“Won’t somebody please think about the children!”

[Emproph]

So Dobson has ramped up the rhetoric in anticipation of the anti-gay marriage amendment, they’re up to faxes now; “an email is easy to ignore but not a fax.”

I get sometimes two or three Citizen Link blood boilers a day (the political arm of FOF). They even have a letter to the editor “wizard.” You can choose from a variety of paragraphs for a completed 4 paragraph letter of under 200 words.

They even use our complaint of discrimination against us regarding writing discrimination into the constitution: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” How’s that for a compelling argument?
------------------------

(Warning: Gratuitous musing. -Just to set the mood...)

Bigotry 101

First define your opponent, Gays. Make sure that whenever speaking or writing about Gay Americans to use the word “Homosexual.” Make sure to use this word often and gratuitously. This Sexualizes the motives of Gay Americans seeking equality, and helps impress upon your audience the lasting notion of “icky gay sex.”

Whenever possible always use the term “homosexual” in conjunction with the word “activist.” This helps to add a subversive element to the motives of Gay and Lesbian Americans seeking equality. The goal is to paint ALL gays and lesbians as “homoSEXUAL activists.”

Now your audience is primed and ready to accept the message that these “sexual activists” are out to destroy our families and get our children... (because none of them have families and children of their own)

(End gratuitous musing.)
-------------------

Now things like the following are insultingly absurd enough, especially in light of the divorce rate:

“traditional marriage in a given state or region is never more than one federal judge away from being declared unconstitutional.”

But coming from them, this stuff is beyond the pale:

“Without that shield, it's only a matter of time until marriage loses all meaning -- and social science data indicate children will suffer the most when that happens.”

"Upholding traditional marriage is about justice for children. All children deserve the best - which is a mother and a father. Redefining marriage into anything other than the union of a man and woman will mean intentionally denying children a mother or a father."

That's 3 sets of parents, 3 sets of ‘children,’ 3 references to marriage, in three sentences. They're averaging a nuclear family per sentence.

{Now can you hear Helen Lovejoy “Won’t somebody please think about the children!”}
---------------

You know how we sometimes talk about reframing the issues. I think this one’s gold, in general and especially for those of us who have referendums coming up, or where they’re still gathering signatures like here in Florida. This one is ripe for throwing back in their face.

A few stats and info.

-Estimates of the number of children of lesbian and gay parents range from 2 to 8 million. 21

-Some 46 percent of unmarried opposite-sex couples are raising children. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 34 percent of lesbian couples and 22 percent of gay male couples have at least one child under 18 years of age living in their home.

-There are about 520,000 children in foster care, according to the North American Council on Adoptable Children in St. Paul. Of those, 120,000 are available for adoption, but only 50,000 find permanent homes each year.

-Dual parent protections include: access to health insurance, life insurance or inheritance in the event of that parent's untimely death, access to child support from that parent in the event the parents' relationship ends, as well as the right to have a non-biological parent authorize life-saving medical procedures on behalf of the child in an emergency or to take unpaid leave of work to care for the child.
--------

Destroying families and ruining the lives of children in the name of Jesus, all in order to scapegoat gay Americans and their families. There just seems to be no limit to the depth of moral depravity these people are willing to sink to.

So the next time you have to respond to the argument: "children need a mother and a father" remember, the stats and facts are overwhelmingly on our side. And remember too, they use the same tactics as always - Use the worst exceptions possible to describe the whole of us, and when confronted with proof to the contrary, blame us for doing the same.

The difference is that our sources are verifiable and referable. FOF and ilk rarely if ever refer to their sources anymore, they're all using the same ones, AND they know they're bunk!

This is hypocrisy on a platter, let’s not waste this one. If they want to make it about the children, then let's make it about the children.

Some simple stats
http://www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm

HRC: Adoption laws state by state.
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=19984

Child Welfare League of America -Good article, good resource.
http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm

[Zerbie]

Great post emproph. Thank you.

[Emproph]

{Your so welcome Zerbie, plenty more where that came from }
--------------------------------------

Re FMA:
I caught just the last few minutes of his [hate] speech, LIVE and about an hour ago. I don’t have time to dissect it right now.

Anyway, I just wanted to post this while it was fresh and because it’s right on topic. Oh, and also because he's an easy target.

This is my personal transcription of Rick Santorum Live on the Senate Floor around noon on June 6th 2006, or more appropriately, 6-6-6:

Rick Santorum:

...Being in a married home than not, that’s not to say that.. That’s certainly not to say that children raised in single parent homes can’t and don’t do well, most do. But the point is society should be advocating for what’s best for children. And should set a standard for what’s best. And we know what’s best. We know it, I think intrinsically, but we also now have a lot of supporting evidence as to what’s best for children.

(He points to chart) Less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activity, fewer out of wedlock births, fewer emotional/behavior problems and it goes on and on and on.

So we know that marriage is a (sic) inherent good for children. And we also know that when we destroy marriage, when we deconstruct marriage, bad things happen. We saw that with no fault divorce, more people got divorced.

We change the definition of marriage, and we say marriage is no longer about children and we say marriage is no longer about the next generation. Marriage is simply the affirmation of affection, of two adults. Or as Justice Scalia and Justice White suggested, why limit it there?

Why not as we see in cases now being fought all over the country, why not, three adults, four adults, five adults? I mean what’s the difference? From the standpoint of a rational, if marriage is not about one man and one woman, for the purpose of a relationship of which to have children and continue the society, then w,’ if it’s about two women or two men, why not two women and three men, why not whatever arrangement? If if (sic), gender doesn’t matter anymore, why does number matter? What’s the significance? What’s the logical argument? What’s the – to draw the line here as Justice white said, “It would be by fiat,” to draw the line there.

And so, we have a situation where, without question, marriage would be undermined, by this deconstruction, in fact we see it, and there’s some articles and I will submit onefer (sic), one for the record by Stanley Kurtz who just wrote one recently, uh, on, what’s going on in Europe. In countries that have in fact changed the definition of marriage. That those countries, are now seeing dramatic declines in the numbers of marriages. Not increases in the numbers of same sex marriages, but declines in the numbers of heterosexual marriages. And dramatic and steady increases in the number of children being born out of wedlock. I ask for two additional minutes.

Speaker: to the request for two additional minutes. Without objection so ordered.

The final point that I’d like to make and I will try to come back on the floor when I have a little bit more time, but I want to at least make the point, ah in these remarks, is the impact of this movement in the country and by the courts, on religious freedom. There was an article written ah, on the front cover of the Weekly Standard, called Banned in Boston. Where Maggie Gallagher talks about Catholic charities in Boston now having to get out of the adoption business, because they will not consent under their Catholic orthodox.... faith, to place children, into same sex couples.. homes. It’s against the Catholic faith, to do so. And, very clear message from Rome, that this is not proper behavior. They were refused their license. They were refused, the, one of the longest standing adoption agencies in Massachusetts now no longer places children for adoption. Why? Because, all around faith, all around faith, all around churches, all around para-church organizations, missionary organizations, is whether we like it or not, the government. And when the government comes down with things that are contrary to that faith... group. There will be friction.

In fact Mark Stern who’s the head, who’s the lawyer for the American Jewish Committee is quoted as saying: “It’s going to be a train wreck, a very dangerous train wreck.”

So not only will this new right that the court has established (Mass.), in the follow on right of same sex marriage, going to cause problems with democracy, problems with marriage, it’s going to create huge problems for our faith based organizations. And it’s something that we need to address. Thank you.

Speaker: Clerk will call the role.

[Emproph]

(Half hearted dissection from above post (FMA day), his hypocrisy isn't even challenging. Just throwin' it in for the record.)

That’s certainly not to say that children raised in single parent homes can’t and don’t do well, most do.
-Clearly the addition of a loving parent is worse than the subtraction of a parent.

(He points to chart) Less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activity, fewer out of wedlock births, fewer emotional/behavior problems and it goes on and on and on.
-If there was ever an argument for the benefits of orphanages and foster care over adoption, that is it. Children with gay parents must feel so deprived.

So we know that marriage is a (sic) inherent good for children. And we also know that when we destroy marriage, when we deconstruct marriage, bad things happen. We saw that with no fault divorce, more people got divorced.
-Again, you’ve blown my mind. No fault divorce made more divorce, therefore responsible marriage will also cause more divorce. More marriage equals more divorce. Who could argue with that?

We change the definition of marriage, and we say marriage is no longer about children and we say marriage is no longer about the next generation.
-So if John and Steve were married down the street, you would no longer have any revere for your relationship with your wife or the lives of your children? How dare John and Steve flimsify your love for your family?

Marriage (would be) simply the affirmation of affection, of two adults.
-Which is why only couples who can have children can get married. And how shallow of gay couples who want to adopt ONLY to affirm their own affection...

if it’s about two women or two men, why not two women and three men, why not whatever arrangement? If gender doesn’t matter anymore, why does number matter?
-Oh yes Rick, the number of a COUPLE who are heterosexual, is completely different from the number of a COUPLE who are homosexual. Clearly you can only add to the number 2 in one of these instances.
Stanley Kurtz who just wrote one recently, uh, on, what’s going on in Europe
-Right, because we take our cues from Europe all the time.

That those countries, are now seeing dramatic declines in the numbers of marriages. Not increases in the numbers of same sex marriages, but declines in the numbers of heterosexual marriages.
-So in Europe, a decline in heterosexual marriage results from same sex couples NOT getting married, but here in the states, a decline in heterosexual marriage would result from same sex couples actually getting married? Nope, nothing inconsistent about that.

And dramatic and steady increases in the number of children being born out of wedlock.
-So gay couples in Europe not getting married are the cause of heterosexual couples having children out of wedlock?

Catholic charities in Boston now having to get out of the adoption business, because they will not consent under their Catholic orthodox.... faith, to place children, into same sex couples.. homes.
-So the Catholic church would prefer that none of these children have homes rather than see more of them have homes. Certainly there could be no better way to protect children than to prevent them from being adopted.

In fact Mark Stern who’s the head, who’s the lawyer for the American Jewish Committee is quoted as saying: “It’s going to be a train wreck, a very dangerous train wreck.”
-Yes, just think of all those children who might have to endure the horrors of a stable home environment only to become productive members of society. I can’t think of anything that would destroy society quicker.

Good for you Rick, at least someone appreciates the benefits of a screwed up childhood.
------------------
Nice advocate for children huh? John Stewart asked him point blank why not let gay couples adopt because there are so many neglected/abused kids from straight homes. His response was that you can’t compare the best of one situation with the worst of another. In other words, his answer was that you can’t ask the question.

This is a man who considers a gay relationship on the same level as a human and a dog. Did I mention that he also considers himself a Christian?

[Emproph]

This following quote is from 12-10-06 in another thread just so there's no confusion. I didn't want to lose track of this info and analysis (courtesy Andrew ), so I'm adding it here.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I realize I'm a few posts behind, but it took a little while to analyse the date from American FactFinder at the U.S. Census Bureau.

Sammy, this is not the first time that you have stated that Dobson et al are really all about the children, and the rhetoric used just becomes anti-gay, I guess, because they love children so much.

By the estimates floating around in other areas of this website, there are a little more than 3% of the U.S. population that is openly GLBT. That would equate to a little less than 11,000,000 people. Of course, that number is debatable as hell, but let's go with it for now.

How many of those GLBT people parent or intend to parent, Sammy? Would you like to take a guess? If they all miraculously paired up nine months ago, and had biological children by some means, they would be giving birth to 5.5 million children who would be raised by the coupling of two mommies or two daddies. Now, of course, there are a plethora of reasons why these numbers are just pure and simple idiocy, but work with me here, okay? I suppose, in the extreme case I cited, one could almost justify Dobson getting his knickers in a tight wad, eh? But, remember, this is just hypothetical bullshit.

Now, to reality. There are in the U.S., Sammy, just short of 33,000,000 children being raised by one or NO biological or adoptive parents. That's 6 times the ridiculously fictional number that would come from the mindless scenario I painted earlier.

