Yabba "W" Doooooooooo - Myth: Gays are anti-family

Myth: Gays are anti-family

Why would gays be anti-family?

Myth

Gays = Anti-family

If all these "pro-family" groups are so anti-gay. Then the implication is that gays must be "anti-family."

This is what Dobson and the like will tell you. It is an obvious lie and anyone who knows anyone gay will tell you that. Why on earth would anyone be "anti-family?" We all have families and love them very much. The "anti-gays" once again are trying to portray gays as the boogie man under your bed who will jump out and get you in the middle of the night. Every gay person came from a "family" so to imply that gays are trying to destroy the "family" would imply that gays would be destroying themselves. Once again, it doesn't make any sense.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html facts about gays

The definition of family? Go look it up.

www.m-w.com/dictionary/familywww.m-w.com/dictionary/family

Family

1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head :
2 a : a group of persons of common ancestry : b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock :
3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4 : a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils that have similar profiles and include one or more series c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family (a single-parent families, gay families.)

No where does it say the family excludes gay Americans. #1 could be a gay family.#3 could be a gay family. #4 could be a gay family, and #5 could be a gay family. Any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family. All the studies show that gay families are equivalent to straight ones. So how can some people claim to be "pro-family." Who isn't "pro-family"? By saying this they imply that someone must not be "pro-family". Actually they don't imply it. They come right out and say it. "Homosexuals have a master plan to destroy the family", James Dobson.

Funny thing? As one of our founders, John Adams, said in 1770, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." No matter how many times you repeat something it doesn't make it true. Gays do not want to destroy the family. We are your family. We are just as much the social fabric of this country as everyone else. We love our families.

Dobson's Lies

For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family."

There can be little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon "find" a provision in the Constitution that guarantees homosexual marriage. If the people accept that decision passively, the issue will never be in question again. The institution of the family will have been destroyed."

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children."

How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed."

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it."

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless--unless--God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation."

Despite the danger that confronts us, I am hopeful that the death of the family can be averted. Most Americans still believe in the Judeo-Christian system of values, and millions of them are people of faith who are calling on the Lord for a miracle on behalf of our nation. That is the source of our confidence at such a perilous time.", James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

************************************************************************

Dobson and company are right up there with the people who thought the earth was flat, the sun revolves around the earth, left handed people are witches. In this day and age of the internet, where information is at the tip of your hands, how can this thinking still persist? Ignorance is a powerful thing. Stereotypes that fuel hate are a really powerful thing.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html

Gays will not destroy the family. Our getting equal rights and protecting our loved ones will do absolutely nothing to your family. As a matter of fact the one state with the lowest divorce rate? You guessed it..... Massachusetts. The only one that gives gays the equal right to marry. Maybe gay marriage is good for striaght marriage. Maybe when the state sees two people so in love, two people that will overcome all odds to be together. Maybe that sets the bar higher....Maybe the "drive through" marriage places in Vegas will shut down for heterosexuals, when they see two gay people go through Hell to get legal recognition.

Here at www.valueAllfamilies.com we have taken 3 years of our lives to devote to this website. All in the fight to get what you take for granted. Maybe that will make people appreciate their "straight" marriage that much more. The states with the highest divorce rates? The bible belt. How ironic? Maybe the people that actually have an effect on marriage is the two people in that marriage. Will anyone take responsibility for their actions these days? Or is there a constant need to place the blame on someone else? A constant need to find a scapegoat?

Let's talk about some things that will destroy marriage. Some things that ARE sins in the bible. Let's see..... How about divorce and infidelity? These are things that truly destroy families. These are the two things that most certainly hurt children. We don't hear James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Tony Perkins, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, or any of the Republican front runners for president 2008? We don't hear a peep about amendments against divorce or infidelity? No tax payer money wasted to pay legislators to debate the legality of them? Why is that? Could it be that those two items (both of which are imbedded in the bible) affect heterosexuals? Lots of heterosexuals that happen to vote. Could you imagine the political future of someone who proposed that it would be illegal to get divorced. Or illegal to commit adultery.

Naaaaaa.....Let's just take the cheep, easy, coward's way out and pick on and scapegoat the gays.....

It's so easy that way....there aren't that many of them to fight back.....People already have misconceptions about them....Shoot look at how far an idiot president got by scapegoating the gay people.

************************************************************************

Gay Marriage

Here is an article we had to put on the site. It demonstrates the backward thinking to a tee.

"Gays have the right to marry it just has to be someone of the opposite sex.", Kent Harper

www.elynews.comwww.elynews.com 6/9/06

How does one even respond to that? Hellllooooooo Kent, a gay person marrying the opposite sex is like you marrying the same sex. Yeah, yuck! Why would someone gay want to marry the opposite sex? Have you not heard of all the gays that have fallen into that trap so that they don't "rock the boat." Then they are so miserable that they end up coming out and leaving the person anyway. So not only one person but now two people's lives are destroyed. Maybe three or more if they had kids. Why would you ever want to promote that? Why not let each citizen marry who they fall in love with. That would make a heck of a lot more sense.

Here is the rest of his article:

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txthttp://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txt

Homosexual rights and wrongs

By KENT HARPER

Let's get something straight.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. It's his or her uncontested right. Many homosexuals have married opposite-sex partners for a variety of social reasons. Some have married to keep their sexual preferences secret or because they were confused about their sexual orientation. Others have married because they wanted to have children and a family structure like their parents' home. Some have married for tax or other financial purposes.

But the argument today is that homosexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same sex: they are being deprived of their constitutional rights. That's bogus.

The Constitution doesn't address marriage directly. The Framers couldn't have imagined that homosexual marriage would ever become a public issue. And if they had given the issue a thought, they certainly would have considered it a state issue and not a federal one.

When Massachusetts became the first state to allow homosexual marriages, many other states, including Nevada, banned the practice. Clinton signed the Protection of Marriage Act in 1996.
But any law passed by Congress can be overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds. While the judiciary can rule a law unconstitutional, the judges can do nothing to overturn a legally ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Hence the failed effort in the U.S. Senate this week to pass a constitutional amendment. There never was much chance the bill would get the needed two-thirds majority. It didn't come close Wednesday with 49 ayes and 48 nays.

The Bush-backed, Republican Senate effort, however, will serve to remind the social conservatives especially the Fundamentalist Christians, why they supported the Republican Party in the first place and why they must continue to support the GOP or see Congress and the White House fall under the control of those "godless liberals." Gays are comparing their fight for same-sex marriage rights to the Civil Rights movement, which has angered many in the Black community -- especially the leaders of the Black Christian churches who view homosexuality as a sin.

There are a few similarities, however, in the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and the old laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages -- the anti-miscegenation laws.

Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, was also the first state to overturn its anti-miscegenation laws way back in 1843.

Those laws had existed since Maryland, a colony at the time, passed the first anti-miscegenation law in 1664. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case,

Loving vs. Virginia, that it ruled the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. States began repealing their laws under the High Court's orders. The process took until 2000, when Alabama was the last state to rid itself of the racist regulations. From the first law against mixed-race marriages until the law was overturned took more than 300 years. The fight over homosexual relationships has gone on longer.

There are records of homosexuality in ancient Egypt and China. Greece in the Classic Age condoned the practice; it wasn't unusual for some older samurai in the shogun's service to have a young boy companion. Most North American native cultures honored their "twin souls," men who dressed in women's clothing. The Celtic warriors of pre-Roman Europe were teamed in homosexual pairs, although they still had wives and families at home.

Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture since the beginning of time.

So what.

It's plain (through polling) that most Americans are willing to tolerate homosexuals, even many of those who believe for moral or religious reasons that homosexuality is a sin.
But toleration is one thing. Elevating homosexuality to the level of an acceptable, alternate lifestyle is quite another. I don't object to homosexuals having all the rights the rest of us have. They are fellow citizens. I don't even object to homosexuals being able to form domestic unions. For me that's a public health issue.

