this story doesn't do much for the "gays should adopt children" crusaders

[DudleySmith]

You are relying on ancient history and selectively using what you think supports your bigoted beliefs , When you are done reading my post, I want you to tell meexactly what your screed and NAMBLA has to do with gay adoption in the year 2023

The fact is that you people are dangerous liars . It's this type of rhetoric that has gotten gay men killed. And if you actually believe your own bullshit, you have to be either crazy or stupid. Your claim only stands up if you can prove that gay men are committing a disproportionate number of child molestations relative to the straight population-which you cannot do.

Yes I said Gay Men, not pedophiles You don't seem to be able to understand, that there is a difference between gay men who have healthier adult relationships with other adults as opposed to those who are fixated on minors, or have regressed for some reason in that regard. In addition, every male who has sex with another male, whether an adult or minor is not a homosexual. I'm going to make an attempt to educate you although I'm not holding out much hope. Mostly I like doing this because even I can stand to learn more and I enjoy picking apart hateful propaganda like yours.

Let's start with your lie about NAMBLA. It was spawned by the early gay rights movement but what is left of it today -and that isn't much - is not a gay organization and has been rejected by gay advocacy groups:

NAMBLA describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," and uses the slogan "sexual freedom for all." According to the group's web site, its aim is to "support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." Google Search of NAMBLA's IP

I vehemently disagree with their philosophy, as do the vast majority of adults, both gay and straight. Children do not have the mental or emotional capacity to make those choices and when an adult is involved, there is a high probability that the relationship will be coercive and unequal. You will see that nowhere in this lengthy piece is NAMBLA identified as a gay organization, nor does the organization itself even mention the issue of being gay.


History Brief history of the modern childlove movement

NAMBLA emerged from the tumultuous political atmosphere of the 1970s, particularly from the leftist wing of the Gay Liberation movement which followed the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City. Although discussion of gay adult-minor sex did take place, gay rights groups immediately following the Stonewall Riot were more concerned with issues of police harassment, nondiscrimination in employment, health care and other areas.
These were desperate days for the fledgling gay rights movement. Even then, the NAMBLA was consider a fringe group within the gay community

Ostracism

Some gay rights groups immediately following "Stonewall Inn", perceived age-of-consent laws as governmental tools to suppress homosexual behavior rather than as the safeguards against the sexual abuse of small children that they claimed to be. In many states that didn't explicitly criminalize homosexual behavior (the sodomy laws), age-of-consent laws were significantly lower for heterosexual couples than for homosexual couples. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, "Lawrence v. Texas", the age of consent for heterosexual couples was as low as 13 (with parental approval) but was 18 for homosexual men.

The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common. Judianne Densen-Gerber, founder of the New York drug rehabilitation center Odyssey House, argued that gays were responsible for child pornography. In 1977 former beauty queen Anita Bryant staked a similar position, starting the "Save Our Children" campaign. "The recruitment of our children," she argued, "is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality."

You are dishonestly, or perhaps ignorantly, relying on ancient history by invoking NAMBLA

In 1980 a group called the “Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian Gay Pride March Committee” distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. And in the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA walks with me” as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics," opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events.

Here is more:

Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."
And more:

In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."
Today

More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts. NAMBLA maintains a web site at NAMBLA that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.

NAMBLA is identified as a lobby group in Jon Stewart's America: The Book A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction (2004), and is also alluded to on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, often tagged on to an existing lobby group's acronym for the parody.

