Pope against gay adoption. Liberals shocked. World amused.

It is rather interesting to watch the reaction of liberals as they discover that there are people in this world who disagree with them. They were apparently unaware that this was allowed.

A journalist at the Guardian has discovered that Pope Francis is opposed to gay adoption. Just wait until he finds out that he's also in favor of God, against the Devil, and kind of partial to holy water.

That'll really shake him up.

The comments by the Pope to the Maltese Archbishop have rocked the world of those in the Politically Correct community who had convinced themselves that he was actually a Western secular liberal bent on turning the Church upside down. Damien Thompson (Hey, wasn't "Damian" the name of the Anti-Christ in the movie, "The Omen"?) criticizes Time magazine for not doing its research before naming him "Person of the Year."

I mean, if they had only known the Pope was a Catholic. What were they thinking?

Isn't there a television show we can kick him off of? On the other hand, maybe that's not such a good idea: His family is slightly larger than the Robertsons.

The gay rights movements' Two Minute Hate against Mark Regnerus

UNIFORMITY IS DIVERSITY

FAVORITISM IS EQUALITY

BIGOTRY IS TOLERANCE

As any one who frequents this blog knows, my regard for social science as it is perpetrated by the media is not high. The expression "a study has shown ..." is now used like some kind of incantation, imputing to the thing on behalf of which it is uttered a kind of magical legitimacy.

It may be the most abused phrase in the English language.

I have also argued that whenever you hear gay rights advocates make what sound like scientific statements, you should immediately dismiss them as political statements until it has conclusively been shown otherwise. These are the same people, after all, who can still be found appealing to the Kinsey studies as scientifically authoritative.

In recent years studies have been trotted out to show that gender doesn't matter in the rearing of children and that children raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted as those raised by a biological mother and father. When these studies come out, gay rights activists shake their pom-poms and shout, "Go team!" while the academics who cooked them up do their end zone dances.

So what happens when a study finds the opposite?

Mark Regnerus is a hateful bigot. He’s an ultra-conservative with links to Opus Dei. His new research paper on same-sex parenting is “intentionally misleading” and “seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents.” His “so-called study doesn’t match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well.” His “junk science” and “pseudo-scientific misinformation,” pitted against statements from the American Psychological Association and “every major child welfare organization,” deserve no coverage or credence. 

That’s what four of the nation’s leading gay-rights groups—the Human Rights Campaign, the Family Equality Council, Freedom to Marry, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation —declared in a joint statement this week. Flanked by a mob of bloggers, they’re out to attack Regnerus’ motives, destroy his credibility, and banish his study from the scientific record.

Have a nice day.

Regnerus, a University of Texas sociologist published a paper that studied the affects on adult children of same-sex parents and found that they were more likely to experience emotional and social problems.

You would have thought that he had just advocated the attempted revival of Adolf Hitler. The chorus of denunciation was deafening. When self-proclaimed gays like Simon Levay releases research that just happens to confirm his own clear prejudices, they are lauded as paragons of scientific rectitude. But release a finding that flies in the face of the Politically Correct establishment and you are ...

Investigated.

The University of Texas has now launched an investigation of Regnerus. Why? Because a gay blogger who doesn't even publish under his real name sent a letter to UT President Bill Powers. The blogger, Scott Rose (really Scott Rosensweig):

alleged that Regnerus had committed scientific misconduct because he had created "a study designed so as to be guaranteed to make gay people look bad, through means plainly fraudulent and defamatory." Rosensweig also pointed out that the study was funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, writing that Regnerus had taken "money from an anti-gay political organization for his study."

We're absolutely positive that Rose(ensweig) gets this upset when similar research is done under the auspices of institutions or researchers who have a know pro-gay bias (insert index finger in mouth and pretend to gag here).

A university launches a professional investigation of one of its faculty because of the complaint of a partisan blogger? For real?

Just go to your friendly local university and you will find the equivalent of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, each devoted to the stamping out of thoughtcrime.

The message in the Regnerus case is plain: If you come up with findings that in any way militate against the prevailing PC view of human sexuality, keep it to yourself or you will be publicly savaged and your professional reputation will be destroyed. The standards by which other studies in the field finding opposite results will be dispensed with and new standards never before applied to anyone else will be applied to you.

If you want to communicate with Regnerus, do it now before they haul him off to Room 101 to convinced that 2 + 2 = 5.

Health Care bill includes gay benefits

As it turns out, a vote for Obama's nationalization of health care was also a vote for domestic partner benefits. "House members overwhelmingly approved a health care reform bill Saturday that recognizes gay unions and makes health care more affordable for gay families," said one report.

This from the "Human Rights Campaign":

Unequal Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits – the bill ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Without this tax penalty, more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.

This national imposition of domestic partner benefits basically makes the debate going on in the different states moot. This is thanks to a little behind the scenes move by Jim McDermott (D-Washington).

Poetic license on SB 68

Brian Gatewood redramatizes a telephone conversation he had with Sen. Gary Tapp, who sponsored SB 68, a bill that would make it more likely for foster and adoptive children to be placedin safe homes.

"Here’s a dramatic, although not verbatim, rendition of how my conversation with Senator Tapp went."

