“So was this a surprise, a dad at 63?”
If you watch the video through to the next segment, the issue is explored in more depth. “What are the ethical issues around parents having kids so late in life?”
Married elderly males have been fathering children for millennia, married gay males for about 15 minutes. Yet, the ethics of the latter are apparently settled, while the former are still a matter for debate. Odd, that.
Wonder if these two fellas took parenting classes or have they hired a full time nanny for that precious newborn? When will the “bonding” take place and with whom?
Kate muses: “Married elderly males have been fathering children for millenia, married gay males for about 15 minutes. Yet, the ethics of the latter are apparently settled, while the former are still a matter for debate. Odd, that.”
Kate, you give the shallow progressives at Aspervision too much credit for being able to contemplate such issues. I think it’s more a matter of a slow news cycle making any mundane event becoming a burning issue for infantile TV newsiebanter.
Good friends of mine have a lesbian married daughter and they have a baby girl. As my friends live in a large granny flat in the same house with their daughter and her spouse their grandchild will have the male presence of her granddad.
Look at the black community with its 70% illegitimacy and we see whole generations of kids brought up with only females raising them, mom, grandmother, aunts etc.
Kids are cruel enough to each other so I think any children raised by same sex parents will be in for a rough ride.
Every human being is created by one man and one woman. Every human being longs to know and be loved by his/her very own parents. Notice how those who are separated from a parent, by choice or chance, will usually search the world to find the missing parent.
So, now, by extending dubious “rights” to adults to exercise their sexual license anywhere and everywhere they please—and, please, no shame, whatever the choice—decadent society that we are, we’re acquiescing to DELIBERATELY SEPARATING children from one of their parents, in order to satisfy the adults’ every sexual whim. How selfish and short sighted is that?
It disgusts me that our children’s needs are so readily overlooked, as far as the sex lives of the adults with whom they live is concerned. Any society that condones widespread, as we now do, serial and other sex partners, where one of the biological parents is, by definition, removed from the child’s daily life, is being negligent. All the elites’ blathering about the rights of kids is so much hot air, as long as they gush over such choices as easy divorce, common law and certain single parenthood arrangements, and surrogate and homosexual parenthood. (And, how about abortion—100 000 a year in Canada—where the child is deliberately removed from BOTH parents?!)
ALL the studies show that children fare better, on all counts, when they live with their own parents. The well documented instability of other arrangements, and the fact that, in them, children are living with an unrelated adult, puts a critical mass of our kids at serious risk. E.g., Women living in common law relationships are four and a half times more likely to be abused than are married women: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. This abuse, the chance that the relationship will end, and that the kids will find themselves with another adult (and parent’s sex partner) in the home are hardly ideal for the kids.
For stating the obvious, I’m considered a Neanderthal by the “enlightened”, who continue to promote selfish, adult will over the needs of our kids. The biological family may be far from perfect—what is? so that’s a false standard, anyway—but, over the long run, it’s proven to be the best model for raising children. Our short sighted elites whine that “Marriage doesn’t need kids”. OK, let’s concede that not every marriage needs kids, but we’d be in a pickle if the no-kid marriage became the norm. Anyway, that’s looking at this from the selfish, adult-centric end of the telescope.
Let’s look at this issue from the other, altruistic, child-centric end of the telescope. “KIDS NEED MARRIAGE—THE MARRIAGE OF THEIR VERY OWN PARENTS.” There it is, in a nutshell. Now, isn’t that a novel idea?
As a society, do we ever need to smarten up.
Hey, you two…… get a womb.
Well, I have to say that I have no problem with same sex couples adopting a child. While the ideal situation for the child would be to live with a male and female parent, I think that same sex couples would be quite capable of loving and raising a child.
In this instance though, since John and his husband were joined by a civil union – essentially a contract – did they have the forethought to put “having children by surrogate” into their marriage vows? If not, then one of them committed adultery :).
