GOP Bill Labels All Single-Parent And All Gay Households As Child Abuse

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Yes because it's completely normal for a child to be raised in a household with two dads that sleep together and have obvious mental issues.

Try harder. How about we say something like a kid being raised in a household were the parent sleeps with a sheep is ok also, as long as the kid is happy. I mean let's call white black, and black white.

Doctor Kip where did you get your information being gay was a mental disorder?

[Dan & Jenni 457]

Doctor Kip where did you get your information being gay was a mental disorder?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Doctor Kip where did you get your information being gay was a mental disorder?

So you think two men getting it on with each other is normal?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Why_Me

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

those are the 2 most stupidest moronic statements i have ever heard in my life... your the one that obviously has mental issues... actually your hatred of gays makes me think that you probably have issues with your own sexuality.

America the land of the free... unless of course your gay and then you will be persecuted.

I have no idea of what neck of the woods your from, but around here two guys playing house with each other isn't considered normal nor is it how nature intended it to be.

[Pooky 3,791]

I have no idea of what neck of the woods your from, but around here two guys playing house with each other isn't considered normal nor is it how nature intended it to be.

Who are you to state just what nature intended?

Got an inside track on the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Pooky

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Who are you to state just what nature intended?

Got an inside track on the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a man dressing and acting like a chick while being buggered by another man isn't normal with nature. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So you think two men getting it on with each other is normal?

I think you equated gay intimacy with bestiality, which is not how most people view homosexuality. But I do wonder where you got the information, you stated as fact, homosexuality is a mental health disorder?

I would say homosexuality is the orientation of a minority of humans, so it might be fair to say the majority of people normally orient toward heterosexual. Not the pejorative 'abnormal' context you put it in. Merely numerically.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I think you equated gay intimacy with bestiality, which is not how most people view homosexuality. But I do wonder where you got the information, you stated as fact, homosexuality is a mental health disorder?

I would say homosexuality is the orientation of a minority of humans, so it might be fair to say the majority of people normally orient toward heterosexual. Not the pejorative 'abnormal' context you put it in. Merely numerically.

I don't know the proper medical name for it, and I don't know what causes it...but two men acting and dressing like women while having sex with each other is anything but normal. Nobody has to be a rocket scientist to see that.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I don't know the proper medical name for it, and I don't know what causes it...but two men acting and dressing like women while having sex with each other is anything but normal. Nobody has to be a rocket scientist to see that.

Most folks are subject to their own inner desires for what turns them on sexually and I doubt anyone would have much success explaining the bases of those desires.

[Darnell 8,478]

well, whilst he's at it [this senator] ..

Perhaps he'll add in that any children of a marital union, once the parents are divorced,

be given up to the state for adoption.

That'll erase the final loophole, yes? Children of divorced parents...

hmmmm

[Orando 57]

Most folks are subject to their own inner desires for what turns them on sexually and I doubt anyone would have much success explaining the bases of those desires.

Actually, there is much research and literature around the theme of same-sex attraction. The reasons for same-sex attraction are as varied as human beings are individually unique, but there are explanations much of which center around social, behavioral and identity development, coupled with character development and genetic predispositions.

[xebec 195]

A GOP lawmaker in Wisconsin is trying to pass a bill that would classify “non marital parenthood” as a cause of child abuse. Since gays cannot legally mary in Wisconsin, the bill automatically includes single and coupled gays and lesbians, plus any single person regardless of orientation. The bill “requir[es] the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.” Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman, who has a long history of radical positions, wants to spend tax dollars “educating” the public — with no scientific proof (because there is none) — that gays, lesbians, single mothers, and single fathers should not be allowed to be parents because their children will grow up in an abusive home.

In fact, Senator Grothman is claiming that the very lack of two married opposite sex parents in a household constitutes child abuse. Apparently, Senator Grothman believes that marriage is for procreation, and therefore only married people should be allowed to raise children.

In essence, the bill could, if it became law, be used to outlaw all gay couples raising children, and all single-parent households.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gop-bill-outlaws-all-single-parent-and-all-gay-households-as-child-abuse/politics/2012/03/02/35633

Interesting and, on the face of it, creepy as well. But dig a little deeper. The above article seems crafted to mislead the reader.

