Foster son taken from Christian couple because they object to homosexuality
posted at 9:15 pm on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The boy’s been placed now with a kindly atheist family that’s promising to teach him well “the ways of teh ghey.” No no, kidding. He’s languishing in a youth hostel — after having lived with the couple for two years.
It seems they didn’t love thy neighbor quite enough to suit British law.
The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.
Earlier this year, Somerset County Council’s social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.
Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings…
Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: “I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.
“We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”…
Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.
Muslim groups are complaining too, so maybe Christians can ride the coattails of “Islamophobia” to eventual victory here. Exit question: With Britain needing an extra 8,000 foster parents to meet demand, is it time for Britain to do something daring and consider religious families?
Update: You can’t truly appreciate the absurdity of this story until you’ve read this, too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Please tell me this is an Onion parody.
SouthernDem on October 23, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Meanwhile, British social workers left foster children with homosexual child abusers because they feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints.
Michelle on October 23, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I wonder if Ellen will weigh in on this.
This is a real tragedy.
reaganaut on October 23, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Talk about pushing an agenda.
BadgerHawk on October 23, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Holy freekin crap! When I just saw the headline, I assumed the kid was gay and the xtianist foster parents were being evil evil meanies. If my understanding of the excerpt is correct, it looks like the kids was pulled because they wouldn’t brainwash him and take him to “gay association meetings.” Wow, just wow.
Bryce on October 23, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Maybe Dumbledore can take the kid in. Dumbass brits.
JiangxiDad on October 23, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I don’t get it. Why would an adoptive parent be forced to take their children to gay association meetings? Biological parents are not forced to do that. Yet.
Horrifying.
jihadwatcher on October 23, 2007 at 9:25 PM
WTF ?
Wade on October 23, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Coming to a country near you…
What’s funny is I’d put money (without having a clue what the figures would be) that Christians by far “out adopt” atheists or any other religious group, the same way they stomp everyone with charitable giving.
RightWinged on October 23, 2007 at 9:31 PM
So they would have to take them to Mosques, Wicken ceremonies, Communist meetings, transvestite meetings, Black power, white supremacists, etc., other words expose them to every other group.
Amaaaaazing…
right2bright on October 23, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Posting anything close to what’s going through my mind right now would lead to an instant lifetime ban and possibly jail time. I’ll leave it to your imagination.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Unsurprising. Yet more evidence of the Decline of Great Britain. But don’t worry, this problem will solve itself over time. Soon there won’t be enough (non-Muslim) children in the UK to be raised in (horror of horrors) an “anti-homosexual environment.”
Thomas the Wraith on October 23, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I’m not even gonna get into this one. Tonight, I am a vegetarian.
But I do have to say: That link at the end, about the gay couple who abused their foster child…sickening. But it’s like saying there’s no hetero child abusers.
JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I’m actually hoping for Muslim rioting and hellfire right about now. Go Rageboy! Go Rageboy!
I couldn’t possibly care any less what happens to that miserable place right now.
I’ll sit on the radical Islam side of the stadium on this one. Can we do the wave?
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I got a pretty good imagination and I’m loving what you are thinking.
jihadwatcher on October 23, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Britain is to the world, what San Francisco is to California.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:39 PM
That’s just plain wrong.
dogsoldier on October 23, 2007 at 9:39 PM
How long before Christian Brits start emigrating to Red-State America?
infidel4life on October 23, 2007 at 9:44 PM
The couple is barred from helping other kids, because of the
Oceania is at War with Eurasia. Oceana has Always has been at War with Eurasia
pedestrian on October 23, 2007 at 9:45 PM
In the US, it is No Child Left Behind.
In Britain, it is No Child’s Behind Left.
It seems as if Social Services in Britain would like all children to be exposed to homosexuality just to see if they might like it.
jihadwatcher on October 23, 2007 at 9:47 PM
This is heartbreaking.
INC on October 23, 2007 at 9:48 PM
I’m with ya Gregor, I’ll even bring the marshmallows to the bonfire!
Bryce on October 23, 2007 at 9:49 PM
It is only a matter of time before this crosses the Atlantic.
Unreal.
nailinmyeye on October 23, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Isn’t that what they just did by taking the kids away?
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:53 PM
The kid needs to get placed in a good home with stable minded people like Rosie O or Madonna.
TheSitRep on October 23, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Lets not forget the 2 little girls at folsom street gay sex fair.
allrsn on October 23, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Too late. It’s already happend.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 9:58 PM
hence the 1984 quote.
pedestrian on October 23, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Another victory for the militant gays
Needless to say . . . WOW.
