Tag Archives: GLBT

News

Are gay relationships more stable than straight ones?

4 Comments
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are going to take a look at the data
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are going to take a look at the data

Let’s look at this post from The Public Discourse and see if gay relationships are as stable, or even more stable, than straight ones.

Excerpt:

The [NFSS] study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples.[3] A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”[4] such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.[5]

This paper from the Family Research Council makes the same point:

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this “snapshot in time” is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”[5]

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[6]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[7]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

It’s a Grindr lifestyle. And it’s not a good environment for meeting the needs of children. (Example)

There is one study (Rosenfeld, 2014) that tries to argue against the conclusion of all these other studies, and the problems with it are discussed in this post.

The right way to think about gay marriage is to think about it as an extension of no-fault divorce. The same feminists and leftists who pushed for the legalization of no-fault divorce told us back then that the children would be fine, that children are resilient. No-fault divorce was a change in the definition of marriage. The leftists said that divorce would never become widespread, and that it would not harm children in any way. It was all a pack of lies. If the practices of the gay lifestyle become conflated with marriage, then marriage will come to denote relationships engaged in for “love” not children, such that unchastity, infidelity, increased domestic violence and frequent break-ups are incorporated back into the definition of marriage. Marriage is about permanence, exclusivity and building an environment that can welcome children and supply for their needs. It’s not about government giving people respect for their romantic feelings. Those are volatile. What government ought to be rewarding is lifelong commitment.

News

How would the Democrats’ “Equality Act” affect Christians and conservatives?

24 Comments
21 states have SOGI anti-discrimination laws
21 states have SOGI anti-discrimination laws

I’m following this Equality Act legislation as it moves through the House of Representatives. The bill would prohibit individuals and businesses from discriminating by sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). These SOGI laws already exist at the state level, in places where Christians are being sued and coerced to affirm and celebrate gay rights.

Here is a good article from The Stream, explaining 7 ways that the law would affect you:

  1. It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.
  2. It would compel speech.
  3. It could shut down charities.
  4. It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.
  5. It could be used to coerce medical professionals.
  6. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.
  7. It would enable sexual assault.

Let’s take a quick look at some examples of these changes already in progress.

I’m not covering #1, because everyone knows about the case against the Washington state florist, and the case against the Colorado baker and the case against the New Mexico wedding photographers.

For #2, here’s an example:

Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming lost his job for something he did not say.

A county school board voted unanimously to fire the veteran teacher over the objections of his students after he refused to comply with administrators’ orders to use masculine pronouns in referring to a female student who identifies as transgender.

If this goes national, I could get into the same sort of trouble at work for misgendering a co-worker or a customer.

For #3, I’d already heard about how foster parent and adoption agencies in some SOGI anti-discrimination states shut down because they couldn’t place children in traditional-marriage homes.

Here’s a different example:

In Anchorage, Alaska, a biological male born Timothy Paul Coyle goes by the name of Samantha Amanda Coyle. On two occasions, Coyle tried to gain access to the city’s Downtown Soup Kitchen Hope Center, a shelter for homeless, abused, and trafficked women.

In one attempt, authorities said, Coyle was inebriated and had gotten into a fight with a staffer at another shelter, so Hope Center staff paid Coyle’s fare to the emergency room to receive medical attention. Coyle sued the center for “gender identity discrimination.”

If thise goes national, you can expect that any social services organization would be charged with discrimination for any attempt to separate out men from women in bathrooms, showers, sleeping ares, etc.

For #4, we know already that biological males are identifying as women, and now biological women are unable to compete with them to win any prizes.

Here’s an example of #5, where medical professionals can be coerced to perform sex-change surgeries:

Under state sexual orientation and gender identity laws, individuals who identify as transgender have sued Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who wanted to pursue gender transition.

For #6, I’ve blogged recently about how Canada allows the government to seize children from parents who disagree with gay rights and transgender transitioning.

But it happens in the USA, too:

In Ohio, a judge removed a biological girl from her parents’ custody after they declined to help her “transition” to male with testosterone supplements.

After the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital’s Transgender Health Clinic recommended these treatments for the girl’s gender dysphoria, the parents wanted to pursue counseling instead. Then the county’s family services agency charged the parents with abuse and neglect, and the judge terminated their custody.

Similar cases are proceeding through the courts with children as young as 6 years old.

And for number #7, I’ve blogged before about sexual assaults in bathrooms and other places by transgender women (biological men).

