Why Does Tony Perkins Even Bother Going on TV…?

Tony Perkins, the head Christian at the Family Research Council, made news this week when he appeared on Piers Morgan‘s show and said this incredibly stupid thing:

Morgan: You have five kids, right?

Perkins: Yes, I do.

Morgan: What would you do if one of them came home and said, dad, I’m gay?

Perkins: Well, we would have a conversation about it. I doubt that would happen with my children, as we are teaching them the right ways that they are to interact as human beings.

In other words, his kids wouldn’t turn out gay because he raised them “right.”

Chris Matthews invited Perkins on Hardball to elaborate on the comment… and, for some reason, Perkins accepted. Barney Frank was there, too, and both he and Matthews went off on Perkins for 15 glorious minutes:

When Barney Frank is defending Dick Cheney for any reason, you know it’s a good one… the entire clip makes you wonder why Christian leaders don’t just stick their usual one-direction-only method of conversation. Whenever they allow themselves to be fact-checked, their arguments are torn apart.

One of Perkins’ arguments is that children are better off raised by a mother and father and studies have shown that. GLAAD points out that those studies only compare two-parent homes to single-parent homes:

No study has ever found any differences between kids raised in straight two-parent homes and kids raised in gay two-parent homes.”

To add insult to injury, Lawrence O’Donnell took Perkins to task for suggesting there has only been one definition of marriage throughout mankind’s 5,000-year history (wait, what?):

I don’t know why Perkins agrees to go on national TV to defend bigotry but I hope he keeps doing it. He makes Christians look bad, he makes Christian values seem outdated and immoral, and he makes it a lot easier for people to realize Christians are flat-out wrong when it comes to social issues.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • ScarabDrowner

    He probably does it for the same reason some atheists prefer to debate in public: while you may not convince your opponent, you’re more likely to convince someone in the audience.

  • DG

    I wonder what an openly gay, liberal atheist would say if one of his or her children said they simply couldn’t accept non-heterosexuality as normal.  Oh, and I’m always amazed at all the research.  From the 70s through the 90s, the research showed that children did best with a male and female presence in the household.  Of course the main problem being addressed was the growing divorce rate and those rascally delinquent dads.  Now, I guess, not having a dad around is no big thing, so I guess that research I learned about in college was actually wrong.  Thank goodness all those researchers have finally gotten it right. 

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

       Most likely they’d have a chat with their child about statistics, biodiversity, homosexual behavior in other species, and the utter uselessness of the word “normal” is describing any human behavior.

      Not sure what your comments about single-parent households have to do with anything.   Plenty of dads are indeed rascally and delinquent.  Women raising  children on their own are coping, many of them very well.  Maybe you’d like to go read studies that show that children do better in single-parent homes than in homes where the parents can’t stand each other.

      • DG

        If there’s no such thing as normal, then couldn’t we argue that not accepting homosexual behavior is neither normal nor abnormal? 

        Oh, I have no doubt that research now shows anything anyone wants to do about raising children is all the rage.  But it wasn’t.  In the 70s and 80s, and even up to a decade or so ago, research overwhelmingly stated the need for both ‘biological parents’ to be present for the sake of the kids.  Now, either they were wrong then, or they are wrong now.  And if so many were so wrong for so long then, how can we be sure they are so right now (apart from them telling us what we want to hear)?

        • Coyotenose

           Please stop trying to be deceptive. You know damn well that bigotry is harmful. “Normal” isn’t a factor here.

          • DG

            The comment said there was no such thing as normal.  Harmful wasn’t brought up.  If we want to get into harmful acts and attitudes and behaviors, by all means.  But since the statement was that there is no normal, I thought we could address why such sweeping statements do no good. Thank you for demonstrating.

            • amycas

              There is no “normal” behavior, but there is a regression to the mean. There’s a difference.

            • Coyotenose

               You’re trying to conflate whether something is “normal” with whether it is “harmful” by implication.  You’re trying to play semantics games to justify bigotry.

              What I demonstrated is that you aren’t arguing honestly, thanks. You’re one of those who will say anything at the moment if you think it “wins”.