At the end of the day, it seems that if their child isn’t having gay sex by the time he/she is 11, they will be in violation of hate crimes laws and sentenced to prison or even death.
No, of course not, we don’t want children to be brought up in families with a mother and a father. Perish the thought.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 10:05 PM
As a gay man, I strongly support what the British government is doing. I may be a Republican, but if the Democrat work this magic here, I’ll be grateful. Gay children have been victimized by barbaric superstition for far too long.
thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:09 PM
thuja give it a rest. This family was trying to do a good thing by raising a child that wasn’t theirs. Because of the militant gays this child is WORSE off.
There will NEVER be a time when homosexuality is totally accepted by society. You can’t regulate it. I wish you could understand something other than your own ‘victimization’ feelings.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 10:12 PM
What the? I just…I mean…how did we…this is…oh never mind.
ronsfi on October 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM
He who pays, makes the rules. Another reason to scale back the role of government in favor of private organizations. This highlights all the more the grave danger of Hillary’s desire to promulgate Communitarianism.
Speaking of Menace to Society laws, child molesters should be promptly executed upon conviction, with a very limited appeal provision. Our family is also a foster home, and we understand the gutwrenching damage and torment these heinous acts cause.
T J Green on October 23, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Hillary’s your girl. You won’t have to pretend to be Republican after you get her elected.
There are no gay children. There are children who have been exposed prematurely (and probably illegally) to sex.
angryoldfatman on October 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Brits are already leaving in increasing numbers. Something like 3000 a month last time I looked. The only thing that’s going to be left in England in a couple of year’s time will be Pakistanis.
crosspatch on October 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM
LOL! ROFL! OMG! My stomach hurts! “Superstition?”
Priceless.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Of course you do. Life would be so much better for you if only ALL children could be gay. Just think of how much easier your fantasies could be realized.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 10:39 PM
OK, I gotta jump in here…
What a moronic statement that was, Gregor. Sorry.
There must be something wrong with me then…being gay, and not being predisposed to fantasize about children.
JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 10:46 PM
My comment wasn’t about “fantasizing about children.” It was about those who wish to turn all children gay to increase the numbers. You know? Sorta like heterosexuals wanting to go to college in a town with a 10;1 woman to man ratio. All the easier to play.
I’m sure that would get your jet on.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I think I just barfed up part of my dinner.
infidel4life on October 23, 2007 at 10:55 PM
You infer that all homosexuals are the same. Not the case at all. Aside the fact that any gay person will confirm: You’re either born gay, or you’re born straight. There’s no “gay in the making” so to speak.
JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Hey, if you want to be a homo, fine, go right ahead.
Just don’t push your sick agenda on innocent children.
infidel4life on October 23, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Back it up.
reaganaut on October 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM
It was only a matter of time… Next it will be “forcing” foster children to go to church, after all that whole separation of Church and State thing…
Gwillie on October 23, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I simply don’t agree with that. I also find it arrogant for you to claim that “ANY” gay person would confirm your “theory.” EVEN if you are correct that one might be born gay, it ignores the fact that teaching children as young as 11 that experimenting both ways is perfectly acceptable and “normal” undoubtedly leads to a lifetime of mental anguish for those children who “experiment” and then find they are NOT gay.
What then? How do you un-do it? How do you explain that to your fiancé later on, or your children … if details about your brainwashed childhood past should come to light?
Why do you homosexuals feel the need to TEACH children that they should TRY homosexuality? Why do you feel the need to impose your desires on children who aren’t old enough to know any better? If what you say is correct, that children are “born that way” … then why not let them make the decision for themselves?
It’s funny. Nobody ever had to TEACH me that I was heterosexual. I simply knew it. Why do homosexuals need to be TAUGHT what to think or desire?
Aside from all of this, your comment and your pledge has placed you in the same group as the rest of homosexuals.
You all vote and make all of your decisions based on your sexual desires. You choose the person you want to run the friggin country based on your sexual desires.
Heterosexuals don’t do this. There’s a reason for this and it’s not a simple difference in sexual taste.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 11:21 PM
This message brought to you by the Proud Mary Thought Police of the Greater London Area.
“It’s not an abomination, it’s an alternative lifestyle!”
BKennedy on October 23, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I read this story earlier today on the U.K. Mail. It’s hard to know where to start or how, with such preposterous acts as this Council has taken with this admirable and kind couple.
From what I read, they’re being told they “HAVE TO” expose the child/all children in their care to homosexuality, taking them to “homosexual” meetings and such, as an “educational” process.
I note that they are not being asked to take children to “heterosexual educational experiences” — and, in fact, such don’t even exist in this location in England.
