I agree that marketing ads geared towards children are becoming frighteningly more and more sexual and that there is more pressure on kids to grow up faster, but i cant say i agree that sex ed in high school is a bad thing. If teenagers are going to have sex (and i say teens because no one should be educating anyone younger in anything like that), which they are, then offering them knowledge on STDs, teen pregnancies, and making smart choices is not a bad thing at all. It is a wonderful thing. I am not a parent, I am a teen. and as a teen I can honestly say that free condoms being available at the nurses office is not a bad thing. Think of the kids who are too embarrassed to go and buy condoms but still want to have sex. Would you rather have them be at risk just so that your peace of mind is established? And maybe we should not be getting mad at people from other religions. I am sure that there are few Atheists, Buddishts or any other religious person that wants their young children to be having sex, or wearing clothes that are not appropriate for them, And would this kind of advertising be so effective if it didn't work? Where are the parents while the 7 year girl is buying a g-string? Where are the parents when children are going through the crucial ages where they have questions that need to be answered? This is not an issue that has developed because of people from other religions imposing them on us. This is a problem that has happened in a society where people who are religious and people who aren't are all too busy in their own lives to deal with the consequence of saying no to a child in a mall. These are the parents that do not invite a child to openly discuss questions with them, instead they get their education from TV or their friends. As parents is it not your responsibility to educate your children in how to stand up for yourself against peer pressure and to teach them how to think for themselves? I'm sure there are lots of parents out there who do do that but the children who are left to raise themselves are the ones who suffer.

While I appreciate the confusion you are experiencing, I also think you may have some serious issues you are repressing. There is nothing wrong with women wanting to explore their sexuality by learning pole-dancing or taking sex-lessons or by experimenting with, indulging in or otherwise engaging in acts that do not hurt or deceive their partner, if they have one. Pole-dancing is being learned by wives and girlfriends as well as single women so they can entertain and engage their husbands or boyfriends, not so that they can become 'hookers,' as you question. They want to explore their own sensuality. And why shouldn't they? Sex lives need to be kept fresh, after all, and if wives understand that many men---good, honest men---still have an innate desire for the purely physical allure of sex, why not both understand and cater to it. Or would you prefer that they continue to lie to their wives whom they keep caged-up at home while they secretly go out and watch strippers and hire prostitutes while their frustrated wives keep pretending they're happy, content and fulfilled?

Whether you accept it or not, we are all sexual beings from the moment we are born. That is the most natural and integral aspect of our beings. Denying, repressing and restricting our sexual expression is what breeds contempt, violence and destructive perversions. I am not saying children should be paraded in provocative clothes or behaviour, but neither should they be made to feel ashamed, embarassed or self-conscious about their feelings and urges. I am a father too and have tried to be as understanding, supportive and honest as I can be with my son. I hope I have been. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had daughters, but I don't think so. Freedoms and expressions should be explored without reservation.

Seemingly provocative fashions may be marketed toward children, but it does not mean the parents of children need to buy such outfits for their kids and, contrary to your assertion that kids are engaging in sexual exploration at earlier ages, children have a natural curiosity and interest in sexual pleasures and they always have. It is instinct. In our often-restrictive western society, however, it was kept secret, made to be ashamed of and stubbornly ignored by parents who refused to acknowledge that sex was enjoyed by anyone other than immoral people or fine, upstanding married couples. We can't blind ourselves to what we are.

There is no need to offend your god or dishonour your religion by being educated, informed and understanding. It is those that only have sex with their wives in the missionary position for five minutes once a month in the dark that dishonour their god by denying the beings that he made of all the sums that make up what they are.

Perhaps it's time for you to talk with your daughter and discover why she is interested in suggestive clothing. Perhaps it's time for you to examine how you are raising your children, what mistakes you have made, what you could do better to prepare them for life and what you're doing right. Maybe you're not being honest with them. Maybe you're too controlling. Maybe it's time to stop blaming atheists for the ills of your society (considering what a small percentage they are, it's doubtful they could have that much influence) and passing on the prejudice, hate and narrow-mindedness you express in your post to your children. Let them think, make decisions and grow naturally with honest and open-minded guidance from you, of course. Take responsibility.

Dear Enigmatic,
My daughter is in a good place as am I, Parenthood changes a lot of your views and causes you to take a good look a the world you live in. I think you ahve missed my point completely, represesd issues? Give me a break lady. I have dual certification as a Trauma and addictions counselor and have worked with children for the past 20 years in addition to being a dad so give me some credit. I am so tired of the atheist, everything goes politically correct powers that be that wish to stand behind the banner of sexual expression. Do you realize that while irresponsible people like yourself are out wearing your G-Strings hanging out the back of your jeans and taking your pole dancing classes all in the name of sexual freedom and so called equality you demean other women and become a terrible role model for little girls who want to mimic what they see not only in the media but in general in the community. Perhaps one day when you have children you will re-exemine your views. I will continue to pray for you and all the rest of the self serving powers that be that choose to live in ignorance...

Great picture! LOL:)...isn't that some form of copyright infringement! Gotta luv the internet. Having fun yet? That's what it's all about, CANADIAN Christian. Sorry, didn't catch what you were asking, just liked the picture...I'll go read the topic now.

Actually it is Molson's who have infringed on copyright, this IAM CANADIAN is disgusting, the great I AM in the Bible is the name God uses when speaking with Moses

I'm not going to get involved with all aspects of this discussion but I really feel that you're (talking to you iamchristian) being extremely judgemental of atheists (your definition of them is what i'm using here, as it seems to be you refer to anyone who disagrees with you're viewpoint as atheist).