            • Patterrssonn

              I think you’re problem DG, is that as a person whose identity is based on magical thinking, the whole idea of research advancing human knowledge is anathema to you.  You’re posts reflect you’re inability to see anything except through a haze of wishful thinking and bigotry (as evidenced through your weird and creepy comments about gay sex in an earlier posting).

        • Stev84

          You’re either a complete moron or a liar. Considering your history here, very likely both.

          Those studies didn’t even consider same-sex parents. The advantage of “biological parents” refers to two parents vs. a single parent after a breakup or possible also to step-parents in a new relationship later.

          What you’re trying to pull here is a standard tactic by anti-gay groups. It’s extremely transparent

          • DG

            Actually, the advantages were often uniquely attributed to the characteristics of two biological parents.  It wasn’t always one or the other.  And, for that matter, as the 90s progressed, some studies attempted to show neither was better than the other.  Just as the studies now are saying the same about gender.  My point: how do we know they are right this time?
            Oh, and I’m merely trying to figure out why, if old studies are so irrelevant to today, why trust those today?  And trying, I might add, without provoking the o, so common atheist response of ‘yell, scream, stomp feet, cuss, and use insults more suited to a child who has yet to hit puberty.’

            • Deven_Kale

               I find it very interesting that, while the majority of the responses given to you on this board are generally well-worded and even toned, you insist on stating that the majority of those writing them are like “a child who has yet to hit puberty.”

              If that is really the way you see children who are yet to hit puberty, then the children that you interact with on a daily basis are highly unusual in their advanced critical thinking, conversational, and debating skills.

        • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

           You may need to double-check your “research.” Alternatively, you could stop pretending to care about such things.

    • Neil

      I’m not sure what research you’re referring to here. The research that compares the well-being of children raised by same-sex households with opposite-sex ones shows no significant difference in outcomes. In fact, some studies show kids do slightly better. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

      I did find a study that looks back at academic literature from the 70s onwards but that concluded that the children are no worse off for being raised by same-sex parents. http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/inetshare/autowebs/kimt/aw%20articles/children%20of%20lesbian%20and%20gay%20parents.pdf

      You must be thinking of those studies only compare two-parent homes to single-parent homes, you know, the ones you talk about where there’s no Dad around, the ones that have nothing to say about two Dads or two Mums.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      DG, research is usually not misleading in and of itself. Most often research is misused by people who negligently or deliberately misrepresent the findings by not clearly describing what the research was comparing. The research compares A to B, but people try to say that it was comparing A to C.

      For instance, your own statement does this.  Studies in the ’70′s through the ’90′s that showed that kids do better with “a male and female presence in the household” were comparing them to kids with single parents, male or female, NOT comparing them to kids with two parents of the same sex. 

      You either negligently or deliberately left that out,  leaving the impression that it is the maleness and femaleness of the two parent heterosexual household that makes it beneficial.  That was not what was measured.  Comparing A to B does not compare A to C.

      More recent studies directly comparing kids raised by two parents of opposite sex and kids raised by two parents of the same sex show no difference in their well being or their ability to succeed.
      http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents
      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html

      • Stev84

        This is the longest continuously running study on the subject:
        http://www.nllfs.org/

        It has been going on since 1986. The sample size is relatively small, but there other studies dating back to the 80s

        • DG

          That’s because it was almost a non-issue before that time.  And of course,, that’s the point.  We can’t logically say there is not any long term side effects, can we?  After all, if gay couples had babies in 1986, then today those children would be in their mid-20s at the oldest.  The best we can say is that research suggests, based on very limited samples by definition, that there appears to be nothing wrong with young adults who were raised in same sex households.  Most studies, of course, didn’t begin in earnest until the 90s, making the sampling much younger.  So that’s really all that can be said: Based on the small numbers available, there is no reason to think that it has a negative impact on people by their early 20s. Anything else is, by reason of reality, not available. 

