Sorry Peter but lgbts are raising children . . . and are doing it quite well

Our friend Peter seems to be in overdrive today with the nastiness. Today he has a feature entitled Can Homosexual Couples Have Children?

Now if you were to say that this is a balanced opinion piece with a lot of research, then I have an island I want you to buy.

Peter's piece is a ridiculous piece of tripe devoid of facts; its aim is to exploit people's ignorance regarding same sex households with children:

When we bring up the fact that homosexual couples are far from “equal” in part because they cannot produce children, pro-homosexuality activists swiftly turn to the many straight couples that are infertile. This polemical trick is as deceptive as comparing counterfeit, sodomy-based “marriages” to interracial marriages. Black-white couples — a man and a woman joined together as one — produce beautiful children. Past laws banning such marriages were wrong. (Yes, Christians and others sinned in using the Bible to rationalize racism and slavery.) In contrast, homosexual sex acts are a biological and anatomical dead end — in addition to being a rebellion against our Creator that grieves Him as He is grieved by all sin.

Homosexuality, a human wrong, has nothing to do with marriage, or civil rights for that matter. Only a fool, or perhaps a manipulative social crusader, would argue that the modern tragedy of “gay” parenthood — intentionally (and selfishly) placing helpless children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design — is “equal” to natural, mom-and-dad parenthood and should be treated as such in the law.

Unlike homosexuals, infertile straight couples are not mocking God’s plan. In fact, they are trying desperately to fulfill it, and copy it, using methods both high-tech (invitro) and low-tech (adoption). The fact that homosexual couples have access to the same technology and also can now easily adopt babies does not make the plight of children placed in same-sex households any less tragic, or more “moral.” Rather, by turning the perversion of homosexuality into “just one more kind of love” (to quote the homosexual children’s book, Daddy’s Roommate), they are putting THEIR wants above the best interests of children.

Well in the face of that, allow me to present a few facts:

In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children in the United States had at least one gay or lesbian parent (Baker v. State, 1999).

The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.

The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children. “Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.” -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004

Sixty percent of adoption agencies accept applications from gay and lesbian couples, and about 40% of agencies have placed children with parents they know to be gay or lesbian, according to a 2003 survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

Children of gay and lesbian parents experience no significant differences in quality of peer relationships, nor do they experience more struggles with self-esteem.

LGBTS have children through different means. Many have partaken in relationships with the opposite sex before coming out, others adopt, while others engage in surrogate parenthood.

What Peter is attempting to do is invoke that old stereotype about "the parts don't fit."

But in the case of raising and nurturing children, Peter's stereotypes doesn't fit the bill. The fact of the matter is that lgbts are raising children and are doing it well.

It always amazes me that when folks like Peter talk about lgbts raising children, they accuse us of being selfish. They use that semantic language that gays are intentionally (and selfishly) placing helpless children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design.

Raising children is a huge responsibility. I doubt that the vast majority of folks who choose to do so (gay and straight) are doing it for selfish reasons.

And I think that those who choose that road need all of the support and encouragement they can get.

The question here is not can homosexual couples have children. The question is why should be a caste system overseeing homes that can provide a child love and support.

It's never a slow news day when Mass Resistance is around

Apparently the California decision has knocked the anti-gay industry on its ass. It seems to be the only thing many of them are talking about.

And its boring.

But leave it to an organization in Massachusetts to break through the malaise.

I've talked about Mass Resistance before.

They are very shrill group in Massachusetts who are determined to beat back gay rights; so determined in fact that because of their efforts, the Southern Poverty Law Center recently declared them a hate group.

This group has done several things to make a name for themselves (albeit not a good one) amongst the gay organizations in Massachusetts.

Two weeks ago, the gay youth in Massachusetts had a youth pride day, which included a parade and a dance.

Naturally Mass Resistance was there to shoot footage to place on their webpage as an example of the "evil gay agenda."