Many people who do not follow the exact same belief path you do may still have many principles and morals in common with you, and if some are not exactly alligned that gives you no cause to accuse those people of being everything you view wrong with the world. That's a lot of judgement for one person to throw out there at someone, petty and nothing good enters into your life or anyone elses because of it.

I AM A CHRISTIAN -- Gidet is really gone isn't she. I think its a woman's fault! yes that revolution in the sixties -- burn your bra - disrespect your husband, it came at a high price. There needs to be balance..while the 'good' girl has existed women today seem to like beig provocative, well if we the consumer took a 'moral' stand (unheard of ) and not buy the garbage clothes that is being pushed out their - ie. Siblings, very racy clothes LeChateau for kids...perhaps the Gidet of yesterday would be acceptable...

You know, IAMCHRISTIAN, for a trauma and addiction counsellor you're not very intuitive, alert or conscious of what you're reading. Rather than get all hot and bothered and begin formulating your hasty reply, re-read what I said, set aside your stereotypes and bigotry of what all 'atheists' are and consider the points I made. As I stated in my post, I am a man (you understand why I am led to the conclusion that you don't read very thoroughly) ), so you can dispense with the sexist silliness. It only reinforce the narrow-minded and ignorant impression you are painting of yourself.

And while I am a proud atheist, what makes you think I am politically correct? If advocating understanding and tolerance---two distinctly Christian values, I might add---are politically correct, then you may be right. If endorsing self-examination, self-betterment and honesty are politically correct, then you would definitely be right. But otherwise, you make assumptions that you are not equipped to make.

I understand your concern with the 'sleazy' fashions marketed toward kids. I've seen them too. I have also seen very very few younger kids wearing them and perhaps when more parents disapprove of them and refuse to buy them and when new trends capture the interests of kids, dressing like Britney Spears and Christina won't be so important to kids. Such fashions are not the end of the world. They're just another temporal event that will come and go. Even if there are kids that wear such outfits and we deem it's inappropriate, it does not mean they are what they dress like. They are simply trying to emulate those who influence them and it is up to parents like us to explain the differences between a nineteen year-old pop star (yes, I know she's older now) and a nine year-old school girl. I think the availability of such fashions provides a great opportunity for parents to help guide their kids. Without them being on the market, you might never have been able to deliver sound advice and direction. Unfortunately, you see such things as titillation and respond with righteous indignation and I wonder what such a response masks.

If you haven't seen this already, I highly recommend it to all (especially kids)

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca/film_fullscreen_evo.html

I guess you could always dress your kids in a sack, they'd love that.

By the way...do you also think that ever woman doing yoga is ultimately about to practice horrible tantric sex?

Having 12 year old hooker wannabes is obviously not a good thing but pole dancing for women being evil is a little hysterical.

This is certainly a HOT topic! No pun intended. My opinion....Little girls have been bombarded with sexy images and want to imitate what they believe is fashionable, cool and popular. I have three daughters. They all at some point in time have tried to copy what they see their favorite stars wearing. My oldest now a young woman, still chooses the mid driff baring style. I don't care for it but have to be honest and say when I was young it was all about mini skirts and spandex and spiked heels. I too wanted the look. The media dicates what we wear. Unless we all can sew our own outfits we will be influenced by what the media says is fashionable and by what the stores sell.
As for pole dancing lessons and things of that sort.....if it is between two consenting adults (spouses)...why not? It really is not all that bad. My personal opinion is that God created sex, why not learn ways to enjoy it with each other?

Dear The_EnigManiac,
Proud atheist eh? I hope that serves you well on judgement day. There is no point in communicating with you any more on this as you ahev it all figured out in fact this is the problem, you think that you can do all things yourself rather than having the humility to accept that Gdo is truly in control. As for myself and other parents who are saved Christians we will continue to instill biblical values in our kids and encourage them to value themselves and a deeper relationship with God rather than to attempt to find meaning in life by dressing like prostitutes and misinterpretting love as attention from a man. Shame on you as a woman, and an ignorant one at that, for defending the objectification of our children. If and when you ahev kids I will be sure to pray for them...

Geez, what in the world would uh well Jesus think about this stuff. Glad to have this site to discuss these things. Gotta agree with Enigmatic about I Am Canadian's viewpoints. Hey buddy I think your letting yer anger interfere with your judgement.

I totally agree about the sexualization of children. I have two young boys and a couple of young nieces and I've seen all of these clothing lines and stuff and your absolutely right it is pretty agressive sexually and I don't think that it's right to be promoting this type of stuff to the youngins.

But this is where the parents have to have long conversations with ther kids. We aren't going to like everything that's out there in the world and so we should steer them away from the things that we think are harmful and we have to talk and talk and talk some more.

I think that a lot of pressure can be brought to bear on those companies which insist on marketing this sort of trash to kids. But the parents have to take responsibility for buying it. I mean, not a whole lot of kids that I know of have fifty bucks for a pair of jeans.

There's currently a great ad in the city of toronto which has a young girl of 6 or 7 trying on a pair of jeans and looking into a mirror with the statement "do these make my butt look fat?" I thought it was very provacative and asked a lot of questions about how we're over sexualizing children and the like.

On the other issues, I was quite young when I started experimenting with sex and I found that for a long time it negatively affected my outlook on sexuality from a number of different perspectives, so I do think that a lot of thought and discussion should go into sex, but I'm also realistic in understanding that that is not always going to happen, so we should have some safeguards in place like condoms in school and an understanding of abortion and adoption and the whole nine yards of what might happen if you get pregnant. From my perspective the best birth control is actually being very blunt with teenagers about the consequences. By far the best birth control in the world is forcing a teenager to babysit an infant for a weekend! lol.

