DETROIT FREE PRESS — Michigan AG Schuette sues to block domestic partner benefits

“Attorney General Bill Schuette filed suit today against the state Civil Service Commission to block the commission’s controversial decision to provide domestic partner benefits to thousands of state employees. Schuette…said the commission exceeded its authority in granting the benefits, aimed at allowing the same-sex partners of employees access to state health insurance plans.”

Salute to Attorney General Schuette for taking serious action to protect Michigan taxpayers from being forced to subsidize homosexual relationships among government employees!

http://www.freep.com/article/20110506/NEWS15/110506043/Michigan-AG-Schuette-sues-block-domestic-partner-benefits-
__________________________________________________

 

MICHIGAN MESSENGER — Advocates challenge state officials on second parent adoption

Another issue is rising on which AFA-Michigan will stand firm in defense of the principle that it’s in the best interests of every child to have both a father and a mother, and not as a matter of public policy be intentionally denied one or the other.

“Mere weeks after the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex adoption, the battle over two-parent adoptions is heating up in Michigan as advocates for youth in the foster care system say that thousands of children are being denied permanent homes.”
http://michiganmessenger.com/48066/advocates-challenge-state-officials-on-second-parent-adoption

Common sense: a study released last fall found that children raised by homosexual couples, not surprisingly, are more likely to model the household adults’ sexual behavior and values by engaging in homosexual behavior themselves. Also not surprising, if society approves of rather than discourages homosexual activity, the rate of homosexual behavior goes up. From AOL News:

“(Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm’s) study on sexual orientation…says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. …(W)hen the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s — presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation — 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures’ acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”

… And across all his data…he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. …(quoting) the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that ‘option’ was available to them. …Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to ‘try out women.’ …(T)he literature shows some lesbians ‘have a hatred of men that’s intense,’ Schumm says.”

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/
__________________________________________________

 

GREELEY GAZETTE — Psychologist says pedophilia is sexual orientation similar to homosexuality

‎”Two psychologists testified…that pedophilia is a ‘sexual orientation’ just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. …Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, said, ‘Pedophiles…are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

The North American Man Boy Love Association says current laws against child molesting violate their “civil right” to have sex with children and “discriminate” against them on the basis of their “sexual orientation.”

If marriage is radically redefined once to meet the demands of homosexual activist groups, demands will logically and inevitably follow that marriage be redefined again and again to meet the demands of the next special interest group. Polygamists (lawsuits have already been filed), then group marriage advocates (as University of Michigan professors advocate), then pedophiles.

Think that’ll never be seriously debated or considered? That’s what America thought about so-called homosexual “marriage” only a couple decades ago.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=8934

___________________________________________________

LANSING STATE JOURNAL — East Lansing set to offer same-sex benefits

“Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, a backer of the (Marriage Protection Amendment), disagrees. ‘Just because (the plan) may not violate the constitution doesn’t mean it’s good public policy,’ he said. ‘Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral. At a time when local governments are facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries — and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease — will only further increase the cost of health care for all citizens.'”

——————————————————————————
LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
December 27, 2010

East Lansing set to offer same-sex benefits
City avoids Proposal 2 through method used by MSU, county

by Derek Melot

By next July, the city of East Lansing plans to extend health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners of city employees, despite the legal restrictions of 2004’s Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment that barred public recognition of same-sex relationships.

East Lansing will do it by adopting a so-called “Other Eligible Individual” method of designating employee benefits. Already in place at Michigan State University and Ingham County, this method allows qualified employees, principally members of same-sex couples, to designate another adult in the household for benefit coverage.

Proposal 2 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but also has been determined to bar the extension of benefits to same-sex couples if, by doing so, a same-sex relationship is treated as equal or similar to a marriage. The Michigan Supreme Court turned away a challenge to that interpretation in 2008.

“Our proposed plan … was reviewed by the city’s labor attorney for compliance with all state and federal law,” said Deputy City Manager George Lahanas by e-mail.

Lahanas said city staff had fielded requests from East Lansing employees and members of the City Council to draft up the option. The city’s goal is to implement the expansion on July 1, 2011.

Of the city’s approximately 300 employees, only about 1 percent – three people – are expected to request the new coverage, Lahanas explained. The city estimates an annual cost of $20,000 or less.

