What Is The Damage That Gay Marriage Does To Children

[Daniel2]

The question ought not be whether the outside should influence or has influenced the Church, but rather what is best for the outside and the Church. To me, in regards to children, I don't think it best to encourage breaking up traditional families for alternative families (see my post above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't seen anyone "encouraging breaking up traditional families for alternative families."

The LDS church no longer recommends mixed-orientation marriage, and neither do pro-same-sex marriage supporters.

So that point is mute.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Daniel2

[Senator]

I would be in apostasy to the Church....

Thank you. That was my only point.

The rest of your post has been said of many a past and current apostates of the church.

[wenglund]

I haven't seen anyone "encouraging breaking up traditional families for alternative families."

The LDS church no longer recommends mixed-orientation marriage, and neither do pro-same-sex marriage supporters.

So that point is mute.

 

You are missing the point--which seems surprising since your own personal family circumstance exemplifies the point.

 

The question I have been responding to, and the one that is on topic for this thread, isn't whether people with SSA should or shouldn't be encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex, but rather whether children are harmed by homosexual "parenting" (which relationships and "parently" is indeed encouraged by pop cultural embracing the practice and by way of legalizing SSM, which not only provides government endorsement thereof, but encourages the same through benefits)  

 

Since, as previously indicated,  the vast majority of children currently "parented" by SS couples are the product of previous heterosexual relationships/marriages, then the question really becomes whether children are harmed by one parent destroying a traditional family in favor of an alternative "family" as encouraged, unwittingly or otherwise, by legalizing SSM.

 

To me, the answer is obvious in the affirmative. It has been widely demonstrated by secular studies that breaking up a traditional home is harmful to children, let alone for reasons of one parent selfishly choosing to consume their lust and enter into a perverse/alternative relationship.

 

So, you are wrong. My point isn't moot, but rather quite pertinent as well as sound and valid. Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[JLHPROF]

Thank you. That was my only point.

The rest of your post has been said of many a past and current apostates of the church.

 

- yes I would be, and if the Church had allowed SSM in the temple and started ordaining women I can't think of any place better.

We should not accept sin and error, even from the Church.  If you want to accept ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Church does as coming direct from God, well, have fun, but it won't be accounted you as faith.

Edited September 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

Since, as previously indicated,  the vast majority of children currently "parented" by SS couples are the product of previous heterosexual relationships/marriages, then the question really becomes whether children are harmed by one parent destroying a traditional family in favor of an alternative "family" as encouraged, unwittingly or otherwise, by legalizing SSM.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

SSM couples can have children without breaking up previous heterosexual marriages. Seems like a moot point, since heterosexual marriages are broken up quite often by one parent destroying the traditional family in favor of an alternative family. If it's all about children being harmed then it seems heterosexual marriages have too much to fix on their own.

[LOSTONE]

I am anti-gay, but see no harm to our children to see or be raised by a gay married couple. I just don’t see what the harm of a gay married couple is. But before anyone calls me a hypocrite, let me explain my anti-gay stance. I believe in the Bible and all it says. It says man shall not lay with man as he does with woman. To me, this is saying man shall not engage in homosexuality ( and women as well ). For this reason I am anti-gay. My believe in the Bible is more important to me. If I had to choose, I would chose to band all gay marriages and open relationships just on my believe in the Bible. I may sound hypocritical, but this is how I see homosexuality. It is not harming are kids or adults, but is going against what the Bible tells us.

[Senator]

We should not accept sin and error, even from the Church.  If you want to accept ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Church does as coming direct from God, well, have fun, but it won't be accounted you as faith.

 

Actually I believe it would!

[wenglund]

SSM couples can have children without breaking up previous heterosexual marriages. Seems like a moot point, since heterosexual marriages are broken up quite often by one parent destroying the traditional family in favor of an alternative family. If it's all about children being harmed then it seems heterosexual marriages have too much to fix on their own.

 

I am not denying that SSM couples can have children without breaking up heterosexual marriage. In fact, I implicitly acknowledge it.