I don't see the athiests as ruling the world. As a Christian I think it's okay for us to talk about sex. Sex is not sinful in and of itself - sexuality is a gift from God! that's not to say that sometimes sexuality can be used in destructive/sinful ways, it certainly can.

People are always going to test the limits of what's acceptable and what's not, that's nature of the human species, so yer never going to live in your world where you are free from the things that offend you. I would suggest that you place your anger in something constructive like a petition or letter writing campaign or even organizing a boycott of certain companies. Believe me, it takes a relatively small number of consumers to change the direction of a company. Profits only have to drop five to ten percent before a company's stockholders start to ask some serious questions of the people in charge.

Dear IAMCHRISTIAN,

Clearly you are incapable of a rational, coherent and intelligent conversation (you can't even manage to identify my gender properly), so I shan't try to engage you in one. If I were a praying man, I'd be praying for your children for what you subject them to with your decidedly anti-Christian values, your perverted sense of right and wrong, your hateful and prejudiced views is surely child abuse of the worst kind. I hope you'll have the decency to pay for their therapy. They'll need it.

Good luck. Take care. I wish you well.

I Am Christian...by instilling biblical values in your children....do you mean the same way that the Khmer Rouge instilled maoist philosophy into political prisoners?

If god is so strong and almighty why not let them find him (or him them) themselves?

Just for the hell of it (not that I believe in any hell except the one we're creating in this chatspace), here's a notion that might offend both atheists & IAMAChristian. At times like this I like to pull out my volume of Insight by Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan. (I'm not Catholic, but hey, nobody has a monopoly on the truth, now do they?) It takes him nearly 800 pages, but along the way, we encounter the notion of positions/counterpositions. Positions represent correct apprehensions of reality; counterpositions are distortions at points where bias has entered into the process of knowing. He nicely details how, inevitably, counterpositions turn to positions. Truth works itself out. Most importantly, things work to positions with or without our help.

There's bad news and good news. First the bad news: both sides of this conversation could yak on and on til the end of time and it would make no difference. Now the good news. Truth, in all its complexitly, still emerges.

The challenge is not: can I bash this atheist over the head until he sees the light? Nor is it: can I persuade this person of faith to a rational view of reality? The real challenge is: given that the truth will out in any event, is there anything I can learn as I witness its unfolding?

Dear The_EnigManiac,
Sorry for not getting your gender right, when you mentioned in your email to me that you and your husband...I assumed you were a woman. I think that this pretty much sums things up: "...one can get away with anything in this country so long as one does not advocate measures that could potentially interfere with inlimited sexual gratification..." There is a company ion teh U.S. called Abacrombie and Fitch that has on it's website a G-String for children, it hasd little logos on teh front that read "eye candy" and teh preseident of the company makes no appologies as he says the kids' G-String is "cute and fun" and that little girls have always wanted to dress like their mothers and other females in modern society. Much Music and M T.V. are basically soft porn, the obsession with sex toady is nutty and if you people ant to defend this then you trully do not have a clue. Children are sacred PERIOD and if you do noit understand that you "sexual expression and freedom" needs to eb balanced with creating positive role models for our childern then you have totally missed my point. Yes I ahve gotten angry in my postings as I have conselled sexually abused childern and gone in to rescue people from situations that never should have existed. I am survivor os severe sexual, physical, emotional and spiritual abuse yet through the grace of God I am still alive. Sex is NOT a bad thing and thatw as not my point, it was a gift given from God, an expression of love between a married couple i.e. a man and a woman BUT praticing modesty in dress and action is good for all kids. I spoke with soem kids recently during a workshop and asked the question "What is mopre important to be smart or to be famous" and every girl chose fame and went on to list all their famous role models from Brittany Spears to you name it, AM I the onlky one who is angry about this?

hey, i have girls myself, and it's a constant struggle to get them to wear anything other than something close to what beyonce or britney was wearing last time they saw her. i feel your pain there.
but as well as being a mother, i am also a wife and a sexual being. if there is a stripaerobics class, or a pole dancing class, you can bet i'm going to take it. being comfortable enough with myself to be able to do that is great, i think.

i don't understand why being a christian mother means that i can't enjoy my body, and my sexuality???

Dear IAMCHRISTIAN,

First of all, I never e-mailed you nor mentioned 'husband' other than when I referred to wives taking pole-dancing dlasses for their own benefit and the benefit of their husbands. You're so obsessed with spitting narrow-minded, uneducated replies that neither have any basis in fact or intelliegence that you haven't even read the post you're replying to. Had you mistaken me for a female once, I might have understood that you were simply over-zealous and lacking thoroughness, but even after I corrected you, you still referred to me as a female a second time. That you 'assumed' after being told twice exemplifies the coloquial definition of 'assume' where you make an ass of you and me (ass-u-me).

I am mystified why you seem so engroassed by the skimpy outfits you are refering to. You seem to know where they are available and have reviewed the products with more than passing interest. It seems to me that perhaps you're real objection to them is that such revealing clothing for children is somehow appealing to you and you are having difficulty reconciling your feelings, almost as if you'd prefer to keep such proclivities a dirty little secret. I wasn't sure of this impression until I saw your thread about 'pedophiles' and now I'm almost certain that you may...perhaps...have some personal issues still to work out. If, indeed, you are a survicor of sexual abuse, as you claim, I'm not entirely convinced you can label yourself a 'survivor.' It doesn't seem like you've managed to deal with those issues effectively yet. Your posts are proof positive of that.

