Mark Regnerus easily survives Scott Rose.

Scott Rose once admitted to me on this blog that he would speak to children about homosexual matters WITHOUT the consent of that child’s parents.

“…Scott Rose, a journalist from New York City and a pro-gay rights blogger, had made allegations about the study's author, Professor Mark Regnerus, in numerous letters to the university, after which an inquiry was conducted. The study by Regenerus showed that children of gay parents were less likely to succeed.

"Disagreeing with a study's conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct; therefore, we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless," Hacker added. "This comprehensive, peer-reviewed research study consisted of leading scholars and researchers across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. We agree with the UT-Austin inquiry's conclusion that the academy is the appropriate place for debate about this study."

…"Professor Regnerus did not commit scientific misconduct when designing, executing, and reporting the research reported in the Social Science Research article. None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth by Mr. Rose were substantiated either by the physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews. Several of the allegations were beyond the purview of the inquiry."

Regnerus' study was published in the July issue of Social Science Research. It concludes that the children of parents who had same-sex relationships have more emotional and social problems than children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. ..."

Original info here.

The biological truth that most gays hate.

A man and a woman of normal health can marry and produce children. Two men of normal health cannot, neither can two women of normal health. Every human being currently on this planet has a biological mother and father.

Yet, my speaking of that simple, biological truth, will earn me the label of "heterosexist," or "homophobe," or "bigot," or "intolerant." When did the truth become so unpopular?

Marriage redefiners hate the truth.

The importance of words. (Updated)

“…Supporters sued after Secretary of State Mark Ritchie changed the title from “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman” to “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.” …”

Words. The importance of words.

Words shape thought and evoke emotion. Words can kill and words can heal. Jesus Christ himself is known as the Word of God. That’s very significant.

It was a word-assault that started heteroseparatist.com, and the mere mention of the word “heteroseparatist” is banned on democraticunderground.com. What an honor!

I was even threatened once by a homofascist for creating the word “heteroseparatist.” He said that he was going to, “…stop me personally…” from being a heteroseparatist. Wow. How did he think that he was going to achieve his goal? Do I not have the right to separate from a person because of their behavior? How could he “stop” me without violating my civil rights?

To change the wording of an amendment from that of its authors that defines true marriage is a clear effort to pollute a Godly, simple, genetic, logical, natural, biological, and historical truth.

Story here.

“… Minnesota for Marriage Chairman John Helmberger said Ritchie’s and Swanson’s “meddling with the title of the Marriage Protection Amendment is a perfect example of why we need the marriage amendment.”

“Some politicians are so blinded by ideology and beholden to special interests, like gay marriage activists, that we simply can’t be confident they will follow the law or respect the will of the people,” he said.

“The only way to protect the definition of marriage is to secure it in the constitution where activist judges, ambitious politicians and special interests can’t meddle with it.” …”

Full story here.

What heteroseparatist DON'T do. (updated 28 Aug. 2012)

I wanted to take the time to denounce a vicious, home-invasion attack against a lesbian. This act of violence is not what I stand for at heteroseparatist.com.

"...What she saw instead was her 33-year-old neighbor, she said, naked and bleeding.

"I was in shock," Rappl said. "She was naked, her hands were tied with zip ties. All I could see was a cut across her forehead and blood running down." ..."

Story here.

WHAT!! It was a FAKE hate crime!? Story here.

Heterosexual Awareness Month.

Click here.

A child's right to a mother and a father.

It is evil for a person to put their own desires before the needs of their child.

R.I.P. Niel Armstrong.

I remember my father waking my brother and I up to come watch the moon landing. I wasn’t even ten years old, but I knew that it must be an important thing for him to wake us up to witness. My brother and I had a strict bedtime and daily routine. Then I remember making a lunar module out of white Lego blocks whilst waiting for the big event in front of the tv.

All normal men want to be able to give a legitimate, if not impressive answer to the (oft internal) question; “What did you accomplish?” Neil Armstrong had a great answer for that question.

Story here.

Brian Brown vs. Dan Savage.

I haven't had time to watch this yet but I'll post it anyway.

True marriage and DOMA.

Ignore gender in a marriage!?! Are you crazy?

Gay is not the new black.

One of the things that inspired me to create the word “heteroseparatist,” was the absurd comparison of homosexuality to race and gender. Race and gender are morally benign; neither good or bad. But sexual behavior is never morally benign. Is a man in a sexual relationship with his consenting, adult sister on the same moral tier as a man who has never had sex with anyone but his wife? Is a woman who cheats on her husband on the same moral level as a woman who doesn't? Whatever happened to sexual common-sense?

“…while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

…the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."

…The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

…homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality.

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal.…

…men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed?

Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?...

The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.
Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

…the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right.

…following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

…then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

…we know that God has designed the family in a particular way.

…many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

Original article here.

Homofascist hate-crime against FRC largely ignored.

When the FRC labels another group as a "hate group," it becomes a license for anti-Christ homofascist activists to violate the civil rights of the members of that group. The FRC operates like the KKK used to.

True marriage is worth defending.

Ignoring the fact that marriage is the appropriate joining of a man and a woman is unspeakably absurd.

The Corkins Award. (for homofascist-of-the-year)

On 01 August 2012, Chick-fil-A dealt such a devastating blow to homofascists and marriage redefiners that on 15 Aug. 2012, a Mr. Floyd Corkins took a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol, 45 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (to place beside each person he killed) into the FRC in Washington D.C. Mr. Corkins was stopped by an unarmed security gaurd after he shot the security guard in the arm.

This is what the "hate" label-placed on anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage-does. How ironic that the "hate" label itself inspires hate. Now the homoOrwellian circle is complete and homofascists are now worse than their phantom "oppressors."

If a member of the Westboro Baptist Church committed an identical act of violence against the headquarters of the HRC with 15 empty Starbucks cups to place beside each fatality, wouldn't the mainstream media hold ALL Christians responsible for the actions of the shooter? Wouldn't there be a thunderous outcry against Christian doctrine for motivating the shooter even though the teachings of Jesus Christ decry proactive violence? Hasn't Floyd Corkins added to the embarrassment of homofascists and marriage redefiners? Did homofascist Corkins put a cork in homofascism?

What a great month for heteroseparatism!!

Hate-filled homofascists.

Homofascists feel that they have the right to silence anyone who disagrees with the redefinition of marriage.

Once a homofascist labels you a "bigot," a "homophobe," or "intolerant," it is open season on your civil rights.

Doesn't the behavior of anti-Christ homofascists clearly show their bigotry and intolerance?

Anti-hetero "chicken hawk" goes looney tunes over true marriage.

Wow. Now, if you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, someone might get a gun and try to kill you. And some people think I'm wrong from walking away from the glbt community!?!

Look what anti-Christ/anti-hetero/anti-family bigotry and homofascist propaganda has produced! Is this not further evidence that Chick-fil-A day set homofascism back by 20 years? And then the subsequent failure of the homosexual "kiss-in"? The militant gay community has never been this wounded in my lifetime.

Story here.

Anderson Coopers blt sammich mess.

I take no joy in Anderson Cooper's pain, but the blt sandwich at 1:32 made me LOL! This video is just to funny to not post.

The harmfulness of same-sex "parenting." (updated 15 Aug. 2012)

Along with a lot of very obvious facts of life, a person has to reject common-sense to justify bringing children into a homosexual household. Just not having a sister made it difficult, in my younger years, to understand the unspoken cues that women send to men.

Today, I've stumbled upon a well-written article written by a man who was raised in a lesbian household.

“…Between 1973 and 1990, …I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

…I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

…Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors.

…Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t…

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, …
My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people.

…I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.
It was not until I was twenty-eight that I suddenly found myself in a relationship with a woman, …I don’t feel like dealing with gay activists skewering me the way they go on search-and-destroy missions against ex-gays, “closet cases,” or “homocons.”

Though I have a biography particularly relevant to gay issues, the first person who contacted me to thank me for sharing my perspective on LGBT issues was Mark Regnerus,…

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors. Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

…The gay movement is doing everything it can to make sure that nobody hears them. But I care more about the stories than the numbers (especially as an English professor), and Regnerus stumbled unwittingly on a narrative treasure chest.

…I don’t mince words when talking about how hard it was to grow up in a gay household. Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades.

…threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up.

…Once I was a father, I put aside my own homosexual past and vowed never to divorce my wife or take up with another person, male or female, before I died. I chose that commitment in order to protect my children from dealing with harmful drama, even as they grow up to be adults.

Sherkat’s assessment of Regnerus’s work shows a total disregard for the emotional and sexual labor that bisexual parents contribute to their children.

…The turbulence documented in Mark Regnerus’s study is a testament to how hard that is.

I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex … leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.
I thank Mark Regnerus. Far from being “bullshit,” his work is affirming to me, because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore.

…The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there."

Full article here.

Backlash against the writer of this article is covered here.

How Jesus can repair a homosexual's heart.

Only about one in twenty people that do not know who Jesus Christ is, can figure out that a person cannot be born homosexual.

“…In short, he argued that the same Christ that redeems sinners also helps them to "change" -- i.e., to put aside those things the Bible defines as sin. Burnett's response was astonishing at one level and not surprising at another. It's no surprise that she would be in favor of gay marriage. It is astonishing, however, that she would be so overtly dismissive of basic Christian morality -- as if it were completely outside the bounds of rational discourse.

…Christ not only saves sinners from the penalty of sin but also from power of sin (Romans 6:14). That means that genuine Christianity inevitably results in a changed life on the part of the one who trusts in Christ. From the moment of conversion, the Spirit of God progressively transforms Christians into the image of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Without this kind of holiness, no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). To reject God's purpose of holiness is to reject Christianity altogether (1 Thessalonians 4:7-8).

What the Bible teaches on this matter is not aimed only at gay people. It goes for all sinners, gay or straight. Every person who receives Christ and believes the gospel must change. They cannot remain the sinner that they were without calling into question the validity of their conversion. As one preacher put it, "If the faith that saved you didn't change you, then it didn't save you."

This does not mean that sinners become perfect all at once. … The work of sanctification is a progressive work that extends over the course of one's life. There are stops and starts, triumphs and failures along the way. But it is nevertheless the mark of a Christian that he is working out his salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is at work in him both to act and to will according to God's good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). For many gay people who come to Christ, it may be a life-long struggle. But the Bible teaches that they will have what they need for the fight (2 Peter 1:3) and that they are not bound by this sin any longer (Romans 6:6).

What Burnett dismisses as "crazy" and "hateful" is at the heart of the Christian faith. To deny that the Gospel can change sinners -- even homosexual ones -- is to deny Christianity altogether. That is why Mohler's answer was profoundly and biblically right. He didn't give any ground on this issue, and neither should any Christian who wishes to give a defense of the hope that is in him (1 Peter 3:15). It is neither crazy nor hateful to suggest that gays can change. It's the essence of love that God enables them to do so. …”

Original article here.

Hawaii does a five-O on marriage.

Mabye their distance from liberal California has enabled the government of Hawaii to hold on to sexual sanity.

"...Same Sex Marriage (SSM) was originally supported by feminist organizations such as NOW as a way to empower women to be more independent of men (achieving women's equality is important but there are always healthy and unhealthy ways to reach a goal).

The support rose as radical subgroups of feminists grew which advocated that women should in a sense form their own separate tribe, living apart from men and even creating a future society where men could be cut off and eventually disappear because they were redundant and unnecessary as well as dangerous and violent.

The support became so intense it led to irrational positions, leading some to equate grouping people by race with groupings by gender or even by sexual behaviors, ignoring that these groupings are fundamentally different in various ways (gender differences are from evolving together, and the sexual behaviors evolved with them, while racial differences are from evolving separately). Also ignored is that SSM reduces diversity in a family group, a type of diversity that has been fundamental in human evolution and survival. It is argued that it increases the diversity of family groups, but the KKK could argue similarly that it provides a greater diversity of groups by creating a group without diversity.

The SSM movement has been able to grow so vigorously because economic/financial elites have supported it. Militant feminism merged with the left and came to dominate it, promoting lesbianism to the point that males feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the left, making it small and weak and incapable of any strong resistance. The economic/financial elites recognized this and so have heaped support on the SSM movement. ..."

"...Hawaii is one of thirty-nine states that, by provisions in their state constitutions or in state laws, restrict marriage to one man and one woman. ..."

Story here, here, and here.

Canada...again.

Religious freedom, free speech, and parental rights have to be done away with in order to redefine marriage.

"Chicago values."

"Pro-gender" marriage.

I read the term, "pro-gender marriage" today.
What a great term! How does one go so far as to ignore gender when it comes to marriage? No culture in history has ever ignored gender when it comes to marriage.

Every person that I've ever met was born either male or female, but most gays want me to ignore that fact. I will not ignore facts.

Story here and here.

Disagreement equals 'hate"?!?

Everything I know about the glbt community points to the conclusion that most gays hate anyone who dares to disagree with their behavior.

Dissin' "kiss-in" missin'.

I went to the closest Chick-fil-A friday and didn't see any gay people protesting or same-sex kissing.

Is this the beginning of the end of the reign of homofascism? Has the population of my country become fully aware of what I've been saying for 10 years? What a turn-out of true marriage supporters on wednesday, and what a flop for homofascists on friday!

Story here.

Gays harrassing Bible reader.

I don't see people who have sex outside of marriage, and people that cheat on their spouses going crazy whenever they see a bible or hear someone reading from it. Why then do homosexuals go so crazy when they see someone reading from the bible? Is there something in the heart of the homosexual that feels particularly threatened by biblical verse?

At 0:16, the Godly man's response to the reporter's question is edited out. At 0:26 the homofascist is clearly provoking the Godly man. And at 1:20, one can brief hear the Godly man say, "...all I'm saying..." His tone of his voice reveals his peaceful mindset, while the behavior of those surrounding and harassing him reveals their intolerance and hatred.

No COWardice here!

Yeah...I'm just about done with this Chick-fil-A thing, but this pic was just to funny-but-true to ignore.

"Hate" !?!

It is nothing short of ludicrous to equate non-agreement with hate.

Chick-fil-A bully fired.

How cowardly of this man to attack this innocent young woman who is simply working in a drivethru!! Once again, the hatred of marriage redefiners is clear to all. This coward was fired (an action that I don't support) for his homofascist act.

Heterobacklash at Chick-fil-A!!

When I was young, if you were called a "chicken," it was an insult to your manhood. How ironic that a fast-food chain that specializes in chicken has become a symbol of courage! OMG! I can't stop laughing at what my very well be the beginning of the end of homofascism. Is this the heterosexual equivalent of the Stonewall riot?

More info here.

Chick-fil-A day pics.

Boycott? What boycott!! Does this look like a boycott to anyone? Look at the heterobacklash here!

People are really waking up to homofascism and, finally, fighting back!

More detailed info here.

Telling cartoon.