 

And, while my point may be somewhat moot in such cases, it isn't moot for the vast majority of cases. Unlike you, I am addressing the rule rather than the exceptions.

 

Furthermore, the fact that heterosexual relationships may be harmful on their own to children in terms of breakups of those relationships, doesn't justify  on behalf of the children, also encouraging breaking up those heterosexual relationships in pursuit of SS relationships, particularly when those SS relationships are, themselves, more prone to breaking up than heterosexual relationships. Quite the contrary.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 24, 2014 by wenglund

[MorningStar]

Gay marriages often involve the child intentionally being robbed of a mother or father who created them and the expectation that they be happy and pretend that it's all normal.  And what are the criteria for what is "damaging"?  My mother was damaged by her alcoholic parents, but still went on to have a pretty happy and productive life, but she has many issues she would not have if it weren't for the things she went through.  People can triumph over many things, but they deserve a mother and father who love each each other and them. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not deny that SSM couples can have children without breaking up heterosexual marriage. In fact, I implicitly acknowledge it.

 

And, while my point may be somewhat moot in such cases, it isn't moot for the vast majority of cases. Unlike you, I am addressing the rule rather than the exceptions.

 

Furthermore, the fact that heterosexual relationships may be harmful on their own to children in terms of breakups of those relationships, doesn't justify  on behalf of the children also encouraging breaking up those heterosexual relationships in pursuit of SS relationships, particularly when those SS relationships are, themselves, more prone to breaking up than heterosexual relationships. Quite the contrary.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So what you are saying is a guy and gal get married then have kids. Years later the father divorces the wife and claims "I am sick of living a lie" and then goes out and finds a gay partner. It seems that I am hearing that that is not harmful at all or that it really doesn't happen all that often?  Or am I missing what you are saying?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am anti-gay, but see no harm to our children to see or be raised by a gay married couple. I just don’t see what the harm of a gay married couple is. But before anyone calls me a hypocrite, let me explain my anti-gay stance. I believe in the Bible and all it says. It says man shall not lay with man as he does with woman. To me, this is saying man shall not engage in homosexuality ( and women as well ). For this reason I am anti-gay. My believe in the Bible is more important to me. If I had to choose, I would chose to band all gay marriages and open relationships just on my believe in the Bible. I may sound hypocritical, but this is how I see homosexuality. It is not harming are kids or adults, but is going against what the Bible tells us.

I take it you are not Mormon.

[stemelbow]

I am not deny that SSM couples can have children without breaking up heterosexual marriage. In fact, I implicitly acknowledge it.

 

And, while my point may be somewhat moot in such cases, it isn't moot for the vast majority of cases. Unlike you, I am addressing the rule rather than the exceptions.

 

Furthermore, the fact that heterosexual relationships may be harmful on their own to children in terms of breakups of those relationships, doesn't justify  on behalf of the children also encouraging breaking up those heterosexual relationships in pursuit of SS relationships, particularly when those SS relationships are, themselves, more prone to breaking up than heterosexual relationships. Quite the contrary.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So it sounds like if homosexual marriages don't break up, are monogamous and produce families with loving parents, you have no argument against SSM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

They need to do the study in homes where the children are being raised by gay married parents.  Otherwise it is not applicable to the OP's question.  This is a quote from the study:  "Of the 175 adult children with lesbian mothers, two reported that they lived with their mothers for their whole childhood."  Only TWO of the test subjects were actually even raised by their lesbian mothers--that's about one percent.  How are these statistics relevant to children raised in same sex parent homes?

Shouldn't that show you something right there?

[JLHPROF]

 

Actually I believe it would!

 

And if the Church were to accept abortion?  How about if they gave up on Baptism?  What if they denounced the Book of Abraham? Maybe if they became trinitarian?  Or did away with garments?  Or reinstated polygamy?

Whatever - it doesn't matter which the issue is.  God doesn't expect blind following of Church leaders and won't bless you for it.

 

There are lines that we are NOT required by God to cross, even if the Church ever falls prey to outside influences.  And we will not be blessed for following blindly.  Isaiah 24 & D&C 112  tell us that we will go out of order for a while, but not forever.