Here’s an example:

A complaint under investigation by federal education officials alleges that a boy who identifies as “gender fluid” at Oakhurst Elementary School in Decatur, Georgia, sexually assaulted Pascha Thomas’ 5-year-old daughter in a girls’ restroom. The boy had access to the girls’ restroom because of Decatur City Schools’ transgender restroom policy.

School authorities refused to change the policy even after Thomas reported the assault. Eventually, she decided to remove her daughter from school for the girl’s emotional well-being and physical safety.

As in all the examples mentioned, if the Equality Act became law, like the Democrats want it to, then any of these things could happen to you, if you decline to celebrate or participate in the gay agenda.

Although the Constitution lays out rights, those rights don’t matter to Democrats, your exercise of those rights makes people engaged in LGBT lifestyles feel unhappy. Their unhappy feelings trump your Constitution rights. At least that’s the case if the Democrats pass their bills, and appoint their judges to the courts.

News

Transgender woman gets light sentence for attempted axe murder of three

10 Comments
Guns are banned in Australia, so there was no chance of self-defense
The attacker (pictured above) had never met any of the three victims

This story out of Australia is about a very controversial topic. Basically, a biological man pleaded not guilty because of insanity, after attacking three random people with an axe. Please be careful with your comments as well, as big technology companies censor anything written about transgenderism.

Australia News reported: (WARNING: article has graphic photos of one of the victims)

Transgender Amati, a trade union organiser, went prowling with the axe after storming out of a disastrous Tinder date hours earlier.

She was dosed up on psychedelic “love drug” MDA, antidepressants, cannabis, vodka and transgender hormones, the court heard.

Just after 1am she wrote online: “One day I am going to kill a lot of people”, and sent a message to one of the women she had been on a date with saying: “Most people deserve to die, I hate people”.

She listened to the dark-themed song Flatline by US metal band Periphery and changed her Facebook status to: “Humans are only able to destroy, to hate, so that is what I shall do.”

After doing a lap of the shop and attacking Ben she swung the axe at Sharon, who was at the counter buying milk.

Amati tried to hit her a second time as she lay sprawled on the ground but narrowly missed.

CCTV showed her then calmly walking away across the forecourt.

She also tried to kill a homeless man nearby, then feigned unconsciousness when cops tracked her down in the front garden of a house.

Her police interview hours after the bloody rampage showed her coldly refusing to answer questions.

In a steady voice, Amati says over and over: “I respectfully choose to exercise my right to remain silent”.

Her lawyers tried to claim insanity but that was rejected by the jury.

While on remand she spent time in three women’s jails where she bullied other inmates, reports news.com.au.

The Australia News article was one of the only ones to provide details of the injuries, and the impact to the victims.

Let’s look at the first victim:

A court heard the blade missed his brain by millimetres as it sliced through his nose and eye socket.

Plastic surgeons rebuilt his face with four titanium plates. He can feel the one round his eye moving under his skin when he touches it.

Ben, whose wife was pregnant, did not want cops to tell her what happened but later spoke to her by phone from hospital.

He was vomiting blood that was pouring down his throat from his mangled nose.

Ben spoke out today two years on from the January 2017 horror in Sydney, Australia, to hit out at Amati’s sentence.

He said she was “calculating” and “not remorseful”, adding: “She’ll do her time easily and get paroled in mid-2021. It’s played out perfectly for her, perhaps better than she expected.”

The attacker received a sentence far below standard:

Amati was handed a sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of 4½ years after being convicted of three counts of attempted murder.

A petition demanding a tougher sentence says the standard penalty for attempted murder is ten years without parole.

So the standard sentence is ten years without parole, and this person will serve less than half the minimum sentence prescribed by law. How did that happen? Who knows. The light sentence for this attacker certainly won’t deter any similar future attacks, which is bad for the future victims of similar attacks.

Also interesting is that carrying a defensive weapon of any kind is prohibited in Australia. So the victims were defenseless. They just had to call the police while bleeding out, and wait for them to arrive. If the victims had tried to defend themselves with a defensive weapon, they would have been arrested, and charged with a crime.

The Australia Telegraph explains:

Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.

[…]Prohibited self-defence items include pepper sprays, mace, clubs and personal Tasers. In some States carrying a pocketknife is ­illegal and even wearing a bulletproof vest is banned.

It was interesting to read reader comments about the attack, too. When I read the story on the radically leftist Buzz Feed, I noticed in the comments how one transgender person said that the victims of the attack were “OK”. A commenter replied and said that the victims were not “OK”. This comment – that the victims were not OK – was met with multiple responses claiming that the commenter was “transphobic” and “hateful” and unable to “understand words with more than 4 letters in them.” I thought that was interesting.