Much has been said about the spread of the HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by homosexuality. It's not homosexuality, however, that spreads disease, its homosexual promiscuity, mainly gay male promiscuity, that spreads disease.

Many men who call themselves gay are actually bisexual, which exposes heterosexual women to STDs and through them, heterosexual males. Encouraging homosexuals to form long-term, monogamous relationships would cut down on the spread of STDs. Let them have responsibility for their partners, share debt, jointly own property and license their relationship with the state.

But don't include same-sex, domestic partnerships in marriage. They are not the same thing and shouldn't be linked together.

A married couple can go to a judge today and adopt two unrelated, orphaned boys. The court action will make the boys brothers. But the judge can't declare them sisters. That's a decision of biology and not the judiciary.

Marriage in all its civil and religious finery, came out of biological necessity. That's reflected in all forms of marriage through the ages, even those that allowed multiple partners. It's always been a male-female thing for biological reasons and should remain so.

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Kent Harper

************************************************************************

Where does one even begin with this? We are so glad we found this article because it pretty much sums up all the lies, myths, stereotypes, and scapegoating in one single article. Throughout this article, Kent will say one thing but the opposite is true. We would like to now reprint the same article but with some comments from us where Kent is completely wrong.

Here it is again with our comments. We will put Kent's words in bold red.

"Gays have the right to marry it just has to be someone of the opposite sex.", Kent Harper

www.elynews.comwww.elynews.com 6/9/06

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txthttp://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txt

Homosexual rights and wrongs

By KENT HARPER

Let's get something straight.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. It's his or her uncontested right. This is where it gets frustrating for gays. How can we have a decent debate. Intelligent dialog about this issue when this is the line of thinking? Kent is basically saying that gays don't exist. If he truly believes gays can marry the opposite sex then there is no where to go with this debate. He is saying the sex of the person doesn't matter. When this is central to the debate. It is the exact line of thinking that comes from Joseph Nicolosi of Narth. (See the anti-gay section of this website.) When the argument is that there is no such thing as a homosexual then all intelligent debate just stops dead in its tracks.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine founding father of the United States.

Many homosexuals have married opposite-sex partners for a variety of social reasons. Some have married to keep their sexual preferences secret or because they were confused about their sexual orientation. Others have married because they wanted to have children and a family structure like their parents' home. Some have married for tax or other financial purposes.

Here, Kent misses the entire point that until recently if one was to "come out" as gay his/her life was in danger. It was not about rights. It was about survival. Even now, in 2006, people are targeting gays for physical violence. (see hate crimes section under "walk in our shoes" on this website.) What a terrible, terrible thing it must be like to live such a massive lie. To pretend to be something you are not. Heterosexuals will never even come close to begin to imagine what this is like. Here Kent suggests that gays should continue to do this. If one really respects marriage he would not condone making a mockery of it.

But the argument today is that homosexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same sex: they are being deprived of their constitutional rights. That's bogus.

What is bogus about wanting to marry the person you love? For homosexuals, this can only be someone of the same sex.

The Constitution doesn't address marriage directly. The Framers couldn't have imagined that homosexual marriage would ever become a public issue. How does Kent know what the framers were intending? In their day there were no "out" gays. The message that the framers were sending was that they wanted a country where everyone was free. Everyone had the exact same rights. That is what the framers wanted.

Instead of guessing what our forefathers wanted why don't we read some of their quotes. From their words, it is clear that they wanted every man equal period. No exceptions. They even specifically warn of the dangers of religion being used for discrimination in civic laws. Read these and you be the judge. Did our founders in any way sound like they would have wanted the words "except gay Americans" put into our laws?

1. "Because freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

2. "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

3. "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

4. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." First president of US (1732 - 1799)

5. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." http://www.quotationspage.com/author.php?author=Thomas+Paine

6. "I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me." 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

7. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." US orator, patriot, & politician in American Revolution (1736 - 1799)

8. "Whenever we read the obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a Demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind, and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel."
US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

9. "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." 4th president of US (1751 - 1836)

9. "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."
US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

10. "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." , Journal, 1772
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

11. "Our act for freedom of religion will produce considerable good even in those countries where ignorance, superstition, poverty and oppression of body and mind in every form, are so firmly settled on the mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Wythe from Paris, August 13, 1786. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 311.)

12. "In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

13. "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities" Thomas Jefferson 1779

14. "The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body." US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

15. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

16. "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." First president of US (1732 - 1799)

************************************************************************

This last one from George Washington is priceless. "Those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government."

Yet, George Bush has decided that it doesn't matter if you are a worthy member of the community. You could be an upstanding citizen that has never been in trouble with the law. A teacher, doctor, nurse, fireman. A law abiding, churchgoing, tax-paying citizen that does nothing to hurt his/her fellow man. All that does not matter one bit if you are gay. If you are gay you do not get over 1000 rights that straight citizens get. Even if the straight person is a mass murderer, child molester, straight up menace to society. The straight person will get 1000 more rights period. George Bush pushed for an amendment to the federal constitution to make it unchallengeable in court. Several states are now passing state constitutional amendments to make sure their gay citizens will not get the same rights as their straight citizens. We hear over and over "the founders would not want gay marriage." Go back and read those quotes. What is clear is that the founders did not want religion to be used for discrimination. That is exactly what has happened under "Dubya's" administration. What is clear is that the founders were saying, "Beware of your government and don't let them take your rights away."

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be
re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
-- President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Feb. 3, 2005

YABBA "DUBYA" DOOOOOOOOOOOO

Protect it from what? Why is it, when the republicans don't like a verdict, the judge suddenly becomes an "activist?" Judges remove prejudice and bias. They look at facts. They look at what our constitution says. Citizen's rights should never be decided by other citizens. Especailly when the citizens being voted on have been misunderstood and hated from the beginning of time. When these amendments are challenged in court they will all be dismantled one by one. Not because the judge is an "activist." But because it is the right thing to do. Even if it is not the most popular it will still be the right thing to do. Was the supreme court full of "activists judges" when they voted to make interracial marriage legal?

The KKK probably thought so.

The Facts about same-sex marriage

American Anthropological Association.

The primary organization representing American anthropologists criticized President Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Thursday and gave a failing grade to the president's understanding of human cultures.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the views that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution," said the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTLhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2004m11/msg00024.htmhttp://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2004m11/msg00024.htm

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html

American Psychological Association on gay marriage

* Psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples. The working group members cited research that many gay men and lesbians both want and have committed relationships: Studies have found that between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and between 45 and 80 percent of lesbians are involved in committed relationships.

Also, reviews by Peplau and her colleagues have found that partners from same-sex couples and partners from heterosexual couples score comparably on measures of relationship quality, such as satisfaction and commitment. Finally, Kurdek has found that the factors that predict satisfaction, commitment and stability are similar in same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

Entire article here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html The psychological association backs gay marriage

Timely action

In just three months, an APA working group developed a successful council resolution to support same-sex marriage and parenting.

BY LEA WINERMAN
Monitor Staff
Print version: page 48

On July 28, the APA Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and opposing discrimination against same-sex parents. The resolution passed unanimously and in near-record time--only five months after council first proposed a working group on the subject and three months after the working group formed.

Recent debates--and legal action--concerning same-sex marriage in California, Massachusetts and other states spurred the quick action, according to Armand Cerbone, PhD, chair of the working group and a clinical psychologist in Chicago.

"Given the timeliness and urgency of the issue, APA wanted to be able to inform the public debate with research literature as quickly as possible," he says.

The specific trigger for the resolution, Cerbone says, came during the meeting of the Public Interest Caucus at the February 2004 council meeting, when psychologist John Lorenz, PhD, mentioned that community members, media and clients had been asking about APA's position on gay marriage.

Realizing that APA had given no official word on this, Cerbone, Lorenz, APA Board of Directors member Ruth Ullmann Paige, PhD, and Div. 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues) representatives Kristin Hancock, PhD, and Doug Haldeman, PhD, decided to propose at the next day's council meeting that APA establish a working group to review the literature on the topic and come up with recommendations.

