I wrote this originally in 2008, but with all of the new bills that have been passed in recent history, that have worked against the good of the people, I felt the need to re-post my write before the global warming legislation became the next intrusion. I am presenting this in two parts; with the first being my understanding of the hoax, and the second part will be dealing with the money considerations, especially as they apply to Al Gore. Global Warming has nothing to do with the climate, but it does have a very well related monetary connection to those who are behind the hoax. Both part one and part two are included within this presentation…Vic Damico
(Part One)
For many years, we have been warned by threats of global warming, but in truth most of it is coming from politicians, which is more of a political agenda than scientific evidence. As stated in Time Magazine, February 27, 2006, “There is little doubt that humans are heating up the planet, the questions of how much, how quickly, and leading to what consequences are fiendishly difficult to pin down. That’s because the actual climate is still far more complicated than any existing computer model can accurately reflect, making predictions iffy at best.†This statement seems to be almost like an apology for not being able to supply accurate facts. The statements we hear seem to be geared at scaring us into believing the worst possible situation is almost inevitable. When I hear statements such as, if all the ice in Greenland was to melt and slide into the ocean, sea levels would rise by 20 feet, it does not scare me. It makes me angry that we are expected to panic because these radicals are presenting the worst-case scenario to try to make their beliefs to seem more desperate. If the world as a whole was to come together in an effort to intentionally melt all the ice in Greenland, we would not be able to do so with anything short of a well-planned air strike, and even then we would be trying to destroy 836,000 square miles with some of the ice being 2 miles thick. There are actual scientists that have come forward labeling the global warming crisis as nothing more than a political hoax, so who are we to believe? I am a firm believer in protecting the environment, but the radical extremists have always based their beliefs on myths, hypothesis, and scientific predictions that simply are lacking facts to back up these beliefs.
One of the main concerns of those that seem to think we are destroying the world is the fact that large areas of ice are breaking off and falling into the ocean. This is a perfect example of why I choose to discredit many of their beliefs. There are cracks in the ice, and by cracks, I am not talking about small cracks like in a windshield of a car. Some of these cracks may be as much as several miles long. This is where simple physics comes into play, which is the part they have not really explained. When ice melts, the water flows into these cracks and fills them. When water freezes, the actual volume will increase as much as 9%, which acts as a wedge and pushes the ice away from the main body and sometimes slips into the ocean. There is nothing we can do to prevent this from happening. If you really want to see how this works, take a bottle of water and place it in your freezer. Open your freezer the next day and you will understand that what I have just stated is true. Has anyone other than myself not noticed that these same scientists speak of earlier ice ages millions of years ago? Why did the ice melt millions of years ago? There were no automobiles, no oil refineries, so why would we believe that based on a myth, that we are able to stop something that obviously has a history of taking place without what these scientists are saying we are doing to cause this to happen?
I firmly believe that we need to minimize the polluting of our air, not destroying rainforest, and continuing to do research on how we are able to protect our environment, but we need to use reason and stop basing all we do on predictions of what may happen in the next million years. The science behind these predictions is at best, uncertain, which to me makes the statements that anything that these radicals are telling us we should do, as prevention is also uncertain. These scientists are spending so much of their time looking into the future that they are ignoring the present. By the way, global warming is now called “climate change.†The conservatives call it weather.
(Part Two)
Make no mistake about this! Al Gore is the driving force behind Global Warming, and I will explain his connection to the “HOAX†that is Global Warming.
As Gore founded, and is the chairman of Generation Investment Management. (GIM) The success or failure of this massive entity depends on the passing of legislation concerning Global Warming. Basically, Generation Investment Management will make a fortune with all that is connected to research and measuring all associated with Global Warming. Many companies are passing millions of dollars through the hands of GIM and Al Gore with the sole intention of making money off of the junk science of Global Warming.
For that to not be accepted as a generic statement, I will list the names of the companies who are connected to GIM and Al Gore.
According to their own documents, Generation Investment Management intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. Now, what is strange about Al Gore’s GIM is the fact that it is based in London. That puts it out of reach of IRS, or investigation, as it applies to laws within our own borders. But it gets better.
In addition to this, consider the following.
Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP, which buys shares of companies it deems socially responsible, aims to start a $500 million fund to invest in Asia, said two people briefed on the plan.
The fund may start by July, 2011 said the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. It will buy shares of Asian companies that adhere to Generation's investment guidelines of focusing on "economic, social and environmental" sustainability, while eschewing "short-term" profit goals.
In my opinion, this connection with Al Gore with his Global Warming concerns and possible Global Warming legislation has to be the largest conflict of interest in the history of the nation. The media will talk all day about the issue of global warming, and yet, you have not, nor will you ever hear them speak of what I have said in this write. Global Warming is a hoax, period. It is a way to profit from future legislation that will be eventually put into place in the name of protecting the world environment.
Octavio Ocampo was born on 28 February 1943 in Celaya, Guanajuato, Mexico. He grew up in a family of designers, and studied art from early childhood. At art school, Ocampo constructed papier mache figures for floats, altars, and ornaments that were used during carnival parades and other festivals. In high school, Ocampo painted murals for the Preparatory School and the City Hall of Celaya. Ruth Rivera, daughter of artist and muralist Diego Rivera, and Maria Luisa Mendoza encouraged him to attend the School of Painting and Sculpture of the National Fine Art Institute.
The talents of Octavio Ocampo are not limited to painting and sculpture, but also extended to acting and dancing. At the Art Institute of San Francisco, he studied all these disciplines and pursued both a film and theater career. In 1976, he began to devote himself solely to painting and sculpture.He now works primarily in the metamorphic style – using a technique of superimposing and juxtaposing realistic and figurative details within the images that he creates.
Octavio Ocampo is one of Mexico's most prolific artists.
Ocampo is known for several works in his sometimes wryly sardonic, sometimes evocative paintings in which detailed images are intricately woven together to create larger images - the optical illusions fading back and stepping forward as you study the pieces, notice the details, and finally recognize the large scale intention. This is what Octavio Ocampo terms his "metamorphic" style.[1]
The Visions Fine Art Gallery in Sedona, Arizona represents Octavio Ocampo in the United States.[2]
Several collections in Mexico contain his work, and individual works of his have been commissioned for among others former President Jimmy Carter (commissioned as a gift from the then President of Mexico Jose Lopez Portillo it was presented from the United Mexican States),[3]Jane Fonda, Cher (for the front and back covers of her "Heart of Stone" album),[4] and Cesar Chavez.
I would never consider running for the office of the presidency for many reasons, but if I were to do so, I would be so far beyond this political circus that exists in the current race to be the next occupant of the Oval Office.
I would not be talking of my past finances, whom I had slept with ten years ago, or spend half of my time trying to destroy my competition in order to make myself seem superior.In order to win the quest for the Oval Office in current America, (I am speaking of the candidates, themselves) they seem to think they have to present the best illusion to the people, or to make it seem that it is almost impossible to survive as a nation with anyone other than them in the White House.This attitude is about three steps beyond reality, and it is how we always find an end result of getting someone as the next president that we literally do not know, as a person, or their true goals that will go with them to the White House.
No, I would take a different approach.Imagine a presidential candidate that came forth and told the truth and was willing to tell the people what they need to know, not what they need to say in order to get their collective votes.
As a presidential candidate, I would first of all commit to being honest with the American people, and it would start with the campaign, not after I was elected.We have heard our share of those pre-election
promises before.
As a presidential candidate, I would probably be found face down in a river somewhere before the election was to take place, because I would say what is not allowed to be said by anyone in Washington.That must be the case, because no one is talking about our real concerns as they apply to the detrimental direction that has been taken over the last decade, in particular.
(1)I would start off by telling the people that I would fight for their right to allow freedom of religion to return, and not to allow the current status remain, whereas we have freedom of religion, as long as it does not apply to Christianity.
(2)I would then tell the people that my goal would be to scrap the projected universal health care plan, and focus on improving the current plan, allowing it to remain with the private sector, and focus on those who need the insurance, not on renovating the whole system in order to allow for total government control.
(3)I would do all within my power to start on the road to reverse Rowe verses Wade, and to stop this non-sense of the belief that our government has the right to determine if a child is allowed to be born, or not.
