Protecting the Children – Part One

I’ve already spoken about one need of children, here, in regards to gay marriage. But there are other issues that we women, we mothers worry about, and after some hard consideration, I think it’s time to address them.

It was 1980. Early spring, one of those gorgeous days when I could put the windows up and let some fresh air blow into the house.  One of those days you dream about in January.  I was sitting in the rocker, cuddling my firstborn, when all of a sudden there was an explosion of profanity from the next-door back yard.  It was impossible, even with windows down, to miss what had happened:

My next-door neighbor was gay. He’d been married, his wife was absent, due to health issues that were never elaborated on, except that she was in full-time nursing care. He had a teenaged son and daughter. I liked George (another pseudonym) — cheerful, talented, creative, good-humored . . . and I liked the kids, too, although the boy seemed sullen at times and the girl was so shy I didn’t even know what her voice sounded like after almost a year of being neighbors.

The night before, George had had a party.  George, Jr. was screaming obscenities at his father because other gay men at that party had been hitting on him, and his dad had looked on and done nothing.  The friends mattered more.  He hadn’t protected his son from unwanted sexual advances.  All it would have taken would have been a good-natured, “Hey, if he doesn’t want to, leave him alone.” But evidently that was not what had happened. I couldn’t fathom it then, being so protected, myself, growing up, but it sounded as if George had actually found the whole thing perfectly acceptable.

George, Jr. was furious at his father. He was confronting his father with the strongest possible expressions of rage for a horrible breach of parental responsibility,  and with an ultimate betrayal — and George laughed.  He laughed at his son.

I told DH about it, when he came in for lunch. “Just keep quiet about it,” he told me. “Don’t say anything, not to anybody.”  I didn’t know, then, that DH had been seduced, himself.

This was at a time when an adult, even a parent, could be brought up before a judge for what was called moral turpitude.  I don’t know what would make that definition, any more; the courts more and more are favoring the gay parents in custody issues.  The protection of minor children from irresponsible and immoral behaviors is getting harder over the past few years.  Even 20 years ago, when I worked for a lawyer, today’s (im)moral climate wasn’t even on the radar.

Frankly? having girls, there was a limit to what I had to worry about. If I’d had any boys, I don’t know WHAT I would have done. Even then, you couldn’t change custody and visitation over what MIGHT happen; something had to have already happened before you could deprive a parent of custody or visitation rights. Now the definition of endangerment, in court, has become so watered down as to become very nearly meaningless.

One thing you can do — TALK TO YOUR KIDS.  No matter their age, even preschoolers can know that it’s wrong to be touched in areas a bathing suit would cover, and that they can ALWAYS talk to you if someone says or does something that makes them uncomfortable. They can be told that it’s okay to say “no,” that just because a person is an adult, “respect”  only covers so much territory.

Being age-appropriate is key. And you don’t have to point a finger to Daddy or Daddy’s friends.  Kids are at risk now in school from teachers and coaches. School sex ed classes cover matters most of us do not want to have brought to our children just yet, and certainly not without our own values (like chastity and reverence) being included in the conversation. A huge item in the news this week is a 10-year old in California being raped by a “transgender” in a public bathroom.

So it’s not just us who have to worry — everyone needs to worry, now; no one can afford to be complacent. But we have a higher risk factor.  I’m putting feelers out to see if there are any studies about rates of molestation for children of gays as compared to children from heterosexual households.  So far, nothing. We’ll see.

But there are risks. Maybe your gay ex-spouse is a jewel who wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone (I believe DH is in this category), but you can’t be sure all his friends are going to be so conscientious.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

Why I Oppose Gay Marriage – Part One: The Straight Spouses

A conversation this week with a new acquaintance raised the old-for-me question: why do I oppose gay marriage? Don’t gays deserve equal rights with heterosexuals? Don’t I want them to have the same opportunities for happiness I enjoy?

Why do I deviate from the “Straight Spouse” standard reply that, because I love my ex-husband, I want him to be happy in his “real self”?  After all, how does gay marriage hurt me, individually? personally? —

Discussing abstract realities is always difficult, and this is an abstract; that is, it’s a reality that cannot be known by our physical senses (touch, sight, hearing, taste, etc.). Nevertheless, I keep coming to a place where I have to try to — not persuade, that’s not in my sphere of influence! But I do hope to speak well enough that people get even a partial glimpse of how I see things, from “behind my eyeballs” as it were.  So I keep trying, hoping the same old responses don’t feel tired to the person who’s reading them, while I keep reaching for better ways to say what I perceive and feel.