A few complainers at the MAIL said that there was no “force for homosexuality” upon the children, but I don’t know how anyone could call a required exposure to homosexuality as an educational process in the community to be anything but. They actually have homosexual “educational” meetings, is my point. That’s indoctrination.
This couple, especially, sounds like the most responsible pair imaginable as to raising foster children. I can’t imagine what this locale considers to be anything better than this couple’s care.
I’ve read no where why any such “education” about homosexuality is even appropriate for “children.”
S on October 23, 2007 at 11:26 PM
What do you expect from a nation that has almost made “Jedi” an official religion? Pretty soon it will be.
I’ve worked with some Brits and Scots a few years back and was surprized at their flat out rejection of God. I’m not too religious but I do believe in a higher power getting everything in motion – at the very least.
Regardless of my beliefs, pretty soon the Bible will be legally declared “hateful” in the UK and will be banned. There won’t be a peep out of anyone regarding the Koran.
BowHuntingTexas on October 23, 2007 at 11:28 PM
That’s a message that is counter to Christian morality and theology. It’s also a problem as to who and what “acceptable” even means in the context of sexuality and sexual information provided to children.
I’d say that this locale is entirely efforting to eradicate and penalize Christianity and Christians. It even offends any concept of freedom — as in, let the children be children, grow up and be who they are. In the case of homosexual “education,” though, it seems that that’s not allowed, that they HAVE to be “educated” in homosexuality. I believe that’s called indoctrination; it’’s also called recruitment.
S on October 23, 2007 at 11:29 PM
There are no “gay children.” There are children. Their limited childhoods need to be protected as sincerely as possible by responsible adults. When they LATER come of sexually-capable ages in their teens, they should be provided with enough health and self-respecting information to make their own decisions as to behaviors.
Alleging children are “gay” is moreorless admitting that they’ve been recruited into homosexuality to any degree that a child’s self awareness has been unduly influenced.
S on October 23, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I just had to come back and check this thread before going to bed.
OK, you don’t believe people are born gay. Fine. If you can find any reason why anyone would actually choose to be gay, or can find some instance that proves some childhood trauma “kicked the gay in”, I’d love to hear about it.
You realize how many children are so distraught with their homosexuality, they are depressed and scared at best, and commit suicide at worst. Mostly because they are told by people with views like yours that they are “wrong” somehow.
And for the record, I’m a conservative Republican. I DO NOT vote based on “sexual desires”. I vote for the candidate that best represents my own views on terror, defense, economy, etc. I won’t agree all of the time with any one candidate. I choose the best one based on the issues. ALL the issues. Sorry to break your little stereotype.
I don’t swish, I don’t talk with a lisp, I don’t dress with flair, that’s for sure. I like sports, I vote Republican, prefer rock music to techno, etc.
You said:
It’s not teaching what to think or desire…
No one had to teach you that you were straight, and no one has to teach anyone that they’re gay. Like you, a gay kid knows it. What’s important, is that the kid knows…KNOWS…it’s OK. That there’s others out there like him/her. That being gay isn’t “wrong” and “bad”. That it just “is”.
JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Genesis 19:5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Nothing new under the sun. Read what happens next. I guess Lot didn’t have sensitivity training.
Needless to say, this didn’t end well. We all need to wake up and realize how far we have fallen!
Vanquisher on October 23, 2007 at 11:39 PM
To jet and thuja:
Most people don’t care if you’re gay, just like you don’t care that most people aren’t. It even makes sense to say that people are born gay (why would anyone choose homosexuality?), I don’t know.
But trying to force an agenda on kids is just wrong, no matter how one tries to frame the issue. If a kid is gay they’ll figure it out eventually. They don’t need to be taken to meetings to have one-sided information shoved down their throats.
BadgerHawk on October 23, 2007 at 11:44 PM
great point. A friend of mine recently said that he felt he was gay, but was scared to come out because it is seen as socially unacceptable. Programs like the one in this thread are over the top, but something is needed to combat the common bigorty you see in Gregor’s posts,among others.
As for whether its a choice or not,a 1991 study showed that there are measurable differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. If it were a choice how could this be true?
crr6 on October 23, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Ugh….at the chance of sounding like *gasp* a liberal here, I don’t support “forcing” an agenda on anyone. You seem to want to force kids NOT to learn about homosexuality. To me, that’s one-sided.
Yes…speaking for myself, I figured it out, eventually. But I could have been saved a lot…A LOT…of anguish and sleepless nights worrying that there was something very wrong with me, and having nowhere to turn for help, education, or guidance on it.