 

Following the Church if they ever allow sin and error such as SSM or ordaining women are lines I personally can't cross.

[wenglund]

So what you are saying is a guy and gal get married then have kids. Years later the father divorces the wife and claims "I am sick of living a lie" and then goes out and finds a gay partner. It seems that I am hearing that that is not harmful at all or that it really doesn't happen all that often?  Or am I missing what you are saying?

 

That is essentially what I am saying, though more mothers in heterosexual marriages divorce and end up in lesbian relationships than fathers who divorce and end up in gay relationships. 

 

As for whether it happens all that often, you are partially right. As I indicate on my blog,

 

"Very few homosexual couples live in the same household (30%--see HERE), and fewer still end up with children (only about 19%), and this number is on the decline (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), as compared with 66% for heterosexuals, which number is also in decline (see HERE). So, again, we aren't talking about a demographic that is clamoring for children. 

 

Even more disconcerting, homosexual relationships are disproportionately transient, even when legalized. In terms of relationship longevity, only 29% of homosexual couples stay together up to 7 years, as compared with 70% of traditional marriage lasting more than 10 years. (See HERE)  And, homosexuals are 2 to 3 times more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples. (See HERE and HERE)

This may be due in part to several factors. First, the disproportionately high rates of infidelity among homosexuals--4.5 - 25% monogamy as compared with 70 - 88% among heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE) Second, the disproportionately high rates of promiscuity among homosexuals--they average 20 - 106 sexual partners per year, as compared to heterosexuals who average 8 per lifetime. (See HERE andHERE) And, third, the disproportionately high rate of domestic violence among homosexuals--4.6 - 5.8% annually, as compared to 0.035 - 0.27% annually for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

So, yet once more we aren't talking about a demographic largely intent on providing stable and safe homes for children.

In fact, for most of the 19% of same-sex households raising children, the vast majority of the children came from prior opposite-sex relationships. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

In other words, by and large, and contrary to the propagandized impression, not only aren't homosexuals clamoring to raise children, nor desperate to get married so as to raise those children in a stable and safe home, but most of the children they have been raising came from breaking up traditional homes. 

 

Given the uncontroversial and relatively undisputed view that divorce and other unstable parental relationships can have serious and lasting ill-effects on children (seeHERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the even less controversial view that domestic violence has a debilitating impact on kids (seeHERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and given the significantly higher rates at which divorce and domestic violence occur among homosexuals, the implications are clear and a matter of common sense...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are blowing hot air there Bob. Not being of the diversity set, how would you know what goes on in the homes of those folk? What would you do if a celibate lesbian woman was found to be one of the more active members of a Ward? Yes, the church needs many more members that run around making ridiculous assumptions about those they do not understand.

I think the proposition in the opening thread went to "gay marriage." Not whether a celibate was raising a family, which is somewhat of a contradiction.  I'm pretty sure that if a gay couple went and got themselves married, that their children wouldn't be attending Scouts, Mutual and Primary.   Seems to make sense to me.  And that is an answer to the opening post -- their parents would very likely deny the kids the blessings of the gospel.

[wenglund]

Furthermore, as also indicated on my blog: 

 

Children are also being exploited in other ways. It was little more than a third of a century ago that homosexuality was not only generally considered as morally repugnant, but the psychiatric community also deemed it a mental disorder. (SeeHERE)  Whereas, nowadays, homosexuality has become generally accepted and even celebrated in pop culture. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

How did this happen?

The relatively short transition from condemning to condoning to embracing was a function of multiple factors, but none more key than the heightened indoctrination of our Nation's children. Kids as young as fourth grade have been the intended target of stained and skillfully executed PR campaigns, which have manifest themselves both in popular media (ibid) as well as throughout our public school system (see HEREand HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE andHERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and this under the guise of "Multiculturalism" and "Safe Schools". (See HERE and HERE andHERE)

Here is a Top 10 list of strategies homosexual activists have used in public education. (See HERE)

And, it isn't just Right-wingers making this claim. Homosexual activists have also owned up to it (see HERE and HERE), and have included it as a plank in their manifestos and agendas. (See HERE and HERE and HERE),

In spite of liberals and gays scoffing at the notion of a "gay agenda" (see HERE andHERE and HERE and HERE), as mentioned in some of the links above, the primary architects of the real, massive, and rather detailed public relations campaign were Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (a.k.a. "Erastes Pill"), by way of their 1987 article in Guide Magazine, "The Overhauling of Straight America," and their 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s."