I am also suspicious of your claims that you have counseled and rescued abused children. But there are self-righteous, intolerant do-gooders who foist their narrow perception of right and wrong on as many people as possible, often behind the guise of religion, so it is possible. Just because someone has experienced something like abuse and is still emotionally wounded by those experiences, does not mean they are equipped or qualified to counsel or 'help' others. I doubt very much you took any time to study, investigate and understand those 'situations.' Instead, you likely instantly assumed what those situations were and closed your mind to how you could genuinely help and counsel ALL the parties. It really is a shame that for someone who wears his religion on his sleeve as you do that you cannot recognize nor practice the very tenets of that religion. Real Christians are likely ashamed of people like that and if not, they should be.

If and when you speak with young people---as you say you do---and you hear the ridiculous replies you claim to have heard---I have attended similar discussions among my sons peers over the years and have never heard the same trivial and shallow responses whatsoever, thus leading me to believe you are citing made-up encounters to support your unfounded theory--- blame not MTV and Much Music nor even movies and magazines: blame parents for either allowing television to babysit them or for their negligence in failing to instill admirable values and ethics. Television programs and images can provoke questions and issues with kids and those are ideal opportunities for parents to educate, explain and illustrate values. Seize those opportunities.

Found this article today:

Mountain: Nightmare at Franklin
By Tom Mountain/ Our Turn
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Emer O'Shea knew something was wrong the minute she picked up her daughter from Franklin Elementary School. The third-grader was normally very perky upon seeing her mother and new baby sister, but this time she glanced at her mother without indicating what was wrong, except to say that the school's social worker had visited the class. But Emer soon heard from another parent about what had happened in her daughter's class that day, and she was both stunned and mortified. The next day her young daughter finally opened up with a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child, "Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?"

Transgenders and transvestites. These were the topics that a staff member at Franklin School in West Newton chose to teach to a class of third-grade children. The school's social worker described to the children that some men like to dress up as women, and yes, some men even have operations to change into women.

The opportunity for this "teachable moment" - the kind that Superintendent Jeff Young likes to portray as merely responding to some child's "random questioning"- occurred when the social worker was describing various families outside of the traditional mommy-and-daddy norm and showed the class a picture of a woman with two children, asking what they saw in the picture. A child then raised his hand to tell her (are you sitting sit down for this?) that he thought the picture was of a man who had a sex change operation and was now a woman. Apparently, the child's own father was undergoing such an operation (which he/she has since completed).

The social worker then elaborated on this "teachable moment." But this wasn't just any social worker employed by the Newton Public Schools. This was Laura Perkins, former board member of GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network; or rather, "Laura Perkins, MSW, Franklin School and the Newton Early Childhood Program," according to the GLSEN Boston Conference, where she hosted a seminar in which the "Rationale for integrating GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender) issues in the early elementary years will be presented" and "classroom lessons demonstrated."

More at this link...http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=610359

hey, i'd welcome that for my kids. grade three might be a little early, but definetly by grade 6.

I guess you like sexualizing your children. Personally, I would not try to normalize nor would I try to recruit as these homosexuals try to do since they cannot reproduce. All parents should be concerned, this is abuse and they are trying to brainwash your children into normalizing a very serious psychological problem. Know what goes on in your children's schools, speak out and be heard.

well, i don't think it is abuse.

how is it abuse to say that in their lives, they are going to run into people who don't fit the traditional male or female roles?? you can't be 'turned gay', you know... telling a child that they may meet someone who is transgendered doesn't mean that the child is going to turn transgendered. its just telling them that they are out there.

and by the way, saying that i 'like sexualizing my children' is another strawman arguement... just sayin'.

Noodles, it sexualizes our children as it teaches them its alright to be deviant and it encourages deviant behaviour. There is no strawman in this. I don't tell children at that age that they're going to meet wife beaters, rapists and so forth. The schools shouldn't even be delving into this area as they regularly pick unfit speakers for these children.

Showing them this encourages them to try these things, to paint things in gray instead of a right and wrong. Very sad.

While educating eight year-old children about transgender, trans-sexual and transvestites is perhaps too early as they are likely lacking in the the basic understanding of sexuality, it's not necessarily a bad thing to educate them about alternative lifestyles and sexuality at school. Certainly, judging by the responses of some here in this forum, those kids will only ever receive a biased and inaccurate education at home, if anything at all. Like it or not, folks, there are lots of different kinds of people in the world---not just uptight, inhibited and repressed people---and pretending they're not out there is not preparating your kids for when they encounter people who do not fit your stereotype of 'normal.'

I believe it was your Jesus who said he loves everyone. I don't recall him excluding anyone by adding 'except transvestites, trans-sexuals, homosexuals, etc. So, if he can accept all people, why can't you?

Or, as ABC would rather, would it be better to send the message to kids that if they were to discover when they're older that they were homosexual or a transgender or transvestite, it would not be okay and they are less than human?

Go read your bible. You're in need of reacquainting yourself with your own Christian values.

abc origionally posted...

Noodles, it sexualizes our children as it teaches them its alright to be deviant and it encourages deviant behaviour. There is no strawman in this. I don't tell children at that age that they're going to meet wife beaters, rapists and so forth. The schools shouldn't even be delving into this area as they regularly pick unfit speakers for these children.