Of course, some “same sex couples would be quite capable of loving and raising a child”. But I think you’re missing the point.
How about putting kids’ needs first, rather than indulging the whims of adults to live out their sex lives however and with whomever they please, despite the impact on the kids involved? I believe that’s the issue here.
minuteman’s wife -0
lookout -10/10
What lookout said!
“Well, I have to say that I have no problem with same sex couples adopting a child.”
You know sometimes it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to post drivel like that and remove all doubt.
Posted by: lookout at December 29, 2010 9:52 AM
Well, said, lookout.
You may have read my posts hypothesizing that the left’s moral compass is an arbitrary hierarchy, ever changing, that artificially designates victim status to identifiable groups.
Children are one of these groups, and they do exist in the hierarchy, but they are very low down.
Gays trump children, as this story demonstrates.
Women (i.e. abort1on) trump children.
Muzzies push the envelope of trumping children. Our criminal justice system takes care of honor killers, but the left-leaning MSM cringes at reporting them.
Those are just three examples off the top of my head.
There are slow news days, and there are pathetic news days.
… that blond bimbo recently published a book about how scary right wing Christians are.
Nope. She hasn’t got the attention span to write a book – let alone understand ‘journalism’ and ‘news’.
Just another sign the West is doomed. Thanks CTV.
Yeah well i speak truth to power ,
[deleted. Next time speak your truth with a little more civility. – ED]
What lookout said.
Oh give me a break Kate. You have not once on this blog demonstrated that you give a ratsass about how old males are when they father children, but the second it’s two Gay dudes who are admittedly long in the teeth, you suddenly chirp in with a negative opinion.
Don’t hide your anti-gay bigotry behind a sudden concern for children of older parents. Just come out and say it… “I hate Gays and don’t think they should enjoy the same human rights as me.”
People get all up in arms about same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage BUT nobody is rallying against single parenting or divorce. There is a simple reason for that. They are either uncomfortable with gay people for one reason or another or they just plain hate gay people.
The same-sex parents I know are all doing a great job. Any difficulties they encounter won’t come from the fact that they are the same gender but from outsiders who are ignorate and hateful.
@John: I wish that you weren’t right. But you are. I sincerely doubt that Kate–or most of the hateful people on this board–have seriously made any attempt to educate themselves about same-sex parenting. At most, they have probably done a quick google search looking for bogus studies that confirm their hateful view.
EBD @2:56 – “I don’t think I’ve ever met a *gay* man who hates women.” I think I have, although I agree it’s hardly the majority.
I’d say there are certainly circumstances where a kid would be better off with a decent gay couple than they would be with their nutcase parents or – God forbid – in the “system”. It’s not ideal, but then most things in life are about choosing the least-worst option. But – and (wearily) I re-iterate that I am agnostic – there is no such thing as “gay marriage”, and two people of the same sex cannot procreate together. The fact that I even feel the need to type that last bit is rather bizarre.
This might be a little graphic, but it seems important to me. We all know Bill Clinton is a dishonest creep (bear with me), and he certainly had an affair with Monica, but in a narrow sense he was correct when he argued that fellatio and weird cigar-stuff does not technically count as “sexual relations”. Not the line to take when the wife walks in on you and the secretary, I’ll grant, but still. Now although I don’t personally get emotional about it, I can see how a woman could reasonably be offended by the implication or assertion that the vagina is the equivalent of the anus. Need I point out that it isn’t? Traditionally, a marriage could be annulled on the grounds of non-consumation. In the Clintonian sense, a gay couple can never consummate their “marriage”.
I am in favour of gay civil unions, although of course leftists will consider me an evil bigot in any case. There’s no doubt in my mind that the push for gay “marriage” is actually about polygamy.
Osumashi Kinyobe wins the thread @10:12, and John @1:30 has a reading comprehension problem.
batman – “…BUT nobody is rallying against single parenting or divorce.”
Dude, you’ve been reading the wrong conservative propanganda.