(4)I would expose the Patriot Act, The Military Commission Act of 2006, and the recent NDAA bill that was passed, and tell the people exactly what they mean to the common, everyday citizens of this nation.I would fight with all that is in me to make it clear that I would put these issues against the United States Constitution, so that the Constitution would win the battle.
(5)I would expose the location of all existing Fema Concentration Camps, as well as the potential locations, and expose the existence of these camps for their intended use.These locations and the plans for these locations would be voided out completely, and the states would re-gain possession of the land involved.
(6)I would start a plan of action to put into place term limits for all of congress, and especially work toward a goal of never allowing a president to serve consecutive terms, since his/her last two years of the first term will be a quest for a second term, as opposed to doing the job he/she has been placed into that office to do.
(7)Campaign reform would take on a new meaning.Total transparency of every single campaign donation would be made known to the public, and it would be overseen by an outside agency that is not even allowed actual contact with the candidates under any circumstances.Funds would be limited as they apply to both individuals and corporate or union donations.You would no longer be able to buy your way into a representative role of our government.
(8)The government would keep out of the Internet, just as they should keep out of any other area of the private sector.If they want to be a part of the Internet, let them buy a site, but they will not have control over our private existence, as it applies to our Internet activities.
(9)Pork would become non-existent as it applies to bills that are presented for votes.Bills presented to the House and the Senate would be limited to a specific issue, and would not be allowed to contain other issues within the bill to manipulate the vote outcome.I will explain, just in case some do not understand the power of pork in a bill.If the Democrats were to present a bill that was geared at monitoring the Internet, they may include in the bill that $2 million would be targeted to breast cancer research.Even if the bill did not pass, they would be able to say that the Republicans voted against breast cancer research.That is how they sway votes on a bill…Total manipulation of the truth.
(10)The right to own a gun would be made crystal clear, and anything that created a question, as it applies to that right would be silenced immediately.
I could go on and on, but I think these ten issues would probably put me in the White House.No one is going to do what I have mentioned here, so that should tell you what type of people we have currently making their paths to the White House.Do your own research, as it applies to the candidates.We will not find someone who will do what I have mentioned in this write, but there are some who will not allow our current direction to continue.Use your best judgment, for that is the best you can do.Stop watching the media, and spend that time obtaining your own information.You will not lie to yourself.
Vic Damico 2012
Note:It is almost 3:00 A.M. and I am not going to check for errors.Without looking, I promise you will find far fewer errors than you will see each time you look to Washington…
In our daily lives we need to listen very carefully.God does speak to us, in a way only He can.Each time we see a vision of His created beauty; He is reminding us that He is all around us.Each time we see a baby smile, He is showing us His greatest creation.Each time we feel the pain of another; He is showing us how to love.As we move through each moment of our lives, we need to listen carefully.God does indeed speak to us as we move.Even in the midst of total silence.
By the time the video is over, you may need Tylenol to combat your headache from witnessing such stupidity and ignorance. This is how Obama came to be in the White House. It is obviously the result of those too lazy to take it upon themselves to be knowledgable with the candidates, or the issues of the nation, in general. No, this is not a parady. This is real people and they will show you how just anyone can get elected to the Office of the Presidency of the United States. It is also obvious that the media played a major role on the misguided direction of the people in the video. This is simply difficult to watch. The misinformation that was fed to these people is being fed to them daily, as it relates to all candidates who may possibly oppose Obama in the 2012 election. Ignorance breeds Ignorance.
If you never read anther of my blogs, please let this be one you will read...It is a little long, and there are videos that are not long, but crucial in the overall direction of this write. This is simply something that I needed to share. Please be a part of it...Thank you, Vic...
One of my prize possessions is a "First Edition" of Mandate For Change, by Dwight D. Eisenhower. I have had the book for almost twenty years, and I will go back and re-read the book from time to time. Many of you may not know this, but Eisenhower never intended to run for president; in fact, he made it clear at one point that he had no intentions or desires to be president. Then something amazing happened. The people, in masses, all over the nation began to express their desire to see him as the next president. At this point, something that does not exist happened. Someone did not decide to run for president because he simple wished to do so. Someone (Dwight D. Eisenhower) decided to run for president because "THE PEOPLE" wanted him to run for president. Today, we find ourselves sifting through the string of candidates to see who may do the least damage to an already damaged nation. That is indeed very sad.