Showing them this encourages them to try these things, to paint things in gray instead of a right and wrong. Very sad.

____________________________________

there really is just nothing i can agree with in your post. like, not even a little... i do tell my kids that there are people out there who beat up their wives and children, and that its wrong.

and there is lots of gray in the world. if you think of everything as black and white, i don't think that you and i are ever going to agree on anything!!!

but still, i wish you peace.... you are my brother in christ.

iamchristian posted:

"We took the Lord's prayer out of the public school system so we wouldn't offend anyone who wasn't Christian and replaced it with sex education that includes free condoms in highschools and trips to abortion clinics!"

a) Not everyone who attends school is Christian. There is no reason they should have to pray in school. Why can't you and your kids pray at home?

b) Sex Education = necessary. Students need to learn about the realities of sex so that they can be prepared when sexual situations inevitably occur. Teens who are more informed about sex are more likely to abstain from sex and use protection when they do have sex than teens who aren't.

c) Free condoms = a VERY good thing. Would you be happy if your daughter and her boyfriend or girlfriend decided to experiment with sex and she ended up pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease (like HIV) because she didn't have access to proper resources (sex education and contraception)?

d) I've never heard of a field trip to an abortion clinic.

me neither... which school took their students on a field trip to an abortion clinic???

Leave the picture alone. I thought it was cool.

Little girls wearing provacitve stuff is really, really wierd. I'd say the right age to start wearing that kind of stuff is 15. 14 is for piercings.

Anyways, you want to blame someone, blame the people who sell the stuff. The parents try the damndest most of the time, but, hey, one or two people can't fight the capitalist system. We need like, at least 5000 with a militant ideal in place. But, besides that too, parents need to be communicative with their kids about this kind of stuff, hiding it just leads to more interest. Believe me, I know.

You don't want yuor little girl wearing it, IAMCHRISTIAN? Try talking frankly to her about -the clothing-, not the stuff it makes people think. Then, ask her opinion, if any, upon these clothes. Maybe she hates em as much as you do. Maybe she wants to try them on. Maybe she's a lesbian, and is only going to wear brown loose-fitting clothing later in life?

what picture?? you mean the rufus one i had???

I'm both an atheist and a Buddhist and my children wouldn't be caught dead wearing many of the fashions out there right now. Why? Because I wouldn't let them. It's called parenting.

As for prayer in schools, who decides what prayers are to be taught? My Christian son attends a school with an overwhelmingly Muslim population. Should his Muslim classmates be forced to learn Christian prayers or should DS be praying to Allah?

My vote is none of the above.

The picture of I Am Christian. I thought it was pretty creative. Drunk on religon.

"Sorry for not getting your gender right, when you mentioned in your email to me that you and your husband...I assumed you were a woman."
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! This is too funny - three times he refers to himself as a man and three times you refer to him as a woman! And you still defend yourself that you are listening!!! That is too hilarious!
Well, I belong to the UC, my husband is athesist, and guess what - he just about threw up when we first read about G-strings for girls. But the fact that it was up and down the newswires at the time means it was shocking and unusual - not the norm. I thought your opening was interesting at first, then when the slam trying to blame it on everyone but perfect Christians came out I was turned away.
As for the sex-marketing, I think it stinks. La Senza for Girls - what is that, an early training camp? So the quandry is - blame the supplier...or the demander?

Noodles, do you see grey in the Bible when God/Jesus talks about sin? If so, where? Just one example would suffice.

Noodles, I may sound harsh but when you make your statements, I do expect a Biblical quote to back it up.

ABC, you couldn't read grey, never mind black and white. ;)

geez, sorry i missed this.

first of all, my name is 'sigh SNOOTLES'... not noodles. sigh noodles sounds like something from chef-boy-ar-dee.

anyways, what statements do you want me to back up with a biblical quote??

ABC, you seem to have asked the same 'grey areas' question on the "school questionnaire about sex" discussion - and got a very detailed and strong answer (under Parenting discussions). So why be on all these boards with the same statements? Are you just looking to voice your own opnion without hearing others, or are you truly interested in the discussion this site is here to encourage.

I think Atheisto nailed the issue pretty well for me when he/she said:

"Having 12 year old hooker wannabes is obviously not a good thing but pole dancing for women being evil is a little hysterical."

What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.

Let's look at the first argument. Isn't marriage whatever the law says it is?

No. Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

All right--but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn't that what most people would consider "marriage?"

It's getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) are unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this dec-ision paves the way for same-sex "marriage." But in an ironic way, the Court's rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

So--what IS marriage, then?

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." [emphasis in original]

Are you saying that married couples who don't have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren't really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can't reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex.

But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

· Foster the bonding between men and women

· Foster the birth and rearing of children

· Foster the bonding between men and children

· Foster some form of healthy masculine identity

· Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that "children need mothers and fathers" and "marriage is the most practical way to get them for children."

But why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else?

The fundamental "right to marry" is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual orientation."

Many people who now identify themselves as homosexual have previously been in legal (opposite-sex) marriages. On the other hand, many people who previously had homosexual relationships have now renounced that behavior and married persons of the opposite sex. If we define a "homosexual" as anyone who has ever experienced homosexual attractions, then both of these scenarios represent "homosexual" individuals who have exercised their right to be legally married.

However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws" (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual.

Some people may wish to do away with one or more of these longstanding restrictions upon one's choice of marital partner. However, the fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have someone of the same sex as a partner does not mean that they have a "right" to do so, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans give them a "right" to choose a child, their own brother or sister, or a group of two or more as their marital partners.