“This is a policy change I’ve been working with the city staff on since 2008,” City Councilman Nathan Triplett said. “I’m glad to see that we are finally able to move forward with it. … Residents I talk to are shocked that East Lansing does not already offer this type of benefit to our employees. Simply put, it’s a matter of fundamental fairness and equal pay for equal work.”

MSU began a pilot benefits project in 2007 and made it part of the regular benefits package in July.

The university says 93 people, including dependents, opted for coverage at that time at a cost of $372,000.

Ingham County’s policy dates back to August 2008. Four or five of the county’s 1,000 employees are making use of it, said Jill Rhode, financial services director.

The city of Lansing does not offer an OEI or similar policy, reports the city’s Human Resources Department.

Argument ‘solid’

“East Lansing has already made great strides by acknowledging that Other Eligible Individual programs are necessary to a healthy community,” said Emily Dievendorf of the advocacy group Equality Michigan. “There will always be individuals who are bent on blocking progress. East Lansing should anticipate the possibility of a challenge.

“The argument for the policy’s validity is solid and, as it has been tested before, the community should feel confident that it could win the battle if one arises and Equality Michigan will support their effort 100 percent of the way,” Dievendorf added in a statement released last week.

New tax burden

Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, a backer of the original Proposal 2, disagrees.

“Just because (the plan) may not violate the constitution doesn’t mean it’s good public policy,” he said. “Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral.

“At a time when local governments are facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries – and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease – will only further increase the cost of health care for all citizens.”

Earlier in December, the state Civil Service Commission delayed action on a staff proposal for an OEI-style benefit policy for state employees that would, by one estimate, cost almost $6 million in 2011.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20101227/NEWS01/12270316/East-Lansing-set-to-offer-same-sex-benefits
__________________________________________________

WEYI-TV (FLINT) — Michigan reaction to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal

GG at Ft Sill closeupAFA-Michigan note: Unlike most of the “lame duck” politicians in Congress who voted to impose this radical agenda onto the U.S. military, AFA-Michigan’s Gary Glenn actually wore our nation’s uniform, serving from 1990-1998 in the U.S. Army National Guard and Reserves. Gary is also state chairman of the Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors, a national military readiness and remembrance organization. His father was a U.S. Marine who survived the December 7, 1941 attack.

Despite the threat to unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and religious freedom in the military, as well as an increased threat of AIDS and other serious disease transmission via battlefield blood transfusions, both of Michigan’s two Democratic U.S. senators — Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow — voted in favor of forcing our military personnel to share barracks, showers, and foxholes with individuals openly involved in the homosexual lifestyle.

In the U.S. House, all Democratic members of Michigan’s congressional delegation voted in favor of the misguided and immoral policy, as did Republican Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, one of only fifteen House Republicans nationwide to do so. All other Michigan Republicans voted against it. Notably, 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul was also among the fringe group of Republicans who voted to impose homosexual activists’ political agenda onto the U.S. military.

___________________________________________

“‘This is a dark day in American history,’ says Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He goes on to say, ‘You have left-wing politicians, primarily a Congress that has already been rejected by the voters in November, imposing on the finest military force in the world a radical, left-wing agenda which hopefully at some point in the future we will be able to undo.'”

——————————————————————————

WEYI-TV CHANNEL 25
Flint, Michigan
December 22, 2010

Reaction to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal
by Dan Armstrong

It’s a controversial and monumental decision. President Obama signs the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 17-year-old policy that forbids homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Supporters are celebrating, while opponents are disappointed.

Terri Dinsmore is the Genesee County president of PFLAG (parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). She says, “It’s been a long time coming. It’s a good thing that people are able to serve their country now and be open about who they are.”
Dinsmore, along with President Obama, says open service is an equal rights issue.
“We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot,” says President Obama.

Reports show around 14,000 homosexual service members have been sent home for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Obama says, “No longer will tens of thousands be asked to live a lie, or look over shoulder…serve country that they love.”
However, conservative organizations like the American Family Association, say the repeal will do more harm than good.

The AFA website says, “There is no question that repeal will have a harmful effect on recruitment, retention, and readiness, and will mean the end of military careers for officers and chaplains who have moral and religious objections to homosexuality.”
“This is a dark day in American history,” says Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He goes on to say, “You have left-wing politicians, primarily a Congress that has already been rejected by the voters in November, imposing on the finest military force in the world a radical, left-wing agenda, which hopefully at some point in the future we will be able to undo.”