Talk about shrill:

The state-sponsored gay "Youth Pride" day on May 10 on the Boston Common was even worse than we expected.

But among the most troubling was how the the adult activists incited the kids to "send a message" to photographers they suspected being connected with MassResistance. They whipped the kids into a frenzied, angry state, and as police watched they surrounded, screamed and cursed at, blocked and pushed the cameras, and even assaulted the photographers, including an elderly lady. It was a hideous scene.

And the group even has "footage" of the incidents.

You can check it out if you have the stomach and the time.

But if you don't want to, allow me give you the highlights.

There is no footage of adults inciting children to send a "message" to the Mass Resistance photographers.

The most you ever see is two incidents - one of a young girl holding her coat up in front of a photographer (until she was stopped by a police officer) and an older woman touching the camera while asking the photographer a question (and notice how the photographer freaks out).

There were some teens who came up to the camera shouting slogans and giving comments. Some comments were rather intelligent and not rude. But no teen made any attempts to assault the photographer.

Mass Resistance claims the following:

There were no arrests and no charges of disorderly conduct -- or Civil Rights violations. This would seem to be a very clear violation of the Massachusetts’ Civil Rights statutes. But as has happened so much in the past, normal laws don't apply to angry homosexual activists. They can do what they want.

There were no arrests because from the footage shown by Mass Resistance, there were no incidents that warranted arrests.

My guess is that Mass Resistance has made a nuisance of themselves for so long that everyone knows what to expect from them.

They are like the fly that won't stop buzzing around your head.

California pisses off anti-gay industry - a new reason to love California

I'm not going to tell you anything that you haven't heard already.

Okay, maybe one thing:

California overturned the ban on gay marriage.

Naturally this has given the anti-gay industry huge fits.

I don't know what I enjoy more; the ruling or the reactions by our friends Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber.

Peter, it's none of your business how California lgbt couples will "consummate" their victory and frankly, I'm surprised you are thinking about such a thing.

You are nasty!!!

And you need Jesus!!!!

Not to be undone, Matt Barber said the following:

The decision, says Barber, could become a big campaign issue. Conservatives and Republicans around the country, he says, can thank the California Supreme Court for what he calls an "early Christmas present.

"They have been walking around feeling pretty dejected because of some these [recent] election results," observes CWA spokesman, "but I think this will motivate the base of the Republican Party and certainly conservatives around the country to vote for Republicans or Democrats who are prepared to stand up and defend traditional marriage."

I have no doubt that the anti-gay industry will try to use this victory to rally their troops in November.

But this election will not be about marriage equality. The war looms above us all, gas prices are high, and health care is a mess. Those are the issues people care about.

You know, issues that are not cosmetic. Issues that mean something.

Still though, I would love to see James Dobson and the rest make a 360 degree turn to support John McCain after calling him everything but the anti-Christ.

The ruling today trumps something that I discovered about One News Now.

Apparently the "news" site has eliminated the comments section.

Could it have been the fact that some lgbts (myself included) posted dignified but factual comments that served to counter the lies of Christian victimhood that One News Now likes to propagate?

Hmmmmm, could be (that's a lot funnier when Bugs Bunny says it).

Well at any rate, to quote the rapper Ice Cube:

Today was a good day!!

And now a little bit about gay and black me

In commemoration of my blog reaching over 30,000 hits, I want to do something a little different. In my 20 months of blogging, I have noticed something interesting; our opposition refuses to acknowledge lgbts of color. It's like they are scared of us.

Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber and the rest talk about the African-American civil rights movement in halting, condescending tones that are designed to exploit the notion that the African-American identity and the lgbt orientation are two entities that can never intersect.

Now I could combat this by preaching about how we are all brothers and no group has the patent on the struggle for equality.

But I won't. I think that it would be best served to give the opposition something that they don't want; the voice and experiences of a gay man of color. By all means, tell me what you think of it:

Let me give you a few facts about myself by way of introduction.

I am a 37-year-old black male and a native of South Carolina. I remember things like the PTL Club, the birth of rap music and Cher when she was hitched to Sonny.

And there is one more fact that you should know.

I am gay.

Sometimes I take an uncalled for pleasure with informing other African-Americans about my sexual orientation.

It’s not like I shout about it from rooftops. I only reveal that part about myself when the situation calls for clearing up incorrect preconceived notions.

Like when I’m asked why I’m not married yet or what young female I’m seeing.

There is nothing quite like seeing the realization slowly creeping across the face of whomever I am talking to when they realize that they are in the presence of a genuine, dyed in the wool black homosexual.

Unfortunately it never leads to them asking for my autograph.

To the African-American community, I’m persona non grata.

It’s always interesting to run into one of my fellow gay black brothers in a public setting, especially the ones who don’t want anyone to know their sexual orientation. We tend to share the same animals trapped in a lab cage look.

It’s not that being gay is a bad thing and we are trapped in our orientation. We are just trapped in our communities.

Don’t get me wrong. I ‘m proud to be an African-American.

But there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the black community regarding homosexuality.

When I attended Winthrop University, homosexuality was one of those subjects you just didn’t bring up amongst black students. It was “a sin.”

Meanwhile, the largest black organization on campus would have yearly town hall meetings geared to deciphering the logistics of relationships between black males and females. These highly attended events would be filled with claims of cheating and long-winded speeches.

I remember one specifically due to its rather impressive title: A man is a dog and a dog is a man but what about the woman he is dogging with?

The implication was clear: unmarried black male and female students were having sex across the campus. But only the gay and lesbian students should be ashamed of it.

This reluctance to talk about homosexuality in the African-American community and the consequences of it do make things interesting.

Generally, when black women discover that I am gay, they work hard to become my friend. I like to think that they feel some kindred with me. The cynic in me though tells me that they are trying to work themselves in my good graces so that in the future I can give them some clues to tell whether or not their boyfriends or husbands are on the “down low.”

And speaking of the “down low,” (or the practice of a heterosexual man having a secret gay relationship on the side) I am so sick and tired of hearing about it.

I wouldn’t mind talking about it. But like so many conversations in the African-American community, us gays can’t get a word in edgewise with all of the books written on it by heterosexuals and words spoken in churches about it by heterosexuals, and all the forums held by heterosexuals.

The “down low” is not a new thing nor is it indigenous to race. The practice of a man with a wife or girlfriend having a boyfriend on the side is as old as the hills. It’s just that the African-American community seems to be the only group that has given it a pet name.

I once ran into two acquaintances talking about this “down low” situation. Both were in agreement that black men who were having gay relationships on the side should come out. But then I pointed out that they and the African-American community in general should do more to encourage them to come out. And they pointed out that they weren’t about to do that. That did not surprise me.

This entire “down low” situation reveals a certain meanness about the African-American community. So many became alarmed when it was presented that the “down low” could be the reason for the high HIV rate amongst African-American women.

The question that no one wants to ask is that if HIV wasn’t affecting black women the way it is, would anyone care about the rate of HIV amongst black gay men?

I am so tired of the distorted message I hear about the “down low.” In the first place, we never talk about the real issue, which is that the African-American community, through its mistreatment of the black gay man, actually encourages this sort of behavior.

History gives us such legendary black gays and lesbians as Bayard Rustin, Lorraine Hansberry, Barbara Jordan, and James Baldwin.

Black society today gives us Fantasia and Venus who fix up our hair, cousin Pookie, Jamal who is in the church choir and tries to be in the closet but just who is he kidding anyway, and that sister down the street with a can of beer always in her hand; the one who wears her pants lower than the brothers on the corner.

How in the hell did it come to this?

I’m no different from any other African-American. I get annoyed at the little subtle digs of racism in American society. I know that when people talk about the “All-American boy” or the “girl next door,” they don’t mean me or those who look like me.