I think this is absurde
This is terrible what the Gay community is doing . Trying to act like there so loving and caring ,all they want these children for is to tote them around like trophies over the evil str8 people as if to say “ha ha see look at me i am the same as you and there is nothing you can do about it” These poor children are going to suffer so badly at the hands of these people .
I think gay adoption is wrong and immoral it should be banned .
same with gay marrige ,
And yes shame on single mothers ,and the bastard men who make them so, as well as anyone who think’s divorce is good or o.k. or acceptable .
If two guy’s wanna pound it in each others butt’s behind closed doors by all means (i think it is wrong sick/sinful and discusting)if it is out of site and no one else is affected what ever fill your boot’s .
But leave children out of it ,it is wrong on so many different level’s .
Well lookie here:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3322591/Man-is-worlds-oldest-dad-at-94.html
Today I’m not so much feeling the love over here. 😉 My daughter is 20, doing great, she is the product of a broken home, heterosexual divorce. I entered her life when she was 6 years old.
We went to dinner the other night and she thanked me for raising her, for her never having to worry that there would be food, heat, water, and safety in our house. She wasn’t so sure about that with either her biological mom or dad.
Those issues about being ridiculed for having 2 moms never came up, even once as she was growing up.
batman, what ARE you talking about: “People get all up in arms about same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage BUT nobody is rallying against single parenting or divorce”?
@ 9:52 this very morning, I wrote, right here, “It disgusts me that our children’s needs are so readily overlooked, as far as the sex lives of the adults with whom they live is concerned. Any society that condones widespread, as we now do, serial and other sex partners, where one of the biological parents is, by definition, removed from the child’s daily life, is being negligent. All the elites’ blathering about the rights of kids is so much hot air, as long as they gush over such choices as easy divorce, common law and certain single parenthood arrangements, and surrogate and homosexual parenthood. (And, how about abortion—100 000 a year in Canada—where the child is deliberately removed from BOTH parents?!)”
Then I summed up with, “Let’s look at this issue from the other, altruistic, child-centric end of the telescope. ‘KIDS NEED MARRIAGE—THE MARRIAGE OF THEIR VERY OWN PARENTS.’ There it is, in a nutshell. Now, isn’t that a novel idea?”
Somehow, I don’t think you’ll see it my way—but you’ll have to read what I said first.
BTW, I was against “easy divorce, common law and certain single parenthood arrangements, and surrogate . . . parenthood” long before homosexuals got into the picture on this issue. So, your facile thesis that people like me “. . . are either uncomfortable with gay people for one reason or another [for no good reason at all, I guess] or they just plain hate gay people” is disingenuous, to say the least.
Paul over there in CowTown; now you are beginning to make some sense and I can’t say I disagree with you a lot. Just remember, hate the sin, love the sinner. (as in caritas over eros!)
Kyla, I hear you and I’m sorry if this topic is painful to you. I absolutely believe that you’ve given your stepdaughter the most loving care and a fine home. She’s very fortunate.
Unfortunately, for a critical mass of kids, who do not live with their own parents for one reason or another, things do not work out so well. (Over the decades, I’ve seen our kids become more and more angry and disturbed, as their lives become less and less secure via the multiple and shifting living arrangements made by their parent[s].)
Society now sanctions every possible sexual/living arrangement parents wish to make, for whatever reason, responsible or not, and whether these arrangements work for the kids or not. (Believe me, my near and extended family includes all the non-Mom/Dad arrangements I’ve mentioned: I’m not throwing stones from a glass house. I’m throwing stones from an imperfect house I know only too well.)
In general, “Kids need marriage—the marriage of their very own parents.” The further we’ve strayed from honouring and supporting that model, the more vulnerable, neglected, abused, and unhappy our kids have become. We ignore that fact at our peril.
Best wishes, Kyla, and bless you for being there for your stepdaughter.
From @Black Mamba: “Dude, you’ve been reading the wrong conservative propanganda.”
So what conservatives are champions of marriage then?