JetBoy on October 23, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Easy, A persons brain is formed by his choices, if you choose one thing over another you build different pathways, use different areas of the brain. Their by making the brains of two people who make different choices appear different.
These are easier to influence at younger ages lets say like 11 years old.
Gwillie on October 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM
It’s not about forcing kids to learn or not learn anything. I’m more into the parents deciding what age they want to teach their kids about sex, hetero or homo. I don’t want the state deciding what level of morality my kids should be taught and mandating how I should raise them.
And it’s not a judgement on whether homosexuality is immoral. I don’t care if you’re gay. I live in Madison and know quite a few gay people. My girlfriend used to work at a bar that had ‘Pride Night’ every Sunday. This story is a microcosm of government forcing ideology on kids. If these parents don’t think homosexuality is cool that’s their decision. As long as they are providing a loving home for a child and their personal beliefs don’t take away from anyone else’s quality of living, the state should leave them be.
BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 12:13 AM
JetBoy, I have to sincerely apologize for that. I confused a comment from thuja in the other thread (thuja on October 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM) as coming from you.
I should have been more careful.
I have many “theories” but I’m not going to get into that here. Admittedly, they are only theories based on my experiences with gays that I have known.
The thing is … your beliefs are only theories also, but much like Global Warming, your “theories” are being radically pushed as an agenda for political reasons.
This has absolutely nothing to do with right/wrong, normal/abnormal, natural/un-natural. There’s millions of children distraught over hundreds of different things in this world. Do we simply start teaching kids that everything is okay, no matter what they’ve done, just to avoid having them feel bad about it? I don’t believe these people are depressed because people make fun of them. They’re depressed because they KNOW what they’ve done is strange and bizarre. I’d be depressed to! But hey! Let’s get ALL children to try it out and then tell them it’s perfectly okay. Who cares if those who turn out to be heterosexual kill themselves, right? As long as it’s easier for the gays.
That’s your opinion. Nothing more, yet you want to force that opinion on MY kids! Nada. Not happening brother.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 12:17 AM
THERE IS ZERO PROOF of a gay gene or that people are born gay. Just because you ‘think’ it and ’say’ it doesn’t make it true. People know that smoking is bad for them and will kill them. Why then will they continue to smoke? I don’t know, people make bad decisions all the time.
Gay is defined by something you DO, not something you ARE.
That’s really selfless of you to claim a problem of ALL children. Maybe 1% of this country believes that they are ‘gay’. There is an epidemic of young people committing suicide. A friend of mine just did about 2 weeks ago and it wasn’t because of ‘gayness’.
I believe that there are a lot of gay people who become gay so that they can claim to be victims. They want minority status. I don’t know why. Gay people are free to do as they please here. They are actually free to complain about ‘not being free’ too.
But this militant gay thing is going to force people to get more anti-gay rather than less. Keep it up and you might find a lot MORE prejudices against gays rather than less.
ThackerAgency on October 24, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Dude, that is seriously gay…. (pun intended)
Tim Burton on October 24, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Just as a qualifier to keep this on topic instead of giving the csdeven haters an opening to make this all about me again, I am as vehemently against the militant gay agenda as you’ll find. BUT, I read this and the context is missing.
Would the gay association meetings only apply to those gay children that WANTED to go to the meetings? The rule did say “They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings…”. Why the qualifier “could also”? Would the state decide arbitrarily that child “A” must go and child “B” cannot? Or would the surrogate parents be required to take a gay child to the meetings regardless of their personal beliefs?
That leads me back to the first requirement…..
“they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.”
Would they be required to discuss same sex relationships with ALL children. No. Only children as young as eleven. Why the qualifier? Is it solely for age, or is the context that they would be required to discuss it with supposedly GAY children at least age 11? Would hetro children be exempt? Taking the gay association rule as to only apply to gay children who wanted to go, could this rule have the same context?
I’d sure like to know, because it disturbs me that you guys may be right and this is an attempt to indoctrinate homosexuality to children and that the entire system has taken leave of their senses.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Remember that point in your childhood where you thought to yourself “Hm… should I like boys or girls?”
Yeah, neither do homosexuals.
Mark Jaquith on October 24, 2007 at 1:30 AM
this makes absolutely no sense. Take an introductory bio course.
it always amuses me that some will be rational enough to discount truther theories etc but sincerely believe in a “militant gay agenda”.
crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 AM
That’s a crock of %$&^!
You’re going to tell us that homosexuals don’t ask that question? So why are they always telling us how “confused” the poor children are? Why do some people date the opposite sex, have normal lives, get married, have children, and suddenly turn around and start doing the same gender? Are we to believe that these people were able to con their opposite sex lovers and even manage to perform to the point of having children, all while not even being attracted to their spouse? Right.