With the information below, you will see that there are those within this nation who have a clear mind-set, and a clear understanding of what this nation can and should be. I said almost ten years ago that this is the man who should be in the White House, but I know that will not happen. Walter Willams is an economic professor at George Mason University, and in my mind, he is one of the most intelligent people in the world. My views of him are not based on simply his education, or his understanding of all of the issues we face daily, but mainly of his love for this nation. What a wonderful thing it would be, to have someone like Williams in the Oval Office. There are men and women out there who could do the same. Our goal with this election, and will future elections should be to seek these people out, and to have that caliber of people to represent us, as a people, and as a nation.
Please take the time to watch the below videos. They will give you insight, not just into the mind of Dr. Williams, but will help you understand issues that should be understood by all. We cannot remain uninformed and expect to progress as a people, or as a nation. Do your research on both the issues and on those who may represent you in Washington to both implement and defend the components of those issues. The videos are not long, and surely you can find the time to actually learn from one of the true thinkers left in this nation. All of the Walter Williams videos above will open your eyes in a way in which you may not have believed with others you have heard speak. Take the time to watch them, if only to expand your understanding on what is best for us and our nation...God, bless you all...Vic Damico 2012
Walter E. Williams
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.
Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.
Dr. Williams is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader's Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He has authored ten books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary "Good Intentions," All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty vs. the Tyranny of Socialism, Up From The Projects: An Autobiography, and Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed On Discrimination?
He has made scores of radio and television appearances which include "Nightline," "Firing Line," "Face the Nation," Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose," "Crossfire," "MacNeil/Lehrer," "Wall Street Week" and was a regular commentator for "Nightly Business Report." He is also occasional substitute host for the "Rush Limbaugh" show. In addition Dr. Williams writes a nationally syndicated weekly column that is carried by approximately 140 newspapers and several web sites.
Dr. Williams serves on several boards of trustees/directors: Grove City College, Reason Foundation and Chase Foundation. He also serves on numerous advisory boards including: Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Institute of Economic Affairs, and Heritage Foundation.
Dr. Williams has received numerous fellowships and awards including: Foundation for Economic Education Adam Smith Award, Hoover Institution National Fellow, Ford Foundation Fellow, Valley Forge Freedoms Foundation George Washington Medal of Honor, Veterans of Foreign Wars U.S. News Media Award, Adam Smith Award, California State University Distinguished Alumnus Award, George Mason University Faculty Member of the Year, and Alpha Kappa Psi Award.
Dr. Williams has participated in numerous debates, conferences and lectures in the United States and abroad. He has frequently given expert testimony before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor policy to taxation and spending. He is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, and the American Economic Association.
Poverty...
Minimum Wages
Economics of Liberty...
Redistribution Of Income...
Corporations Are Tax Collectors...
Term Limits...
Public Employee Unions...
Self-Ownership Or Socialism...
Now, I could go on and on providing one video after another representing the words and views of Walter Williams, but I think my point has clearly been made. There are good people in this nation, who have a clear understanding of the issues, and the very foundation of this nation, and how crucial it is to keep that foundation the main component of the continuing efforts to maintain a stable and secure nation. Do your own research, as opposed to waiting for someone to tell you how you should think, whom will get your support in the coming election, or what it will mean, as the end result of those individual decisions. We need to vote as individuals, not as a group. We need to vote for individuals, not for a group. Our goal should be clear, more today, than in the history of this great nation. We need to fill Washington with those who will stand up for what is right, as they dismiss that which is not right. We need those who will represent the people, and the nation, not themselves. We need to fill Washington with those who have one simple overall goal, and that goal should be to simply make America the best it can be. Yes, it is just that simple...
Do you want to know exactly how I think as I read something. Rather than to post this article, or to present my response to the article, I decided to post my every reaction, as I actually read it. I want to make something perfectly clear. I do not support gay relationships based on my faith. I am not judging these people, nor is it my right. I am posting my responses as they apply to my understanding of God's plan for us, based on His Words.
In the article below, you will see my responses, as I have read this, which will be presented with the green font, just as you are reading now. They are my words, not a part of the article. Learn how to read between the lines with anything before you. There are many who intentionally will mislead you if you allow them to do so. These are my thoughts, and should not be considered to be grouped with the thoughts of anyone else, unless they choose to make that statement. My point is quite simple with my responses in this article. I do not make excuses, nor do I comprimise when it comes to the Word of God. There is no room for open-mindedness or tolerance when it relates to going against God's word. Vic Damico 2012
Gay marriage, and especially gay parenting, has been in the cross hairs in recent days. "In recent days???...Did these people just gain access to TVs and Newspapers?"
On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. "This is an odd statement by Rick Santorum in order to make a point." And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes. "And it certainly is not surprising for the quote from the Pope to be presented as a negative."
But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't. "Unlike the negativity against the Pope, the side of the "gay parents" is presented as a positive."
Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents, "Yes, they chose to be parents...God has a plan in place, whereas a man and a woman actually create a child. So in addition to choosing to have a child, they have the ability to create the child" said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said."How would it be possible for a gay couple to accidently have a child? Was that even a serious statement?" "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." "Yes, you would be more committed based on the concept that it is physically impossible to conceive a child by the two member of a gay relationship."
And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. "Open-minded and tolerant in the sense that it strays from the acceptable moral behavior based on our faith. With this issue, as with other issues with our faith, the morals of our faith are set asside to justify this behavior." Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. "Yes, when it is absolutely impossible to conceive a child with a same sex relationship, choice or conditions are of a little more despirate situation." (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.) [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]
Adopting the neediest
Gay adoption recently caused controversy in Illinois, where Catholic Charities adoption services decided in November to cease offering services because the state refused funding unless the groups agreed not to discriminate against gays and lesbians. "Since we cannot physically create a child, lets use the threat of not funding to get them to set aside their morals. It didn't work." Rather than comply, Catholic Charities closed up shop.
Catholic opposition aside, research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.) "My response to this is simple...I will not set aside God's Plan to accept same sex relationships because they are behaving in one manner, as they go against God's plan."
An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs. "Just because these 300 agencies are willing to dismiss God's words, does not mean that we should do so based on these statistics. And we will not."
The report didn't compare the adoption preferences of gay couples directly with those of heterosexual couples, said author David Brodzinsky, research director at the Institute and co-editor of "Adoption By Lesbians and Gay Men: "Of course not...Why should the actual facts be used in this discussion?" A New Dimension of Family Diversity" (Oxford University Press, 2011). But research suggests that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to adopt older, special-needs and minority children, he said. Part of that could be their own preferences, and part could be because of discrimination by adoption agencies that puts more difficult children with what caseworkers see as "less desirable" parents. "And part of it goes back to my earlier statement that it is absolutely impossible for members of the same sex to conceive a child."
No matter how you slice it, Brodzinsky told LiveScience, gays and lesbians are highly interested in adoption as a group. The 2007 report by the Urban Institute also found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the U.S. would like to adopt. "As opposed to what? They have to adopt. There is no other choice." That adds up to an estimated 2 million gay people who are interested in adoption. It's a huge reservoir of potential parents who could get kids out of the instability of the foster system, Brodzinsky said.
"When you think about the 114,000 children who are freed for adoption who continue to live in foster care and who are not being readily adopted, the goal is to increase the pool of available, interested and well-trained individuals to parent these children," Brodzinsky said. "Well, God has another goal. His goal is for a man and a woman to have a child and to take care of the child so that others will not have to consider taking a child that has been put into this situation.?
In addition, Brodzinsky said, there's evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child retains some contact with his or her birth parents. And the statistics bear out that birth parents often have no problem with their kids being raised by same-sex couples, he added. "A child in the custody of a same-sex-couple, but still allowed to see his/her biological parents. No, that will not confuse the child, at all."
"Interestingly, we find that a small percentage, but enough to be noteworthy, [of birth mothers] make a conscious decision to place with gay men, so they can be the only mother in their child's life," Brodzinsky said. "I don't even know how to respond to this statement."
Good parenting
Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures. "Is this a comparison to being in a same-sex couple environment as opposed to a straight couple enviornment, or is it being compared to children who grow up with their natural parents? I think we all know what they are comparing."
In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. "Bull*&$#" (sorry)
"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience. "And how would this same-sex couple explain God's Word to this child and still justify a gay lifestyle?
There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said. "Well, considering her admission of very little research, surely she knows the exact components of that situation."
That's a speculation, she said, but if lesbian parents have to really plan to have a child, it's even harder for gay men. Those who decide to do it are thus likely to be extremely committed, Stacey said. Gay men may also experience fewer parenting conflicts, she added. Most lesbians use donor sperm to have a child, so one mother is biological and the other is not, which could create conflict because one mother may feel closer to the kid. "If you do not follow God, why not just play God."
"With gay men, you don't have that factor," she said. "Neither of them gets pregnant, neither of them breast-feeds, so you don't have that asymmetry built into the relationship." "She is absolutely correct...Men cannot get pregnant, nor can they brest-feed a child."
The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, "No, we are honoring the Words of God." most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them. "And if a man and a woman get married and conceive a child, and love that child, and take responsibility for that child, there would be no reason to find a home for that child."
"Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men," she said. [6 Gender Myths Busted] "Blah, Blah, Blah...I don't think even she understood what she said."
Nurturing tolerance
In fact, the only consistent places you find differences between how kids of gay parents and kids of straight parents turn out are in issues of tolerance and open-mindedness, "Again, tolerance and open-mindedness that strays from God's Word." according to Goldberg. In a paper published in 2007 in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Goldberg conducted in-depth interviews with 46 adults with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of them spontaneously offered that they felt more open-minded and empathetic than people not raised in their situation. "Open-minded and being empathetic should not be confused with going against the Word of God."
"These individuals feel like their perspectives on family, on gender, on sexuality have largely been enhanced by growing up with gay parents," Goldberg said. "Enhanced, or altered and directed?"
One 33-year-old man with a lesbian mother told Goldberg, "I feel I'm a more open, well-rounded person for having been raised in a nontraditional family, and I think those that know me would agree. My mom opened me up to the positive impact of differences in people." "This is beginning to sound like a sales pitch for becoming gay."
Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. That's likely because gays and lesbians tend to have more egalitarian relationships than straight couples, Goldberg said. They're also less wedded to rigid gender stereotypes themselves. "Oh, I see...They support gay relationships."
"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'" "It is ok to be gay...Do your thing."
Same-sex acceptance
If same-sex marriage does disadvantage kids in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent's gender and everything to do with society's reaction toward the families, said Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, "It is just that God's Word gets in the way of the choices." the author of "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010).
"Imagine being a child living in a state with two parents in which, legally, only one parent is allowed to be their parent," Powell told LiveScience. "In that situation, the family is not seen as authentic or real by others. That would be the disadvantage." I don't do hypotheticals when it come to God's Words."
In her research, Goldberg has found that many children of gay and lesbian parents say that more acceptance of gay and lesbian families, not less, would help solve this problem. "No, setting aside God's Word and accepting gay relationships will not solve any problems, except for those who choose to be gay."
In a study published online Jan. 11, 2012, in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Goldberg interviewed another group of 49 teenagers and young adults with gay parents and found that not one of them rejected the right of gays and lesbians to marry. "No, the children were told that gay relationships were acceptable, and they have been led to go against God's Word." Most cited legal benefits as well as social acceptance. "Why wouldn't they? It was taught to them."
"I was just thinking about this with a couple of friends and just was in tears thinking about how different my childhood might have been had same-sex marriage been legalized 25 years ago," a 23-year-old man raised by a lesbian couple told Goldberg. "The cultural, legal status of same-sex couples impacts the family narratives of same-sex families — how we see ourselves in relation to the larger culture, whether we see ourselves as accepted or outsiders." "This seems to be a closing statement, so I will close this, as well."
I have tears in my eyes as I type this...I appologize for what you will see in this video, and it is something that should never have to be discussed, much less be considered a reality in our world today...If you vote for Obama, you are voting for pure evil, by my standards, by the standards of anyone who cares for life, itself, and especially by the standards of God...If you can watch this video and still support President Obama, just maybe you need to re-evaluate your own standards...Please watch the whole video...It is about five minutes long...