Ronald Reagan? Newt Gingrich? Dick Armey? George Will? John McCain? Rush Limbaugh? Glen Beck? Bill O’Reilly… whoops, Bill hasn’t been divorced, probably because he paid Andrea Mackris $2 million to keep her mouth shut.
Yeah, great guys all.
Suffer little children to come unto me, for they are of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Something like this said by Jesus. Jesus went on to say that he who offends one of these, it would be better to be cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck. (King James Version of the bible).
Having said that, I am aware of a tactic here on these threads. The same old tried tactic of trying to obliterate any dissent with accusations. Freely spliced with words such as “bigot” and “hate”.
I do not hate the homosexual or his/her foibles. Just leave the kids alone!
@Peter
Bigots rarely realize they are bigots even when they’re right in the middle of denying someone the same rights they enjoy. If you decide that a person is unfit to be a parent due to their sexual orientation, and you would deny them this human right (we are all free to reproduce are we not?), then you are a bigot. (What’s funny about this is how you try to play the victim… “sniff, stop calling me a hateful bigot when i’m being a hateful bigot!”)
As for bringing Jesus into this, your bearded buddy never once mention Gays. That would be the Old Testament, and that turd Paul in the New Testament who never actually met Jesus himself.
So if he didn’t make an issue of it, why do you feel a need to?
What lookout said.
What an inverted world, where the sexual whims of adults take precedence over the stability and the well-being of children.
Too many of our kids are at risk because of unstable, changing, revolving/door adult relationships (not mom/dad ones which, though never perfect, provide the most stable family arrangement for children) and yet there are defenders galore of these “unions,” because we live in a Peter-Pan-I-won’t-grow-up-I’m-Numbero-Uno-and-I-do-what-I-want-when-I-want society.
‘Could be that Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John will live a charmed life, with plenty of love and playthings — maybe even a pony and a kiddie’s Jaguar — but his situation is an anomaly: He’s got two “parents” who are gazillionaire$ and who can buy him anything he needs — or wants (which is very seldom a good thing).
Lest we be labeled a minority group of bigots and homophobes, among the 130 commenters at the British newspaper The Sun, the majority were opposed to this same-sex partnership fathering a baby.
John.
I beg to differ and you to your views and I to mine. As to “gays” not being mentioned in the testament, there was no such thing as gays.
The word was taken from the english language. This is only recently too. Finally “gays” are not gay. Not them!
@batb
I would hardly look to the commentors of a newspaper that runs a photo of a topless woman with big tits on page 3, as defenders of family values. The Sun is a rag.
@Peter
By your logic, there also weren’t any apples or oranges, because those are not words in ancient Hebrew.
Regardless of what they were called, homosexuality has been around a long, long time. It’s just that now, rational people have come to accept that this is just another way of being, that these people are not inherently evil, and that they are perfectly capable of living in long term relationships and raising children to be happy, productive adults that probably won’t turn out like Sarah Palin’s kids.
John: “we are all free to reproduce are we not?”
EXCUSE ME? When did Elton John and David Furnish “reproduce”?
They didn’t.
They used a surrogate mother (just the sound of which sends chills down my spine) and probably paid her a lot to carry this baby. Zachary Jackson Levon John-Furnish was not reproduced by both “fathers” and the suggestion that it’s their “right” to have a baby is pure fantasy on your part. If they had the correct body parts when co-mingled to produce a baby then we could talk about their “right to reproduce.”
As it is, the only right they had was the right amount of money to pay a woman — who may or may not be the biological mother — to carry this baby.
I imagine that Zachary Jackson Levon John-Furnish may, one day, want to know who his biological mother is. It could well be that he’ll rue the day he’s got two daddies and no mommy.
Here’s what St. Paul had to say in Romans 1:19 – 28:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.
You may not agree with this Scripture but to call St. Paul a turd shows you up as a bigot who obviously has no respect for the religious beliefs, held for thousands of years, of many millions of people (not only Christians but Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews).
