subbie writes me:
quote:
But the AAP study goes beyond that. It says that to deny gays the ability to enter into a marriage is harmful to children. It's not just that there's no reason not to allow gays to raise kids, it's that it's bad for kids not to allow gays to marry.
And apparently nobody at this site has a single criticism about that study.
Like I said, it's very tough for them to criticize. They're already on record as opposing "shacking up" because (gulp!) it's bad for kids. So the only issue they can take is to assert that gays are a danger to kids and thus they shouldn't be rearing them, irrespective of marital status. But how do you establish that gays are a danger to kids?
From my experience with fundies, I can tell you that almost invariably they will point to the Catholic church's child rape scandal. They will say that far more boys than girls were abused by the male priests, so that clearly most perverted priests are gay.
Laying aside the question of whether a sexual attraction to children should be considered unique and not related at all to heterosexuality or homosexuality AND laying aside the fact that these were priests who
can't marry, those priests were
not openly gay. They were openly Christian.
Just as the priesthood requires that its members be openly Christian, gay marriage requires that its participants be openly gay. So now the fundie is required to show that those who are openly gay are a danger to children while fending off charges that those who are openly Christian are the
real danger.
So I can see why they're not all over this thread.
™ Version 4.2