. In light of the news that a 500-pound Missouri man was prevented from adopting a foster child because of his weight, the Christianity Today web site has actually put this exact "gay vs. obese" question to the Concerned Women For America's Matt Barber (pic).

So what's Matt's reliably charming response to the query? Well, this from CT:

However, Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, believes emotional health risks should be considered before physical risks.

"You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. There are any number of factors that can put children in an environment where there are risks; there are always going to be risks," Barber said. "I think it's appropriate to consider the lifestyle that homosexuals engage in with all of the high-risk factors involved when you also take into consideration the fact that there is not a solid family environment with a mother and a father. Having the unique qualities that both a mother and a father bring and bear on childrearing, that is definitely the gold standard. To nitpick and to disqualify someone based on their weight or something like that, I don't know that that's appropriate."

Okay, so we actually sort of agree that you have to be very careful before rejecting someone for their weight. But that being said, one also has to be very careful about considering for a second that Matt Barber has ever held a rational thought in his entire life! Seriously -- "the lifestyle that homosexuals engage in with all of the high-risk factors involved"? What the nutty?! This evening, this soon-to-an adoptive parent's Friday night "lifestyle" will consist of cooking Ginger Ale Pork Chops (which are AMAZING, by the way, if anyone wants the recipe), watching a DVD, and snuggling up on the sofa with my partner to discuss the minutiae of our week. Unless you consider the one Beck's Light that I will consume to be "high-risk" (and I'm not driving anywhere, so get that out of your head), then the "lifestyle" within my home this evening will be about as low-risk and morally sound as you can get! And tonight isn't an anomaly. Other weekend plans include a straight couple's housewarming in Scotch Plains, NJ; an octogenarian's birthday party in Rockland County; The Simpsons Movie; and hopefully a fun day at the beach (weather permitting). And it will all be done with the love, laughter, and familial compassion that permeates every moment of my as-married-as-allowed gay life. Because that's the way we roll.

So we say to Matthew: If you really want to consider the "totality of the circumstances," then you need to consider the ACTUAL circumstances of many gay homes, not the ones that Paul Cameron has put out for you to consume. A mother and a father do not possess righteous, unique parental qualifications simply because their hoo-hahs are dissimilar! "Gold standards" can be found in many of the homes and "lifestyles" that you and your cronies have so offensively written off as rubbish. You think it's nitpicky to question one's physical limitations, yet you deem it acceptable to use religious-motivated, junk science-laden bias to discriminate against fit gay homes? Well in that case, please allow us to make a mental note:

Should we ever acquire nits, do not under any circumstance rely on Matt Barber's expertise in picking them off!!

Do 'Gay Adoption' Opponents Oppose 'Obese Adoption'? [Christianity Today]

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

Your thoughts

Mmm.. Ginger Ale.. sounds nummy... Sign me up for that.. where's the recipe?

Posted by: DallasDave | Jul 27, 2007 6:28:58 PM

(4 portions)

4 loin pork chops, about 1 inch thick
1/2 teaspoon ground ginger
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
3/4 cup ginger ale
1/4 cup minced fresh ginger
1/4 cup slivered crystallized ginger
1/4 cup coarsely chopped walnuts
1/4 cup golden raisins
1/2 cup heavy or whipping cream

1. Preheat the oven to 350°F.
2. Sprinkle the pork chops all over with the ground ginger.
3. Melt the butter in a large skillet, and brown the pork chops over medium-high heat, 2 to 3 minutes per side. Transfer the chops to a flameproof baking dish.
4. Add the ginger ale, fresh ginger, and crystallized ginger to the skillet, and cook over high heat for 2 to 3 minutes. Pour this over the chops, transfer to the oven, and bake for 30 minutes.
5. Sprinkle the walnuts and raisins over the chops, and bake an additional 15 minutes.
6. Transfer the chops to a serving platter and keep warm. Add the cream to the baking pan and place it over high heat. Cook, scraping up the brown bits, until the sauce is slightly reduced and thickened, about 2 minutes. Pour the sauce over the chops, and serve immediately.

Excerpted from THE NEW BASICS COOKBOOK copyright © 1989 Julee Rosso, Sheila Lukins.
Reprinted with the permission of Workman Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 27, 2007 6:30:17 PM

Mmmmmm... Raisins to soak up the flavor good... I think this is on the menu for Sunday. Activism & Gourmet cooking.. what more could I one ask for!

Posted by: DallasDave | Jul 27, 2007 6:39:09 PM

And another thing -- my doctor has me listed in multiple places as "engages in high risk behavior" because I mentioned to her that I am gay.

Now, I am having difficulty getting insured by a new company (I just turned 24). They have pages of my health records indicating my "high risk behavior," even though they mention no where that I haven't had sex for more than 9 months, and, before that, it was only on very rare occassions, and always with the same guy.

High risk my foot! I am practically a nun. An uninsured nun.


Posted by: Justin | Jul 27, 2007 6:57:44 PM

I would sue the pants off that doctor. Talk to a lawyer. Something sounds improper here.

Posted by: stojef | Jul 29, 2007 4:13:12 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails