Eleanor Roosevelt is top U.S. first lady, survey says
Okay, I’ll buy that. But note this tidbit:
Eleanor Roosevelt was named the greatest first lady of the United States in a survey of historians released on Saturday, while Michelle Obama, in fifth place, edged out Hillary Clinton in sixth.
Seriously, in what universe is Michelle Obama a good first lady? She is the epitome of the Welfare Queen. And believe me, I don’t say that without understanding its racist connotation. But look at the facts. She has the most staffers of any First Lady in history, with 24, and her extensive, outlandish vacations frequently cost taxpayers upwards of $100,000. Honestly, I half expect her to utter “Let Them Eat Cake” before leaving the White House…
Rand Paul: GOP ‘will not win again in my lifetime’ the presidency, absent change
I’ve been arguing this for years…
Sen. Rand Paul from Kentucky warned his fellow Republican politicos that without change, the GOP would fail miserably in the upcoming White House contest — and that goes for the next few decades.
“I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime for the presidency unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party,” he said, during an interview with Glenn Beck on TheBlaze that aired on Thursday, Politico reported. “And it has to be a transformation, not a little tweaking at the edges.”
So, what do you think? Is Rand Paul right? If so, what changes do you think need to be made? Or, is it a hopeless endeavor?
One in four Americans ‘do not know the Earth circles the Sun’
Don’t lose hope yet, folks. Just wait a minute…
A total of 42 per cent of Americans said that astrology is either “very scientific” or “sort of scientific”.
And just think, these people vote!
Feds want to track your DNA like a license plate
Okay, this story comes from World Net Daily. It’s one of those “news” sites you have to take with a grain of salt…
The federal government doesn’t just want the ability to track down your car; it wants to be able to track down your body as well.
Just as details are emerging about a controversial, nationwide vehicle-surveillance database, WND has learned the federal government is planning an even more invasive spy program using “physiological signatures” to track down individuals.
If true, I can’t say I’m surprised – given the government’s penchant to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong.
Russia bans adoption of children by gay couples
Okay, I admit, I love Pravda. I get a kick out of the Russian newspaper and read it often. (Relax, they have an English version.)
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree to simplify the procedure for adoption of orphans. The document was published on the website of the Cabinet.
…
Dmitry Medvedev also signed the decree that bans the adoption of Russian children by same-sex foreign couples.
So, what do you think, Should the United States follow suit and outright ban homosexuals from adopting children? Or, should we loosen restrictions and allow unmarried couples, including homosexuals, to adopt?
Sifting Reality 
I would fully support a ban on the adoption of children by homosexuals. I would support placing children with the parent who divorces to be with a same-sex partner. I would absolutely ban the practice of surrogacy or in vitro techniques to produce a child for adoption by homosexuals. Every child deserves to be raised in a home with both a father and a mother, as all serious studies have shown children thrive best in such circumstances. The whims of adults do not, should not and cannot supersede the needs of the child. I would also support funding to improve child welfare organizations, including orphanages to provide for the needs of children until suitable parents can be found.
As regards Rand Paul’s comments, both he and Beck lean heavily toward libertarianism, which I’m not sure is the direction or distance the right wing needs to go. I would wager by “new GOP”, he is likely referring to a more libertarian party. While I admit that my understanding of libertarian principles is less than complete, people like Beck who lambast the Republican party fail to take into account the people who really are at fault for their shortcomings…the voting public. The Party is going to put forth whatever candidate it feels will garner the votes, regardless if that candidate is more to the left than Bernie Sanders. I don’t blame them for trying to gain and maintain control. Every Party organization who calls for donations from me gets the same response: I directly support those candidates who best reflect my personal beliefs about what is best for the nation. When I see these organizations supporting such people, I will throw a buck or two their way.
Marshal,
I’m not sure how I feel about homosexual adoptions. I’ve read all the research you’ve mentioned, and it concerns me. But I’d like to see a comparison between being raised in an orphanage with being raised by homosexuals.
I don’t care for Glenn Beck. He’s a hustler. Personally, I thought Chris Christe was the best choice – until these most recent revelations. Months ago, he was beating Hillary Clinton in the polls. Now he’s losing to her. So unless he can regain some of that lost ground, I just don’t see who is capable of beating her.
Terrance,
I won’t say that orphanages, as they now stand, are the most ideal situation for a child. Some are certainly better than others, some worse. What they lack is what should be improved and I’m sure there are well qualified people not corrupted by leftist ideologies. As such, it would certainly be impossible to make apples to apples comparisons between orphanages in general vs homosexual parents. But, and this is important, my position is that putting orphans, or “producing” children, for placement in homosexual households (on purpose) is a negative for the kids right off the bat. They are immediately in an environment that regards that lifestyle as acceptable and normal. Orphanages certainly don’t attempt to indoctrinate such a message simply by virtue of being orphanages.
Beck’s no hustler. He’s sincere in his beliefs, even if a bit off the wall on some issues. Remember, this guy is basically just a DJ, a recovering alcoholic…a regular guy in most respects, who now happens to have a forum and the drive to get his message out. I never agreed with everything he espoused, mainly his libertarian ideas and trashing the GOP with such a broad brush. He does, however, support the grass roots efforts of conservative groups who the Party tries to demonize. I like that. His remarks against the GOP aren’t necessarily wrong, but the way he says them I’d prefer he alter. My local radio station no longer carries his show, and I don’t really follow radio on the internet.
Christy has nothing but an attitude. I don’t know where he stands on anything beyond his nice work against public employee unions. Since then, he’s been riding on that. I can’t understand why he’d have any traction against anyone with so little basis for support. But this is the problem. We should not be looking for someone who can beat whatever Dem is put forth, but support the best person for the job, rally to the cause by spreading the word in whatever way we can, challenging our leftist friends to defend their positions beyond calling us names and articulate why conservatism is best for the nation. Bush didn’t cut it. Dole wasn’t worth it. McCain was a waste of time, Romney didn’t get it done either. Since the MSM won’t vet the people they support, we need to demand lefties defend their support of people like Clinton, or whomever. We need to rouse those who don’t vote, and those who would normally vote for whomever comes from the right to do so again. In that way, anyone we put forth can win. It’s what HASN’T been done the last two cycles.
Marshal,
I wouldn’t characterize orphanages as being autarchical, independent, or anyway unsullied by leftist idealism, given their strong ties to the Department of Human Services, Public Schools, et cetera… Not all homosexuals are politically liberal, or part of a system entrenched in liberal idealism.
However, I’m interested in research regarding the safety of the children being raised by homosexuals. I’m simply not satisfied with this idea that pedophilia and homosexuality have absolutely nothing in common. I want to be sure of this before extending any sort of support to homosexual adoptions, and I don’t care if it’s offensive.
I tend to think Beck is indeed a hustler. He goes around selling books, tickets to his little movies, subscriptions to his television station, et cetera, all the while claiming to represent some sort of revolutionary movement. I understand the desire to be compensated, but revolutionary movements generally don’t require the credit cards of those willing to join. He may believe the things he says, but he’s certainly not above making several million bucks off them. This is Big Money Tea Party-ism and I reject it.
I’m not one of those people who believe a True Blue Conservative is going to turn the trick. We need moderates, not ideologues. The Tea Party Revolution didn’t last, you’ll note. This country is tired of ideologues on the Left and Right.
Terrance,
“I wouldn’t characterize orphanages as being…”
I wouldn’t, either, and I’m not. I don’t know enough about them, except to assume that improvements in how they run their operations and care for children likely need improvements. It’s a general feeling that whenever kids are involved, we can’t do too much to insure their general welfare.
I share you concerns regarding homosexual adoption, to which I add the mere fact that they are homosexuals alone is enough to warrant prohibition. They don’t need to be pedophiles to be negatively impacting the development of children social development. Children are deprived of that male/female dynamic by which each child learns how to relate to the other gender. This problem exists in orphanages, but orphanages don’t pretend to provide the ideal environment in which kids should be raised.
Beck doesn’t head a Tea Party, but requires a credit card for those willing to sign up for his various websites and books. Doing so does not make one a hustler, unless by that term you mean anyone who seeks to provide for one’s self the best possible lifestyle. This is basic entrepreneurship and I admire it in anyone. No one is screwed by his doing so, so there is no harm in it nor anything in which anyone else should find fault.
I’m not saying merely being a true conservative is enough. The term “moderates” suggests someone not fully convicted in conservative philosophy, which is the more beneficial philosophy by which to improve the state of the union. I believe fully that what is best for the nation is found in conservative principles and strategies, as I understand them. An ideologue is not a negative simply for advocating and being devoted to an ideal, especially a beneficial one, and is not merely a catchphrase. “He’s just an ideologue” is an empty concern. What is the ideology being espoused and how does it benefit? That’s the question that must be explored before rejecting anyone for being an ideologue.
Marshal,
No, you aren’t. But I was pointing out that regardless of the individual beliefs of those operating orphanages, orphanages are still entrenched in a system of liberal idealism.
Regardless, it’s clear the best environment for children is the traditional family unit, as numerous studies have shown. But I don’t agree that this is in dispute, as you seem to suggest with: [t]his problem exists in orphanages, but orphanages don’t pretend to provide the ideal environment in which kids should be raised. I don’t believe homosexuals dispute that the best environment for children consists of a father and mother, but if they do, they’re clearly insane.
I’m wondering which of two obviously less-than-ideal situations – orphanage or homosexual couple – is better for the child, assuming there’s a shortage of heterosexual couples willing to adopt. I simply don’t know. I want more research done to satisfy my concerns with homosexuality.
But believe me, I see where you’re coming from.
Like I said, my problem with Beck isn’t his entrepreneurial spirit, but his incessant talk of “revolution” while simultaneously requesting money from those wishing to get the “inside goods.” My father-in-law is obsessed with Glenn Beck, talks about him incessantly, buys all his stuff, and so on. I just don’t see the use. It seems to me that if Beck was truly, honestly interested in “taking back America,” he wouldn’t charge people to hear his ideas. All I’m saying.
In theory, I agree. But in reality, it doesn’t work that way. You have to compromise otherwise nothing will get done. Until we convince our liberal friends that their ways are clearly in error, we must compromise where possible for the sake of the nation. That’s why being an “ideologue” is folly.
Terrance,
” But I was pointing out that regardless of the individual beliefs of those operating orphanages, orphanages are still entrenched in a system of liberal idealism.”
I don’t disagree, and I would add this to what needs improvement.
“I don’t believe homosexuals dispute that the best environment for children consists of a father and mother, but if they do, they’re clearly insane.”
I don’t think you’d have to look to hard to find activists that insist a child would/can/does just as well with stable homosexual parents as a child would with heterosexual parents. Indeed, it is a not uncommon claim that it doesn’t matter one way or the other.
My position is that a child adopted by homosexuals is inherently at a disadvantage over the orphanage due to the obvious influence regarding human sexuality. However, if the orphanage is run by those with the common liberal mindset, the child would suffer in the same way. But assuming that orphanage does not hold with the pro-homosexual dogma, I’d prefer the orphan in such an institution over a homosexual environment.
Again, as to Beck, there isn’t much he does that isn’t done by pretty much every nationally syndicated radio host out there. Pick one. Limbaugh, Ingraham, Medved, Prager, Savage, etc. etc. etc. They all put out their opinions, positions and philosophies in a variety of ways. Most have not only books, but websites that require a payment for the most comprehensive insights to their thoughts and ideas. Not a big deal, but most of what all them offer for pay is simply detailed versions of what can be heard by being a regular listener. Beck simply takes it to another level, perhaps because he is so passionate about what he believes. Don’t hold that against him. Focus on what he believes.
“Until we convince our liberal friends that their ways are clearly in error, we must compromise where possible for the sake of the nation.”
Liberals do NOT compromise. They pretend to compromise but one of two things actually occur. 1. They get far more than they give and what they give is hardly meaningful, and/or 2. They don’t come through with their end of the bargain.
Compromise is about as misused, or rather ill used a term as most we must hear until we puke. The true problem is how the message has failed to be articulated in a manner that resonates with enough people so that compromising with liberals no longer is necessary, since it isn’t profitable anyway.
However, if by compromise you mean working out differences in how to accomplish conservative ideas, give and take makes sense. But compromise that means allowing for bad ideas in hopes that we can weather them until later, I’m quite done with that waste of time. I’d much prefer deadlock than to pretend we improve the nation by allowing bad liberal ideas to be put into effect. I see no national gain in such nonsense.
Okay, I don’t know if this will get posted, but just to raise the obvious question to Dee and Dum, above: You’d REALLY rather a child have NO parents over two parents that you consider “flawed” or even over one single parent?
Does this not give you pause to consider that your biases are working towards the harm of children?
Nothing more to say to the delusional and those working against children’s welfare.
~Dan
Now that you mention, I have heard this before. It’s certainly a ridiculous belief, I agree.
I don’t view it as a disadvantage because I don’t think a person’s sexuality can be influenced into the homosexual lifestyle when natural alternatives exist. People often point to prisoners, but prisoners have no alternative and many that “become gay” are likely leaning that way in the first place. It’s also not true, at least in my experience, that people are necessarily destined to believe the things their parents believe. I was raised in an exceedingly liberal household. My parents are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-welfare, and I’m none of those things.
Like I said, my reluctance concerns the safety of children raised by homosexuals. I’ve simply known and heard of too many homosexual pedophiles to automatically accept that no connection exists. I want more research done, but since that’s probably not going to happen in this PC Age, then I must oppose homosexual adoptions until the PC Age has passed.
Regarding Beck, I get what you’re saying. But Beck, on more than one occasion, has likened himself to Thomas Paine. He even wrote a book entitled “Common Sense,” and styled it like the original “Common Sense.” To me, he’s just putting on a show. He’s not really interested in creating a revolutionary fever; he’s interested in making money.
I don’t disagree that this is true in Washington D.C. But it shouldn’t be true. Both sides need to compromise.
But since the message isn’t resonating with many people and liberals are still being elected, we need to compromise where possible. And the irony is that hardcore liberals are saying the same thing about compromising with conservatives. The ideologues on both sides need to get out of Congress.
If that’s what you think, Dan, then you’ve not read my remarks. I want additional study, but liberals like yourself oppose it because you’re afraid of offending people.
I care far more about children’s welfare than you. I want to be sure that children are safe with homosexuals. I don’t jump to conclusions and automatically assume homosexuality is completely benign.
Dan,
Your remarks will be published so long as you aren’t baiting people or trolling. So long as you’re discussing the issue, your comments will never be moderated again – at least as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure John feels the same way. But ultimately it’s up to him. I can approve your comments but I can’t take you off moderation, nor would I without John’s approval.
Terrance,
“I don’t view it as a disadvantage because I don’t think a person’s sexuality can be influenced into the homosexual lifestyle when natural alternatives exist.”
I can point to a study (found at Wintery Knight’s blog) that shows a higher percentage of kids raised by homosexuals becoming homosexuals themselves, compared to kids raised by normal people. While it may be true that, like in your case, kids won’t follow the influence of their parents, either in part or in whole, they are nonetheless influenced. It is usually some tangible, or perceived to be tangible, experience that counters their upbringing, that turns kids from that influence. Barring such, influence will shape them. We can see by the overall lax cultural standards regarding things like chastity, that kids are more prone to experimenting sexually than ever before. Why this wouldn’t hold true for kids raised in homosexual households, or within communities with a greater acceptance of this behavior as morally benign, doesn’t make sense.
As to Beck, I expect that should you ever seek to publish your opinions, that no charge would be expected for those who might wish to read of them. I do not begrudge Beck or anyone else from making a buck in this way.
Dan,
If the pro-homosexual position is that it makes no difference the gender of parents, I don’t see the problem with the number of parent figures per child. Those who operate orphanages are the parental figures for the children in their care. As heartbreaking as it is to me to think of a childhood with no traditional home to call their own, I do not see placing them with homosexuals, thieves, philanderers or other ne’er do wells as a better option. It just wouldn’t be Christian.
I’d like to read that study.
Right. But you’re talking about a cultural standard, and not something necessarily peculiar to homosexuals.
My opinions are published on this blog all the time for free. Regardless, I don’t begrudge people making money – at all. I just don’t like the way Beck goes about it. Quit saying you’re a revolutionary, Beck, unless you intend on behaving like one.
I have zero desire to comment here any further. For the sake of children and reality, I will point out that studies HAVE been done. Kids with gay parents do fine.
“Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.”
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
It’s not a question of whether gay parents (single or married) are as competent as straight parents, the facts are there. The research is there.
The question is, do we want children to be raised WITH loving parents or without?
Marshall would use his non-reality-based hateful bigotry (associating gay folk with thieves and other misbehaving people) to say “NO, I DON’T want children to be placed in happy homes because I disagree with their politics (and not because of any research that says there’s anything “bad” about it).” The question is, will people listen to reality and facts, and act in the best interest of children, or will they place their hateful bigotry over the interest of children?
Terrance, given the research backs the reality of good gay parents, will you side with the children’s best interests?
And really, that’s all from me. The facts are there. Gay folk are NOT pedophiles, NOT thieves, NOT “ne’er-do-wells” because they are gay. Associating them with such is bigotry of the goofiest and most delusional sort. Gay folk are your neighbor, your brother, your sister, your friends, just folk, entirely capable of being parents just like straight folk.
The rest of the world is recognizing the reality of this. Join the rest of the world.
~Dan
*And just as a pre-emptive note: The one or two studies that some have said point to “support” that kids do better in a home with a male and female parent – EVEN IF that were true, and the one study I know of has been criticized for flaws – is not the same as saying “gay parents are bad” or that single parents are bad. “Less optimal” is not the same as “bad.” EVEN IF it were true, and that is doubtful, to me based on real world evidence and 30 years of research.
Dan,
We don’t care if you comment or not, Dan. But if you do, keep it on topic.
Not according to Marshal Art. Either way, I’ll have to look into the methodology of those studies, Dan. I’m all too familar with politically-motivated researchers using poor methodologies on purpose to support preconceived notions.
If I’m satisifed with the research metholodogy, then sure. I much prefer that over abortion, I’ll tell ya.
It’s not biggotted to wonder why such a large percentage of molested children grow up to be homosexuals, or wonder if there is a connection that’s being missed. I support more research as a matter of prudence, not hate.
Th problem is that the “facts” Dan cites runs the numbers incorrectly. What I mean is they take the number of molested children and follow them to see if they are gay or straight. There might not be a difference there, I doubt it but whatever. What isnt looked at is of homosexuals, how many were sexually abused. That number is higher that it is for heterosexuals.
More facts, then…
“No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.
The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
So, while it is “not bigoted” to “wonder why such a large percentage of molested children grow up to be homosexuals…” BUT, when confronted with the facts that this just isn’t factual, it is wise to abandon the claim and admit a mistake. Just like THIRTY YEARS’ worth of research from a variety of sources showing that gay and lesbian parents do just fine with their children (ie, do as well as straight parents do).
So, Fact 1: Gay parents are not “bad” parents. Research shows.
Fact 2: Molested children do not grow up “gay” or “turn gay” because of the molestation. Research shows.
Fact 3: Children in orphanages most likely don’t do as well as those raised in families.
“the fundamental scientific question it posed — Are orphanages bad for kids? — had already been answered. Definitively. Studies going back many decades had shown that orphanages are awful.”
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/the-orphanage-problem/
*NOTE: I would suggest that the notion that children raised in orphanages without dedicated parental units will not do as well – as compared to those raised with dedicated parental units – is intuitive and rational. I would also note that research trying to “prove” this are probably difficult to evaluate/assess, but in this case, it just seems obvious.
Which is not AT ALL to criticize orphanages (noting that all orphanages are not created equal). God bless those state, religious and non-profit groups which provide safe places to children in crises. Orphanages are, unfortunately, a necessary reality. But they have to be a poor substitute for a loving personal home.
Facts show. Reality supports.
~Dan
Do you have an unbiased source? Splc is a hard left group, and they dont hide their biases.
Like I said, merely parroting conclusions tells me nothing of the methodology. And I don’t trust the APA; they’ve shown their bias time and time again.
So, studies over decades from a variety of sources and involving, no doubt, hundreds of people AND the entirety of the APA… ALL of these people, scholars, researchers, schools and institutions are in a vast Left Wing Conspiracy to fake data?
More evidence of delusions.
Is there ANY data to support the otherwise obvious (to most people) facts?
Again, the FACTS are, based on research and just basic common sense and real world observations:
1. Being raised in an orphanage is not as healthy as being raised by a loving family. Fact. Obvious.
2. Gay folk who are parents do a fine job. Fact. Obvious to anyone who knows gay parents.
3. Being molested as a child does not “turn you” gay. Fact. Obvious.
Is there any actual data to contradict the evidence from all these sources? You said earlier, Terrance, that you’d go where the data led. Stick with that notion, it’s a good one. Don’t put on cultural blinders.
Now, I’m done.
~Dan
Dan there are studies that conclude otherwise yet you put all your eggs in one basket.
Dan,
Please stop embellishing. It’s very unlikely that these studies were done by “hundreds of people.” How many are we talking about, anyway? You’ve linked to conclusions, not studies. Show me the studies so I can view the methodologies.
Yes, I will follow the data – if it’s trustworthy. But I’m telling you right now you can take whatever the APA says and stick it. They’re a ridiculous organization.
I’ve known a lot of gay people that I think would make fine parents, which is why I’m not automatically turned off by the idea of gay adoption. Growing up, my mom’s friend, a male homosexual, babysat me all the time. Never once was there any inappropriate behavior, inuendo, or “homosexulism.” He was a great guy and I really enjoyed spending time with him. I wish he was still around, but he died several years back at the age of 40.
So, I have NO ill-will toward homosexuals, and I won’t listen to someone tell me I’m a bigot because I don’t believe exactly as they do. I don’t recall ever saying anything, at any time, that would warrant an accusation of bigotry, Dan. There may be other people on this blog who’ve said some inappropriate things about homosexuals, but I’m not one of them – so don’t lump me in with them.
Unfortunately the APA’s studies, amd other pro-gay institutions who conduct studies have been shown to hand pick the participants. They routinely screen so the conclusion is already determined.
Here is an article related to the study I mentioned. It seems the guy went out of his way to attack the issue from a variety of angles.
Dan is so in the bag for homosexuals that he refuses to consider anything that puts his preconceived notions at risk. I don’t know what opposing studies he believes has been shown to be flawed, but the recent Regnerus study carried his own admission of the shortcomings of his research. Very above board. A more recent study was done using Canadian census figures in order to provide a large sampling.
But if the results of the Schumm study are based on any kind of flaws in his methodology, I have yet to hear a contradictory study that successfully showed another result.
Dan bristles at the notion of homosexuals being regarded as “ne’er-do-wells” simply because he believes his own weak sauce BS that he claims is the result of serious and prayerful Biblical study, as well as the belief that acting like nice guys and gals overcomes the sinfulness of engaging in behavior God regards as abomination. Yet each of all the other “ne’er-do-wells” with which I grouped homosexuals, living an otherwise Christian-like life would not make their sinful behaviors OK, either.
Dan’s favorite word, these days, for illegitimately attacking those who do not agree with him is “delusional”, as if opponents are mentally retarded or something. It saves him time from the effort it would take to truly defend his indefensible position on the subject. But the delusion is in him. For as long as he insists sin is not sin, truth will be delusion to Dan Trabue.
BTW. I know a woman who was raised in an orphanage. She had a high paying career in HR for many years until she chose to raise her three daughters. She supports the orphanage in which she grew up because she believes it is a fine institution. The point here is that it isn’t the fact that one is raised in an orphanage, but the quality of the orphanage in which a child is raised.
But immediately, a child raised by homosexuals will be raised to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is morally benign or equal to a proper heterosexual union. So immediately the child is at a disadvantage being raised to believe a lie.
Finally, for Terrance, exactly how is a revolutionary supposed to behave, and where is it written that one must behave in that many alone?
Marshal,
I suppose screening is in order for all couples. We don’t want children being raised by parents who believe abortion is morally acceptable, since that child will be at a disadvantage…
I’ve been fairly clear, Marshal. Beck styles himself as a revolutionary, plagarizing the style of others, and charges big money for it. He’s a hustler, not a patriot. You’re free to form your own opinion, just as I’m free to form mine. I don’t like him. I think he’s a hustler.
Terrance,
Tell me you were kidding when you typed this:
“I suppose screening is in order for all couples. We don’t want children being raised by parents who believe abortion is morally acceptable, since that child will be at a disadvantage…”
Are you really trying to suggest some parallel here? I came across this video, after watching this one at Eternity Matters. Frankly, to watch either (I recommend both) makes your comment seem rather silly.
I am having trouble understanding your position on Beck. I get that you don’t like him. I’ve known conservatives who pay him no mind, dismissing him for a variety of reasons. What I don’t get is your wacky perception of him as a hustler. I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard him describe himself as a revolutionary. Perhaps I missed it after watching his show with some regularity, listening to his radio program almost daily until it was replaced by Hannity, and reading one of his books. What you call “plagarizing(sic) the style of others” is more commonly known as “being inspired by others”. Musicians, actors, comedians, authors and artists do it all the time. One can often see or hear the influences of others upon an artist. But to “plagiarize” the style of another, to adopt their mannerisms and speech patterns (I suppose) and at as if it is his own? How could you even tell and know that?
I get not liking a guy. It could be one’s actual style, personality, manner, whatever…But to dismiss the guy’s entrepreneurial successes as hustling? That smacks of covetousness on your part. There are a few things about Beck that I can’t get past, but those are mostly his views and opinions, but I consider him an overall good guy to have out there exposing a lot of nonsense in the political realm. A guy I really find annoying is Michael Savage, but I still consider him “on my team”, so to speak. Just not first team. (In my town, Hannity moved from one radio station to replace Beck on another, and was himself replaced by Savage, who was originally broadcast on the station to which Hannity moved, but thankfully late night. Now Hannity’s show is broadcast live. Don’t know or care about Savage. Many of my faves have been taken out of the more prime slots, as far as I’m concerned, or taken off altogether.)
Beck’s success is one of the type normally seen as being of his own making. Self-made and a result of lots of hard work. He’s a true student of our founding and loves our history. There’s far more about the guy I find admirable, though I still wanna slap him now and again. I think he can be over zealous. But a patriot he is.
Marshal,
I was being facetious so as to illustrate the absurdity of prohibiting gay adoptions based on the idea that children will naturally be at a disadvantage. It may well be true that gay parents are unfit, but that’s something which needs to be proven before policy implementation.
The videos were interesting but unconvincing. This video is equally unconvincing and represents the opposite side of the coin.
I want studies done by fair-minded people. I’ve asked Dan to provide his studies and I’ve asked you to provide yours, and neither of you have done so. I’m not the one making the claim so I’m not about to hunt around the web to verify either point of view.
Anyway, I see my criticism of Beck has struck a nerve with you. Since your moniker is obviously facetious, I’m thinking you may be Glenn Beck himself! You devoted three whole paragraphs to my opinion of the man. LOL.
In any case, I wouldn’t characterize my opinion of him as “wacky.”
Perhaps you did. I suggest you read his book Common Sense
You can rationalize it like that if you want, but I’ve read both Paine’s and Beck’s Common Sense and the two were identical in style. The book is an example of Beck’s “revolutionary fervor” that’s for sale.
And thank you for pointing out my spelling error. I use Linux Ubuntu as my operating system (non-American) and it’s not standardized for American English, so when I typed “plagiarizing,” it corrected it to British English, and when I switched it back, I forgot the i. May I return the favor and point out that sic is properly displayed within brackets, not parenthesis. Placing it within parenthesis is common, I admit, but incorrect. It’s also usually italicized. May I also point out that placing a period outside quotations is incorrect grammar in the United States.
I mean, since we’re pointing out irrelevant shit and all. :-)
No, it doesn’t. I don’t begrudge the man. He’s done well for himself despite his battle with alcohol and I respect that. But I still think he’s a hustler. He makes outlandish statements to keep himself in the news cycle, sells all sorts of gimmicks, and tries to paint himself in the same light as revolutionaries like Thomas Paine – which I find completely offensive. I don’t like him. I think he’s a hustler. And you may not understand it, but you don’t have to since it’s my opinion.
Now, back to the original topic of discussion. Since Dan is apparently just trolling and uninterested in defending his views, I’ll ask you. Please provide those studies you mentioned displayed at Knight’s blog.
BTW, your comment was automatically held in moderation because it contained 3 or more links. WordPress does it automatically.
Marshal,
Let me say another thing. I’ve been impressed with many of your contributions to this blog. Your fine writing is matched only by the strength of your arguments, and I find myself agreeing with you more than not. However, your noticeably strong conservatism is occasionally at odds with the more moderate type to which I subscribe.
Naturally, then, we occasionally butt heads. And because our rhetorical styles tend to be cocky, our disagreements sometimes become outright uncivil. For my part, I apologize and I’ll keep the surliness to a minimum. :-)
Regarding Beck, we’re never going to agree so we might as well agree to disagree. But we may find agreement regarding homosexual adoptions. I understand your concerns, but I approach this issue from a pro-life point of view. I don’t want there to be a shortage of couples willing to adopt “unwanted children” or orphanages that run out of money. I want children to live and to be placed in loving homes should their biological parents not want them. And given my own experience with homosexuals (babysitter), I’ve often thought they may be suitable adoptive parents. But I don’t know that for sure, and I certainly wouldn’t want to place children in an environment that’s not only imperfect, but outright dangerous. With that in mind, I would appreciate your linking me to this Knight fellows blog so I can review the studies for myself.
Two things:
1. I posted several links to back up my fact claims. Those links, in turn, had links within them, like this one to the American Association of Pediatrics…
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html
…that makes the case again. Or is the American Association of Pediatric doctors also part of a vast conspiracy to dupe the world into thinking that “the gays” aren’t evil…?
It includes this conclusion…
“No particular family constellation makes poor or good outcomes for children in-
evitable.”
The report continued:
“A stable, well-functioning family that consists of 2 parents and children is potentially the most secure, supportive, and nurturing environment in which children may be raised. That children can be successfully brought to adulthood without this basic func-
tioning unit is a tribute to those involved who have developed the skill and resiliency to overcome a difficult and fundamental challenge.
Read the full report or any of the research data from the last 30 years.
Beyond that, just use some basic common sense: A good family is going to be one that is healthy, nurturing and loving. That can happen in single parent families with limited resources, it can happen in gay or straight married couples, in ANY circumstance, as long as the parents are dedicated to a healthy, nurturing and loving family. Likewise, bad parenting can happen in any family configuration. It’s just common sense. So, yes, by all means, we should vet potential parents and foster parents, but there is no rational, research-based reason to automatically deny children parents when they are available, simply because some may disagree with their marriage. That research does not exist.
2. Re: the bigotry claim, I was talking about Marshall’s hateful and bigoted comparison to a whole group of people to criminals and irresponsible groups of people. The blanket grouping of people into a negative category is the definition of bigotry.
Bigot (Merriam Webster): one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
The blanket condemnation of a GROUP of people is bigotry. He’s not condemning the sexually loose or harmfully perverse behaviors of some people (gay or straight), he is blanket condemning gay people, as a group. Bigot. Stupid. Hateful. Ignorant.
Use your head fellas. If a family is by all evidence prepared to give a loving, healthy safe home to an orphaned child, that is, on the face of it, a good and moral thing. Don’t let bigoted biases and human cultural traditions stand in your way of supporting an obviously good thing.
Dan,
I began this discussion with the admission of ignorance. I simply don’t know enough about the issue to make a decision. I see you’ve linked to an organization I have no reason not to trust, so I’m going to review the report, the studies referenced, and hopefully make a comparison with whatever studies Marshal is talking about.
Here’s another link within which one can refer to the specifics to which they refer.
This one is from a recent Canadian study.
Both of these will lead to the actual reports. I don’t know if they are available anywhere for free, so you might have to satisfy yourself with the results.
It should be kept in mind that, despite the video you posted in response to my original links, no one is suggesting that a kid CAN’T turn out well after a life with homosexual parents. But is this the exception rather than the rule? The links I now provide suggest that is likely the case. Will all raised by homosexuals even be aware of the negative impact on their lives? Lopez suggested that is more common than not. How can we be certain that the young man in your video is not merely protecting the women who raised him against a perceived threat; defending them while not even attributing issues with which he struggles as being a result of his upbringing? Lopez defends his “mothers” while acknowledging the negative impact of his life with them.
I would also point to the young man’s insistence that his was as much a family as any traditional family. But he needs to redefine that word as well to make the case. The reality is that at best, one such as he can only say that theirs contained many aspects of what a traditional family has. But a real family is a group of people tied together by blood. I’ve known enough adopted people to know that the fact that they are not biologically tied is never totally forgotten, even if it has no great importance to any involved. I don’t say this to denigrate groups that regard their component parts as family. To say such, however, indicates the strength of the bond that has formed. It is not a statement of the reality. And example would be my best friends. We are as brothers, and regard each other as such. But we aren’t brothers really. The real point here is that the young man’s expression of his regard is, though touching, not a basis for legally considering changing the legal definition of family. What’s more, this is done as an “after the fact” attack. They go ahead and play house, and THEN want legal recognition, saying, “We’re a family just like any other” and by doing so once again argue from emotion instead of fact, reason and logic. It would be like stealing a car and then saying that it is just like your own, and thus should be considered so. (A weak analogy, but it’s late and I’m tired. Don’t make a big deal of it.)
Marshal,
No big deal about the analogy. I understand. And I’m going to review the links. Thank You.
I have begun reading Dan’s link from the AAP. From the start, it smacked of OPINION, as well as activism, but not much more. Though I intend to get through the entire thing,
I have read enough to provoke a search of responses. The first one I read were letters from AAP members responding. There wasn’t much, but two who opposed at least demonstrated some thought, with #7 pointing out the simple truth that the focus of support for SSM is more about the parents than the children unfortunate enough to be forced into their care.
This one, however, speaks directly to their claims and mentions that the report garnered more criticism from their own membership than any previous technical report. It points out their blatant overstatements and the not so honest research that buttresses their concluding OPINION. That would be most of the so-called research of the last thirty years. You will note the notes at the conclusion of this link that cites the most recent research on outcomes for children raised by same-sex partners which are better studies because of things like sample size and a better effort to compare apples to apples.
Of course, it is not untypical of the activists and enablers to hype whatever they can find that suggests a justification for their position, regardless of the merits of those findings.
“. Re: the bigotry claim, I was talking about Marshall’s hateful and bigoted comparison to a whole group of people to criminals and irresponsible groups of people. The blanket grouping of people into a negative category is the definition of bigotry.”
Dan finds it much easier to dispense with his kumbaya posturing when faced with truth than to expend energy offering a counter argument with the grace he demands of others. His demonizing here is ludicrous as he does not defend any of the other groups of people (thieves, philanderers or other ne’er do wells) I would also oppose for adoptive parents, even if they were all as wonderful and active in their respective churches as are those lesbian grandmothers of whom Dan is so fond. The people of each of these groups are defined by their one primary behavior. The thieves are people who steal, for example. The homosexuals are people who engage in immoral sexual behavior. Few who engage in their immoral or illegal behavior preach against that behavior as illegal or immoral. Practicing homosexuals, with few exceptions (assuming there are any), are no different. I don’t think Dan would consider a poor view of thieves as bigotry, yet he insists, because of his own morality-free position, that any less than favorable view of sexually immoral people is bigotry. And he dares accuse others of delusion!