Add to that reality the fact that just short of 14,000,000 children live at or below the Federal poverty level - an income level, I might add, is ridiculously low to begin with. A non-profit I work with here in Iowa, which works with low income families and children, considers poverty level to be a minimum of 150% of the federal level. When that figure is used, children in poverty jump to a massive 25,000,000.

If it was all about the children, Sammy, Dobson et al would be so busy with children in poverty that they wouldn't have time to give a rat's ass about same-sex coupling or marriage. If it was all about families, they would be busy trying to help heteros stay together, or even pick more suitable mates in the first damn place.

It's not about the children, Sammy. It is about propogating a message that ensures a continuation of hegemony for old, white men and their fetish with profit, prestige, position and power. They don't give a good crappe about the people they say they aim to reach - the old, the poor, the single moms, etc. - but pander to people's fear of losing what little they already have. And it's funded by a bunch of politically and socially elite people just like them, who are interested in themselves and their own wellbeing.

All about the children, be damned. If it was all about the children, these ultra-conservative buttplugs would be eyeing the GLBT folks out there as a substantial opportunity to adopt and, in other ways, contribute to the welfare of the millions upon millions of suffering children we have in this world already. And they would encourage marriage because, as they tell us, two parents are better than one.

[Emproph]

I thought this was an interesting article. He refutes a few of the anti-gay claims they use in the "run-for-your-lives-gays-want-to-ruin-your-marriage" argument as it relates to "the children."

~~

Gay Marriage Amendments Ban Good Science
September 21, 2006
By Steve Yoder

children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher

She tends to avoid the virulent anti-gay rhetoric and outright lies (as far as I've seen so far), but she's one of them none the less.

Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.

Which just puts Gallagher into the camp of authors whose work should be read back to front: check the references before deciding whether the piece warrants reading.

~~

This is what interested me:

But maybe gay marriage opponents have a point: the welfare of children should be at the center of the gay marriage debate. Yet the pro-gay marriage side tends to focus on gay marriage as an issue of fundamental civil rights (which it also is), rather than gaining traction through a complementary focus on children.

They would have a strong argument to make. If children's well-being is the main reason for state-sanctioned marriage, one group certainly should be banned: fundamentalist Christians.

Multiple studies have identified the dominant parenting style among fundamentalist Christians as the "authoritarian" model. It is exemplified by the advice in parenting books by Focus on the Family leader James Dobson: authoritarian parents are highly demanding, focus on obedience, expect to be obeyed without explanation, and rely on physical violence to teach correct behavior.

There have been three wide-ranging, peer-reviewed surveys of the large body of research on authoritarian and other styles of parenting produced in the last 30 years. These reviews consistently indicate the negative effects on children of the authoritarian style:

"Children of authoritarian parents tend to lack social competence with peers: They tend to withdraw, not to take social initiative, to lack spontaneity...they do show lesser evidence of 'conscience' and are more likely to have external, rather than internal, moral orientation in discussing what is the 'right' behavior in situations of moral conflict."[1]

"Adolescents from Authoritarian-Directive homes differed from those from Nonauthoritarian-Directive homes in that they (girls especially) used more drugs and exhibited more internalizing problem behavior."[2]

"Children and adolescents from authoritarian families...tend to perform moderately well in school and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but they have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression."[3]

It also demonstrates that marriage equality proponents shouldn't have to play defense. The burden of proof is on the supporters of discrimination to explain why their own marriages are faring poorly in producing well-adjusted children.

Maybe then we'll get to the real issue: gay marriage bans aren't about kids at all. They're just plain bigotry.

How's that for an ending line?

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by Emproph

(Half hearted dissection from above post

Your dissection could be the fodder for a great parody essay, if you were so inclined.

[Emproph]

"Added February 09, 2007" (YouTube)

Dr. Judith Stacey on James Dobson's Distortions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaCCe9XVSRo

[RainbowL'elly]

this is so awesome a thread, it should be pinned and it should be required reading for anyone who has to defend themselves against these arguments- great compilition of resources here, keep up the good work and i'll be back!