The question “how does gay marriage hurt you?” is bantered about like a challenge the opponent is suppose to yield, unable to defend.  But gay marriage does hurt me.  It hurts all of us.

Gay marriage suggests that there is no distinction between the sexes, that we are interchangeable parts of a social construct. This is an attitude that demeans me as a woman — demeans all women (and men, too). It says we have no intrinsic value or worth due our sex.  It says that the rejection of the opposite sex in favor of a different type of union is acceptable and laudable.

It also says that I have no value as a wife — that unique relationship to a husband that simply cannot be replicated in same-sex unions.  Of course, this is why California has abandoned the language of gender and opted for “Spouse One and Spouse Two” in their legal processes.

I was demeaned in my marriage to a homosexual.  I was unworthy of companionship, of basic, nonsexual affection. I was merely a personified abstract — a Wife — behind which my then-husband could hide. This misogynistic attitude is only legitimated through a recognition of gay marriage: it is a society saying that I, as a woman and as a wife, have no meaning, no value.  I am again only a personified abstract, this time expected to approve the very things that diminish my worth and render me inconsequential.

This I will not do.

Attempts to legitimate Gay Marriage

Tomorrow, May 8, the Great State of North Carolina will be voting on a Constitutional Amendment which would secure for perpetuity the present law recognizing only the marriage between one man and one woman as the only recognized legal union in the State.

The wording of the proposed Amendment, in fact, says just that:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Opponents of the Amendment, however – promoted and financed by the homosexual community from across the nation – have engaged in a campaign of lies and manipulations, trying to play in ignorant and well-intentioned people by insisting this Amendment would hurt children and affect domestic violence law.

The truth of the matter is that the exact opposite is true. The defeat of this amendment will hurt children and women.

Here’s how it works: As soon as the Amendment could be defeated (tomorrow night), the homosexual lobby will be pushing Raleigh’s lawmakers to legally recognize gay marriage, as has happened already in – I believe it’s seven states at present, with several more in a legislative/judicial limbo. I will say that we will begin hearing rumblings of this almost immediately, and within two years it will be being debated in the State House, if not passed (the gay lobby won’t take “no” for an answer if they can find a loophole anywhere).

If the Amendment is passed by the voters, then you can expect legal challenge to begin immediately.

Now. If a State recognizes gay marriage, then they must also officially begin the process of legitimating homosexuality – and that means homosexual acts. We’re seeing this now, culturally, with lawsuits against private individuals refusing to provide goods and services to gay couples, like a photographer out in the Midwest (Indiana?) who is being sued for declining the privilege of taking photos at a gay wedding. Although it’s not in the U.S., the situation of the Christian B&B owners in England who are being sued for not renting a room to a gay couple is cautionary.

Right now in Canada, priests are being charged with hate speech crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and parochial schools are being warned that they may not teach Catholic moral theology to their students, in so far as teaching that homosexuality is wrong is concerned. It will be happening in the U.S. as the movement gains a stronger toehold – if we let it.

And that means that the State – Big Brother – will be sanctioning public works, such as public school education, to brainwash our children that homosexuality is equally legitimate with heterosexuality, and will be teaching homosexuality even as they now teach techniques for using condoms and performing oral sex (bet you didn’t know that was happening, did you? But it is.) It’s happening in Vermont, now.— Right now, in our public schools, kids are hearing, receiving, and being taught information that twenty years ago would have been considered “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor” in most states’ court systems.

And there will be even stronger efforts to get States to lower the age of consent for statutory sex offenses, just as there is currently pressure by an organization called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.) to declassify pedophilia and pederasty as a psychiatric disorder (see my upcoming post on the sabotage and hijacking of the American Psychiatric Association and the declassification of homosexuality as mental illness).

Meanwhile, there will be increased pressure against homeschooling – the last bastion of religious conservatism where traditional Christian moral values are being taught by curriculum and lived out within the family structure.

Because the Enemy’s #1 weapon to kidnap our kids’ souls is the breakdown of our families. If our kids don’t see, hear and experience a reasonably healthy heterosexual love through their parents’ examples (and even a toxic marriage has to be better than no heterosexual modeling at all!) and observe our Christian moral values as something normal, integral to daily life, and joy-filled, then they’re easy prey for the pseudo-authority of government institutions.

And that, in its final analysis, will provide a new generation of beautiful boys to serve as the prey of homosexual predators. Our sons.