Council approved that motion and asked the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) to appoint the working group. BAPPI then requested nominations from the Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns.

The final working group members--Cerbone, Hancock, Beverly Greene, PhD, Lawrence Kurdek, PhD, Candace McCullogh, PhD, Charlotte Patterson, PhD, and Anne Peplau, PhD--met from April 30 to May 2 to review previous APA policies related to same-sex relationships, marriage and families, as well as relevant research. They focused on two areas of research: same-sex relationships and marriage, and same-sex parents and their children.

The group took pains to stay within the bounds of psychologists' expertise, says Peplau, a professor of social psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied gay and lesbian relationships for nearly 30 years.

"One of the challenges for the working group was to sort out what we can say as professional psychologists and what topics are not our province," she explains. "It was really important that the working group address issues of civil marriage and civil laws, and not religious ones. We all wanted to be very respectful of people's differing views."

The final resolution references years of psychological research and states the group's conclusions:

* There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

Researchers have found that sexual identity, personality and social relationships with peers and adults develop similarly in those children as they do in children of heterosexual parents, according to the group.

Next, the working group put its resolution before APA's Board of Directors, asking it for an expedited review process. Often, it can take as long as 18 months for APA's various boards and committees to review a resolution, but this time all comments were received within one month.

Then, in July, the resolution came before council at APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu.

"What's significant is that not only did it pass, but it passed unanimously--and this is a sensitive issue," says Cerbone.

Cerbone also says that he found it serendipitous that council passed the resolution at a meeting in Hawaii--the first state to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and the first state to amend its constitution to officially bar same-sex couples from marrying.

Now that APA has passed the resolution, Cerbone says, APA's next step will be to prepare amicus curiae briefs in court cases involving same-sex marriage.

Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD, APA's general counsel, says that her office is working on the first of those briefs right now and will use the working group's report as a resource to identify important research and experts. The case, Lewis v. Harris, involves seven same-sex couples in New Jersey who are suing the state for the right to marry.

Working group member Patterson, a professor at the University of Virginia who studies children of lesbian and gay parents, agrees that this is an important next step.

"Historically, APA has been very much in front on social justice issues of different kinds, and I'm delighted to see us step forward on this," she says.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html The psychological association backs gay marriage

And if they had given the issue a thought, they certainly would have considered it a state issue and not a federal one. Not sure what Kent is getting at here because the issue was very clearly made a federal one by his camp with the Federal Marriage Amendment.

When Massachusetts became the first state to allow homosexual marriages, many other states, including Nevada, banned the practice. Here Kent uses the term "practice". Again, a subtle way to cheapen gay marriage.

Clinton signed the Protection of Marriage Act in 1996. Another politician using a small segment of society for political gain. What did he have to lose? In 1996, it was such a no brainer that even a democrat would do it. When these types of moves become political liabilities, making the politician seem pro-discrimination, how many will do it? The time is very near when being specifically "pro-marriage" will be seen for what it is: "anti-gay." The first states to stop using this technique will be the most liberal, blue states in New England and California. They already have. They realize that the right thing to do is snuff out discrimination in every last form. In these states, gay Americans are treated as equals.

In a few years, we will see it drop off significantly in middle states like Ohio, Michigan, Arizona. Then last but not least, fighting it tooth and nail, will be Mississippi and Alabama. It may take many years, but even they will stop using gays as a tool for votes.

But any law passed by Congress can be overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds. While the judiciary can rule a law unconstitutional, the judges can do nothing to overturn a legally ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This, thank God, is why it is so hard to do.

Notice the little jab at all Democrats here. Once again we have the insane insinuation that one party is more religious than another. (See the section on Republican leaders that have been convicted of sex offenses on this website under politics. The list is quite long.)

We are glad that this sentence was in here because it backs up our point that gays were used as "political pawns." Here, a hard core right winger, is stating that the amendment had no chance of passing. Instead it was used to "rally up" fundamentalist Christians. How much money and time did our lawmakers spend debating this? Is this making the best use of our tax dollars? How much did the average American pay in taxes last year? So that our lawmakers could debate a bill with no chance of passing solely to portray Gay Americans as less than equal. Because of this hate crimes will rise. Stereotypes will continue. People will be fired for being gay. People will be denied housing for being gay. Teenagers will be thrown out of the house for being gay. The prejudice will be strengthened all because "Dubya", Karl Rove, and the GOP thinks nothing of using gay citizens as pawns for political gain. (See political section on political pawns in this website for greater detail.)This is compasionate conservatism?What is compasionate about using your citizens? Using your family members? Oh the almighty dollar is powerful.

What does George Bush really believe about gay marriage?

This from an inside source at the White House:

"I have a problem with the president using gay issues as a wedge issue for political purposes. And what's particularly offensive about it is that I know for a fact that Bush doesn't believe it, so it's even more disgusting to me that he would use this issue." Stephen Herbits (Washington insider. Go to guy for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Worked in the innermost circles of the Republican party for over 30 years.)

(Google gay marriage and political pawn)

Gays are comparing their fight for same-sex marriage rights to the Civil Rights movement, which has angered many in the Black community -- especially the leaders of the Black Christian churches who view homosexuality as a sin.

Unfortunately, because someone has experienced discrimination it does not automatically make them pro-equality. People are people and there will be bigots in every race, creed, income level, political party. For some the chance to feel better than someone else is hard to resist. Gays were not hanged, or shackled but we are every bit as much discriminated against based on false stereotypes as any other minority. Gays can blend in. If gays could somehow be easily recognized do not think for one minute they would not be terrorized as much, or more than blacks. Martin Luther King wanted equality for all including gays. Here is a quote from his widow stating as much:

Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, has called gay marriage a civil rights issue and denounced proposed amendments to ban it. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of gays and lesbians and I should stick to the issue of racial injustice. I hasten to remind them that my husband once said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

It's to bad all African Americans can not see the similarities. Discrimination does not make everyone open minded and accepting. That comes from within.

There are a few similarities, however, in the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and the old laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages -- the anti-miscegenation laws.

We agree. What is sad is that we can't learn from our mistakes. Why is history doomed to repeat itself? Look at what was said about interracial marriage compared to the quotes from James Dobson on gay marriage. It is almost identical.

In 1911(almost 100 years ago) there was a federal amendment to the constitution proposing banning marriage between citizens of different races.

After Johnson (a black man) married Lucille Cameron (a white woman), two ministers in the South recommended lynching him. Isn't that special? Ministers recommending murder. In a reaction to the Johnson-Cameron marriage, in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict". Representative Roddenberry

Why does this doom and gloom sound so familiar? Here it is 95 years later and the same apocalyptic and pessimistic "the sky will come crashing down" view is portrayed by James Dobson of Focus on the Family:

1. "For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family..

2. "The institution of the family will have been destroyed" (1911 it was "subversive to social peace")

3. "Death of the family"

4. "Demise of families"

5. "Will cause Chaotic culture" (1911 it was subversive to social peace), (1911 bring this nation to a fatal conflict)

6. "Homosexuality is repulsive", Concerned Women of America. (1911 mixed marriage is repulsive, abhorrent, and repugnant)

That was the way people thought in 1911. Is the Republican Party not embarrassed that they think the same way 100 years later? Even with the advent of technology, TV, movies, planes, travel, and education, these members of society refuse to evolve. Yet another Yabba "Dubya" Doooooo from the party of the caveman.....

Let's go back even further to 1779. This quote from our founding father Thomas Jefferson shows what the founders really wanted for this country.

"That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." Thomas Jefferson 1779

So, in other words, religious beliefs should not effect civic rights. Uh huh.....

Such doom and gloom over two people who fall in love. What must it feel like to be so wrong? To spend your entire life in a fog of confusion. So un-evolved that your critical thinking is non-existent. People used to think the earth was flat. They used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. They used to burn people who they thought were witches. They used to beat the hands of the left handed. It must be like prison living in that box...

Evolve: To develop or work out arrive at gradually.

Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes gradually (why is it that in the Rubblecan party it is at a snails pace?)

Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, was also the first state to overturn its anti-miscegenation laws way back in 1843. Progressive states tend to progress.

Those laws had existed since Maryland, a colony at the time, passed the first anti-miscegenation law in 1664. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case,

Loving vs. Virginia, that it ruled the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. States began repealing their laws under the High Court's orders. The process took until 2000, when Alabama was the last state to rid itself of the racist regulations. From the first law against mixed-race marriages until the law was overturned took more than 300 years. 300 years? This is not something to be proud of. Massachusetts first. Alabama last. Dollars to doughnuts history will repeat itself.

The fight over homosexual relationships has gone on longer.

There are records of homosexuality in ancient Egypt and China. Greece in the Classic Age condoned the practice; it wasn't unusual for some older samurai in the shogun's service to have a young boy companion. Most North American native cultures honored their "twin souls," men who dressed in women's clothing. The Celtic warriors of pre-Roman Europe were teamed in homosexual pairs, although they still had wives and families at home. Ok they may have been paired up but it does not mean they were homosexuals. This is a huge misconception here. A lot of the biblical verses and what Kent is referring to here are heterosexual men having homosexual sex. They are not homosexuals. In 2006, we are not talking about heterosexual men wanting to marry each other. There are homosexuals that only have relationships, fall in love, and date the same sex. It is the only thing natural to them. Kent is discussing varying forms of was sexually acceptable through the ages.

Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture since the beginning of time.

Here Kent is calling what different cultures did through the ages "homosexuality." "Pairing up" soldiers does not make them homosexuals. Just like the whole town in Sodom wasn't gay.

This next point will be the toughest thing for the closed minded to absorb. Take your time and absorb this. Until this can be understood then there is no reasoning. Intelligent debate can not occur. Here we go:

Having sex with the same gender does not make you gay. That is not homosexuality.

Plenty of heterosexuals have had a homosexual "experience." Plenty of gays have had a heterosexual "experience."

You are either gay or not. The "act" does not make you gay. That would be like saying that every woman that has a threesome, because her husband begs her, is gay. She is a straight woman having sex with another woman. Most likely for her husband's fantasy. Doesn't make her gay. It is not homosexuality. It's two straight women having sex. Many gay people fake heterosexual sex because of the pressure from society to conform. It doesn't make them straight. Until the people can think "out of the box", the realities of this issue will not be understood. Ken, unfortunately, is deeply in "the box."

So what.

It's plain (through polling) that most Americans are willing to tolerate homosexuals,

Here we go with "tolerate." "Tolerate" congers up something negative to be endured like a screaming baby on a plane. Gays get up, go to work, come home, eat dinner, and go to bed only to do it all over again the next day. What part of that does society need to "tolerate?"

What part of that is bothersome to anyone? Most people don't even know gays exist. We are an invisible part of society. Many of these "fundamentalists" are friends with gays and they don't even know it. Why do you need to "tolerate" something that you can't even tell is there? Instead of teaching "tolerance" we should be teaching to "live and let live." Using the word "tolerate" automatically sets a bad tone. People "tolerate" things that are bothering them. Gay people don't bother anyone. If gay people bother you by existing then it says a lot more about you than it does the gay person.

even many of those who believe for moral or religious reasons that homosexuality is a sin. God, religion, and the Bible say nothing against gay people. People have a problem with gay people not God. (Read the Religion/bible section on this website.) Even if that is their religious belief then they should only apply it to their own life. Religious beliefs are different for different people. They are "beliefs." They are not called religious "facts". They are "beliefs."

A belief is something that has not been proven as fact. If you feel strongly about it then don't be gay. But to force your belief on to another human's life is wrong. It goes against everything our founders wanted for this country. To each his own. Live and let live. Two people in love do nothing to hurt society. This country needs a lot more love. Gender doesn't matter. Love is love. Love is God in any form. I am Catholic. I love God. I believe in God. My religious belief is that people use religion for their advantage. I belive God wants us to love each other. I believe God is hurting so bad when He sees what these radical right fundamentals do to gays. He sent his son here to tell people to stop hating. His son said not one word about gays.

My religious belief is that humans invented this hatred for gays because humans are fallible. The least evolved humans gravitate toward the basic of survival mechanisms. The most primal instinct is to fear something that looks or acts different. If it is different then it may hurt you. Kill it before it kills you. As human beings have evolved we have learned to not fear things that are different. Those of us that have evolved learn to use our experiences to form our opinions and ideas. In this day and age everyone must know someone gay. Think about that person. Are they any different than most people?

My religious belief is that God will feel what you feel deep in your heart. If you hate or try to hurt someone else God will feel that. That is what he will judge you on. If you love someone and take care of them He does not care if they are the same gender. Why would he? Love is God. God is Love. He loves when people are truely in love. He hates when people are miserable with their partners. He hates abuse of any kind. That is my religious belief.

Why should your religous believe weigh any more than mine politically?

These state marriage amendments go directly against what our founders wanted. Thomas Jefferson could not be any clearer on this:

1. "Because freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. , speech, 1808
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

2. "Our act for freedom of religion will produce considerable good even in those countries where ignorance, superstition, poverty and oppression of body and mind in every form, are so firmly settled on the mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped."

3. "I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me." 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

4. "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities" Thomas Jefferson 1779

These state amendments are passing 70% to 30%. What part of not using religion to discriminate are 70% of Americans not getting? People this is so un-American. Everything that this country stands for is completely being thrown out the window. We are a great nation because we do not allow discrimination. 2006 will be remembered as the darkest year in our history. Everything that we are considered great for is now null and void. We just changed our Constitution to:

We the people, Except the Gays....

When fundamentalists religious folk feel strongly about their beliefs they feel that everyone must believe the same thing. This is the problem. They don't respect American Values. This includes respecting different views. This includes freedom to believe what you want when it comes to religion. We do not have a national religion. We do not have a national religious belief. We are a melting pot of several religious beliefs. When we are children the very first lesson learned is to share.

This country is not owned by any one group. It is not owned by gays. It is not owned by straights. It is not owned by atheists. It is not owned by fundamental Christians. We need to learn to share. We need to respect differing beliefs. We need to make civic laws that only protect citizens from each other. We need not civic laws or constitutional amendments that do nothing except penalize gay Americans for being gay. That is what sets us apart from many other countries. We desperately want to separate ourselves from extremists in Iraq and Iran. Those countries have discriminated against gays severely through the ages. The passion and energy that our fundamental Christians put into discriminating against gay Americans seems a lot closer to what the extremists in Iraq do to their citizens than what our founders wanted for this country.

We must be careful about taking our religion to the extreme that it violates our principles and foundations as a country. No matter how much you fear, hate, or disgust gays you must remember American Values. We are not a theocracy. This is not Natzi Germany. Our government was set up specifically to protect the minorities from the majorities. Our government was set up to protect gays from Evangelical Christians.

George Bush completely abandoned Americas values. He did the opposite of what America stands for. He purposely wanted an amendment to discriminate against gay Americans put into our constitution. No president has ever done something so UNAmerican. This is what happens when a rich, clueless, born-again Christian is elected to the White house. We need leaders that live in reality. We need leaders that care about every last citizen not just the ones that look, act, and think like them.

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

But toleration is one thing. Elevating homosexuality to the level of an acceptable, alternate lifestyle is quite another. (Read the section on this website on Myth #3 There is a Gay "lifestyle.") Anyone who uses the term "lifestyle" when referring to gays announces their ignorance about gays. How can falling in love with a certain gender give you a certain lifestyle? Lifestyle involves choice. Some gays have materialistic lifestyles. Some gays have simple lifestyles. Some gays have healthy lifestyles. Some gays have unhealthy lifestyles. Some gays eat a lot of fat and sugar and never exercise. Some gays are tri-athletes. How can you say there is a gay "lifestyle?" Is there a heterosexual "lifestyle?" No two gays are exactly alike as no two straights are exactly alike. The reason you use the term "lifestyle" is to convey to the reader/listener that it is a choice. The person has chosen a "bad path." That "gay lifestyle."

