Monday, April 08, 2013

NY Times against straight parents

NY Times editor Bill Keller writes an op-ed in favor of judicially imposed same-sex marriage:
The history of this issue is filled with stories of hardship and heartbreak befalling children whose parents are not recognized as — well, as parents. There are the cases of mothers and fathers turned away from a child’s hospital bed because they are not “family.” There are the cases of beloved adults denied visitation rights after a breakup. Many states restrict the ability of a gay parent to adopt or to respond to a child’s medical emergency.
This kind of argument makes me mad. No mothers and fathers are ever turned away from a child’s hospital bed because they are not family. They are only turned away because a vindictive ex-spouse gets a restraining order based on a phony abuse accusation.

I have been treated worse than any gay or lesbian parent in the nation. So have thousands of others, if not millions. And yet these leftist editors will only speak up for LGBTQIA activists, as if that promotes some sort of equality principle. It does not. People like Keller are out to destroy parental rights.
But it is fair to say that the research shows no significant disadvantage associated with being raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers — not in academic performance, not in psychological health, not in social or sexual development, not in violent behavior or substance abuse. And the research leaves little doubt that stable, two-parent households (of whatever flavor) are likely to be better off financially, more attentive to the upbringing of children and more secure than single-parent households.
Sure, a couple of gay men adoptive parents probably do better than a slutty heterosexual single mom at child-rearing. But that's not the issue. What the studies overwhelmingly show is that kids do better with their two natural fit parents than all other alternatives. And that is what family courts are systematically denying for millions of parents and kids today.

When a lesbian couple schemes to get legal parental rights, it is often at the expense of some real dad, and to the detriment of some kid who gets deprived of having a dad. There is not a shred of evidence that any child has ever benefited from such an arrangement. I guess that there are a few examples of lesbians rearing test-tube babies successfully, but that does not imply that lesbianism is good social policy, and it ignores the far greater problem of fatherless homes.

As mentioned here, studies indicated that LGBT parents do worse. Keller says that the leading study was rebutted by a sociology professor in this article, saying that the study should not have been published because its definition of lesbian mother included bisexuals, and because three of the six reviewers are on record as opposing same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the journal editor has received a steady stream of angry e-mails, from both colleagues and irate strangers. Apparently there are academic hate groups that will try to end your career if you publish anything unfavorable about LGBTQIA households.

As I've said, I really don't care about the private lives of LGBTQIA folks. I do care that their activists are out to destroy parental rights for the rest of us, and forcing kids to grow up without dads.


Anonymous said...

You really don't care about lesbians personal lives ? You've gone so far as to make fun of their names and hair styles.

Anonymous said...

I did find the Nancy K.D. Lemon faculty page. It says that she is a woman, but I couldn't tell from the picture. It says, "Lemon holds a B.A. degree in Women's Studies, a major she co-founded, from the University of California, Santa Cruz." That figures. We sure attract the goofballs. She looks a little like k.d. lang, the Canadian lesbian animal rights pop singer. Is "K.D." some kind of lesbian code?

You don't appreciate it when people discuss your hair do you ?

Dr. Johnson is a fussy gay man who seemed more interested in hair and food than anything else. He made a derogatory comment about my own hair at the start of the interview.

Anonymous said...

Not sure who's the Dr. Johnson mentioned by Anonymous 10:14 AM. It sounds like she's nursing a grudge which makes her out-of-context remark a total non sequitur.

After George referred to goofballs in history, he went on to say, "For my politically correct readers here, I am not gay-bashing. I really don't care about her sexual orientation or identity. I do care if a whole generation of judges and lawyers has learned completely wacky notions of marriage, domestic violence, and justifications for husband killing."

Anonymous said...

Keller says, "Divorce laws were created in large part to assure that children get financial and emotional support when marriages end: no marriage, no divorce, no support."

What nonsense. As you've pointed out before, George, parents are subjected to family court and often deprived of any chance to provide emotional support whether they've been married or not. And the government will hunt down a putative father and garnish his wages even if he's totally compliant with a child support order.

But Keller was probably correct in saying, "The justices will throw out the federal Defense of Marriage Act, assuring that married same-sex couples will be entitled to approximately the same treatment under federal law as other couples. But they seem likely to leave it up to the states to decide whether gays can get married in the first place."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Johnson was George's evaluator. George more frequently referred to Dr. Johnson as, "Dr. Gay", and such.

Sure, George doesn't care about people's sexual orientation ? Describing someone as a fussy Gay man, please...

How's it out of context ? We're actually discussing George's Family Court experiences, which apparently, can't be done without discussing people's sexual orientation, too.

You're right about someone having a grudge.

George said...

I refer to Johnson as a gay psychologist because he used his gay psychology to take my kids away.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that Dr. Johnson. Since Anonymous 10:14 AM doesn't use quote marks, I couldn't tell whether she might've been interviewed on a panel with some Dr. Johnson who made fun of her hair. In my experience Dr. Johnson is the least worst of corrupt psychologists after Drs. Goodman and Katz.

Anonymous said...

In my custody dispute, I had Dr. Johnson refer me to Dr. Goodman and they conspired with eachother against me. I finally learned that they're old time buddies. Beware of either and both of them !

Anonymous said...

Right, Goodman and Johnson were classmates at the same third-rate school of clinical psychology. I don't think they could make the cost of living in this county without getting court referrals. They don't exactly have a clientele of satisfied patients through word of mouth.

Just as with realtors who work for the deal, not the buyer or the seller, these court psychologists simply want to milk the case for all the fees they can. If anyone had a real problem and got better through therapy, that would be too much of a challenge and basically a disaster for them.

Anonymous said...

Goodman told me that they weren't friends, just casual associates, etc. so I looked into their weak, backrounds and found that they'd gone to the same crappy school 20 or so years earlier, and at the same time.

Goodman and Johnson tried to convince me that Goodman had some special "in" with the judge. That's when I knew that it was a scam. I didn't fall for it but, they were still able to easily, screw the hell out of me and my daughter.