          • Stev84

            Yes we know. The sky is going to fall any day now… Always the same with your ilk

            There are older children raised by same-sex parents. The 80s is when gay couples started to have planned children. They’ve had children before through marriages with opposite sex partners that eventually failed. Efforts by gay parents to retain custody of such children date back to the late 70s. Those children are parents themselves these days

            Also, there are several million children raised by same sex couples.

            • DG

              Of course there are, but not enough to really get a hold on things.  You can’t look at such a small number and really conclude anything definite – that’s well known to everyone.  In various cases, it happened.  But not enough until recently to have numbers to really work with. 

              Now, of course, the numbers of children being raised by same sex couples are growing.  I didn’t say otherwise.  But since most of these children are still that, or are young adults at best, there can be no long term studies by default.  I mean, that’s just the way it is. 
              Oh, and I mentioned nothing about skies falling.  If you could quote me where I said they were, I would be happy to concede my error. 

          • Ken

            What, really, is your point here?  Are you claiming that all knowledge has already been achieved, and that there is no possibility that we are continuing to learn new things.  Just because old studies came to conclusions based upon the questions of their day, are we to stop asking questions?  The older studies did not really address the idea of a gay couple raising kids– it wasn’t a practical consideration at the time.  Now it is, so new questions will lead to completely new and different answers.  Conflating two such studies is dishonest.  No one is suggesting the older studies were wrong in their day, but they are not carved in stone because people are not stone; they change grow and learn and adapt.  So, no, what you learned in the past is simply not true any more, and you need not feel cheated somehow.  You could celebrate learning something new, appreciating that you are not condemned to live as your medieval ancestors did, trapped in stasis for generations. Or you can take the old fart position, that things were better in the past, when one could count on social boundaries to keep people in their places. But, to quote Henry Fonda in My Name is Nobody, “there never were any good old days.”

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              DG’s ‘point’ is that gay marriage contravenes God’s law, so no matter how much evidence you have, he’s never going to budge.  He has too much invested in his book.  It can’t be wrong or the foundation of his life would be wrong.

              If I’m not mistaken, he’s the one who is convinced that homosexuality is a choice because otherwise it would be the only abomination to not be a choice.

              2+2=5.

          • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

            Gay couples had babies in the 1970s, too. My brother and I were two of them. You do know that there’s over 40 years of research on children of gay and lesbian parents? But of course no amount of research will sufice because you’ll just keep moving the goalposts. If your mind is already made up, no amount of evidence will convince you, and I think it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

      • Coyotenose

         Considering past threads explaining the subject, his own comment history, and the fact that his entire complaint is actually addressed in the short blog post, my money is on “deliberately”. As in “lying like Fundies always have to do in order to have an argument.”

      • DG

        I’ve not left it out at all.  My point is, for several decades, we were told (and learned in school and college, if folks are from the 80s they’ll remember the old psychology of education texts), that children needed both biological parents.  That was the best they could have.  Everything else was a step down.  Now, they were either wrong then, or they are wrong now.  The sudden appearance of gay parents shouldn’t change the benefits that were promoted regarding both biological parents.  But suddenly, we hear nothing  at all.  Suddenly it’s as if those decades of news stories and articles in text books never happened.  Not saying that some beliefs or fears about gay parents can’t be proven wrong.  But the benefits of ‘both biological parents’, that were emphasized again, and again, and again for decades certainly can’t have vanished.  And if they say the research was wrong then, how do we know it’s right now? That’s sort of my point.

        Oh, and nothing takes the wind out of one’s confidence in the ‘latest’ research about raising kids than having kids almost 16 years apart.  More than half the things they said kids needed when my oldest was born, they changed by the time my middle sons came along, but half of those are back with our youngest (while other things that were supposed to warp and kill our oldest kid in the 90s are now needed by our youngest).  Go figure.

        • Stev84

          Just shut your fucking pie hole and give it up.