Face it. It doesn’t add up. There is no gay gene. It’s simply an addiction to physical pleasure, regardless of the origin.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Tell that to the sissy-mary’s who insulted the Catholic church last week. Their behavior is militant and there is an agenda to marginalize any institution that opposes their perversions.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Does the UK also require equal treatment of all religions and if so, is one required to teach Voodoo to foster children?
That probably explains this.
You know things are bad when the British begin to move to France without the help of warships.
crosspatch on October 24, 2007 at 2:07 AM
they’re militant because you disagree with them. You know its true. Are radical pro-life groups militant?
crr6 on October 24, 2007 at 2:11 AM
It would never cross my mind to actively teach my kids about homosexual relationships any more than it would cross my mind to teach them Wicca. And there shouldn’t be anything WRONG with that. The state needs to stop discriminating against heterosexuals. All of this crap to simply make about 5% of the population feel validated is just plain stupid. Rather than forcing the other 95% to jump through hoops, maybe the 5% can grow up.
I like Led Zepplin but I wouldn’t require every single parent in the nation to expose their kids to it if it did not mesh with the household culture. And I promise not to feel invalidated if a kids walks up and says “Jimmy, who?”.
crosspatch on October 24, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Right. No such thing as a militant gay agenda.
None at all.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Are pro-life groups giving birth in the streets of San Francisco? Are heterosexuals holding sex parades and performing sex acts in the streets? Are pro-life groups forcing schools to teach children how to give birth? Are heterosexuals conducting lesson plans in which they instruct students on the sexual habits of famous heterosexuals?
For homosexuals, everything in life revolves around their sexual desires. Everything.
Gregor on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 AM
See…..
They define themselves by their private behavior in their homes and expect the rest of us to destroy what this society is to appease their very small minority.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:30 AM
The ones going to France are just going to a “youth” program on car burning.
pedestrian on October 24, 2007 at 3:06 AM
There’s no gay gene. There may be homosexual tendancies, but I really, really find it offensive that lots of militant homosexuals claim that they are “born that way” and thus, they have to give in. What are they, animals? Have they no free will? I’m fairly certain I’m alcoholic–if I’d ever drink. I am sure I have other addictive tendancies–are they built in? Maybe–but that doesn’t mean I have to give in. I avoid drinking (never have taken one sip) so it doesn’t affect me.
As for a militant homosexual agenda, I’ve experienced it firsthand, when they successfully managed to get an article I co-wrote censored. Is there a militant homosexual agenda? Talk to the psychiatrists who are continually risking their license because they are trying to help people overcome their addictions rather than celebrating them. That’s all homosexual sex is–a sex addiction, just like any other sex addiction. Yes, it is VERY powerful, just like addiction to porn or other things. I totally sympathize with people who are trying to overcome it, however. It’s a brutal thing to overcome, and more power to them.
Vanceone on October 24, 2007 at 5:21 AM
I sense some latent desires Gregor. All your posts seem a little obsessed with the idea.
Bradky on October 24, 2007 at 5:39 AM
How dare ANYONE compare the two, and treat them as “equally” normal just to justify their perversion. Look, even if one were to accept gays as a natural thing, it still isn’t “normal” by any stretch of the imagination.
But more to the point, you don’t have to teach people they’re straight… because THEY ARE STRAIGHT. That’s the point. We have 2 genders for a reason. Whether you think God or evolution made it so, it is the case. We have uniquely designed parts that go together, and reproductions isn’t just a coincidence. It’s not just by chance that we produce offspring through sex. “Homosexuality” simply doesn’t make logical sense.
I’m so sick of going in this circle only to have people try to justify their perversion by saying “well, why would we choose to be this way!” I don’t know, why do some douchebags die their hair green? Why do some people pierce themselves all over? Why do some people wear their pants too high? These aren’t evidence that they’re “born that way”. These are behaviors.
The evidence that people are born straight is obvious, based on having interlocking reproductive parts designed for sex (and in turn, sexual reproduction).
As always, I can see a time, even within a couple decades where pedophiles are “fighting for their rights”, and you’re labeled a bigot for not accepting them, etc. A couple generations ago, when logic and values ruled the land, it wasn’t hip to be cool, and it wasn’t “normal”. Now look at where we are? Have you turned on MTV lately? It’s like a friggin’ commercial to become gay.