Does Bishop Robertson live the same "lifestyle" as Elton John? Does Ellen Degeneres live the same "lifestyle" as Ken Melhman? There are gay bikers, gay priests, gay mailmen, gay doctors, gay republicans, gay democrats, gays in the projects, gays in high society. Many gays have absolutely nothing in common. Fat gays, skinny gays, tall gays, short gays, rich gays, poor gays, rude gays, nice gays. How can you say they all live the same "lifestyle." There is no such thing. It is just another myth conjured up to make stereotyping and discrimination easier to do. We have no common physical traits so we must have a common "lifestyle." Who you love is not a "lifestyle."

Please Kent back it up. Write to http://www.valueallfamilies.com/ and give us some characteristics of the "gay lifestyle." We will give you examples of everything you write in the heterosexual world. We will also give you examples of many gay people that do not have those traits. So be very careful when you call something a "lifestyle" and apply it to 6-10 percent of the population. People that you obviously don't know.

I don't object to homosexuals having all the rights the rest of us have. They are fellow citizens. I don't even object to homosexuals being able to form domestic unions.

How un-American does that sound? Kent, Why on earth do you think you have any right to object or not to another person's rights? You should be embarrassed as an American to even be able to say those words. You don't see how you sound? You are saying, "I am so much better than you. You are lucky that I will allow you some rights." Pathetic Kent, just pathetic. You do not understand what this country stands for at all. Maybe you should go down to immigration with the illegals and take the test to become an American. Either that or go back to history class.

Kent touches on a huge misperception here. Here is where the spin comes in. "We just don't think gays should be "married". But they deserve to form "civil unions." President Bush had a conference at the Whitehouse to talk up the marriage amendment. At the very end he says, "but gays should have some legal protections." He says that but his amendment specifically makes even existing rights that gays have null and void. How can Bush push an amendment that would make gay legal partnerships that are in Massachusetts, California, Vermont null and void and then say, "But they deserve some legal rights"?

You can't have it both ways. If you are pushing for discrimination then own up to it and state that is what you are doing. If you are going to be the bad guy then you can not turn around and try to look like the good guy.

This is where the proposed amendments pull the wool over the average Joe's eye. The average person hears this and thinks, "well I'll vote for marriage between a man and a woman. That sounds like the right thing to do. The gays can have their unions or whatever..." Some people actually have a conscience and to deal with it they need to believe they are not stripping important protections from fellow Americans. By now everyone knows someone gay so when you vote on these amendments think of them. You are voting to deny that person many rights you take for granted. You are voting for discrimination period.

There are very real consequences to how you vote. Here is what you will vote for:

Two women were in a loving relationship for 12 years. Susan and Bea. Bea got sick. Her partner took care of her for the last 5 years of her life. On March 23, 2001 Bea passed away. She had a terminal illness and they knew she was going to die. They discussed it and planned on spending her last moments together. They made this clear to the hospital and if Susan was not there and Bea turned for the worse the hospital was instructed to call Susan so she could say good bye.

The hospital staff had anti-gay prejudice in their hearts. They purposely did not warn Susan that Bea was close to death and did not call her to come see Bea before she died. They did not even call Susan until 4 hours after her partner died. She wanted to hold her lifelong companion's hand and tell her goodbye and that she loved her. Her phone number was on the front of the chart and the hospital was instructed to call her if it looked bad. The staff purposely ignored this and stole this very precious moment from her. This woman's life partner was dead for 4 hours and she didn't even know it. That is what you just voted for. What if it was you? What if you did not get the chance to say goodbye to the one person you loved the most in the world? What if the reason was because your fellow citizens voted to discriminate against you and the United States Government decided that majority opinion was more important than protecting every citizen's civil rights. You would probably take three years of your life to make a website too.

If you want to keep marriage between a man and woman it is one thing. But these amendments specifically are written to target gays for this abuse. No legal protections. What the hospital did was disgusting but perfectly legal. The amendments that just passed this year to all those state amendments solidified it. If you believe that this is ok then there is nothing we can do. If you do not think this is ok. If you feel for this woman and realize that contacting her to give her the chance to say goodbye to the one person in the world who meant most to her is the right thing to do. If you feel that by her saying goodbye and holding her partners hand as she passes away in no way infringes on your life then you can not vote for these amendments. It is that black and white.

You must reword the amendments to not include the second sentence "legal incidents thereof." They can not say "legal rights associated with marriage are only for a man and a woman." If you leave them worded as they are. Then you are responsible for what that hospital did. You are responsible for this woman's deep pain and heartache of not being able to say goodbye to the one person in the world who meant most to her. If that is not the definition of mean-spirited we do not know what is. Like it or not this is the reality of these amendments. God does not care what you say. Anyone can put up a facade. God feels what you feel deep in your heart. These are difficult times. God can see everything that everyone is doing to gay people. Don't think for one minute that God will not judge you on how you treat gay people.

Know what you are voting for. Who talks like this "and legal incidents thereof?" What is a legal "incident?" What does "thereof" mean? Word the amendment plain and simple so that that average person can understand it.

What "and legal incidents thereof" means is this: All legal responsibilities. All legal benefits. All associations of being legally tied with marriage can only be legally associated with marriage. Not domestic partnerships. Not civil unions. Not someone other than a man and a woman. Not a woman and a woman. Not a man and a man. They are targeting gays to receive separate treatment in a variety of laws.

The state amendments should be worded like this:

Do you believe that gay Americans deserve no legal recognition of their partnerships?

Do you believe that gay Americans do not deserve to cover each other with health care from work?

Do you believe that gay Americans should be barred from visiting each other in the hospital if one is hurt. If the administrator of the hospital thinks that homosexuality is a sin?

Do you believe that all assets belonging to one gay belongs to his/her family not his or her partner even if they have been in a committed loving relationship for 50 years? Do you believe that gay relationships do not matter? Do you believe that you deserve more protections than your fellow man? Do you believe that discrimination is ok in some instances?

If they were worded like that then guarenteed people would not vote on them by 70%. That is why they word them the way they do.

For me that's a public health issue.

Much has been said about the spread of the HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by homosexuality. It's not homosexuality, however, that spreads disease, its homosexual promiscuity, mainly gay male promiscuity, that spreads disease.

Here we go with the Aids dig. From the website: http://www.avert.org/aidsyounggaymen.htm

"Gay men suffer particular stigmatisation when they were widely perceived to be responsible for the epidemic rather than affected by it. Raising public awareness and understanding has an important play in challenging misconceptions like this. In the UK the Terrence Higgins Trust has mounted a mass media campaign aiming to challenge stigma."

Check your facts on aids. This is not just a homosexual male disease. Only 30% of new HIV diagnoses in 2004 were among men who have sex with men. For you to try and blame aids on gay men is beyond reproach. http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/factsandstatistics/uk/

Many heterosexuals get and pass it. Many through IV drug use. Many heterosexual men are promiscuous. Many cheat on their wives. Many gay men are monogamous without a legal marriage. Another stereotype of gay men that is not fair to attach to all gays. And if you want to get this dig in on gay men. Let us remind you lesbians have a much smaller chance of giving each other aids then heterosexuals do to each other. So if you are implying that certain sex has consequences then God must love lesbians.

Let them have responsibility for their partners, share debt, jointly own property and license their relationship with the state. Your amendments specifically deny us these things. Our president has used the constitution as a political tool. What you just said you really don't mean.

But don't include same-sex, domestic partnerships in marriage. They are not the same thing and shouldn't be linked together. Let's have a look at the "sanctity" shall we?

Domestic violence

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

Once every 15 seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.

One of every eight women -- at least 12.1 million -- has been raped sometime in her life.

Violence is the prime cause of injuries to women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and cancer combined, according to the U.S. Surgeon General. The perpetrators overwhelmingly are male.