Supporters say the repeal is a matter of national security for the military members fighting two wars.
“If these people that are serving in silence, if they all decided to be open, and get fired, then where’s that service? They’re going to be down quite a few people.”

The repeal will not be immediately implemented.

Military members still need to create policies, like domestic partner benefits.
The White House says the process will take months, not years.

Homosexual supporters say more needs to be done in Michigan for equal rights, like allowing homosexual marriage and preventing bosses from firing employees because they are gay.

http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=558379
__________________________________________________

Medical science, Christianity = 'hate'

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has done a significant disservice to its homosexual propagandist and sexual relativist allies. My friend Gary Glenn with the American Family Association of Michigan (a ‘hate group’ target of the SPLC) sums it up nicely: ‘The SPLC’s demonization of groups that tell the truth about the public health implications of homosexual behavior may be the biggest boon we’ve seen in years to efforts to publicize those health consequences. We welcome this opportunity. The SPLC has provided a public service by focusing attention and discussion on the severe public health consequences of homosexual behavior.'”

————————————-

WORLD NET DAILY
Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2010

SPLC: Medical science, Christianity = ‘hate’

by J. Matt Barber

Sometimes the most effective way to deal with a bully is to simply pop him in the chops. While it may not shut him up entirely, it usually gives him pause before he resumes flapping his toxic jaws. It also has the effect of showing the other kids in the schoolyard that they have nothing to fear. Though the bully struts about projecting the tough-guy image, he’s typically the most insecure pansy on the block.

Such is the case with the bullies over at the fringe-left Southern Poverty Law Center. Having been recently “popped in the chops,” if you will, for a series of hyperbolic and disingenuous “anti-gay hate group” slurs against a dozen-or-so of America’s most well respected Christian and conservative organizations – the SPLC now finds itself publicly struggling, outside of an extremist left-wing echo chamber, to salvage a modicum of mainstream credibility.

In response to the SPLC’s unprovoked attacks, a unified coalition of more than 150 top conservative and Christian leaders across the country has launched a shock-and-awe “Start Debating, Stop Hating” media blitz to educate America about the SPLC’s ad hominem, politically driven smear campaign.

The mainstream pro-family conglomerate already includes presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner, former presidential contender Mike Huckabee, four current U.S. senators, three governors, 20 current or newly elected members of the House of Representatives and many more.

As the controversy wears on and the facts become public, the moribund SPLC has understandably become increasingly defensive, strongly suggesting that it has come to regret this gross political overreach. Catch the tiger by the tail, you get the teeth.

Still, lazily labeling its ideological adversaries “hate groups” has yet to satisfy the anti-Christian law center. It’s taken the slander even further down petty path, launching a succession of amateurish personal attacks against a number of individual Christian advocates (to include yours truly). This is a clear sign that the sexual relativist left recognizes that it’s losing the debate on the merits.

Indeed, the SPLC’s poorly constructed analysis bears deconstructing, but first I’ll make a prediction. The center has yet to pin its official “SPLC designated hate group” badge of honor on either me or Liberty Counsel, the civil rights group with which I’m affiliated.
Somehow we were able only to earn the equally deceptive lower ranking of “anti-gay.” I suspect this is because I’ve been a primary public critic of the center’s feeble “hate group” crusade. Even the far-left understands that premature retaliation would betray dishonest political motives.

Still – and you heard it here first – within the next year or two (maybe less) the SPLC will move to even the score by tagging Liberty Counsel an “official hate group.” At that point – and beyond the question: “If the SPLC calls you a ‘hate group’ in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” – any remaining media outlet that may wish to treat the center as an objective arbiter of “hate” will do so at grave risk to its own credibility.

Nonetheless, the SPLC has begun to grease the skids. Quotes cherry picked, taken out of context and misapplied are a powerful tool of the propagandist. Such are the Maoist techniques of the SPLC. Among other things, here’s what the group has said about me:

“Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a ‘miniscule number’ of anti-gay hate crimes …”

Let me be clear: I didn’t “suggest” there were a “miniscule number of anti-gay hate crimes” in 2007. I proved it. I merely cited the FBI’s own statistics which demonstrate the fact beyond any serious debate. Let’s look at “all the evidence” to which the SPLC refers. Here’s what I actually wrote in the Washington Times:

“Consider that according to the latest FBI statistics, out of 1.4 million violent crimes in 2007; there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) reportedly motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is zero evidence to suggest that, where appropriate, perpetrators were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in every instance.”
A bit different than the SPLC portrayal, no? Let’s do the math:

Approximately 247 aggravated “hate crime” assaults, taken within the context of 1.4 million violent crimes means that exactly 0.017643 percent of violent crimes in 2007 were “anti-gay hate crimes.” A miniscule number? You be the judge.