          Your’re again referring to studies that compare two-parent households to single-parent households (or blended families with step parents). That’s NOT relevant. You can’t compare a single parent or parents breaking up to a family with two same-sex parents

          • DG

            Of course you can.  And it was done plenty.  As the 90s grew, more studies came out to say that single parents (particularly Moms) were just as capable of raising children as two biological.  Were they wrong then?  And again, if they were so wrong so badly, how do we know any study is right?  I mean, if so much of this is treated as ‘research obviously proves…’ then I think it’s worth asking some questions.  As skeptics about things, certainly we don’t just take at face value whatever the latest research happens to say, especially if we can show how such research in the past was later shown to be flawed.  And FWIW, the research didn’t just say ‘two parents better than one’, but it pointed to things that were beneficial for children that were unique to two biological parents.  Those would have to still be present, wouldn’t you think?

            • amycas

              Why does it have to be their biological parents? What if their biological parents are abusive fucks? Wouldn’t they be better off with a loving same-sex couple? Wouldn’t you think that people who have fought fortheir children (through adoption for example) and extensively planned for their children would be better parents than a man andwoman who happened to have sex onenight? Are you saying adopted children would have been better off staying with the parents who gave them up for adoption?

            • Ibis3

              Hasn’t it occurred to you that “what’s best” (not to mention the range between best and worst) might have changed over time as society has changed? At one time the wage gap between the sexes was greater, women less educated, there were fewer single dads, fewer options for child care. There were social stigmas attached to being a child of divorced or single parents, or even blended families or adopted kids and on and on. In such a society, it makes sense that kids raised in a house with two biological parents (one being a well-off, stably employed man) would generally have more advantages than those in most single parent households. We need to keep doing this kind of research because society isn’t static.

    • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

      The research you allude to (vaguely) could be “right” or “wrong”, especially since you chose not to cite it.  The important thing to remember is that it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  We’re not discussing the ideal parenting arrangement.  We’re discussing the minimum requirements for legal marriage.  

      The question is not whether two moms or two dads is the ideal parenting team.  The question is whether there is enough reason to deny two men or two women the legal sanction of marriage, and the burden is on those who insist that the reason exists to show it to the rest of us, not the other way around.  The default is and should be free association among free individuals; the default does not require special justifications.  Rather, infringements on the free association of free individuals should be viewed skeptically and justification demanded for them.

      • DG

        To cite it?  What, am I dealing with nobody older than 25 here?  That’s like asking me to cite proof that there was a Cold War.  It was as commonly taught through media and educational circles as, well, the normalcy of homosexuality is today.  Oh, and the question for the sake of the kids has always to be what is ideal.  Or at least it should be.  Should less than ideal be the basis for saying this or that person can’t raise kids?  Not for several decades now.  And sometimes, maybe never.  But the question should always be: what’s ideal for the kids.

        • Pajas

          So if there’s a study that shows that kids growing up with red-headed parents are worse off than kids growing up with non red-headed parents, you’d want what’s ideal, and not let red-headed people adopt?

          oh, and you can replace red-headed with just about anything… such as poor, uneducated, intelligent, unintelligent, geeky, tall, short etc..

          • amycas

            I resemble that remark*

            *I’m a redhead

        • Glasofruix

           If you make claims you better have some proof, that’s how the adult world works, you’re acting like a kid there, not us.

        • Patterrssonn

          ” But the question should always be: what’s ideal for the kids.”

          Yes but I think christians should still be allowed to raise children, despite the often horrendous level of abuse children receive in these households, especially if the child is gay or in any way rational.

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          The question is same-sex marriage, not same-sex parenting.

          Gay and lesbian couples have children regardless of whether you think it is is ideal. Is banning those couples from marriage in the best interests of their children?

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      DG, I was raised by two lesbian moms. I have never met someone born to same-sex parents who said they “simply couldn’t accept” homosexuality as normal. Here’s the funny thing: children aren’t born homophobic. Babies don’t come into the world with prejudice in their hearts. Toddlers don’t care about sexual orientation. Having two moms or two dads does not seem the least bit strange/wrong/abnormal to children unless they are specifically taught  to believe that it is a bad thing. If they don’t undergo that sort of indoctrination, why on earth would they have a problem with it?

  • Gaby A.