In terms of both raw numbers and severity of violence, that of heterosexuals certainly ranks well over twenty times that of the homosexual segment of society. For restrictive theologians to provide no such context for their judgments about homosexuality suggests an attempt to use homosexuality as a means of camouflaging the violent and non-violent sexual failures of heterosexuals. A hermeneutic that neglects the Fall in Genesis 1-3 where it is a major part of the story but inserts it into Romans 1 where the text does not mention it is also consistent with efforts to simultaneously demean homosexuality and idealize heterosexuality.

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

Was that written for you Kent?

A married couple can go to a judge today and adopt two unrelated, orphaned boys. The court action will make the boys brothers. But the judge can't declare them sisters. That's a decision of biology and not the judiciary. Here again trying to cheapen gays, gay relationships. Biology equals "natural" you may get your laws but it's not "natural." The only people implying that gays are "unnatural" are usually quoting scripture. The professionals in health, human genetics, biology, psychology, and psychiatry all agree it is completely natural. (see myth#3 religion the bible section on this website.)(see the myth #1 choice section on this website.)

Marriage in all its civil and religious finery, came out of biological necessity.

Actually marriage came out of ownership. A father would sell his daughter to the highest bidder.

From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man. Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686. Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn. Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years. As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime. These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and under what circumstances. Those who claim otherwise distort the historical record.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.htmlhttp://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html

That's reflected in all forms of marriage through the ages, even those that allowed multiple partners. It's always been a male-female thing for biological reasons and should remain so. It wasn't always a male-female only thing. From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions. http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. "Sodomy laws" included heterosexual "behaviors."

Allow them the same rights and privileges in their relationships that married people have. Here again the marriage amendments specifically say the opposite of this. You guys can not have it both ways. Accept what you are doing and take responsibility for it. Your amendments do not allow any rights and specifically take away any rights that have been gained. If you are going to be "the bad guy" you can not act like "the good guy." You vote for and pass these amendments and then write articles like this. "Allow them the same rights..." Your camp does not want to allow "them" the same rights and is spending millions of dollars to push discrimination disguised as marriage protection.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Kent Harper

Here is a quote that could not be more perfect for you, Kent.

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices -- to be found in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone." Rod Serling, US actor, producer, & screenwriter (1924 - 1975)

***********************************************************************

It would be one thing if the state of heterosexual marriage was solid. But to make a statement like that with a 50% failure rate and domestic violence as rampant as it is is just straight up denial about the real state of heterosexual marriages. Look how horrifing reality is....

Once every 15 seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.

One of every eight women -- at least 12.1 million -- has been raped sometime in her life.

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

http://psychology

.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html

What is really going on here?

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is the practice of blaming an individual or group for a real or perceived failure of others. The origin of the term comes from the Bible. The high priest in Biblical times would place his hand upon a goat's head and transfer the sins of the community to the goat, which was then released into the desert.

It is not uncommon to blame others for our own mistakes (i.e. bad marriages), and especially to affix blame on those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves against the charges. Minorities are often the targets of scapegoating. First, minorities are often isolated within society and are thus an easy target. Those in the majority are more easily convinced about the negative characteristics of a minority with which they have no direct contact. Violence, persecution, and genocide directed against minorities often occur when a minority group is being blamed for some social ill. Unemployment, inflation, food shortages, the plague, and crime in the streets are all examples of ills which have been blamed on minority groups.

************************************************************************

Kent, there are some great heterosexual marriages out there and there are some great homosexual marriages out there. These relationships are about love and commitment. People taking care of each other. What the world needs is more of this gay or straight. What the world needs less of is people like you shooting off at the mouth about something that you really don't understand at all. This country is torn apart about this. Gay teens try suicide 5 times that of straight teens. Because of articles like this. 95% of the educated professional psychiatrist, psychologist, anthropologist have declared gays as a normal variation of humanity. A completely biological normal part of life. Every gay person knew this the second they hit puberty.

The only people with issues on it are fundamental religious folk. The same people who were last to accept that the earth was not flat. The same people that were last to accept that the we revolve around the sun not the other way around. The same people who thought left handed people were witches. The same people who thought races shouldn't mix. The thing about these fundamental religious people? They all seem to know how to tell everyone else how to live.

No gay person is telling anyone else to be gay. We are saying it is ok if you are. If that is what the person feels. We are not trying to turn straight people gay. This is myth #1. Sexual orientation is unchangeable. We are saying that if you are gay then it is ok. It is for every individual to figure out. If it is even a question then you are probably not gay. It is not something one is unsure of. We believe in living our own life and that is it. Each person has their own life to live. Why do fundamentals profess to know what is right for someone else? God specifically says, "do not call what I have sent unclean." He also says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He also says, "do not judge." Leave judgment up to Him. He also says, "love your neighbor as yourself."

We thank you for your opinion. It helped show many of the reasons that this website needed to be made. Your stereotypes and misperceptions are classic. You made this section quite easy to organize.

Sincerely,

http://www.valueallfamilies.com/

***********************************************************************

Gay marriage

What do we know from the countries that have allowed gay marriage?

Denmark Norway Sweden Netherlands Scandinavia

The Lie

Dobson loves to say that gay marriage has ruined straight marriage in these countries.

"The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes."

The claim is made over and over that these liberal countries are having more babies out of wedlock, less getting married due to gay marriage.

The Truth

Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands

The truth is this was happening anyway until 1989 when gay marriage was introduced and after a few years marriages became more stable..

Bill O'Reilly misrepresents the Scandinavian studies on the O'Reilly factor

On both his shows, O'Reilly misrepresented marriage statistics in three Scandinavian countries -- Sweden, Norway, and Denmark -- as well as the Netherlands.

In addition to claiming that the Netherlands permits formal man/beast relationships, O'Reilly also suggested on The O'Reilly Factor that the Netherlands' legalization of gay marriage has "changed]" the country by leading to an increase in out-of-wedlock births. During a discussion with William N. Eskridge Jr. and Darren R. Spedale, authors of (Oxford University Press, June 2006), O'Reilly stated that the "conclusion you have come to ... that there hasn't been that much change" in countries that have legalized gay marriage, is wrong because "in the Netherlands ... births outside of marriage" have "doubled."

In fact, "out of marriage" births have steadily since 1995, six years prior to the of same-sex marriages.

Later in the show, after his interview with Eskridge and Spedale, O'Reilly misrepresented their findings, arguing to Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers that Eskridge and Spedale's research found that the legalization of same-sex relationships had an effect on "regular marriage."

The Lie

O'Reilly stated, "As I talked to the authors of the book, there's no question, based upon their research, which is gay friendly," that in societies that have "embraced gay marriage, regular marriage" has "declined."

The Truth

But, the authors found no such cause and effect. To the contrary, their research found that in countries that recognize same-sex relationships in some legal form, the rate of heterosexual marriage actually increased, while divorce rates decreased, as they made clear during their appearance on the June 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: OK. And your conclusion you have come to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there hasn't been that much change.

But in the Netherlands, there has, and births outside of marriage, that's doubled. But in the rest of the countries -- Denmark, Norway, Sweden -- Mr. Eskridge, it's basically the same. Although in Norway, this is very interesting, in the southern part of Norway, more conservative part of the country, births outside of marriage much lower than the liberal northern part.

ESKRIDGE: Well, interestingly, Mr. O'Reilly, what we found in Denmark, which has had registered partnerships since 1989, the marriage rate had actually been falling in Denmark until '89. The divorce rate had been rising.

O'REILLY: Right.

ESKRIDGE: And the rate of non-marital births went up from 11 percent in the early '70s to over 45 percent in the late '80s. And the interesting thing is after Denmark recognized same-sex unions, the marriage rate went back up, the divorce rate fell, and the rate of non-marital children stabilized. And in the last five years, it's stabilized at a lower level than in 1989.

O'REILLY: All right, Professor, but --

ESKRIDGE: So, one of the things we show in the book is that the situation from a traditional point of view actually improved in Denmark.

ESKRIDGE: But the point is that, in Sweden, we've seen some of the same trends that we saw in Denmark. So, in Sweden, the rate of marriage had been plummeting before 1994, when they adopted same-sex unions. The rate of marriage has been increasing in Sweden since 1994.