Gay rights groups opposed to NAMBLA contend that their reason for disavowing NAMBLA has always been their sharing of the general public's disdain for pedophilia and child sexual abuse (as expressed in issues statements). These gay rights groups reject NAMBLA's claims of an analogy between the campaign for gay and lesbian equality and the abolition of age-of-consent laws, and view NAMBLA's rhetoric about "the sexual rights of youth" as a cover for its members' "real agenda".
Now read this and tell me that they are not a bunch of crazy sick fucks. I will tell you that few if any gay men agree with this tripe: Frequently Asked Questions About NAMBLA and Man/Boy Love

What the groomer fan fails to point out is that it was only after Jesse Helms raised a big stink about NAMBLA's long time position on the ILGA's board of founders that prevented Bill Clinton from approving the ILGA for NGO status at the UN, and access to zillions of bucks and nice cushy jobs for pedoes and deviants that it dawned on the sociopaths and freak shows that kiddie raping was actually frowned on by a lot of people, much to their amazement, so they launched their fake media campaign to white wash their image, complete with fake 'scientific studies' that suddenly popped up to 'prove' they faggots didn't have a kiddie raping problem. This 'study' turned out to be some dyke nurse who called up some of her hospital buddies and had them claim faggots were not more likely to rape the kiddies, and then she published this farce as a 'scientific study',and had it 'peer reviewed' by other faggot activists in th e'mental hea;th professions', the same 'professions' that caved in to scum back in the 1970's when they forced the 'professionals' to remove their mental illness from the mentally ill category on threats of costing them money by hurting their private practices.

That 'APA vote' was some 5,800 for removal, 3,800 against, and some 10,000 not voting at all, i.e. around 25% of the gimps got that passed out of 20,000 members. Does that sound like 'science' was the determining factors? lol of course not.

NAMBLA was a n open member organization of the ILGA for over 14 years, yet they never had a problem until Jesse Helms cost them some bucks.

STATE DEPARTMENT RESORTS TO MISLEADING COMMENT REGARDING PEDOPHILES

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, the Senate unanimously approved
my amendment to this bill withholding some $119 million in U.S.
contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that
no U.N. agency grants any official status, accreditation, or
recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the
legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children.
As I explained at that time, the amendment was a response to the ill-
advised decision by the Clinton administration to support, along with
21 other countries, the granting of consultative status to the
International Lesbian and Gay Association [ILGA], a worldwide
federation of homosexual organizations. Among ILGA's U.S. affiliates is
the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association [NAMBLA], an
avowed pedophile group.
Since that amendment was passed, there has emerged what I must assume
is a deliberate campaign to misconstrue the very clear language of the
amendment--as well as the intent behind it. As described in articles in
the Washington Times and in the Washington Blade, spokesmen for the
State Department and for homosexual organizations have tried to suggest
falsely that expelling NAMBLA from ILGA would take care of the problem.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been more than amply
documented that ILGA itself is an organization that promotes, condones,
or seeks the legalization of pedophilia in the language of the
Amendment. ILGA falls under the purview of the amendment--whether or
not NAMBLA is expelled from ILGA--as any honest examination of the
record will reveal.
For example, in 1985 ILGA officially resolved that young people have
the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of
consent laws often operate to oppress and not protect. Then in 1990,
under the heading of ``Man/Boy, Woman/Girl Love,'' ILGA called on all
members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in
constructive dialogue with them. Furthermore, ILGA expressed their
support for the right of every individual, regardless of age, to
explore and develop his or her sexuality. These resolutions are
precisely what NAMBLA advocates and prove without a doubt ILGA's own
approval of pedophilia. Indeed, ILGA never displayed any concern about
NAMBLA until it became a public issue. ILGA is now like the little boy
who got caught stealing and said he was sorry--not sorry he was
stealing, just that he got caught.

Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)

www.govinfo.gov

And so it goes with 'Progressives' and their phony media spins.

This is all old news, but faggots thinks we're all obligated to repeat the facts every time these scum post their idiot lies. They're just like the holocaust deniers, they never give up in their bullshit lying.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your source is 12 years old.

You can go now.

Growing up with gay parents: What is the big deal?*

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

1.
A 2013 Canadian study (Allen 2013), which analyzed data from a very large population-based sample, revealed that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as are the children of married, opposite-sex couples.