I can hear the arguments from pedophiles… “Who’s to say what the age of an ‘adult’ is!?” Seriously though, don’t pedophiles who like 14 year old girls more natural than gay adults who roll with eachother? I mean, the 14 year old girl could potentially get pregnant by the man, and it is only society that has decided (Based on maturity levels… which as we’ve seen lately are actually themselves dictated by society) that “an adult = 18″, and consensual sex can be had sometimes at 16 or 17. But really, this is a modern phenomenon. I’m not advocating this, but a guy who claims to like a 14 year old girl certainly can make a more logic based cased than any gay could ever make.
RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 7:05 AM
Sieg Homo!
Sieg Homo!
Sieg Homo!
Thank goodness it’s just a breeder male and not a puppy taken from little girls.
Zey have veys of teaching ze gheys.
Hening on October 24, 2007 at 7:57 AM
Wrong. First of all, there are no “gay” people.
1. The experiences of your childhood determine which gender (or sometimes object, or bodily function) you “sexualize.” What makes a boot, or a whip, a sex object, and not just a boot or a whip?
2. Manliness/masculinity is supposed to be passed on from the father or other male elders to the young males. It’s supposed to be “taught.” Most cultures have maturation traditions that do just this. We don’t anymore. Also, we have a lot of boys without fathers or other adult male influences. When a young boy, UNCONSCIOUSLY REJECTS the adult male model of his father, FOR REASONS WHICH MIGHT BE ENTIRELY THE FATHER’S FAULT, the boy’s masculine identificaton is weak. When puberty sets in, and the sex drive ignites, the object of the sexual impulse is that which the boy DOESN’T CONTAIN INSIDE- A MASCULINE ADULT MALE! When the boy’s masculine identification is successful, the sexual attraction goes towards the “other”– the idealized feminine person inside the psyche of the male.
(Btw, that’s who we think we are marrying. But at 45-50 you wake up and find that you just married a regular person instead of an “ideal” and a lot of unnecessary divorces ensue.)
Finally, a lot of people who are attracted to their own sex struggle with understanding the source of their attraction, and may not feel they can do much about it anyway. That’s because what feels “natural” really just feels “familiar.” They’ve been thinking this way since pre-teen years so they think they were made that way. Yeah, made by your environment and your relationship with the male adult role models in your life, but not made in the womb that way.
Anyway, this is my take on homosexuality as explained by Jung and his “anima” idea.
JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 8:01 AM
This is madness. Our little children are being forced into the world of sexual perversion behind our backs. The article8 website has “actual video” footage (scroll down page) of malleable and very young children being taught vile materials by homosexual activists. It brought tears to my eyes.
If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes I would not have believed it.
We must put an end to this. All parents should call or visit their children’s schools and demand that “all” homosexual materials be removed from them and find out exactly what is being taught in Sex Ed classes. Why is GLSEN permitted to push their homosexual agenda to our children under the guise of bullying programs?
Why are those who call us “breeders” and call themselves the answer to over-population so interested in our children? Perhaps the “The 1972 Gay Rights Platform” list (Google) puts a face on this issue. Number seven (#7) under “State” may answer the question.
sinsing on October 24, 2007 at 8:07 AM
al-Gayda strikes again. They are as big a threat to the American way of life as the Islamic Radicals are…this insanity will hit our shores before we know it.
BigAnge on October 24, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Are you saying that choices make no difference in how the young mind develops? Nice try, but this argument you can not just push aside so you can hold on to this “Born Gay” PC stuff. I learned a lot about how the brain develops while in rehab, (no I didn’t meet anyone famous) So I am pretty certain my statement above is correct. If you want to stand by your out of hand dismissal of my argument, you need to give me one of your own.
Gwillie on October 24, 2007 at 8:36 AM
From here on out all references to Great Britain should now be demoted to just Britain. It ain’t Great no more.
No wonder Tony Blair is seeking residence in Great America.
James on October 24, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Britain’s beginning to sound like Illinois…
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Don’t hold yer breath Gwillie, that’s now how liberals roll. And I’ve literally been in DOZENS of these debates here at HA, and the best the gay side can come up with is “Why would someone choose to be gay?”, which is the dumbest f-ing argument one could make… yet they continue to use it, because they’ve got absolutely nothing in their arsenal.
RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 8:46 AM
JetBoy, there have been numerous studies on gay women who have been traumatized by men which led to having long term relationships with other women. The problem with most studies relating to gay is that they are politicized if they do not fit the mold of what the liberal academic community demands (much like the global warming). Most never see the light of day, but for a brief moment, and the academicians attack the studies so violently that they are smothered. The fact is, trauma can lead you to accept something you may not perceive as normal. With your thinking then bank robbers are pre-disposed, incest is pre-disposed, playing the violin is pre-disposed, every action is pre-disposed
While I do believe that many (probably most) are “born that way”, many others are led that way.