So why is it that in the African-American community where me and my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are supposed to get support, we either are without a voice or have our voices so muted that no one hears us.

You never see us featured in Ebony, Jet, or Essence. We hardly ever any play on BET except for an offhand mention when people are talking about HIV prevention.

And it always astounds me when a heterosexual African-American says, “hey I don’t have a problem with gay people. I have no problem with anyone’s sexual preference,” then proceeds to overtalk us, generalize about us, and systematically exclude us from all-important conversations of the black community.

I have heard the usual about “you can’t compare being gay to being black.” I’ve heard the usual about gays never riding the back of the bus or gays not going through the same levels of discrimination black folks have.

And it’s all irrelevant details as far as I'm concerned.

All I know is that I have been accosted for being gay and I have been accosted for being black.

And after being accosted for being gay, I never walked away from the situation saying something like, “Whew, I’m glad so-and-so didn’t try to beat me up because of my color. The punches would have hurt more.”

Did Cybercast News make the case against Crystal Dixon

So the right-wing are slowly catching on to the Crystal Dixon story. And with their usual candor, they are spinning it to make Dixon look like a victim:

"She has been fired," said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon "another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources" because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

The University said the following:

According to a statement from UT spokesman Lawrence J. Burns, the university determined that there was “just cause” to fire Dixon.

“The public position Ms. Dixon took in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures, as well as the institutional core values as defined in our strategic plan, and called into question her continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in her capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk,” Burn said in the statement.

The article also said Dixon was not initially fired. She was offered a demotion and a pay cut, both of which she refused.

So it can be interpreted that the University found that Ms. Dixon's personal beliefs could interfere with her job duties.

Interesting.

However, there is another side to the story.

The question may come down to that of policy, not the context of Dixon’s statements.

I have read the claim on several sites that Dixon indicated that she was speaking for herself and did not involve the University.

This is may not be true. Nowhere in her column did Dixon indicate that she was solely giving her opinion. She even indentifies herself as an employee of the university.

Even though they probably didn’t mean to, her lawyers indicate this very point:

Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center, meanwhile, point out that Dixon, an African-American woman and evangelical Christian, was not speaking on behalf of the university, but -- as Dixon herself phrased it in the column -- "as a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and a business owner."

By that statement, it can be construed that she was in fact speaking on behalf of the University.

It all comes down to how this will interpreted.

And what about when she said the following:

The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.

Was this private information? If so, who gave her clearance to make it public?

We all have been ruminating on the context of Dixon’s words. Some of us have canonized her as a martyr of political correctness and others have vilified her as intolerant.

I myself have been very disturbed by yet another example of an African-American self-righteous wannabe attacking the lgbt community.

But ultimately, the entire thing could come down to that of policy.

Does an employee have a right to involve their employer (even indirectly) in personal opinions?

Does free speech and religion cover this sort of thing?

Does the University's policy address this issue?

Can an employee not agree with the University's core mission but still fulfill the job duties that would accomplish this core mission?

All very interesting questions. I'm very curious to see how this will play out.

UPDATE - Matt Barber weighs in

Matt Barber from Concerned Women for America weighs in the situation with his usual brand of hysteria:

Don’t let this egregious and discriminatory action by the University of Toledo be ignored. Please contact University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Crystal Dixon and issue a public apology to her, the African-American community and to Christians worldwide.

Apologize to Christians worldwide? Apparently Barber takes too much on himself. I am sure that many Christians worldwide do not agree with Dixon's statements.

And speaking of apologies, if Barber wants to play that game, then he should apologize to us lgbts of color for every lie he has told on the lgbt community.

Or do LGBTs of color exist in his world?

I'm buying this book!!!!

I'm not one for gossipy tell-all books, but in the following case, I am going to make an exception:

Terrance Dean, a former executive at music channel MTV, has penned a memoir of his life and times in the hip hop industry as a gay man. It is an explosive exposé of a thriving gay subculture in an aggressively male business, where anti-gay lyrics and public homophobia are common.