2, A study of 174 primary school children in Australia (Sarantakos 1996) compared the social and educational development of 58 children living in married families, 58 living with cohabiting heterosexuals, and 58 living in homosexual unions. The authors found that married couples offer the best environment for a child's social and educational development, followed by cohabiting heterosexual couples and lastly by homosexual couples.

4.
A study (Sirota 2009) of 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers found a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The women (whose average age in both groups was 29) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: (1) they were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy; (2) they were less able to trust and depend on others; and (3) they experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers (and mothers).

7. A ground-breaking study from the University of Texas at Austin (Regnerus 2012) found that young-adult children (ages 18–39) of parents who had same-sex relationships before the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems.

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

This was published in 2015, the same year that the SCOTUS ruled that same sex marriage must be available nationwide. That ruling also opened the door to adoption by same sex couples in all states which had previously been the case. Since that time, we have had a lot more experience with children of same sex parents due to the elapsed time and the explosion in their numbers

The introduction states :

A very large body of social science research going back decades has documented the vital and unique role of mothers and of fathers in childhood development. These studies have also demonstrated the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are married to each other.

Well there is also a large body of data that goes back decades that shows that having a mother and a father is far less important than many other factors such as having two parents , regardless of gender or sexual orientation. So to those who will use this as an argument against adoption by same sex couples, let me remind you that children who are placed for adoption had no parent in their life.

Gay individuals and couples often adopt children who are hard to place and who would otherwise remain in the “system” until they age out. Bottom line is that by prohibiting gays from adoption will in no way ensure that more children have a mother and a father.
The paper goes on to list the unique qualities that mothers and fathers bring to parenting. However, the assumption is that men and women adhere to rather ridged gender roles and exhibit the temperament and nurturing abilities associated with each gender. But the fact is, that as we evolve as a society, those traditional roles and temperaments' becoming less pronounced, with men and women each doing pretty much the same tasks and fulfilling the same roles in life. In any case, this still does not establish a reason to prohibit marriage by same sex couples for the same reasons cited above

Regarding the Canadian Study (Allen 2013) It should be noted that the study itself is not presented but rather a synopsis of the findings. That is problematic for a number of reasons:

1There is no information about the sample size or how it was drawn
It is unknown how many children, if any of these children with same sex parents were raised from infancy with those parents

2There is no information as to what age and under what circumstances they came to be in the care of same sex parents

3 There is no information as to what circumstances led to their separation from their families of origin( if not born to the same sex couples) or what type of trauma they might have experienced before adoption

4 There is no information as to the marital status of the same sex couples or if both adults are the legal guardians of those children witch speaks to family security and stability

5 There is no information as to what external stress factors were present that effected the gay families and the children. That would include community support and acceptance, bullying and ridiculing of the children at school of the lack of support systems at school

The same problems exist for pretty much all of the studies cited. Having said that, here is another important point. Even if those findings were valid....it is NOT a valid argument against adoption by same sex couples. It cannot be denied that variations on the social, emotional and cognitive development will vary across various demographics. There is no perfect correlation of course and there are always exceptions, but I am willing to bet that you would find statistically significant differences due to such variables as family finances, educational level of the parents, neighborhood environment, and even the degree of political and religious moderation vs. fanaticism.

While outcome for some based on these may not be optimum, the question becomes where do we draw the line. Are we prepared to say that people who have not achieved a certain level of education should not adopt children because they might not achieve in school? . Shall we restrict adoption only to which group is likely to produce the best outcomes? If so , how many more children will languish in foster care? And if we are not willing to go there , how can we exclude gay people while letting others who might not be ideal to adopt?
Here are two more gems from your post:

• In recent years, married or cohabiting gay and lesbian couples have acquired children through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Research published in 2010 (Marquardt et al. 2010) demonstrated some of the negative consequences to donor-conceived individuals: on average, young adults conceived through artificial insemination were more confused, felt more isolated from their families, were experiencing more psychic pain, and fared worse in areas such as depression, delinquency, and substance abuse than a matched group of children who were conceived naturally.