Isn't prohibiting homosexual "marriage" just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?

This analogy is not valid at all. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.

Hasn't the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending "traditional marriage," aren't you defending something that no longer exists?

It's true that American society's concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage--and their consequences:

· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there's been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?

Why does "defending marriage" and "defending the family" require opposing same-sex unions? How does a homosexual union do any harm to someone else's heterosexual marriage?

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than one would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage."

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed "homosexuals" have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, "In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable."

But isn't the number of homosexuals too small for same-sex unions to have much impact on other people's marriages?

It's probably true that the percentage of marriages that fail because of the desire of one spouse to pursue a homosexual relationship will always be fairly small.

The most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what "marriage" is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage.

How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society's concept of marriage?

For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.

Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 < years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).

In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.

So if same-sex relationships are legally recognized as "marriage," the idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship will be dealt a serious blow. Adding monogamy and faithfulness to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen will have overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans' physical and mental health.

If you want people to be faithful and monogamous, shouldn't you grant same-sex couples the right to marry in order to encourage that?

Some have argued that marriage will change the behavior of homosexuals, but it is far more plausible that the behavior of homosexuals will change people's idea of marriage, further undermining the concepts that marriage is a lifelong commitment and that sex should be confined to marriage.

The entire "gay liberation" movement has been but a part of the larger sexual liberation movement whose fundamental tenet is that anybody should be able to have sex with anybody they want any time they want. To suggest that the crowning achievement of that pro-homosexual movement--obtaining society's ultimate stamp of approval through civil marriage--is suddenly going to result in these "liberated" homosexuals settling down into faithful, monogamous, childrearing is foolishly naive.

Don't homosexuals need marriage rights so that they will be able to visit their partners in the hospital?

The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. When this issue was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor.

The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient's homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this (remote) possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Marriage is not necessary for this. It is inconceivable that a hospital would exclude someone who holds the health care proxy and power of attorney for a patient from visiting that patient, except for medical reasons.

The hypothetical "hospital visitation hardship" is nothing but an emotional smokescreen to distract people from the more serious implications of radically redefining marriage.

Don't homosexuals need the right to marry each other in order to ensure that they will be able to leave their estates to their partner when they die?

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies.

An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes--again, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status--simply by writing a will. As with the hospital visitation issue, blood relatives would only be able to overrule the surviving homosexual partner in the event that the deceased had failed to record his wishes in a common, inexpensive legal document. Changing the definition of a fundamental social institution like marriage is a rather extreme way of addressing this issue. Preparing a will is a much simpler solution.

Don't homosexuals need marriage rights so that they can get Social Security survivor benefits when a partner dies?

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, since Congress originally intended them as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure--one in which the husband worked to provide the family's cash income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that such benefits must be gender-neutral. However, they still are largely based on the premise of a division of roles within a couple between a breadwinner who works to raise money and a homemaker who stays home to raise children.

Very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a "traditional" division of labor and roles. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension.

Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them.

Survivor benefits for the legal (biological or adopted) children of homosexual parents (as opposed to their partners) are already available under current law, so "marriage" rights for homosexual couples are unnecessary to protect the interests of these children themselves.

Don't some scholars claim that some cultures have recognized same-sex unions?

A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have asserted this. They support this claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non-conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong heterosexual marriage, which is what today's pro-homosexual activists are demanding.

Even if "marriage" itself is uniquely heterosexual, doesn't fairness require that the legal and financial benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples--perhaps through "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships?"

No. The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society--including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).

Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society. The fact that AIDS is at least ten times more common among men who have sex with men than among the general population is but one example.

How else does marriage benefit society?

As a group of thirteen leading social scientists reported in 2002, "Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike." Put simply, married men and women, and their children, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in other types of households.

For example:

· A five-year study released in 1998 found that continuously married husbands and wives experience better emotional health and less depression than people of any other marital status.

· A 1990 review of research found that husbands and wives also have better physical health, while the unmarried have significantly higher annual death rates--about 50 percent higher for women and 250 percent higher for men.

· Rates of violent abuse by intimate partners are four times higher among never-married women, and twelve times higher among divorced and separated women, than they are among married women. In fact, married people are less likely to be the victims of any type of violent crime than are those who have divorced, separated, or never married.

· Families headed by married couples also have much higher incomes and greater financial assets.

· In addition, husbands and wives who are sexually faithful even experience more physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction in their sexual relations than do any other sexually active people.

Children raised by their married mother and father, meanwhile, experience lower rates of many social problems, including:

· premarital childbearing;

· illicit drug use;

· arrest;

· health, emotional, or behavioral problems;

· poverty; and

· school failure or expulsion.

These benefits are then passed on to future generations as well, because children raised by married parents are themselves less likely to cohabit or to divorce as adults.

For more information on the benefits of marriage, see:

· Bridget Maher, "Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy," Insight No. 254 (Washington, DC: Family Research Council), April 16, 2003 (online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1)

· Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values, 2002); see www.americanvalues.org

· Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York:Doubleday, 2000)

Isn't it possible that allowing homosexuals to "marry" each other would allow them to participate in those benefits as well?

No. The benefits of marriage do not flow simply from the presence of two people and government recognition of their relationship. Instead, they flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes and the power of lifelong commitment. The first of these is rejected outright by homosexuals, and the second is far less common among them.

As noted earlier, opening the gates of "marriage" to homosexuals is far more likely to change the attitudes and behavior of heterosexuals for the worse than it is to change the lifestyles of homosexuals for the better.

Do most same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities of marriage?