One may easily peruse the last several decades to see ample instances where most, if not all the Kirk and Madsen PR strategies have been adeptly employed, and even less unmistakably, the intended results of escalated favorable opinions (see HERE), particularly among young people. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Now, understandably, homosexual sympathizers have been quick to distance homosexuality from pedophilia (see HERE and HERE and HERE) even though studies have raised serious concerns somewhat to the contrary (see HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE). And, clever semantics have been employed to give the impression of greater distance than in reality (see HERE), and bold declarations by gay activists about child recruitment have been ardently downplayed (see HERE andHERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

Never mind the fact that gay rights organizations like Boston-Boise Committee and the Mattachine Society and Gay Activist Alliance gave rise to the pedophilia/pederasty movement (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and several leading gay voices in the 1970's went on to become founding members and staunch supporters of NAMBLA and other pederast causes (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE), not to mention that until the late 80's and early 90's, NAMBLA published a gay pedophilia magazine (see HERE and HERE and HEREand HERE), and was a part of several gay alliances (see HERE and HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE), and was even a welcomed participant in gay pride parades (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) until it became politically inexpedient (see HERE), even though not a few people on the Left are in denial about this (see HERE).

It should come as no surprise, then, that pedophilia, which is estimated to be as prevalent if not more so than homosexuality (see HERE), has surged in reported incidences following the successes of the gay movement (see HERE and HERE andHERE and HERE and HERE), and that the movement has become a springboard for so-called "intergenerational sexuality" ( and HERE and HERE and HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE and HERE), which is the new code word for adults having sex with kids (see ibid, and HERE), as well as emboldening the movement towards pedophilia rights and normalization (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE andHERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

This is not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, or even suggest that homosexuals are generally in favor of sex with children. Rather, it is to show yet another way in which homosexuals have not only countenanced, but have used kids for their adult sake.

To summarize, one of the most disturbing aspects of the presumably adult issue of  "same-sex marriage," and the Leftist LUNC here is, how children have been falsely exploited to promote the cause, and yet sadly, as has been and will be shown in the following articles, if not also in due time, these children are at most risk of suffering the consequences of this radical social experiment.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

Yes.  Just as the irreligious socialist desires to impose his irreligious socialist views on all of society.

I believe in freedom for all religion and I support a secular government. I oppose to someone arguing thta something should be a law and imposed on society simply because they say their God says so.

What happens when someone else's God says something different?

[Daniel2]

I think the proposition in the opening thread went to "gay marriage." Not whether a celibate was raising a family, which is somewhat of a contradiction.  I'm pretty sure that if a gay couple went and got themselves married, that their children wouldn't be attending Scouts, Mutual and Primary.   Seems to make sense to me.  And that is an answer to the opening post -- their parents would very likely deny the kids the blessings of the gospel.

 

That's an interesting assumption, Bob.

I am an openly gay man engaged to another man, awaiting the day when Utah legally recognizes our union. We are both returned missionaries. Neither of us believes in the church, or are active, ourselves. My fiancé is often invited to sing at LDS friends special occasions, funerals, etc. When invited, we attend family Missionary Farwells, baby blessings, Homecomings, wedding receptions, etc. We give Fast Offerings whenever the Deacons knock on our door, and also donate to the Scouting drives whenever they come to our home. The bishop occasionally stops by to visit, although we don't usually talk religion. My fiancé was excommunicated years ago, after his wife left him. I comfortably and officially resigned approximately 8 years ago, six months after a formal disciplinary counsel was held "on my behalf' and told I had a year to either repent or be excommunicated.