    Tony Perkins gives me gas…

  • Gaby A.

    Okay, now for something more substantial than my previous swipe at Tony Perkins (had to get that one out of the way).  Is there ANY objection to same-sex marriage out there that is not rooted in religion somehow?  For example, have any eminent biologists or anthropologists come out with any studies or opinions saying same-sex marriage is not something to condone?

    • Coyotenose

       Nope, not a one. The closest they come is lying about science, like DG does above. Or hyucking man-child Rand Paul, who tried to ape scientific trappings yesterday:

      “Just from an anthropological point of view, the family is a really important thing. We shouldn’t just give up on it.”

      The first sentence has no relation to the controversy (he’s just trying to sound smart, and failing), and the second is a strawman. Y’know, another lie.

      • Gaby A.

        I’m surprised about Rand Paul, and by extension, his dad (I’m assuming they’re the same political persuasion).  Aren’t they for the most part free market libertarians, or heavily influenced by Ayn Rand and Objectivism?

        • Stev84

          They are nothing but anarcho capitalists. Their social ideas are an outgrowth of that. Rand Paul thinks businesses should be able to do anything they want without restrictions. That includes discriminating against anyone for any reason. Which is why he is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/05/19/98217/paul-civil-rights/

          • Gaby A.

            Considering there are a disproportionately larger percentage of gay couples with kids vs. without, meaning more disposable income, there’s a lot of spending power in encouraging same-sex unions, just from a free market standpoint.

            • Coyotenose

               Which is one reason why the Pauls’ supposed position is a sham.

              Ron Paul actually has no problem with inflicting bigotry and racism on others. He has no problem with the government telling you what to do with your body. He just doesn’t want the FEDERAL government doing it. His voting records and statements show that he is fine with state and local governments instituting misogyny and hate and allowing de facto Segregation.

              Keep in mind that Atlas Shrugged is bad, bad, bad science fiction about elitist assholes who think no one can get along without their genius, and thus they have the right to be assholes to everyone. And they’re treated as the serious heroes. THAT’S Ayn Rand’s position, and that is the philosophy that led to the naming of Rand Paul.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                All correct, except that Rand wasn’t named after Ayn Rand.  At least that’s what the family claims, and I have no reason to not believe them on that particular point.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1153076925 Frank Lazar

          From what I’ve seen,  carrying the Libertarian card does not seem to convey any less susceptibility to class based prejudice.  Libertarianism basically harks back to the days of Gilded Age capitalism, when it was considered fit and proper to be a robber baron, frequently redeeming yourself by sponsoring huge ego-driven cultural edifices with your family name on them and passing them off as expressions of “giving back to the community.”

    • http://stochasticscientist.blogspot.com/ KathyO

      The only scenario that I could imagine where that would be the case is if there were so few humans that every fertile adult was needed to reproduce. But even in that unlikely scenario people could still marry whomever they wished, they just might be required to have sex with someone else.

      • Stev84

        Or use artificial reproduction technology

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          Yes, and that’s quite easy. If there was a drastic population problem, there’s no reason that gay men and lesbians couldn’t conceive children while in same-sex relationships. All it takes is two fertile people, some sperm in a jar, and a syringe. No sex or doctors or technology necessary.

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        This is not unlike the situation in Greek and early Roman times. People (citizens) were generally expected to enter into some sort of legal opposite sex marriage for the purpose of producing children and politically and economically binding families. It was understood that these marriages had nothing to do with either love or non-procreational sex. For those, there were fully condoned “mistress” type relationships, which could be either same-sex or opposite-sex. These relationships could have legal status, in that the partners (usually one partner) would have financial or other obligations to each other.

    • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

      I’ve heard some claims by psychologists who cite old data from studies that measure irrelevant things, and then they try to imply that it proves that same sex marriages are bad. (See my reply to DG above.) I’ve heard some people making dire predictions that are couched in the jargon of sociology, but they offer no citations to relevant research or data.  They just pretend to be coming from a “scientific” perspective. Often under the white lab coat you’ll find a preacher’s black suit.