O'REILLY: I think we can draw this -- this is what I'm drawing from all of your data. The gay marriage, per se, the marriage of homosexuals, doesn't really impact on straight marriage for those who want a traditional union. But it does, Mr. Spedale, it does lead to a more libertine or permissive society in the sense that marriage itself then is de-emphasized as we see in Sweden. And more and more people cohabitate.

SPEDALE: No. I think that's not true. I think exactly we saw the opposite. And that's why these statistics are so interesting. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, in each of those countries, after they passed their gay marriage type laws, their registered partnership laws, the rates of heterosexual marriage went up per capita. The rates of heterosexual divorce went down.

*************************************

Here is yet another example of the misrepresenting of facts without giving a source to back up what they say. It is another pack of lies.

June 9, 2006

'Til Howard us do part

DO HOMOSEXUAL couples deserve the same legal rights and privileges de-facto and married heterosexual couples enjoy? Two members of Parliament give their view.

ARGUMENT Against gay marriage ...
DENNIS HOOD - Family First MLC

MARRIAGE is under attack across the Western world. Last year we saw Elton John "marry" his male partner in England, and not long afterwards a woman "married" a dolphin in Israel. (see how they cheapen gay rights by immediately comparing it to marrying an animal or polygamy?) A man and two women - one of them bisexual - have taken part in what was described as a "marriage" ceremony in the Netherlands.

Several countries have already given in (given in or realized it was the right thing to do?) to pressure from the homosexual lobby (there is no lobby the gays get rights because individuals take it to court) to allow same-sex "marriage" or some other form of legal recognition for same-sex relationships On 11 May, the ACT followed suit - but the Federal Government has announced it will overturn the ACT "civil unions" law in order to preserve the special nature of marriage as the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Over many centuries, governments have granted marriage a privileged status not given to other relationships, for two key reasons:

* Only marriage provides the long-term stability with male and female role models needed to provide the best environment for children(This is a lie every study to date shows no difference between children raised by straight or gay parents)

* Men and women complement each other in marriage - benefiting each other and society. So do gays.

These facts are well-established in social science research.(Not true) Marriage has been found to be more enduring than heterosexual cohabitation, and far more so than homosexual cohabitation. (not true)

A study by Professor Sarantakos of Charles Sturt University in NSW found that children raised by their biological married parents did far better than those raised by their biological cohabiting parents, who in turn did better than children raised by same-sex "parents". (Not true)

Numerous studies show that children brought up outside of heterosexual marriage have higher rates of physical and mental health problems, child abuse, criminality, drug abuse and poor academic performance. (The studies that he is talking about do not include same sex parents)

Ironically, most same-sex couples do not want official recognition. (Not true)

In New Zealand, only 156 male and 170 female couples registered their civil unions during the year after this option became available - just 6 per cent of the 5070 same-sex couples recorded in the NZ Census. The push for such laws comes from a minority of an already small group of same-sex partners representing less then 2 per cent of Australian couples. (Discrimination is discrimination whether it affects one person or one million.

Homosexual couples are already free to form domestic interdependent relationships, just as two friends may do without sexual involvement. (This is not true. The amendments being passed make sure of it.)

However, marriage is different. It is special - reserved for a man and woman in an exclusive relationship for life. (Tradition does not equal nondiscrimination. It was traditional to have slaves. It was traditional for women to not own property or vote. It was traditional for the races not to mix. Didn't make it right.)

The Australian Capital Territory has no Upper House to review or moderate its decisions. This being the case, it is reasonable the Federal Government overturn legislation in the ACT

If governments give marriage benefits and recognition to other types of relationships, the unique status of marriage would decline - with devastating consequences for children and for society as a whole which is supported by extensive social science research. (If there has not been gay marriage then how can it be supported by "extensive " social science research?)

It is like giving every AFL footballer a Brownlow Medal - the medal would become worthless. (worthless? pretty much sums up what you think about Gays.)

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19409177%255E20221,00.htmlhttp://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19409177%255E20221,00.html

Those were the Lies......

Here is the Truth about Gay Marriages

Source: University of Vermont

Released: Wed 22-Mar-2006, 15:50 ET

Gay Unions Are Not-So-Dangerous Liaisons, New Data Show

Description

Research at the University of Vermont mapping the lives of couples with civil unions finds few demographic differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Newswise ? It's a safe bet that most people, wherever they stand morally and politically, have an idea of who lesbian women and gay men are, whether it's based on experience or images in the media. A skewed sample, either way. The true picture of homosexuality in America, urban or cowboy, with children or not, in or out of the closet, is far more elusive.

According to University of Vermont professor Glen Elder, who presented new and surprising research analyzing the lives of same-sex couples at a recent meeting of the Association of American Geographers, academics are equally at fault, basing studies on groups of gays and lesbians who are visible and concentrated. "We have produced a body of literature about homosexual lives," he says, "that tends toward the ?exceptional.'"

Elder and his colleagues have taken a more scientific approach to analyzing the lives of at least one subset of gays and lesbians: those who entered into civil unions in Vermont the first year they were offered, from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex relationships in the form of civil unions and at that time no other U.S. state or Canadian province offered anything comparable. Couples traveled to Vermont from all over the United States. Because civil union certificates, like marriage certificates, are public information, the researchers were able to analyze all couples who got civil unions, whether closeted or not.

The ability to include couples without requesting their participation makes this research unique. Previous studies of gay and lesbian lives have relied on either the visibility of the population, their willingness to admit to being part of a stigmatized group, or "convenience" samples ? such as surveying members of an organization or clientele of niche bookstores or bars ? methodologies that are ripe for bias, both tapping into and reinforcing stereotype.

Elder's approach?using civil union data collected by co-authors Sondra Solomon and Esther Rothblum for a previous study ? provided a large, national sample of same-sex couples, albeit one that naturally favors neighboring New England states. Using a Geographic Information System, they were able to map where the couples reside and overlay the data on a feature class of U.S. Census tracts. With a focus on population density, race/ethnicity, age, household composition, and home ownership, they then compared their results to national averages.

Same sex, same lives
What's most interesting about this analysis, paradoxically, is the banality of the results. Civil union households simply don't differ that much from those of the general population. They appear to be in somewhat more populated tracts than the national average (5134 versus 4306), but not to the extent, writes Elder, that they are portrayed in the media or even in academic work on the geography of lesbian and gay lives. This suggests that while some couples with civil unions may live in "gay ghettos" such as San Francisco or Provincetown, most are dispersed in towns and cities of varying sizes.

Broken down by age cohort, there is not much difference between the median age in civil union tracts (37) and national averages (35.9). Civil union households appear to reside in slightly whiter tracts than the national average. However, when broken down by specific race/ethnicity, it appears that civil union tracts are less likely to be African American (8 percent versus 13 percent for national tracts) or Hispanic (7.9 percent versus 11 percent), but more likely to be Asian American (8 percent versus 3 percent).

People living in civil union households live in places with similar numbers of married households (51 percent versus 48.1 percent). They have a slightly greater chance of residing in neighborhoods that have higher ratios of renters to homeowners (35.1:57.2 versus 33.3:60 for national averages).

The research speaks quite specifically to the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage.

"It's surprising on the one hand, but also reassuring," Elder says of the results. "Gays and lesbians who aspire towards the symbolic and real material benefits of marriage are no different from other people who aspire towards domestic stability and material comfort. They are middle class; they want the stuff of a middle class lifestyle. These are not people who are ripping the fabric of America."

**********************************************************************

What really threatens marriage? What really destroys marriage?

1. Disrespect

2. Dishonesty

3. Substance abuse

4. Actions of the two people in the marriage.

What is the ultimate betrayal in a marriage? Infidelity.

Violence and abuse is rampant.

Heterosexual Rape

93,433 forcible rapes were reported in 2003

Being turned on by their own family.

No other minority is turned on by their own family. When any other minority is targeted at least they can feel safe when they go home. This is not true for gays. Sometimes the most dangerous place for them is in the home.