Is this something like "based on a true story"? And Jake calls it a "transcript" despite Gatewood's admission that he was jogging in Seneca Park when he took the call and reconstructed the call from memory.

More evidence of the high standards of journalism over at Page One.

"Pro-gay" newspaper runs article on adoption bill

I suppose it is sort of superfluous to point it out, but the media is congenitally incapable of objectively reporting on any issue having anything to do with gay rights.

When gay rights groups had a rally last week, the media descended on it, and we heard again and again how over 100 people showed up. But then, when family groups had a rally almost twice that size, not only was it not reported, there was only one reporter who showed up.

Today, when Senate Bill 68, which would ensure that children will not be placed in home where there is a live-in sexual partner, the Courier-Journal again mentioned the gay rights rally in their article, but, alas, no mention of the opposing rally.

They did quote David Edmunds of The Family Foundation the online story, but they let the Fairness Alliance write part of their headline: "'Anti-gay' Adoption bill advances."

It's going so be sad to see the newspapers go.

The selfish agenda of gay rights groups in adoption

I'm thinking that one day Jake at Page One Kentucky will surprise me and actually think before he blurts out something on his blog, but I'm not terribly hopeful about it.

Today's evidence of the lack of quality control is Jake's comment that I was somehow referring to homosexual pedophilia when I remarked in a comment run by the Lexington Herald-Leader that gays were putting their political agenda before the safety children. Of course, I was doing no such thing. I was talking about the fact that having an unmarried sexual partner in the home is not a promising environment for the raising of a child--and the obsession people like Jake have for gay rights, an obsession which takes precedence over everything else.

I've gotten into the argument about gay pedophilia before, but what you get a is a ludicrous response that such male on male sexual abuse doesn't count as homosexual abuse.

Finally, you just realize that reason and fact just don't matter to the gay rights crowd, and that all that matters is political ideology. Evidence has absolutely no role in their thinking about such things.

And, yes, there are some of us who are uncomfortable with putting children in the types of homes that have a demonstrably a high incidence of domestic abuse. If Jake disputes that this assertion also applies to gays, then his argument is not with me but with gay organizations that say it themselves.

To say that as a matter of state policy, we're going to place children, many of whom have already been abused, in situations that lend themselves to abuse just so we can kowtow to gay rights groups is utterly and shamefully selfish.

But what else is new?

Gay rights groups willing to throw children under the bus for their political agenda

An adoption bill currently being considered by the General Assembly, SB 68, prohibits foster and adoptive children from being placed in homes where there is a live-in unmarried sexual partner. To most of us, this requirement can be placed under the "Duh" category. Unfortunately, however, there are people so fixated on their own political agendas that, when it comes to the placement of children, safety takes a back seat.

In fact, not only do children take a back seat, they are run over altogether.

The "Fairness" Alliance is a case in point. Chris Hartman, the group's executive director, calls the bill "an anti-gay political attack." Why? Because it's all about them.

It's always all about them.

But back in the world the rest of us live in--where the safety of children is the primary concern--the bill makes perfect sense: you place children in healthy environments and to avoid placing them in potentially unhealthy environments.

Check out their quote in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. They are complaining that, when a child is removed from a home for abuse and neglect, they cannot be placed in the home of a relative who is living with an unmarried partner. In other words, they are complaining that a child cannot be taken from an abusive home and be placed in another home with a high potential for abuse.

And the problem is...?

Kentucky's family courts are snarled with case after case of domestic and child abuse coming from just these kinds of homes, but the Fairness Alliance doesn't care. They've got their narrow political agenda to think about.

If you want an example of the sheer disingenuousness of their case, consider another argument being proffered by opponents of the bill: that it could reduce the pool of available foster care and adoptive parents. Really?

So where was the outcry when the Patton administration threatened to stop sending children to the Baptist Children's Homes, the largest single placement agency in the state, because they wouldn't hire gays? How many children would that have affected? Where was the Fairness Alliance then?

Let's see, let me check my records here ... Oh, well look at this: they were on the side that would have prevented children from being placed in safe homes!

And where are these people whenever another Catholic adoption agency has to close its doors because it won't kowtow to the selfish agenda of groups like the Fairness Alliance?

Take a guess.

There are a lot of things that can be done to contribute to the safety of children, but throwing them under the bus isn't one of them.

Heather has two mommies. Nevermind, make that one.

Today comes the Louisville Courier-Journal's unenthusiastic endorsement for yesterday's appeals court ruling that, 1) yes, we do have laws, and 2) yes, we should follow them.

The case involved a lesbian couple, one of whom conceived a child by artificial insemination, gave birth, and then split up. A family court judge, then proceeded to let the non-biological parent adopt the child, which, in Kentucky can only be done in a case where there was a marriage. The appeals court slapped them down and told them that they don't make laws (or change them), they apply them, which was apparently news to the family court judges.

These judges either didn't know what the laws were, or didn't care. Neither possibility is particularly comforting. But the Courier-Journal is less concerned about the corruption of our justice system and more concerned with ensuring that couples with two fathers or two mothers can enjoy the same rights to adoption that married couples have.

Oh brother.