You’re right, Elton John and David Furnish are right, and we’re all wrong.
Uh huh.
Well, usually in this sort of case, somebody’s sperm is used, so somebody reproduced. As for the parent who has no genetic material in play… that doesn’t mean they won’t love the child as much as the biological parent.
As for Paul. Look… if you want to believe some guy talked to a god and knows the nature of the universe, knock yourself out, but don’t expect people to listen to you seriously when you quote them in an argument.
But as for what he has to say… it pretty much contradicts everything this Jesus guy had to say. In fact, if Jesus knew this guy had twisted his word as much as he did, he’d be picking puke out of his beard for a week. So rather than call yourself a Christian, why not call yourself a “Paulite”?
And no… calling somebody out for their twisted philosophical beliefs that are based on somebody telling them they have a direct line to a supernatural being is not bigotry, it’s called debate. I’m just not willing to allow the goofy beliefs of people like yourself, (and Muslims, and Hindus, and whoever else) dictate how we should comport ourselves in a rational society.
And for the record, I was raised a Catholic. Went to church every weekend for 19 years. Probably know more about that particular religion than some priests. I just happened to realized that it, like all religion, is a cult based on vapours. If you want to believe in ghosts, knock yourself out, but you can’t expect to go around telling other people how to live their lives when your own grasp of reality is not so hot.
Calling one of the great Christian saints a “turd” is a debate?
Ghosts in the Catholic faith? I’m a Catholic and the only “ghost” I know of is the Holy Ghost.
And, I’m not knocking myself out, so don’t worry.
You’re not “debating,” John, you’re baiting. Give it up, grow up, and stop being such a bigot.
Oh, and BTW, John, “somebody’s sperm was used” isn’t reproduction.
You need more than somebody’s sperm in order to reproduce. Do your homework, young man.
Oh hi jay forbes! Any success ‘defat’ing?
Well, jay forbes, isn’t “outright hatred found on this site . . . it would seem that most of the parents of the people here were severely defective. . . and I wouldn’t recommend children be entrusted to the care of any of you haters” a perfect example of the “sour judgementalism” you claim to abhor?
What a hypocrite you are. I’d smarten up if I were you. And, in order to preserve the perverse fiction you’ve concocted—that you’re “tolerant and open minded”— again, if I were you, I’d keep my bigoted opinions to myself.
None of this discussion is painful to me. People have every right to differing opinions and to communicate them without censorship.
Let’s just say that my daughter had a much safer childhood than I did with traditional married, hetero parents.
Life is good, I wouldn’t change the past, ’cause I like who I have become.
lookout: “Best wishes, Kyla, and bless you for being there for your stepdaughter.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but judging from her comment, I don’t think Kyla is her daughter’s STEPmother. Sounds to me like Kyla and her same-sex partner have an adopted daughter who originally came from a broken heterosexual home.
If that’s indeed so, then I would love to see some of the commenters here address her 3:54 PM comment directly. It’s one thing to denounce same-sex parenting in the abstract; it’s another thing to denounce it when it’s being practiced by an actual person who might answer back.
I know Kyla can speak for herself.
However, if I’ve made a misstatement here about the young woman in question (Davenport, there were no same-sex adoptions 14 years ago), I apologize.
Despite the propaganda you undoubtedly have heard coming from the homosexual/transgendered community, it has been shown in study after study after study that by far the healthiest environment for a child is a two parent family, with the parents being of opposite gender. A male and female influence is crucial for a child’s development in all areas. One of the reasons being that domestic violence is much more prevalent in same gendered relationships – this is a fact. Marital breakdown is just as common, and many studies indicate significantly more so, in same gendered relationships.
Yes, I have read said studies, most of which, are ignored by the homosexual community. Most social service agencies are well aware of these studies. That being said, there are very few ideal families to place children in so allowances have been made for same gendered parents to adopt children.
