Friday, March 22, 2013

AAP says Gay Marriage good for kids, but is it really?

The American Academy of Pediatrics made news this week by coming out in support of Gay Marriage, stating that it is fine for children to grow up in a home with a same sex couples. Their reasoning? "'On the basis of a review of extensive scientific literature.'" In other words, they found "scientific" literature that backed up their already formed belief and used that as proof that their belief is right. This is what passes for "science" nowadays.

But the "literature" they based their outcome on only took into account things like small children not caring who gives them food, as long as someone gives them food. And that seems to be pretty much common sense. But what about older children; teenagers; young adults? Those people still considered "children" yet developing adult tendencies based on their lifestyle. Did anyone actually bother to question adults who became fully grown as children of two same sex parents? Well I'm glad you asked, because someone did!

While most studies of children's well being inside same sex households focuses on young children, there are studies that have focused on the now adult children raised by same sex couples. And those studies conclude that:

"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family."

But of course, I could be doing exactly what I accused the AAP of doing: choosing a study purely because it validates my belief. Well, don't take my word that this study (actually two studies) is legit. Take Robert Oscar Lopez's. Mr. Lopez was raised by a lesbian couple, so he has firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be raised in a homosexual household.

Mr. Lopez described his childhood like this:

"To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays."

Mr. Lopez goes on to explain how he (along with the majority of children raised by homosexual couples) considered himself to be bisexual...yet in the gay community bisexuals are met with "a mixture of disgust and envy" and are even seen by some as a threat to the "gay narrative" since they can choose to be gay or straight. And so the children of gay couples grow up alienated and shunned from both the straight and gay essence making them total outcasts.

Mr. Lopez says that after his mother died he dropped out of college (where the LGBT community told him that he was lying by saying he was bisexual instead of gay) and became involved in the underground gay scene where he says "terrible things" happened to him.

Mr. Lopez's view of the aforementioned studies, which surely holds more weight than my own, is summed up like this: "Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they [children raised by homosexual couples] gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."

Mr. Lopez believes these studies are important for the welfare of children being raised in homosexual households, as do I. Yet he also acknowledges that the "gay movement" is doing all it can to suppress such findings. And so today we hear about the AAP and any number of other groups coming out in support of gay marriage based on their own findings, but we never hear about the studies like these that form a different conclusion.

We say we all care about the safety of our children...but when it comes to gay marriage, our society seems to choose political correctness over sincere research into how it may actually affect them in the long term. I admit that true scientific research may indeed show that being raised by a gay couple doesn't affect kids any differently...but at this point we seem very far from true and honest research. Without an open discussion with scientific findings from both sides, we never will really know if we are condemning certain children to a life of misery. And isn't determining that far more important than personal beliefs or political correctness?

Monday, March 11, 2013

Now We Know

Some have called Rand Paul's filibuster historic. Some have called it pointless. It has simultaneously been referred to as a success and as a failure. Senator Paul did indeed get Eric Holder to admit that the President believes it is unconstitutional to use drones against Americans on American soil without a trial, which is what he was asking for. But many believe that words are cheap, especially when those words come from anyone in the Obama Administration. And it may indeed be that this means nothing for the future of drone usage in America. Sen. Paul himself has said that this is just the beginning of the fight. But if the filibuster achieves nothing else, it did have one extremely important outcome. In the world of politics, it can be hard to distinguish one person from the next. Corruption is everywhere and words, as mentioned above, are cheap. It can be very hard to know which politicians mean what they say, and which care only about their own pockets. Well Rand Paul's filibuster made things a whole lot clearer on Wednesday.

As Senator Paul stood on the Senate floor for just under 13 hours, fighting to bring attention to the erosion of our rights as Americans, he was joined by fellow senators. But only a handful. 14 Republican senators stood behind, and with, Rand Paul as he tried to defend the Constitution. Only 1 Democrat senator did. 15. 15 (16 including Paul) out of 100 chose to go against their parties, president, and the status quo in order to try and make sure Americans retain their rights. That is a staggering number. Yet many of us have believed for a long while that most of our representatives in Congress are sell outs. Now we know who they are. Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. What matters is our Constitution which defends our Freedom. Either you are fighting for it, or you are fighting against it.

Those fighting for it include: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

The Blaze also reports that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was in attendance and supported Paul’s filibuster by bringing the senator a thermos and an apple, a likely reference to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” However, Kirk, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a stroke, did not speak during the filibuster. The Blaze article also has a full list of the other 32 Republican senators who did not choose to join the filibuster.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was the only Democrat to support the filibuster, much to the chagrin of liberals who, whaddaya know, also don't want drones killing Americans without due process on U.S. soil. The ACLU and John Cusack were discouraged at the lack of Democrat support.

I think we all are a little discouraged that the men and women we elect to defend our rights are willing to so easily sell us down the proverbial river, but at least now we know who we can trust to stand up for us and who we can't. My advice: Don't ever vote for anyone not on that list again. Rand Paul's filibuster may not have achieved much, but it has exposed the dirty politicians from the (relatively) clean ones. Now we know who to trust. And as G.I. Joe taught me: knowing is half the battle.

(It should be noted that a number of representatives from the U.S. House also attended to support the filibuster, but I have yet to find a definitive list of who as of yet. If I do, I will update with it.)

UPDATE: In an op-ed Paul wrote for the Washington Post, he included the members of Congress who stood with him during his filibuster. Sixteen House Republicans showed up in the Senate to show solidarity. They are: Louis Gohmert (TX), Thomas Massie (KY), Justin Amash (MI), Ron DeSantis (FL), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Garland Barr (KY), Trey Radel (FL), Michael Burgess (TX), Jim Bridenstine (OK), Raul Labrador (ID), Keither Rothfus (PA), Paul Gosar (AZ), Steve Daines (MONTANA), Bill Huizenga (MI), Richard Hudson (NC), and David Schweikert (AZ). It should also be noted that Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine, also stood on the floor in support of Paul.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Rand Paul - The Last American?

"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?"

That is the crux of what was an almost 13 hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul that began just before noon yesterday and ended well after midnight tonight. A rare "talking filibuster" by Paul held up the confirmation hearing of CIA head nominee John Brennan, but the filibuster had little to do with Brennan himself and everything to do with the frightening drone policy that is being implemented by the Obama Administration. Rand Paul asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer. Does the Executive Branch of our government have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drones, and if so, by what guidelines? Senator Paul was driven to hold up Senate proceedings until he was given an adequate answer to that simple question...and he may have done so well into tomorrow if not for the need of a bathroom break. (For the life of me I don't know how he made it nearly 13 hours without one!) His numerous requests for an answer to that simple question were all ignored or skirted by the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and John Brennan. And so Paul held up the Senate to make it known that this is an important issue, maybe the most important of our time. Because if the Executive Branch can ignore the 5th Amendment, then it can ignore them all and we are two steps away from outright dictatorship.

Because of the length of the filibuster, the issue was brought to light. Infamously liberal groups like the ACLU and the Huffington Post agreed with Rand Paul. Yet, I fear that the answer to the question above is a deafening 'yes.' The majority of Americans are too complacent with our rights. As Greg Gutfeld said, President Obama has been gifted with the most distracted society since Ancient Rome (and we all know how that turned out). Instead of Bread and Circuses we have Beyonce and Siri. I believe history does repeat itself. And I'm also starting to believe Mark Twain was right in saying that nothing can be done to stop that; that man's nature only leads to the repeating of history's mistakes. Looking at today's America, how can one come to any other conclusion? Rand Paul may very well be the last American standing.