Continued the SPLC:

“Barber had argued that given ‘medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,’ it should be considered ‘criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.'”

Note that the SPLC neither identifies nor addresses the “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality.” It’s no wonder. Again, the evidence proves the case beyond any serious debate.

For instance, a recent study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that, as a direct result of the demonstrably high-risk and biologically incongruous act of male-male anal sodomy, one-in-five “gay” and “bisexual” men in American cities have been infected with HIV/AIDS.

If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn’t going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they’d scatter? Yet we systematically promote celebration of homosexual conduct in our public schools.

Criminally reckless? You be the judge.

Or consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Further studies conducted by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: “[‘Gay’ men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

The FDA further warns: “[‘Gay’ men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in [‘gay’ men] than in the general population.”

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Again I ask: Is it “criminally reckless” to indoctrinate children into this potentially deadly lifestyle?

Again I say: You be the judge.

So, according to its own “hate group” standard, the SPLC is left one of three possible choices: Either it remains consistent, tagging the CDC, the FDA and the FBI with its pejorative “hate group” moniker; it offers a public retraction and apology for its attacks against me and other Christians; or it remains silent while its credibility continues to swirl down the toilet bowl of irrelevancy.

Still, the SPLC has done a significant disservice to its homosexual propagandist and sexual relativist allies. My friend Gary Glenn with the American Family Association of Michigan (a “hate group” target of the SPLC) sums it up nicely:

“The SPLC’s demonization of groups that tell the truth about the public health implications of homosexual behavior may be the biggest boon we’ve seen in years to efforts to publicize those health consequences. We welcome this opportunity. The SPLC has provided a public service by focusing attention and discussion on the severe public health consequences of homosexual behavior.”

Indeed, the SPLC and its allies are flailing violently as they swim upstream against a torrent of settled science, thousands of years of history and the unwavering moral precepts of every major world religion.

It’s little wonder they’ve resorted to childish name calling.

———————————————————————————–

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=241721
__________________________________________________

MICHIGAN MESSENGER — State considers health benefits for unmarried partners

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
December 9, 2010

State considers health benefits for unmarried partners
Proposal would cover non-related live-in partners

by Todd A. Heywood

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says the proposal, so long as it was not just for same-sex partners was legal. But he questioned if it was good public policy. ‘Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral,’ Glenn said in an email to Michigan Messenger.

‘At a time when Michigan is facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries — and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease — is unthinkable and will only further increase the cost of healthcare for all of us.’ He says the state should, instead, be actively promoting marriage — specifically and solely, marriage between one man and one woman.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/44495/state-considers-health-benefits-for-unmarriedpartners
__________________________________________________

AOL NEWS — Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

Common sense: a new study finds that children raised by homosexual couples, not surprisingly, are more likely to model the household adults’ lifestyle and values by engaging in homosexual behavior themselves. Also not surprising, if society approves of rather than discourages homosexual activity, the rate of homosexual behavior goes up.

“(Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm’s) study on sexual orientation…says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. …(W)hen the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s — presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation — 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures’ acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”

… And across all his data…he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. …(quoting) the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that ‘option’ was available to them. …Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to ‘try out women.’ …(T)he literature shows some lesbians ‘have a hatred of men that’s intense,’ Schumm says.”

————————————————————————–

AOL NEWS
New York, New York
October 17, 2010

Study: Gay parents more likely to have gay kids
by Paul Kix, AOL News

Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

Not all of the vitriol was hyperbolic. Cameron does not tolerate gay people. He believes that “homosexual practice is injurious to society.”

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron “the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America.” Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an “ethical” violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose “overriding mission” is to publish “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality.”

Schumm doesn’t go for that sort of research. After Cameron’s 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed little to no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. “I just want to know the truth about something,” he tells AOL News. And he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children’s lives — but not in any way their sexual orientation.