And........

• Men in gay unions are now also seeking biologically related children through the use of surrogate mothers. A 2013 study of children conceived through surrogate mothers by (Golombok et al. 2013) comparing them to children born through egg donation, donor insemination, and natural conception. The children were evaluated at ages 3, 7, and 10. The study demonstrated that children gestated by a surrogate had higher adjustment difficulties at age 7 than the other children. The authors concluded that the absence of a gestational connection to the mother may be problematic for children. The lead researcher stated, “signs of adjustment problems could be behaviour problems, such as aggressive or antisocial behavior, or emotional problems, such as anxiety or depression.”

OK, so, Without judging the veracity of the claims, I have to ask: Are lesbians the only ones who resort to artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization and are gay men the only ones who utilize a surrogate mothers.. Far from it. So why is this about lesbians and gay men rather than a discussion of those practices in general. Am I the only one who see a profound bias in this materiel.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the groomer fan fails to point out is that it was only after Jesse Helms raised a big stink about NAMBLA's long time position on the ILGA's board of founders that prevented Bill Clinton from approving the ILGA for NGO status at the UN, and access to zillions of bucks and nice cushy jobs for pedoes and deviants that it dawned on the sociopaths and freak shows that kiddie raping was actually frowned on by a lot of people, much to their amazement, so they launched their fake media campaign to white wash their image, complete with fake 'scientific studies' that suddenly popped up to 'prove' they faggots didn't have a kiddie raping problem. This 'study' turned out to be some dyke nurse who called up some of her hospital buddies and had them claim faggots were not more likely to rape the kiddies, and then she published this farce as a 'scientific study',and had it 'peer reviewed' by other faggot activists in th e'mental hea;th professions', the same 'professions' that caved in to scum back in the 1970's when they forced the 'professionals' to remove their mental illness from the mentally ill category on threats of costing them money by hurting their private practices.

That 'APA vote' was some 5,800 for removal, 3,800 against, and some 10,000 not voting at all, i.e. around 25% of the gimps got that passed out of 20,000 members. Does that sound like 'science' was the determining factors? lol of course not.

NAMBLA was a n open member organization of the ILGA for over 14 years, yet they never had a problem until Jesse Helms cost them some bucks.

STATE DEPARTMENT RESORTS TO MISLEADING COMMENT REGARDING PEDOPHILES

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, the Senate unanimously approved
my amendment to this bill withholding some $119 million in U.S.
contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that
no U.N. agency grants any official status, accreditation, or
recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the
legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children.
As I explained at that time, the amendment was a response to the ill-
advised decision by the Clinton administration to support, along with
21 other countries, the granting of consultative status to the
International Lesbian and Gay Association [ILGA], a worldwide
federation of homosexual organizations. Among ILGA's U.S. affiliates is
the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association [NAMBLA], an
avowed pedophile group.
Since that amendment was passed, there has emerged what I must assume
is a deliberate campaign to misconstrue the very clear language of the
amendment--as well as the intent behind it. As described in articles in
the Washington Times and in the Washington Blade, spokesmen for the
State Department and for homosexual organizations have tried to suggest
falsely that expelling NAMBLA from ILGA would take care of the problem.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been more than amply
documented that ILGA itself is an organization that promotes, condones,
or seeks the legalization of pedophilia in the language of the
Amendment. ILGA falls under the purview of the amendment--whether or
not NAMBLA is expelled from ILGA--as any honest examination of the
record will reveal.
For example, in 1985 ILGA officially resolved that young people have
the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of
consent laws often operate to oppress and not protect. Then in 1990,
under the heading of ``Man/Boy, Woman/Girl Love,'' ILGA called on all
members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in
constructive dialogue with them. Furthermore, ILGA expressed their
support for the right of every individual, regardless of age, to
explore and develop his or her sexuality. These resolutions are
precisely what NAMBLA advocates and prove without a doubt ILGA's own
approval of pedophilia. Indeed, ILGA never displayed any concern about
NAMBLA until it became a public issue. ILGA is now like the little boy
who got caught stealing and said he was sorry--not sorry he was
stealing, just that he got caught.

Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)

www.govinfo.gov

And so it goes with 'Progressives' and their phony media spins.

This is all old news, but faggots thinks we're all obligated to repeat the facts every time these scum post their idiot lies. They're just like the holocaust deniers, they never give up in their bullshit lying.

Gish Gallop

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your source is 12 years old.

Much of what you posted is much older. The difference is that my data is still relevent

 

[airplanemechanic]

Much of what you posted is much older. The difference is that my data is still relevent

No, one thing is from 1996 the rest is from 2013 onward.

 

[DudleySmith]

Gish Gallop

Yeah it's easy to wreck your shit train, freak.

 

[DudleySmith]

Much of what you posted is much older. The difference is that my data is still relevent

Your data is all faked, as anybody who looks at the methodologies and spin can immediately tell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your data is all faked, as anybody who looks at the methodologies and spin can immediately tell.

My data is fake? Are you having comprehension problems? I did not present data. I presented a critique of the data that you presented......data that lacked any sound basis as far as anyone could tell given that fact that the methodology was not even included

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your data is all faked, as anybody who looks at the methodologies and spin can immediately tell.

PS You mindlessly posted a synopsis of studies that said things that you wanted them to say, without any consideration for whether or not the claims were supported or what it actually meant. For the reasons that I explained, EVEN IF the claims were true-whole or in part- it does not constitute a valid argument against gay marriage. Sine you seem to be unable apply any level of critical thinking to what you post, I did it for you

 

[DudleySmith]

PS You mindlessly posted a synopsis of studies that said things that you wanted them to say, without any consideration for whether or not the claims were supported or what it actually meant. For the reasons that I explained, EVEN IF the claims were true-whole or in part- it does not constitute a valid argument against gay marriage. Sine you seem to be unable apply any level of critical thinking to what you post, I did it for you

And you're still lying. Repeating yourself doesn't make any of the fake news you posted true. you're lame as always. lol you claimed you posted valid data, dumbass. We know you never have, so crawl back into the bathhouse and blow some more of your buddies.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Show me

Show where NAMBLA or any similar organization exists
Show me their leadership, where they meet, any members

NAMBLA is a RW fantasy

Here you go. Join now, maybe you can get a discount on dues:

Who We Are · NAMBLA

Who We Are · NAMBLA

www.nambla.org

 

[rightwinger]

Here you go. Join now, maybe you can get a discount on dues:

Who We Are · NAMBLA

Who We Are · NAMBLA

www.nambla.org

2011 is the best you can do?

NAMBLA is not active and has no known membership

 

[g5000]

5 Things To Know About Andrea Yates, The Mom Who Drowned Her 5 Kids In The Bathtub

On June 20, 2001, mother of five Andrea Yates drowned her children, who ranged in age from six months to seven years, in the bathtub at her home in Houston, Texas.

www.investigationdiscovery.com

If you skip over the Andrea Yates story, you'll find the story of the Hart family, which was headed by 2 lesbians married to one another.

It's a very disturbing, sad story about child abuse that was never dealt with by the authorities.

One of the strangest things about the story is that OR is or used to be very gung-ho about taking children from their parents when there was even a hint of abuse. Maybe things have changed?

Or maybe they just like lesbians (which is why the Harts were not investigated or prosecuted)

Yes, gays should not be allowed to adopt kids because heterosexuals NEVER abuse or kill their kids.

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes, gays should not be allowed to adopt kids because heterosexuals NEVER abuse or kill their kids.

But always make ‘em…….