Between the two of us, we have seven kids. He has four (his are older than mine), and I have three (still at home). One of his children lives with us, and his other daughter lives with her Mom.  His other kids are grown up and living on their own. Conversely, I share joint custody of my kids.

Both my partner and I are proud of the many praiseworthy aspects of our LDS heritage. We often sing Primary song snippets, or quote LDSisms that reflect our cultural identify. We stay current on what's happening in the church, what temples are announced, what's happening in our missions, and the highs and lows of my alma mater, BYU. We engage our friends and family in matters where we feel the church is overly intrusive into our lives and rights... I jokingly refer to it as my "gay missionary work," and attribute my strong desire to share what is of good report to the passion I learned in the mission field.  I am very vocal and involved in pro-equality initiatives both socially, politically, and at work.

Every Sunday on the weeks that my kids are with me, I take them to church. They attend Scouting, Mutual, and Achievement Days. On their weeks with me, I take them to whatever Young Women's activities or Scouting campouts they go to, and have signed my son up for several BYU pow wows to help him earn his merit badges. I likewise attend my daughter's Personal Progress events.  Besides church, I support my kids' involvement in swim team practice and meets, ballroom dancing, tech crew, orchestra, band, football games, spelling bees, and the school carnivals we volunteer at through the PTA.

I will never return to activity in the church, and have no desire to ever be re-baptized, nor would I ever rejoin even when the church changes and accepts gay members and relationships in full fellowship. That ship has sailed, and there's too much water under the bridge.  I don't believe the church is true, but I know it has value in my children's lives, and I will support that for as long as they have a desire to stay involved.

 

That support will not change when my fiancé and I marry.

My fiancé and I are not alone. I know many gay families that are supportive of raising their kids LDS. Of course, that isn't universally true.... every family is different, and everyone makes different choices. I know other gay families active in my own Faith--that of Unitarian Universalist. They have many active programs for kids, just like Mormons and other Faiths do.

Be careful of hasty judgment--especially from older never-married, armchair-coaching bachelors who, having no family experience of their own, spend their time in their ivory towers crafting link-heavy, scare-mongering, dogma-pushing blogs on the dangers gays and lesbians pose to children.

 

My fiancé's and my feelings for each other, and the love we have for our children, are not 'the boogy-men' that many try to make us out to appear.  You might be surprised to learn that we aren't all that different from you.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

You are missing the point--which seems surprising since your own personal family circumstance exemplifies the point.

The question I have been responding to, and the one that is on topic for this thread, isn't whether people with SSA should or shouldn't be encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex, but rather whether children are harmed by homosexual "parenting" (which relationships and "parently" is indeed encouraged by pop cultural embracing the practice and by way of legalizing SSM, which not only provides government endorsement thereof, but encourages the same through benefits)

Since, as previously indicated, the vast majority of children currently "parented" by SS couples are the product of previous heterosexual relationships/marriages, then the question really becomes whether children are harmed by one parent destroying a traditional family in favor of an alternative "family" as encouraged, unwittingly or otherwise, by legalizing SSM.

To me, the answer is obvious in the affirmative. It has been widely demonstrated by secular studies that breaking up a traditional home is harmful to children, let alone for reasons of one parent selfishly choosing to consume their lust and enter into a perverse/alternative relationship.

So, you are wrong. My point isn't moot, but rather quite pertinent as well as sound and valid. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, Wade.... I am sorry that the obvious answer is staring you in the face, and you seem so blinded that you can't even see it.

By allowing gays and lesbians to marry a spouse of the gender to whom they are romantically, emotionally, spiritually, and physically attracted, less will feel pressure to enter mixed-orientation straight marriages out of a sense of religious or social duty that are statistically so doomed to fail, and so harmful for all concerned.

Church leaders within the LDS community have changed and are now vocally opposing such mixed-orientation marriages, having seen the devastation that divorce causes to the children involved.