I don't know how I feel about Dean naming names, but I support the book for several reasons.

Hip-hop is a microcosm of African-American hypocrisy regarding the lgbt community.

With all due respect to my brothers and sisters, we are talking about a genre of music that encourages baby mama dramas, makes stars out of women for doing nothing but jiggling their butts in a video, and propagates ignorance of speech and attitudes amongst black men.

We are talking about a genre of music that creates and supports images of masculinity so extreme that you couldn't measure up to them if your blood was replaced with testosterone.

Some vestiges of hip-hop add to the problem of homophobia in the African-American community, pure and simple.

Oh yeah, that is right. Kanye West spoke out against homophobia in hip-hop. He even got on the cover of several magazines because of it.

Natually that led me to find the tallest mountain in the United States so that I could stand on the very top, twirl my finger in the air and go "whoop te do."

This book will give hip-hop and my African-American community a rude shot in the arm. And trust me when I say that both need it.

I may buy five copies, all hardback editions.

See, I bet you all thought I was going to write about Crystal Dixon again.

Crystal Dixon fired

Reports are slowly coming out that the University of Toledo fired Crystal Dixon.

Dixon had written a column this week calling homosexuality a choice and saying that she takes umbrage with the comparison of being black and being gay. She also said she did not consider gay rights as civil rights.

It was not a simple case of free speech. Dixon was an associate vice president of Human Resources at the university.

She was responsible for insuring equity and diversity at the university. Because of such, there was some concern with whether or not she could do her job adequately.

Also, as a staff member at the University, she was not entitled to the same academic freedoms that professors are.

Let me say a couple of things that will probably be lost in the flurry to exploit this situation.

As a gay black man, I was offended by yet again a heterosexual African-American speaking against their lgbt brothers and sisters. I was also offended by her very bad use of statistics and her relying on bad sources such as PFOX.

I also feel that the University had an obligation to investigate whether or not Dixon could do her job fairly in light of her comments.

And as of right now, I agree with the decision to let her go.

But I hate it when this sort of thing happens.

I wish there was some sort of compromise.

But to those who will spin this case as one of "an attack on free speech," how would you feel if her comments had been against Christians, or Muslims, or any other groups; people whose interests she was hired to look after while they are students at the university.

Ms. Dixon has a right to free speech, but that doesn't trump her responsibility to the students, whether or not they are gay. Their well-being takes precedent over everything.

She is not the victim here.


Happy Confederate Memorial Day!!!!

I kid you not.

Today is Confederate Memorial Day in South Carolina.

Confederate Memorial Day was the result of a legislative compromise in which the state agreed to recognize today as a state holiday if Martin Luther King Jr. Day was also recognized as a state holiday.

Such is life way down south in Dixie.

Now as a black man, I'm a little conflicted.

But as a state employee, to hell with it.

A day off is a day off.

Apparently our opposition has their ecumenical knickers in a twist over the online search site Wikipedia. The following is according to that bastion of Christian fairness, One News Now:

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is facing harsh criticism over the posting of sexually explicit photos and images, including that of homosexuals.

Officials with Wikipedia say they permit the smut because they have a policy against censoring anything -- but that is not true, according to Bob Peters of Morality in Media. He says Wikipedia does not post child porn on the site, and they also censor personal attacks or anything potentially libelous.

And even our lovely friend Matt Barber weighs in on the pseudo-controversy:

“Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Pornopedia. Providing clinical images that may assist people in research is one thing, but many of the images and videos featured by Wikipedia are gratuitous and obscene. They’re entirely unnecessary and amount to hardcore pornography, plain and simple.

Of course neither Barber nor One News Now go into detail concerning such images. In Barber's case it just adds to the notion that he thinks hyperbole substitutes as truth. The title of his piece is Wikipedia peddles porn to kids.

I thought if you make charges of that nature, you must show proof. I guess it doesn't count if you are a "fine, upstanding conservative Christian."