The proximity and involvement of extended family is a contributing factor to the healthy development of children as well.
Kyla, I am glad to know that your step-daughter is doing well. I can hear your pride and love for her in your comments. Surviving a divorce is not easy for any kid-few if any, come through it without scars of some kind.
In my experience in counseling teens and children, including those with two mothers or two fathers, I find that they tend to be very protective of their parents. While I certainly can not say whether or not your step-daughter was or was not ridiculed for having two Moms, I can say that it is quite possible that she would not tell you if she was being or had been ridiculed, for this reason and believe me, most are. However,I have yet to meet a person that has not endured some sort of ridicule while growing up. Kids can be very cruel, as can adults.
Jay, there are equally crude descriptions of male/female sexual acts and they are not labeled hateful bigotry. Is it the description or that some people believe that homosexuality is a sin just like adultery or fornication that really bothers you?
Jesus said to the women caught in adultery “go and sin no more” after he said to those who wanted to stone her “he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Clearly Jesus acknowledged that her actions were a sin and told her not to sin anymore, yet many people seem to use the “he who is without sin” as a waiver for any & all sin and the suspension of labeling anything as right, wrong, or sin period. Mercy and compassion are being interpreted as approval and has resulted in an anything goes, except judging someone’s behavior as sin, type of pseudo morality commonly known today as “tolerance.” Merely stating a behavior is a sin is called bigotry or hate, on the contrary, telling people the truth and letting them know the consequences of their behavior is an act of love. Back is the new white and white is the new black.
We are told to abstain from certain behaviors by God because they hurt us and he does not want us to hurt ourselves and suffer the terrible consequences. God is a loving parent, if you saw your child doing something you knew would harm the child, you would tell the child not to do it no matter how right or innocent the action seemed to the child because, you, being wiser know the whole story and the future consequences to the child if the child were to continue with the behavior or action. Certainly, you would not see stopping a child from doing something wrong and calling it what it is as hateful would you? Would you call that parent a bigot for telling the child something they did not want to hear simply because the child really really liked doing the thing that he/she was doing and could see nothing wrong with it?
Thanks for that, No-One. Yes, the “Jesus loves everyone so it’s OK to do anything we want because He loves us unconditionally” meme has taken over the biblical truth about Jesus, which is that He does love us unconditionally, just as we are, but He also asks us to refrain from sinful behaviour and habits because to continue in them will hurt us and others: “go and sin no more.”
His request of us, that we go and sin no more, is conveniently and coyly left out of the “Jesus loves everyone” equation. The gay agenda has also transmogrified the biblical injunction to “love the sinner, hate the sin,” into “if you hate the sin then you hate the sinner.”
This is untrue. Just as I continue to love my children when they behave in a manner that disappoints me or in ways that I know are hurtful to themselves and/or others, I am perfectly capable of loving my friends, homosexual or otherwise, when they do things of which I disapprove. The definition of “tolerance” has been changed by the gay agenda to mean “acceptance” and if anyone refuses to accept — or bless — their behaviour, they insist that they are being wronged and that their rights have been abrogated.
This twisted version of “tolerance” has created a toxic environment because if anyone, on principle or out of religious conviction, breathes even the tiniest objection to the gay agenda/behaviour, they’re accused of being hateful, bigoted, intolerant, whereas those adjectives can equally, or more realistically, be turned back on the person voicing them, in their unwillingness to accept that not everyone can, will, or should, according to their conscience, be coerced into accepting something they consider wrong and/or hurtful.
It is instructive that jay forbes has singled out seven statements out of 96 comments that he finds “hateful” and then proceeds to tar and feather the whole SDA commentariat and our SDA hostess. He conveniently bypasses the reasonable objections made by many commenters who have demonstrated neither hatred nor bigotry towards homosexuals, just principled arguments based on their sincere religious/ethical/moral beliefs.
‘Last time I looked, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed Canadians freedom of religion and freedom of expression rights. Surely, we should be able to exercise these rights without being called hateful, intolerant, judgmental, and bigoted.