Aug. 11, 2000, New York City

A 17-year-old who announced to his parents that he was gay earlier in the year was recovering after his parents severely beat him. Police say that Hendrick Paterson, 49, and Sharon Paterson, 36, allegedly repeatedly smashed their son with a lead pipe at a relative's home as they yelled anti-gay slurs. "God will punish you for your lifestyle!" "You can't be gay," the couple are quoted as saying. The son was rushed to the hospital where he was treated and released for multiple welts to his body. The NYPD hate crimes unit arrested the couple. It is unclear how they will be charged. The attack was apparently the culmination of a simmering six-month feud between the boy and his parents, who were so outraged by his sexual orientation that they kicked him out of the house. He went to live with an aunt, a few miles away, where the attack occurred. (The New York Daily News, Aug. 13, 2000

Myth: Gays make bad parents

Dobson's Lie:

"the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

This is talking about heterosexual married vs. heterosexual single parent homes. He is trying to imply that gay parents are included in the mix. They are not.

The Truth:

The American Psychological Association (APA) in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

1. Studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

2. the majority" of social research has not found that children raised by homosexual parents are at any disadvantage.

3. The evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are equal to those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

4. * There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html The psychological association backs gay marriage and gay parenting

5. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html facts about gays

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110002http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110002

Time gave Dobson a platform to misrepresent -- again -- science on same-sex parenting

Summary: In a Time magazine guest column, James Dobson baselessly claimed that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." In fact, studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

While criticizing Mary Cheney's in a December 10 Time magazine guest column titled "," Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson baselessly claimed that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." Dobson asserted that "love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development" of a child and that "the two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy." Dobson also declared that "birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples" and "that's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (, , and ), studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.

Despite Dobson's claim that "the majority ... of social-science evidence indicates children do best" if they have married, heterosexual parents, "the majority" of social research has not found that children raised by homosexual parents are at any disadvantage. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

Also, in 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics on the psychosocial development of children raised by same-sex parents. The report noted:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

The report concluded: "Parents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development."

In June 2004, the APA announced its to "legislation proposed at the federal and state levels that would amend the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, respectively, to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples." In doing so, the APA :

Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children. Lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing. Nor do lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women detract from their ability to care for their children (the limited data on the children of gay fathers suggests similar findings). Recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian couples with children tend to divide child care and household responsibilities evenly and to report satisfaction with their relationship.

Studies of various aspects of child development reveal few differences among children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents in such areas as personality, self-concept, behavior, and sexual identity. Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.

Additionally, Dobson cited (Random House, 2001), by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School, to argue against same-sex child-rearing by asserting that children need a father because "[a] father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate." Pruett has reportedly criticized people for "distorting his work" to advance their political agenda. Specifically referring to the Defense of Marriage Coalition's use of Fatherneed to argue for "a measure to ban same-sex marriage in Oregon," according to an October 22, 2004, in The Oregonian, Pruett stated: "I was quite surprised, even dumbfounded, to see my name listed as if it were a scientific support or consultant to this amendment. ... It couldn't be further than either my personal or professional position." Pruett stated that he does not conclude "either scientifically or psychologically" that children are best served if reared by two heterosexual parents, and added: "There is to date no credible research that says children raised by gay and lesbian couples are at risk." According to The Oregonian, Pruett concluded that "children generally fare better with two parents than one, even if the parents are of the same gender."

Dobson has previously made dubious assertions about gay and lesbian parenting, as he did in his book (Multnomah, June 2004), in which he asserted that "[more than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers" (Page 54). As Media Matters , the footnote in Marriage Under Fire for this particular claim states that "[many of these studies are either presented or represented in the following," subsequently listing a number of books and articles. Dobson did not provide any evidence documenting all 10,000 studies, but titles he did cite include: (Harvard University Press, October 1994), (University Press of America, March 1988), "Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce and Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood," and "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems." These examples suggest that many of Dobson's purported "ten thousand studies" did not examine parenting by gay and lesbian individuals or couples at all but, rather, addressed child development in a single-parent home versus a two-parent home.

From Dobson's December 10 Time column "Two Mommies is One Too Many":

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.

[...]

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501250004http://mediamatters.org/items/200501250004

The two professors that Dobon used to misrepresent their findings in this Time article were so mad at him that this is what they wrote to him:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHdSVknB5Q&mode=related&search=

13 December 2006

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine

The Oregonian, Pruett stated: "I was quite surprised, even dumbfounded, to see my name listed as if it were a scientific support or consultant to this amendment. ... It couldn't be further than either my personal or professional position." Pruett stated that he does not conclude "either scientifically or psychologically" that children are best served if reared by two heterosexual parents, and added: "There is to date no credible research that says children raised by gay and lesbian couples are at risk." According to The Oregonian, Pruett concluded that "children generally fare better with two parents than one, including parents of the same gender."

http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=43

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485,00.html

In response to Dobson's editorial, the group Soul force contacted Dr. Christopher R. Martell, President of the American Psychological Association's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. According to Dr. Martell:

Over and again the data show that a loving and safe home environment is important, not the gender of the parents. The mainstream research is so clear on this matter that the American Psychological Association's resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, which was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in July, 2004, states: "the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples."

The American Psychological Association, one of the world's largest mental health organizations, would not have supported the protection of legalized adoption by gay and lesbian parents if the data had suggested that children were at risk in such households.

*****************************************************************************************

Here is another Researcher mad at James Dobson:
3. Angela Phillips

Professor Angela Phillips, author of "The Trouble With Boys."

Dear James Dobson:

It has come to my attention that my book "The Trouble with Boys" has been seriously mis-represented in writings by James Dobson.

Having read his newsletter; "How Boys Learn to Become Men" on the Focus on the Family web site I was incensed to find that I have been quoted as a source for suggesting that:

"The high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development."

I certainly agree that boys suffer from a lack of positive men in their lives but I am at pains to point out that positive men are often as much lacking in two parent households as they are in lone mother (or two mother) households. I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did). My concern is that boys without positive men around them are more likely to be violent, angry and lacking in self control. I have never heard that these are characteristics that are associated with homosexuality.

Dobson goes on to say: "One of the primary objectives of parents is to help boys identify their gender assignments and understand what it means to be a man.

My concern is that boys are currently learning, either from their fathers, or in the absence of fathers, from the women who rear them, and the men they encounter, that the most important thing about being a man is being: "not gay", "not gentle" and not "girlie". While adult men are afraid to demonstrate that it's okay to be gentle and caring how are boys to learn anything positive about what it means to be a man?

I would be grateful if you could publish this letter prominently on your website.

I look forward to a swift acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

Angela Phillips
Author of The Trouble with Boys

*******************************************************************************************

And Another:

4. Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc

Teenage girls that are gay are 5 times more likely to try and commit suicide

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Elizabeth+Saewyc+lesbian+teen+suicide&btnG=Google+Search

"But what is most alarming, Saewyc said, is that the research from 1992, 1998, and 2003 shows the increased risk of suicide among the lesbian and bisexual female teens is growing ?from about 1 in 5 in 1992, to 1 in 4 in 1998 and to 1 in 3 in 2003 survey. The rate for heterosexual female teens has stayed the same."

Saewyc said the debate over same-sex marriage brought many of the messages about being gay into full public debate and young gays are very aware of any of the negative connotations that were depicted.

Nearly 40% lesbian girls say they have attempted suicide in the last year, compared to 8.2 percent of heterosexual girls.

When this study came out about the gay teen girls being 5 times more likely to try and commit suicide. James Dobson tries to blame it on gays. He tries to attribute it to gay rights activists.

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0040924.cfm

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/index.html

The Author of the study is livid that Dobson "Hi-Jacked" her results and misrepresented them.

*****************************************************************************************

And one more.....

5. Dr. Robert Spitzer

"Unfortunately Focus on the Family has once again reported findings of my study out of context to support their fight against gay rights," said Dr. Spitzer.