First, I see no reference to homosexuals in the actual bill. I realize that the above cited author is clearly inferring that this bill's language sweeps in homosexuals along with all other single parents. The way in which this author singled out homosexuals when many different types of people, by implication, are referenced in the bill immediately raises suspicion about the author's motivations. Turns out that Mister Fancypants has cited another gay activist website, which titled the article "gop bill outlaws all single parent and all gay households as child abuse" Wow! The bill itself actually only only establishes a program, mandatory for institutions receiving public funding, that "promot[es] statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect." The author misleadingly reinforces the perception that this bill, if it became law, would somehow directly impact single parents and homosexuals by saying "the bill could, if it became law, be used to outlaw all gay couples raising children, and all single-parent households." How is that any different than saying that a public information campaign drawing attention to the risks of eating fast food could be used to outlaw fast food? Or a public information campaign about the risks of multiple sexual partners could be used to ban premarital sex. Hmmmm....perhaps it could. Ban fever often begins with such public education. But that risk hardly prevents us, as a society, from engaging in endless public information campaigns.

That brings up another deception on the part of the author- the claim that there is "no scientific proof...that gays, lesbians, single mothers, and single fathers should not be allowed to be parents because their children will grow up in an abusive home." He left himself some wiggle room here (very crafty fellow), by using "scientific proof" instead of something the more reasonable like "substantial evidence." We hardly need such a lofty standard to "scientific proof" to begin public education campaign on other issues. Why this one? There is, in fact, substantial evidence that there is a relationship between single parent households and child abuse. (I'll refrain from referenccing political activist sites and stick to governmental resources....;-) ).

Children of single parents were at much greater risk of

abuse or neglect than were children living with both parents

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/amchild.pdf (see page 53)

The rate of child abuse in single parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, which is nearly twice the rate of child abuse in two parent households (15.5 children per 1,000).

An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:

77 percent greater risk of being physically abused

87 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect

165 percent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect

74 percent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect

80 percent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse

120 percent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

Additionally, the language of the bill says "In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." The above cited author says: "In fact, Senator Grothman is claiming that the very lack of two married opposite sex parents in a household constitutes child abuse." Not exactly an accurate characterization....

Seems like this author has an axe to grind.

Since we love to "educate the public" about a whole variety of issues, especially those concerning the safety and welfare of children, why is this particular bill getting such negative attention? The federal government affirms the basic premise of this bill. I'm betting this is a political correctness reaction.

Edited March 4, 2012 by xebec

[one...two...tree 2,762]

xebec, that senator was targeting homosexual couples who wish to adopt. Just because the bill was crafted in a way that doesn't directly mention homosexual parents, that was his intention.

[Pooky 3,791]

xebec, that senator was targeting homosexual couples who wish to adopt. Just because the bill was crafted in a way that doesn't directly mention homosexual parents, that was his intention.

That's your interpretation.

I have a far greater problem with his neanderthal lumping in together of sets of parental dynamics, regardless of circumstances. I seriously doubt he was restricting his focus to same-sex couples. His kind has a beef with any family situation that deviates from his view of the accepted norm.

This kind of idiot has no appreciation that "normal" parental dynamics can be abusive in the extreme, whereas single parent and same sex parents can provide the safest, most stable homes possible. He is blind to any kind of different.

[xebec 195]

xebec, that senator was targeting homosexual couples who wish to adopt. Just because the bill was crafted in a way that doesn't directly mention homosexual parents, that was his intention.

Maybe that was his intention, but I'm not sure how you know that. In the final wash, however, nobody is "targeted" because the law this bill would produce in no way affects the status of gay marriage, adoption, or anything else. It doesn't affect the rights and privileges of anyone. I think I demonstrated the intentional deception contained in the article. If this bill is so draconian, why write in a deceptive way? All that can be read in the bill itself (not assumed because of some belief about the author of the bill) is that some legislators think that the evidence (supported unequivocally by Federal authorities on the matter) merits a public awareness campaign. By your reasoning, and the reasoning of the author of your cited article, fat people are "targeted" by public awareness of fast food, gun owners are "targeted" by public awareness of gun safety, and people who drink alcohol are "targeted" by public awareness of the dangers of drunk driving.

You are confirming my point that this is about political correctness. It seems ok to launch information campaigns that may offend fat people, gun owners, and drinkers, but the minute any person who identifies themselves with a "minority" political activist group is offended, all hell breaks loose.