There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front-page article in the New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 = months after Ontario's highest court legalized "marriage" for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.

The Times reported that "skepticism about marriage is a recurring refrain among Canadian gay couples," noting that "many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change." Mitchel Raphael, the editor of a Toronto "gay" magazine, said, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever." And Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Tornoto, lamented, "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?"

It appears that many homosexuals want the right to "marry" only because marriage constitutes society's ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship--not because they actually want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has historically been understood.

What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?

Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

· Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men

· Hepatitis A, B, and C

· Gonorrhea

· Syphilis

· "Gay Bowel Syndrome," a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis

· HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, "life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.")

Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:

· Bacterial vaginosis

· Hepatitis C

· HIV risk behaviors

· Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight

Why do homosexuals have such high rates of sexually transmitted diseases?

Much of the reason for high rates of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals lies in their higher rates of promiscuous sexual behavior. For example, the 2003 Dutch study mentioned earlier found that even homosexual men who had a "steady partner" also had an average of eight "casual" sexual partners per year (those without a "steady partner" had an average of 22 "casual" ones). Lesbians, meanwhile, were found by one study to have twice as many lifetime male sexual partners as women in the heterosexual control group.

Do homosexuals have more mental health problems as well?

Yes. Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

· Alcohol abuse

· Drug abuse

· Nicotine dependence

· Depression

· Suicide

Isn't it possible that these problems result from society's "discrimination" against homosexuals?

This is the argument usually put forward by pro-homosexual activists. However, there is a simple way to test this hypothesis. If "discrimination" were the cause of homosexuals' mental health problems, then one would expect those problems to be much less common in cities or countries, like San Francisco or the Netherlands, where homosexuality has achieved the highest levels of acceptance.

In fact, the opposite is the case. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, the physical and mental health problems of homosexuals are greater, not less. This suggests that the real problem lies in the homosexual lifestyle itself, not in society's response to it. In fact, it suggests that increasing the level of social support for homosexual behavior (by, for instance, allowing same-sex couple to "marry") would only increase these problems, not reduce them.

Do homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence?

Yes. It's notable that so-called "hate crimes" directed at homosexuals, such as the brutal murder of Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard in 1998, are often touted as a measure of society's supposed hostility to homosexuals. Yet even when it comes to violence, homosexuals are far more likely to be victimized by each other than by an "anti-gay" attacker. Government statistics show that "intimate partner violence" between people of the same sex is approximately twenty times more common than anti-homosexual "hate crimes."

Research also shows that men and women in heterosexual marriages experience lower rates of domestic violence than people in any other living arrangement.

Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?

Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:

· Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and

· Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet

· Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.

These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).

This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.

But haven't studies shown that children raised by homosexual parents are no different from other children?

No. This claim is often put forward, even by professional organizations. The truth is that most research on "homosexual parents" thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems. However, even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the "no differences" claim to be false.

Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:

· Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.

· Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.

· Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."

· Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.

A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.

What do these consequences of homosexual behavior have to do with marriage?

Since homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence, there is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society's ultimate affirmation--the status of civil marriage--or any of the benefits of marriage.

For more information on the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior, see the following publications by the Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Marriage and Family Studies, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey:

· Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003); order online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK03F01

· "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)

Do the American people want to see "marriages" between same-sex couples recognized by law?

No--and in the wake of the June 2003 court decisions to legalize such "marriages" in the Canadian province of Ontario and to legalize homosexual sodomy in the United States, the nation's opposition to such a radical social experiment has actually grown.

Five separate national opinion polls taken between June 24 and July 27, 2003 showed opponents of civil "marriage" for same-sex couples outnumbering supporters by not less than fifteen percentage points in every poll. The wording of poll questions can make a significant difference, and in this case, the poll with the most straightforward language (a Harris/CNN/Time poll asking "Do you think marriages between homosexual men or homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law?") resulted in the strongest opposition, with 60 percent saying "No" and only 33 percent saying "Yes."

Even where pollsters drop the word "marriage" itself and use one of the euphemisms to describe a counterfeit institution parallel to marriage, we see a decline in public support for the homosexual agenda. The Gallup Poll, for instance, has asked, "Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?"

This question itself is misleading, in that it downplays the legal impact of "civil unions." Vermont, the only U. S. state to adopt "civil unions" (under coercion of a state court), actually gives all "of the legal rights of married couples" available under state law to people in a same-sex "civil union"--not just "some." But despite this distortion, a 49-percent-to-49-percent split on this question in May 2003 had changed to opposition by a margin of 58 percent to 37 percent when the Washington Post asked the identical question in August 2003.

Even the percentage of Americans willing to declare that "homosexual relations between consenting adults" (never mind homosexual civil "marriage") "should be legal" dropped from 60 percent to only 48 percent between May and July of 2003. The biggest drop in support, a stunning 23 percentage points (from 58 percent to 35 percent), came among African Americans--despite the rhetoric of pro-homosexual activists who seek to frame the issues of "gay rights" and same-sex unions as a matter of "civil rights."

Is it necessary to amend the U. S. Constitution to prevent legal recognition of civil "marriage" for same-sex couples?

No state legislature has even come close to allowing same-sex unions to be recognized as civil marriage. However, knowing that public opinion is firmly against them, pro-homosexual activists have now turned to the courts in an effort to get what they cannot achieve through the democratic process. Several states have heard lawsuits from same-sex couples demanding that they be granted marriage licenses, and at this writing there is a very real possibility that in the near future one or more state courts may order legal recognition of a same-sex civil "marriage."