      When you find out who these people work for, often it’s an organization with the word “Family” in its name, and  you’ll often find they are funded by people with strong religious agendas. 

      The scary psychological and sociological scenarios used to oppose same sex marriage are essentially the same ones that were used to oppose mixed race marriages a couple of generations ago.

      One easy way to refute the predictions of everything from increased rates of crime, insanity and disease, to the collapse of civilization itself is to point out the several countries and states that have permitted same sex marriage for many years, and none of those terrible things are happening. Then ask the people who warn us of these disasters how long is a fair amount of time to wait, even for a hint that bad things are happening?

      They usually pretend they didn’t hear you.

      • amycas

        Often times they will lie and say those bad things are happening. Such as what’s-his-name* who created a shit-storm by claiming that homosexual marriages were the reason for the birth decline in Europe**

        *he’s a psychologist, i just can’t be botheredto google his name right now. That’s how inconsequential his research was.

        **as it turns out, birth rates had been declining for decades and gay marriagehad nothing to do with it. And in some countries there was no birth decline, he simply lied.

      • Glasofruix

        Yep experienced that first hand… I live in Belgium where gay marriages are legal, and yet no divine retributions, plagues or whatever end of the world scenarios have happened.

    • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

       One gets the usual “it’s unnatural’ bunk, but that usually relies on such a pathetically unexamined idea of what natural would mean that you can’t help wondering what the REAL reason is.

    • AxeGrrl

      Every ‘argument’ i’ve ever heard against same sex marriage boils down to one thing (after you strip away the faux justifications):

      if we let those people into our club, how will we be able to feel superior?’

  • Thomas Farrell


    No study has ever found any differences between kids raised in straight two-parent homes and kids raised in gay two-parent homes.”

    Actually that’s not true. There has been one study on the topic, and it showed that gay couples make superior parents, with lesbian couples being the best parents of all. But being modest people we don’t rub it in a lot, so it’s unsurprising it got less than a desirable amount of exposure.

  • Rwlawoffice

    Ok I am not trying to start a war here, this is a legitimate question.  In the video clip responding to Tony Perkins, the examples given were polygamy, one man and many women.  There was not given an example of marriage ever being defined in history as same sex.  Is anyone aware of there being a time in history where marriage was defined to include same sex?

    • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

      Both the Greeks and the Persians recognized legal unions between partners of the same sex. Normally, these were parallel with opposite sex unions- the latter for the purpose of establishing inheritance rights, the former for love. There’s also good evidence that the early Catholic church allowed same-sex marriages.

      • Stev84

        Some southern Chinese provinces too for a certain time.

        Also look at the North American Two Spirit concept or African “female husbands” for a concept that allows same-sex unions by allowing one partner to assume another gender identity.

      • Mitch W.

        When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite 
        http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

      • Ibis3

        If I recall correctly, there are also Roman examples.

        But part of me wonders why it should matter what ancient societies did when we’re talking about modern society in which marriage is a voluntary legal and economic arrangement between two consenting adults based on a desire to commit to stay together as a couple. We  no longer have to concern ourselves with issues of involuntary reproduction (at least those of us living in places with free access to contraception and abortion), social stigmas against illegitimacy, questions of paternity (due to DNA testing), inheritance of property (since we can make voluntary wills), arranged marriages to cement political bonds between families (at least most of us don’t have to deal with this) etc. What the ancients did with their marriage laws were done with all of those circumstances in play. Since marriage doesn’t concern  those things any longer, the “definition” has already changed. The people fighting against that are about a century or so (or more) too late.

        • Mitch W.