Lawyers for the state of Florida heard of Schumm’s fledgling research and invited him in 2008 to testify in a case. The state’s Department of Children and Families was attempting to uphold a ban on gay and lesbian parents adopting children. Schumm’s testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial.

He said: “Gay parents can be good foster parents,” and “The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis.”

Schumm tells AOL News that he agreed to testify as one of the state’s witnesses only if his evidence was not “slanted” for or against gay rights.

But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. “I’m trying to prove that it’s not 100 percent genetic,” Schumm tells AOL News.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it’s worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.

This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were “adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all.” These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage’s implication was that they were gay.

Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s — presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation — 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures’ acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”

Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies, the ones used to pillory Cameron’s work. In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.

Abbie Goldberg is a psychology professor at Clark University, and the author of “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle,” which this year won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA. She hasn’t read Schumm’s study, only seen the abstract. But she says, in general, that a meta-analysis of this nature relies on sample sizes that are often too small and may furthermore brim with participants whose perspective is firmly aligned with the LGBT community. In other words, they’re aware of these sorts of studies and seek them out.

“The fundamental problem with this [type of meta-analysis] is such samples tend to be biased,” Goldberg tells AOL News.

Schumm says he guarded against that by seeking out so many different works. And across all his data — the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles — he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm’s study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that “option” was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to “try out women.”

But couldn’t gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians “have a hatred of men that’s intense,” Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn’t have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose “liberal or progressive political interpretations” on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. “It’s kind of sad,” he tells AOL News.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. “All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

http://www.aolnews.com:80/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089?ncid=webmail
__________________________________________________

The "Gay" Deathstyle (latest column)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=208869

WorldNetDaily Logo
Monday, September 27, 2010


The ‘gay’ deathstyle
Exclusive: J. Matt Barber argues homosexuality cannot be called ‘healthy’


Posted: September 28, 2010
1:00 am Eastern


One has to wonder if Reuters reporter Julie Steenhuysen will soon be joining the millions of other Americans relegated to Obama’s swelling unemployment lines. She evidently didn’t get the media memo last week and violated the goose-stepping left’s Orwellian requirement that we all adhere to obtuse notions of political correctness.Having contracted a rare case of journalistic objectivity, Ms. Steenhuysen penned a story that dared to detail a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on homosexuality.

The study exposed the jaw-dropping fact that one-in-five “gay” and “bisexual” men in American cities have been infected with HIV/Aids. Needless to say, this scandalous revelation completely blows out of the water, the left’s morally relative, propagandist line that homosexuality is “normal, natural and good.”

To believers, it’s never surprising when modern science serves to validate the transcendent truths found in Scripture (not that God’s truth needs validating.)

James 1:15 warns: “Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.”

Indeed, it seems the common moniker “homosexual lifestyle” has it exactly backwards. As opponents of the extremist “gay” lobby have long illustrated, homosexuality falls dead center within our nation’s burgeoning culture of death.

First, take that feminist rite of passage: abortion. Due to a national lack of sexual self-governance, in 2010 we find that – post Roe v. Wade – 50 million of God’s precious children have been slaughtered at Satan’s altar of euphemistic “choice.”

Moreover, millions of self-styled “gay” men have – as a direct result of homosexual conduct – died from AIDS, Syphilis, Hepatitis and all other forms of homosexually transmitted disease.

Romans 1:26-27, which Obama once comically called an “obscure passage in Romans,” addresses the homosexual deathstyle: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

It’s tragic when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others “[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” But a corollary to free will is living – or dying – with the choices we’ve made.

Another problem lies in the fact that far too many Christians have contributed to the dilemma by failing to speak truth, in love, on the issue of homosexuality (pastors with “gay” congregants and family members, I’m talking to you). Nobody likes to be unfairly labeled a hater, “homophobe” or bigot, but fear of such attacks offers no justification for failing to speak truth in love. There are even self-professed Christians today who inexcusably join in with the secular-left in affirming homosexual sin as a good thing. There’s a word for these types: apostate.

There’s no wiggle room here. If you defend or seek to justify homosexual conduct, you defy God. Not good. As I recall, He’s got a little something to say about “causing one of these little ones” to sin.

But even if you choose not to acknowledge biblical truth, you’re still left without excuse. As the CDC has once again verified, if you affirm or defend homosexual behavior as “normal, natural and good,” you also defy science. You’re on the wrong side of history, let alone reality.