If that happens, it is highly likely that some same-sex couples who obtain a civil "marriage" in that state will seek to have it recognized in other states. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex civil "marriages" contracted in other states. However, pro-homosexual activists would undoubtedly go to federal court to seek to have DOMA declared unconstitutional.

Such a legal challenge to DOMA ought to fail. But given the U. S. Supreme Court's recent history of judicial activism on the subject of homosexuality, in defiance of the history and traditions of the country and even of the Court's own prior decisions, many have concluded that it would unsafe to trust the Court on this issue.

Amending the Constitution now appears to be the only way to achieve two indispensable goals:

· preserve a uniform national standard for something so fundamental to our civilization as the definition of marriage; and

· prevent the imposition of same-sex civil "marriage" or marital benefits through acts of undemocratic judicial tyranny.C

Additional Resources
Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

"The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive."

That may be your opinion, but notwithstanding your attempts to bury all ability to think in an avalanche of "creative" "facts", I think you're dead wrong.

oh, he is dead wrong about that.

recent studies by the canadian psychological association actually show that its not the orientation of the parents that is the problem, it is whether or not their union, and therefore their family is accepted by society. again, the orientation of the parents doesn't have anything to do with it.

so, in reality, its people like iamchristian who are causing the problems for children in our society, not the government or homosexuals.

the gay community is currently outpacing the heterosexual community in terms of opening their homes to the unwanted children of our society at the childrens aid society. but we still have many MANY children who are waiting for a home.

and might i point out, the large majority of these children come from heterosexual families.... THERE is an interesting statistic you won't hear in any of the articles iamchristian is posting, i'll bet...

RevMatt said,

I think Atheisto nailed the issue pretty well for me when he/she said:

"Having 12 year old hooker wannabes is obviously not a good thing but pole dancing for women being evil is a little hysterical."

So, you're advocating women stripping now as a good thing. This is what the UC breeds folks. Pole dancing is alright according to the so-called reverend.

This is why Christians are abandoning the UC, they no longer have a moral compass, and everything is in shades of grey. Very sad.

IamChristian, notice that even when you leave out religion and God and put out scientific facts, they still don't care? Look at Matt's response. Its pure ignorance.

Bolo, when a reverend says that pole dancing for women is alright, there is no place for discussion, it is either right or wrong, but maybe you are used to absolutes in the UC. What is there to discuss when the Word of God clearly speaks on certain subjects? You either follow it or ignore it. Right or wrong. Jesus said love thy neighbour, now, if someone says that is wrong, I'm not going to say well, that's alright but what I believe is....Nope, sorry, its the Word of God and it is right, therefore my response would be to quote Jesus and state that the person is wrong. Maybe its because I don't believe separating Jesus from my daily life.

ABC,

Let's enter a fantasy world using our imaginations, ok?

In this world, you have a wife who is very beautiful. You have a 4-poster heavy oak bed. Your wife wants to impress you in that bed but you are becoming bored being the Missionary. She thinks "Maybe, if I take my clothes off slowly and to music and use the post of the bed for support...that might be sexy." Is this wrong? She is your wife and you are her husband. She's not performing these things for other men and she is trying to keep you interested in her instead of other women. Now, if this is ok, why would it be wrong for her to get professional pointers on her technique to make it even more enjoyable for you?

We can exit the fantasy world now and enter the real world once more.

On topic, sexy clothes for kids sicken me. The problem with society isn't that these clothes are offered though. The problem is that parents are powerless to say no. Children whine, beg, complain, and throw fits. What can a parent do? Don't hit them or use harsh language. You have 2 options, walk out or cave in. Caving in is easier. I don't understand why it became illegal to spank your children. I wasn't spanked that often, but I got what I deserved. Children these days have no form of true punishment. Time outs? Leaving a store? These are meaningless, children just reoffend. It would be like giving a murderer a bracelet that identifies him and then turning him out onto the street again. Big deal, did you teach him anything?

Sorry, I'll end my mini-rant now.

Mchlndrwrchr, so this "professional" opinion is from a stripper? Yes that would be wrong. At the same time, you should be overjoyed about making love to your wife in the first place.

A parent should be firm right from the start and curb bad behaviour. I've seen it over and over again where parents let things go and then it becomes a problem later on when the child tries to be more independent. I don't see spanking as wrong and neither should any parent. Now, whether or not they choose to do that is their choice. I think you'll see the proof in the pudding as they say.

well, spanking is not a good way to discipline your kids, and studies show that there are other ways to discipline your kids that work far better than spanking.

and i've taken pole dancing and stripaerobics, and it was a great workout and a lot of fun. enjoying the relationship between myself and my husband is very important to me, and i think that strengthing the relationship between the parents is a wonderful gift for children in any two parent family. if learning a strip routine does that, then i'm not going to say its wrong.

if its not for you, then definetly get out there and find something that you both can enjoy about each other. but everyone is different, and what works for me may not work for everyone, just as what works for you may not work for everyone.

ABC,

I could give you pointers on how to give a good strip tease for someone and I've never stripped professionally in my life. I just know what can be arousing. Personal experience at home. I guess my home life is a little more enriched than some.

sighsnootles,

With regards to spanking, obviously there should be limits on it. A thorough beating is not a good way to discipline. Neither is, as I consider it, no discipline at all. Time-outs do not work. My mother runs a daycare and obviously cannot physically discipline the children. Most are well behaved with minimal supervision and discipline. Some, it doesn't matter how many times or for how many minutes they are in time-outs, the instant they are free they are back at whatever they were told not to do.