A corollary to what’s being discussed here: once upon a time, there were two couples, who were devoted and caring foster parents to children from one day old to two years old. One couple had expertise in caring for children with serious medical conditions.
Then a decree went out from the Children’s Aid (sic) apparatchiks that all foster parents were to accept and promote any self-described homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered tendencies in the children living in their homes—despite the fact that it’s well known that some prepubescent/adolescent kids are confused about their sexual identity, especially now that they’re surrounded by a hyper-sexualized culture that lionizes “difference”. These couples pointed out that this stricture hardly applied to them, as their foster children were infants and toddlers.
No matter. They were hauled in to discuss the matter, and when they said they were unable to sign the agreement, which would, effectively, mean encouraging any older, hypothetical kids in their care to attend such debaucheries as gay pride parades, they were told they were no longer acceptable foster parents. Abracadabra! Decades of devotion and exemplary care negated and demeaned.
And what about the rights of the vulnerable children? ’Trumped again by the “rights” of adult, anti-traditional-family, pro-alternate-sexed activists, whose rights seem to trump those of everyone else these days.
(Hey, Davenport, this is for you: “It’s one thing to denounce [traditional] parenting in the abstract; it’s another thing to denounce it when it’s being practiced by. . . actual [people] who might answer back”, even though this is an altogether lame and illogical objection. So, we’re only allowed to denounce things that AREN’T actually happening? DUH.)
These two couples then lost a significant part of their livelihoods, and society’s most vulnerable and needy children lost two warm and loving homes, with devoted caregivers. BTW—wait for it!—both couples were observant Christians. So, guess which kind of parents are being blatantly discriminated against and have been effectively blacklisted by Children’s Aid?
(And, no doubt, as a result of its very political, very pro-alternately-sexed, anti-heterosexual agenda, many more foster parents are now homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered, even though, as No-One has pointed out, such households are less stable than those with two, heterosexual, married parents.)
The hypocrisy here is breathtaking: Christians are actively singled out, blacklisted, and persecuted, while the anti-traditional-family agenda folks cheer and call them the most vile names. On the other hand, the alternately-sexed and their camp followers expect that every part of their agenda should be supported and even celebrated by the rest of us—or else: no dissent is allowed. Persecution is ramped up and justified. As I’ve said, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
And, guess what? I’ll keep speaking out even though “actual [people] . . . might answer back”.
jay forbes, get your facts straight: neither batb nor No-One has said what you accuse them of. Your own words are libel: written and, in this case, vile lies about another.
More hateful and untrue words from you about those of us who have an honest disagreement here: you wrote, “it would seem that most of the parents of the people here were severely defective. . . and I wouldn’t recommend children be entrusted to the care of any of you haters”. These words, for which you have no proof, drip with venom. My parents were imperfect, like everyone else’s, but were/are decent, loving human beings, as are my husband and I, who have lovingly raised two children.
Matthew, 7: 1-5:
“Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye . . .”
For jay: “Forgive him, Father, for he knows not what he does.”
jay forbes @11:59 – some of those expressions are nasty. Neither Kate nor any of the commenters here is responsible for anything some other commenter types. But people are damn well allowed to discuss things that affect our society, things like gay marriage and gay parenting. This swooning victorian virgin routine you pretend to think we all need to affect in order to appear civilized speaks to nothing but your prissiness and lack of wit.
Jay forbes isn’t feigning outrage at the derogatory terms being thrown out. He’s pointing out that they are a indicator that the people who are using them take positions against same-sex marriage and parenting for visceral reasons, like discomfort and hate–not for the ‘best interests of the kids’, as some are claiming.
What’s “witty” is to be able to come up with a rebuttal that amounts to something more than “some of you people are rude! Bigots!”. Etiquette is entirely situational. The internet is a different environment from, say, a nice dinner party.
Since the left worships censorship, I don’t expect you to understand.