What is it about this particular PC-protected practice that causes so many otherwise intelligent people to become blinded blathering buffoons?

Let’s say we had a group of people who defined their identity based upon a penchant for running headlong into brick walls. Oh, we’ll call them, “Wallies.” (Wally pride, baby!)

As significant percentages of Wallies began to drop dead, or suffer irreversible brain damage, do you suppose the left would demand tolerance for such behavior? Do you think they’d begin handing out bicycle helmets in elementary schools, telling kids to practice safe walling? With liberals, anything’s possible, but I’m more inclined to think that even the moonbat left might agree that people tending toward such behavior would be best served to simply avoid running headlong into walls altogether.

I don’t mean to be flip (okay, maybe a little flip) but can someone please tell me why on earth the left insists that we “tolerate” homosexual behavior while – as the CDC has once again confirmed – it continues to have results similar to brick walling?

We throw paper-thin latex condoms at kids who struggle with same-sex attraction and tell them: “You’re gay! Embrace who you are. Gay pride, baby!”

We push them out onto a paper-thin latex tightrope with a one-in-five chance they’ll plummet to their death.

What in the name of all things sacred are we doing? One-in-five with AIDS? Seriously? If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn’t going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they’d scatter?

Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. Scripture admonishes: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.

Do you consider yourself “gay” or lesbian? As untold thousands of ex-gays will tell you, you don’t have to be. It’s my most sincere prayer that going forward you’ll choose Christ over sin: Life over death.

You think sexual “freedom” makes you happy? You should experience the true freedom that comes through abiding in He who is “the way, the truth and the life.”

That’s liberation.


Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.
__________________________________________________

NEWS — Family PAC targets Drolet, Wenke, VanderKamp, and all are defeated Tuesday

Family values PAC wins all its targeted primary races

Three GOP state Senate candidates who opposed Marriage
Protection Amendment were rejected by voters Tuesday

LANSING, Mich. — A statewide family values PAC chaired by a co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment won all three of the Republican state Senate contests it targeted in Tuesday’s primary election.

Gary Glenn, Midland, chairman of the Campaign for Michigan Families, recorded robocalls criticizing former state Rep. Leon Drolet in Macomb, former state Rep. Lorence Wenke in Kalamazoo, and newcomer Brett VanderKamp in Holland for their opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004. The amendment constitutionally defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. Drolet and Wenke were among only three GOP legislators who voted against the amendment that year.

The PAC also placed radio ads criticizing Wenke’s record on other homosexual issues, including his support for legalizing homosexual adoption. Its robocalls in the Kalamazoo district also criticized another candidate in that race, Rep. Larry DeShazor, for being one of only two incumbent Republicans to vote in favor of homosexual activists’ so-called “hate crimes” legislation. Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker, who led the Judiciary Committee debate against the “hate crimes” bill defeated Wenke nearly 2-to-1, with DeShazor bringing up the rear.

Drolet came in third in a four-way primary in Macomb County won by former Rep. Jack Brandenburg, who in 2007 joined Glenn in criticizing Saginaw Valley State University for staging a homosexual-themed play that featured full frontal male nudity, a violation of the state’s indecent exposure statutes. After Glenn raised the issue, Brandenburg threatened to introduce legislation to cut state funding of the university. Glenn’s robocalls and news releases also criticized Drolet for sponsoring legislation to legalize homosexual adoption and to repeal Michigan’s sodomy and “gross indecency” laws, both used by law enforcement to deter homosexual activity in public parks, restrooms, and rest areas, which police say threatens public health.

VanderKamp lost to incumbent Rep. Arlan Meekhoff, a strong proponent of traditional family values endorsed by Campaign for Michigan Families in its robocalls. VanderKamp told a Holland radio station last month that he would vote to put a repeal of the Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot, that he had “a moral problem” with the state regulating the definition of marriage, and that he couldn’t remember how he personally voted on the amendment on the ballot in 2004.

Both Drolet and Wenke were endorsed in previous races by Triangle Pride PAC, a homosexual activist group based in Detroit which called Drolet its “single strongest supporter” among Republicans in Lansing. Both had been honored as “heroes” at the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans national convention in New Orleans in 2005. The same group presented Wenke an award at its 2007 convention in Denver.
__________________________________________________