MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine on MSNBC: Homosexuals Advance Breakup of Childless Families
MSNBCThe homosexual lobby group PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is pushing legislation to dissolve any family that does not produce children.
This is not a joke.
PFLAG also supports the transgender surgical removal of body parts.
That is not a joke.
Charmaine will be debating against the homosexual position.
Tune in on MSNBC today, Wednesday, February 7. UPDATE: Charmaine will be on twice — Hit time is 1pm EST; and again at 3:30pm EST.
We, the parents, families and friends of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, celebrate diversity and envision a society that embraces everyone, including those of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Only with respect, dignity and equality for all will we reach our full potential as human beings, individually and collectively. PFLAG welcomes the participation and support of all who share in, and hope to realize this vision.
Charmaine, I didn’t get to see your appearance on MSNBC but I wish I had. I am appalled by the boldness with which groups like PFLAG speak. I applaud you for YOUR boldness in proclaiming the truth. Thank you for your stand. You and your family are in my prayers as you continue to be “a voice in the wilderness”.
You really need to learn a little about rhetorical arguments. FPLAG isn’t trying to break up childless couples – the measure they support is going to fail, they know it, and they intend for it to fail. Its only intended to make a point – in order to oppose this, conservatives will have to admit that marriage is about more than mere reproduction. This destroys one of the major arguments against gay marriage – that as homosexuals do not breed, marriage serves no purpose for them.
Suricou, thank you for making my point: The homosexual activists are using the legislative process as a public relations stunt.
It will backfire. We should have the video clip up soon.
By what logic will it backfire? It is simply meant to start a conversation about the fallacy that children are somehow a marital requirement. And that it will most certainly do!
Reproductively-challenged heterosexual couples should not be offended by this proposal, as Ms. Yoest asserted on MSNBC, but rather by the idea that procreation and marriage are intrinsically linked! This sort of conservation will help connect those dots.
The best environment to raise children is a man and a woman. Not always perfect, but always best.
About one couple in 5 is infertile. Your “conversation-legislation” would serve only to embarrass the childless couple.
Unless causing humilation is your goal, the debate can be done quite well and free on MSNBC.
The courts and legislatures are not the venues for public relations strategies.
No serious homosexual wants childless couples to separate – the real outcome of the proposed legislation would be to chew-up the law makers time…
…which may not be a bad idea if it keeps liberals from raising taxes…
Do not waste lawmaker*s time.
Thank you for commenting.
PS. That would be Dr. Yoest, or Charmaine to you. Goodness, anything but Ms..
There is NO research which shows that “father/mother” parenting is better than “mother/mother” parenting or “father/father” parenting.
There is some research which compares SINGLE parent house-holds to DUAL parent house-holds, and the DUAL parent house-holds win out. But that applies to either gay or straight.
ALL of the research which examines gay parents’ capabilities and effects shows they are just as capable of producing happy and healthy children as straight parents.
Quite frankly, bypassing how a LOT of people are ignoring the REAL POINT of the legislation, I would be interested to see how those who tout “procreation” would feel about applying their standard to a childless couple who wants to adopt.
Oh wait. Let me guess. They want to know whether that couple is gay or straight first?
The REAL point of the legislation is to point out that the claimed point of the anti-gay marriage legislation isn’t what they claim. And if you listen to the Capitol Hill speeches when they tried to push for the gay marriage amendment, you’d see what the REAL reason for the legislation actually is…
It is a publicity stunt, and a waste of lawmakers time – though not much of it, this proposal isn’t going to get very far – but it does make its point well.
Besides, Charmaine… shouldn’t the FRC be in full support of this proposal, based on the text of their website at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04J01 ?
I do not consider any tactic, the purpose of which is to force lawmakers to confront their own poor reasoning, to be a “waste of lawmakers’ time.”
Quite the contrary, I consider any steps that show people the fallaciousness of most all anti-gay marriage arguments time well spent and valuable for a society that hopes to progress towards equality and not be held back by held back by ideas of morality that are considered right for no reason other than they have always been considered right.
It’s very simple. Is reproduction required for obtaining a marriage license or not? It’s the anti-gay crowd who attempt to argue that marriage requires children. If that’s the case, then heterosexual marriages are null without children.
You can’t have it both ways. Which is it?
Jack, Charmaign, I appologise if I keep getting you confused – hazards of a shared blog, I am not sure who I am talking to.
Kathleen has it right. The objective of this isn’t to pass, its just to highlight the double-standard of anti-gay-marriage campaigners.