THE MYTHS SET FORTH BY THE GAY CROWD

The Gay Adoption Lie: Orphans Are Better Off Adopted by Homosexuals Who Won’t Abuse Them

by lisarichardsrocknrollpolitics

How often have you heard this argument about homosexuals adopting children: “Children are better off being adopted by the gays than heterosexuals who might abuse them,” or, “So many children are abused by heterosexual parents, kids are better off with gay parents who won’t abuse them.”

Do you find yourself silenced without a good come back? That’s the whole idea behind the Gay Movement’s indoctrination and retraining of our thinking:

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies.

Notice the use of specific code phrases like “abuse” and “child welfare” to prevent the counter attack: “Prove to me there are no abusive homosexuals.” You won’t be able to counter attack if you are hit with code speech like “accepted standards of law and justice” that create a “moral argument” against morality?

It's all about making morality appear immoral and immorality appear moral.

If you argue against gay adoption, you will be deemed hateful, bigoted, and against children having safe, loving homes:

Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

Do you believe  orphaned children are better off adopted by a mother and father? Then you are anti-gay, you’re homophobic! Now don’t you feel guilty? You’re forcing orphans to suffer needlessly without parents!

You bastard!

The Gay Movement’s line that orphans are better off adopted by gays than heterosexuals who might abuse them is a lie. It claims there's no such thing as a safe, heterosexual home and the only place children are safe and loved is in a homosexual environment.

The Gay Movement hides sexual abuse by ignoring its pedophile branch: NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association: The homosexual organization for gay men who engage in sex with young boys. This movement inside the Gay Movement appears non-existent to the ill-informed, or, as some weird cult hiding in the middle of nowhere.

The Gay Movement’s defense of gay adoption purposely overrides, or halts in depth, authentic, medical psychology studies. This is done to keep you from reading studies and finding evidence proving children are not better or safer in a homosexual environment.

Social Science Research published findings disproving the American Psychological Association’s 2005 research on gay and lesbian parenting that claimed “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

According to SSR, the problem with this study is it was not broad-based. It did not delve deeply.

[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.

Professor Paul Amato of Penn State University reports that stability in same-sex parenting households is rare, because of the high percentage of relationship breakups in homosexuality.

The studies get worse.

Family Research Council member Peter Sprigg says a Regnerus Study conducted at Louisiana State University shows:

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals ‘are no more likely to be gay’ than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

If your environment is homosexual, how can you not be affected by it? Wouldn’t you fall in line with your surroundings if your parents tell you your environment is normal and its okay to be gay?

Sprigg says:

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

This finding proves a family with a mother and father demonstrates to children sexual monogamy as well as the stability of heterosexual parenting.

Yes, there are sexually abusive heterosexuals, but not all heterosexuals abuse children. Homosexuals, however, cannot make the safe home life claims that heterosexuals can.

According to Sprigg:

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have ‘ever been physically forced’ to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

We’ve been trained, indoctrinated, to overlook facts in order for homosexuality to be favored over heterosexuality. In doing so we are neglecting children and their mental stability.

Children adopted by homosexuals suffer psychological and biological problems because children biologically need a mother and father raising them, not two mommies or two daddies, unless you want confused children who lose all sense of who they are created by God to be: Heterosexual men and women.

lisarichardsrocknrollpolitics