Remember, go back and look at your first post, it is a post of someone playing a victim.
That is what people react to, we are tired of being called bigots when we disagree, or we call someone out for using the victim card. No one is saying hetero’s don’t do mis-deeds, this is about a loving couple having their foster child taken away for political correctness.
And here is something else to ponder, many people do not act on their emotions, they have desires that they suppress. I have never seen a “hetero” parade with explicit sexual acts being committed in public. That is what you and other respectful gays have to fight. And until you (generic you) can clean up the sewer that is exposed to the public, the sewerage and garbage that runs down public streets, then many are not “pre-disposed” to take up your issues and relate to your pain. We (hetero’s) would never tolerate the behavior that gays embrace or ignore.
You can bet most all of us understand the gay plight better than you would imagine. But we don’t fight or defend anything that rips at the fabric of decency, tears at the basic family structure, tries to defile our sacred worship.
right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 9:13 AM
In anthropology, it’s pretty much a given that 10% of a given human population is homosexual. For all we know, there could be a gene for it but we just haven’t figured out where it is (the same way we haven’t figured out where the genes for a lot of other stuff are).
I’ve got quite a number of homosexual friends, and a few things that I’ve observed are
a) they really didn’t have a choice in it; about the same age as straight kids started feeling attraction toward the opposite sex, they were feeling things for the same sex. It just happened. Most of these people came from the most normal families you could imagine, they weren’t abused, etc. It’s like someone flipped a switch during puberty and they next thing they knew, they really liked Timmy instead of Tina.
b) homosexuality isn’t about sex, it’s about the emotion of love. straight people peg their love to members of the opposite sex, homosexuals don’t. homosexuality can be exclusively about sex, the same way heterosexuality can be, but it is not something that characterizes the majority of homosexual relationships.
c) Due to societal/parental/peer pressures, homosexuals develop a whole host of mental problems, not strictly because they’re gay, but because the people/society around them generate tremendous amounts of stress – should they come out to their closest friend? should they tell their parents? are their parents rabid homophobes? etc. All these things can create a profound mental stress. You know all those ultra flamboyent gay men you see at protests, or the militant gays who do want to turn every kid into a homosexual, or the gay priests who turn toward altar boys – those people are NOT the norm in gay society.
I am a pretty die hard conservative, I’m pro-life, I’m so un-PC it’s scary at times for people who don’t know me, and I’m pro- alot of things conservatives are, but the one thing I absolutely cannot understand is the insane fear some on the right have of gay men and women.
There’s a lot of misinformation about homosexuality in this thread.
Mindcrime on October 24, 2007 at 9:30 AM
P.S. I also think what the British Nanny State did to those kids is despicable.
Mindcrime on October 24, 2007 at 9:37 AM
As always, these conservatives who’ve had these gay acceptance awakenings because of their “friends”… That’s not an argument, leave that crap on the Minnesota airport bathroom floor. Either provide evidence, or just stop with this “why would they choose to be gay” or “I have ‘normal” gay friends”, crap.
It’s not fear, it’s logic and reason.
Lol, you said that like you are serious. “Homosexuality isn’t about sex”? Hahaha. Oh man, that was pathetic. As I explained earlier, the fact that there are male and female parts that are uniquely designed to work together (and ONLY together) to produce offspring is a pretty good guide for how we are “born”.
By your logic, gay men should be going and impregnating women, but then running back to just “love” their boyfriends. Again, the ability to reproduce isn’t just some coincidence.
By the way, was the Folsom Street Fair (just to name 1 event) simply about “love”, and had nothing to do with sex? Lol, have you seen Zombie’s photos of the event?
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
I strongly suggest you take a look at it (if you can stomach it, it is probably the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life) and enjoy all that love… it just happens that it’s in the form of street blow jobs, etc. But that’s not “sex”, it’s just “love”, right?
RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Lots of ad hominim insults and non-logic. There’s no need to be absolute douche-bag in what could otherwise have been a civilized discussion.
Mindcrime on October 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM
While this is just… ‘wrong’ isn’t quite the word I’m looking for… But I’ll use it. While this is wrong, it’s not surprising.
My wife and I are foster parents. Under contract with the state, if we have a child age 12 or older, and that child does not want to go to our church, they do not have to go. If they want to attend services/functions elsewhere–regardless of religion–we MUST take them. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Hindu service or an Islamic function, we HAVE to take them.