In One News Now's case, the lack of proof regarding the charges against Wikipedia is a fact duly noted by some of the commentators on the site. The entire issue seems to be bringing all the interesting comments out:

"As I read these comments I hear anger, bitterness, condemnation and all manner of emotions EXCEPT love. WWJD? He loves every one of us and hope this love would win us over to his way (True Christianity.)"

"Well I haven't seen the wind but I can tell you its there. Just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean its not there. Go looking, bet you 'll find it....Also stopping children from looking at pornography is not a bad thing really its not.... Nothing wrong with keeping a youngsters mind out of the gutter..Nothing wrong with a conservative outlook on life either, if you don't like it don't become a conservative...;)"

"I don't think anyone trying to "highjack" this site can make Christians look bad. You so-called Christians are doing such an excellent job by yourselves." (that one is by me. I feel so famous!)

"It’s pretty obvious that unbelievers are commenting here. I pity them because they are blind to their own ignorance, and will ultimately stand in judgment, with no hope of mercy. They think they can say whatever they want without consequence… Big mistake! "Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the LORD is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed." 1 Samuel 2:3"

"I've used Wikipedia many, many times and have never encountered pornography. There are photos of human anatomy, but it would be quite sad if some people considered that to be pornographic."

"Whether it is legal or not, each and every man and woman has the right and knowledge to know if they want to venture down those paths or not. Just because I am selling something legal, like horse crap, that doesn't mean that you have to stop and buy it. If each person would just ask that little phrase......WWJD. That stands for What Would Jesus Do. The Mormon religion has one that is older then that. CTR. Which stands for Choose the Right."

"Obvioiusly the good people at AFA and OneNewsNow are NOT going to give detail so everyone else can pollute their minds and spread this around. It simply requires common sense to know this if one is geared to decency at all! It's also common sense to know your source. If you read this site then you know whether it's reliable or not."

"So I typed in the word "porn" on wikipedia's website and at the bottom of the page that came up was a "Silent 'stag' film" In which the woman becomes topless. So, yes it is there. But again I think any normal filter would catch this and this story is fruitless."

"Yes, the fools wage their war against their creator and His instructions for living the best life. The only intelligent comment posted, was the one that warns that the "comments are partially hijacked." Impostors, pretenders, liars, defenders of what God says He hates. Sad to see how self-deceived and defiled people can become, to call right wrong, and wrong right."

"Well, i just went their and it has a link to a smut video clip. That is enough. Porn is Porn and it will not detract, it will attract. People who have seen porn tend to want more and the potent material will just add to the addiction!"

""ATTENTION IF YOU ARE READING THESE COMMENTS! Please know that these comments have partially been hijacked by people wanting to make Christians look bad and defend their point of view. Its common for activist to jump on a good Christian site like Onenewsnow and make it look as if there are all kids of people that disagree with the Bible and present ultra liberal views. I have managed message boards and blogs for a long time and this is common.""

"I've never seen porn on Wikipedia. Regardless, porn is not illegal so the Justice Department is not going to do anything about it. Besides, anyone who was looking for porn on the internet would have millions of sites on which to find it easily before searching through Wikipedia. This article is nonsense."

"I have never seen "porn" on Wiki only anatomy pictures. They certainly do have links to pornographic material in the pornography articles. Wiki is for everybody, if you do not like it then get a filter because they only way you are going to see naked pictures on wiki is in an article that will have some sort of words that will block the article."

"I've heard these allegations before, but have never seen any evidence."

"Where is the proof? I use Wikipedia for a lot of research, I have thus far never found anything offensive on the website. What gives? Did they refuse to say anything nice about the AFA on their site?"

"Is it actual porn, or is it human anatomy? Or have some people completely confused the two?"

"Here's something that could stop children from accessing the site: Parenting. Start being responsible for raising your children so the rest of us don't have to."

"You can write another article and tell us what articles contain porn? I'm very interested in finding out what porn is on Wikipedia."