          And also, I’ve more than once heard Christians proclaim that is was all that immoral man sex going on in ancient Rome which angered god, who in turn caused the collapse of the Roman empire.  So you see, it proves that gay marriage will cause the collapse of the US of A (Greatest Country in the History of Humanity (™)). QED.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Christianity recognized same sex marriages for awhile, before it become “icky.”

      http://web.archive.org/web/20080827001956/http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html 

      • Rwlawoffice

         Thank you.  I read in your link and did some checking into Professor Boswell’s research.   After doing some research I found this article in rebuttal of his findings.  I understand it comes from a professor of theology (Ancient Christian studies) but it does have what appear to be legitimate questions about his research. It appears, at least according to her that Boswell is turning a recognized non sexual adoption of brothers and sisters into what he calls a sanctions gay marriage.

        http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0069.html

        Before you simply attack this author’s research as being biased, remember that Professor Boswell was the professor of Gay and Lesbian studies at Yale and and a very vocal Gay activist. I am not saying this de-legitimizes his research but it should be kept in the context of his presuppositions just as you would apply to her.

         If there is other research out there reaching the same conclusion I would like to see it.

  • http://dogmaybes.com/ C Peterson

    The child of a gay, liberal atheist would be incredibly unlikely to develop that viewpoint, and if they did, it would most likely indicate either some sort of mental illness, or rebellion against some very bad parenting.

    Irrationality is usually instilled in childhood. If it isn’t (and the parent you propose would be unlikely to do that), it will probably not ever develop.

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    Please don’t encourage DG like that.  Being a person of principle and strict consistency, he’ll almost certainly begin agitating against my right to be married to my wife.  It’s even worse because we’re raising three boys.  Two of them are teenagers, and as long as we’re being honest here, I have to admit I myself have often wondered whether we have any idea what we’re doing.
    Foisting them off on a nice lesbian couple had not occurred to me.  But then, dropping two teenaged boys off to be raised for three more years probably counts as a hate crime. If it doesn’t, it should.

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    Still irrelevant because you’re still not posting it in a discussion of ideal parental configurations. 

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

    The man is an idiot and a liar.  No doubt, he has found Jesus a useful accomplice.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MH36P22OA657FHV7YLY4Q7LTA4 jason

    When he says ”
    I doubt that would happen with my children, as we are teaching them the right ways that they are to interact as human beings,” 
    he probably means they wouldn’t tell him if they were gay, because he has taught them that the right way to interact with Tony Perkins is to ignore him.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Children are better off raised by a mother and father and four grand parents and assorted aunts, uncles and cousins.  Too bad western society has left that model.

    • amycas

      I have a mother, a father, a stepfather and a woman I refer to as “my dad’s wife.” Does that not fit the model??

    • Guest

      I would prefer to be raised by loving caretakers – regardless of their sex.  I was raised in your “traditional model” and it was horrific.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        To clarify, I’m being a little facetious here.  The idea that there is an ideal to be ‘encouraged’ is silly.  I do think there’s a tremendous advantage to having more of the village involved.  It’s hard enough with two parents, doing it solo would be really tough.  And having the help of other (and yes, caring) family and friends can only help.

        • amycas

          Based on previous discussions with you and all your previous comments on this topic, I assumed you were being facetious. :-)

    • Stev84

      For most of history, children were probably raised in some kind of communal setting by extended and neighboring families. The fathers were away to work, hunt or make war, while the women tended to some of the fields and worked in the house, while raising the children. That was very much a team effort between many people in the village.

      It’s only the industrial revolution that made the vaunted “nuclear family” possible. Before that a single income wasn’t enough to sustain a family. So this sacred ideal is really a very, very recent thing. And that mythological 50s family never really exited in the first place.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1153076925 Frank Lazar

       It left that model because the modality for executive and upper middle class corporate success was mobility.  My inlaws who were corporate execs at AT&T relocated about half a dozen times during my spouse’s childhood years.  “As soon as my dad completed his first house improvement.”  That’s not exactly conversant with multi-generational households.

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    Perkins had better hope none of his kids is gay (although at five of them, he’s starting to push his luck in that regard). Because gay kids in a house like his end up conflicted between an artificial reality and their innate nature. The kind of kids who turn into Ted Haggards and his like: screwed up folks who embarrass themselves, their communities, and generally live damaged lives. Very sad.

  • JoeBuddha

    Somewhat OT, but “single parent” doesn’t necessarily mean “single mother”. There are fewer of us single fathers out there, but we DO exist. Honestly!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X