Because gays and lesbians will be free to lead lives openly, honestly, and with integrity, and marrying same sex spouses of their choice, and with churches recognizing and abandoning ill-advised, albeit with previously-well-intentioned advice for gay men to "just get married, and all those gay feelings will take care of themselves/the Lord will bless you with heterosexual feelings as you follow his counsel/etc," there will BE fewer of the very marriages, and therefore divorces (and most importantly, children suffering such divorces) that you so readily condemn, and which are so accurately described as being devastating for children, mothers, and fathers.

Having said that.... sometimes, staying in an abusive marriage (straight or gay) is worse for both the children and adults than recognizing a need to end an abuse relationship, heeding the counsel of friends, family, ecclesiastical leaders, and health professionals intimately involved with the case.

You know little of "my own personal family circumstances" that drove me to divorce. You apparently see a divorced LDS gay man and assume that it ended because of some selfish desire on his part to follow some selfish need on his part.

You do not know the full story of why I divorced. And you never will. Because I have made it a point to not share the specifics of the details surrounding my case, and avoid speaking ill of my ex-wife. My children are growing, and may someday read the posts I write on these pages. Out of respect for their mother---but mostly out of respect for my children---I avoid trash talk, because that is the most healthy. Suffice it to say, divorce isn't the result of any single factor, and some divorces------even according to LDS belief--are justifiable (as recommended by our bishop and close family members at the time).

So please, don't presume to know everything about me, just because you see a portion of the equality I now fight for, here.

And I would suggest it's best for you to avoid slandering an entire group of divorcees------a topic about which a confirmed bachelor like yourself has absolutely no personal experience, and little knowledge or wisdom.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Daniel2

[Bob Crockett]

That's an interesting assumption, Bob.

. . .

Be careful of hasty judgment--especially from older never-married, armchair-coaching bachelors who, having no family experience of their own, spend their time in their ivory towers crafting link-heavy, scare-mongering, dogma-pushing blogs on the dangers gays and lesbians pose to children.

 

Not too hasty.  I've just never seen it, once, among my many friends and clients.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel2]

Not too hasty. I've just never seen it, once, among my many friends and clients.

I love how my life was relegated to "..." in the above paragraph.

I'm not surprised you don't know any. Mormon culture certainly doesn't make it easy to be out, and in consideration of my kids' social comfort level at church, I am not out among their ward members or friends. You may know some and not even know it.

Also, it's not surprising that you don't know any, as a) gays and lesbians are 2-5% of the population, Mormons are about the same (depending on where you live), and gay Mormon parents are probably likely even fewer in numbers (especially after Prop Eight; and b) sounds like you don't move in what small gay Mormon circles there are. If you'd like to know some, I'd suggest googling The Utah Gay Father's Association, Equality Utah, any Utah members of Collage, Affirmation (of which I am not A member), or the Utah Pride Center Parenting liason.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Daniel2

[DBMormon]

Here's the horrible damage as I see it:

 

• Gay couples enlarge the pool of potential adoptive parents thus providing stable environments for children with no homes
• Social support for committed, stable, long-term, gay relationships which support is a condemnation of promiscuous and unsafe behavior 

Gay marriage is legal here in WA and i can tell you that it is a struggle, every day, to keep my heterosexual marriage together.  Expect to see complete social breakdown in the Pacific Northwest within years, if not months

Seth.... i hear you.  in a handbasket my friend!

[DBMormon]

Isn't the obvious answer that (1) the priesthood likely is not in the home, (2) the parents are not likely to have callings in the Church, (3) the kid is likely not going to Primary, and (4) the parents likely don't care too much about the teachings of the Church?

which makes it no worse than 99.8% of the population as mormons are only  point two percent.  So then..... only mormons should have kids or at least theirs are not damaged like the rest of the world..... this is silly

[DBMormon]

Are you talking about the children now "parented" by gay couples, the vast majority of which came from prior heterosexual relationships and who were the victims of breakups of heterosexual relationships?

 

In other words, are you wondering how children are hurt by one parent destroying a traditional family in favor of an alternative "famnily?"

 

The answer isn't obvious to you?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

no, but be sure to pack your strawman real tight in hopes I take the fork in the road.... but I will be heading yonder in another direction.  you need more straw in that arm.....