There are quite a few eyebrow raising rules and regulations that we have to abide by. For example, we now have this new idiotic “Bridge The Gap” thing that we–as foster parents–HAVE to do. To “Bridge The Gap,” we have to meet with the bio parents, allow them to see their children when they want to, have our phone numbers so they can talk to their children, supervise visitation, SCHEDULE visitation, and teach these “parents” how to be good parents.
The unwritten rules include things like allowing these people to come into our homes and cook meals for their children, attend the children’s birthday parties that we throw, holiday get-togethers, etc. It doesn’t matter what these people have done to their children, we MUST allow these kinds of things to occur. Why? Because the children “have a God-given right to see their bio parents.” And yes, even if we have children of our own (we do), we still have to allow for this to happen. So, yes, that means we are forced to expose our children to these people.
Where did we get this “wonderful” new concept? Maine. It “works” there, so, theoretically, it will work in our state. Uh, yeeeeaaaahhh. riiiiiiiight.
Fortunately, the children that we have right now have parents that can’t come to our home (can’t talk about it because of privacy laws). We only take these kinds of children, because we refuse to expose our boys to those kinds of behavior.
Unfortunately, I live in a state where the number one reason for children being in the system is meth abuse. The second? Molestation. Very, very few of our children are in the system because of a “simple” thing like neglect.
If our state adopted this kind of attitude, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.
And our state wonders why we need 4000 more foster homes.
jedijson on October 24, 2007 at 9:58 AM
This makes me wonder – what do suppose the curriculum will include for Hillary’s Free Day Care?
Dork B. on October 24, 2007 at 9:58 AM
heh. Led Zepplin rocks too.
BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Many years ago as a young lad in the U.S. Navy, we had a Sex-ed class in boot camp. Yep, some of the rural farm kids didn’t have a clue (eyes rolling). Anyway, it was taught by a Senior Chief (E-8) Navy Corpsman (3 Vietnam tours) and to this day I remember one that he said that hold true today: (sort of like this) —
“Boys, let me tell you something you really need to know! The anus (points with stick to human figure on wall)is an exit, not an entrance. If you think differently, please see me after class.”
That night, two more guys left our company on their way back to the civilian world.
Wuptdo on October 24, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Sorry, but I need to be a douche bag whenever everyone around here is acting like a pussy.
RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 10:06 AM
And by the way mindcrime, what was “ad hominem” about my comment? The closest thing I can see is where I mocked where you said “homosexuality isn’t about sex” (which I think any child would agree was justified).
But that’s okay, play the victim.
RightWinged on October 24, 2007 at 10:10 AM
For all we know there isn’t.
No it didn’t. It was happening to them all along, the process whereby “maleness” and “masculinity” doesn’t become identified internally, psychologically. Then at puberty the hormones produce a sex urge, but it becomes misdirected at that which the young male is psychologically missing– a “masculine” male to complete his own identity.
Homosexuality is a “maleness-identity” deficit. Two men with the same problem often feel temporarily “complete”– but as ONE MAN.
Whereas, a man and a woman become a “complete human”, with both masculine and feminine nature.
JiangxiDad on October 24, 2007 at 10:16 AM
So apparently you’re Republican unless you can get your views forced down someone else’s throat.
This couple doesn’t discriminate against gay people. They just don’t believe homosexual sex is moral. If that’s your definition of “victimizing” then you should really develop a thicker skin or try to keep yourself from contact with anyone who doesn’t believe what you do.
Good luck on that.
With all due respect, that isn’t proof that they were born that way.
The truth is, societies have traditionally had homosexuals only when it could support them (by that I only mean when they weren’t otherwise needed for reproduction). On top of that, people frequently magically realize they’re gay when they have no other options, like in jail, serving in a war, in boarding school, etc.
If there really was some sort of gene floating around making some people gay, you’d think it wouldn’t be quite so convenient.
Furthermore, some people do choose to be gay. Bisexuals claim to be attracted to both sexes. So why ever choose to have a relationship with someone of their own sex if the claim being made is that no one would choose to be gay?
I don’t know why people do what they do. Pedophilia isn’t exactly appreciated either. Why would people choose to molest children? Do people ever get into arguments about whether a person is born a pedophile? Why is that? Why are discussions only about whether or not we’re born straight or gay? There are certain more than two types of sex out there.
Esthier on October 24, 2007 at 10:38 AM
That’s very spiritual. Maybe it is true for some people, but the gay and straight couples I know have a wide variety of reasons to be together—some rely a lot on each other, others both have careers that give them their sense of purpose, others have focused more of their love on their children than on each other. It seems as illogical and inequitable to oppose gay couples as it is to define exactly how a heterosexual couple structures their relationship.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »