Earlier this year, the National Organization for Marriage got into trouble for secret documents outlining a strategy of playing the black and gay community like pawns over the subject of marriage equality.
NOM deserved all of the trouble it got for this. However, in those same confidential documents is another strategy which seems to be now coming to fruition.
Equality Matters points this out:
I think it's safe to say that NOM has its spokesperson.
Robert Oscar Lopez, a self-described bisexual English professor, has just published a piece in the Witherspoon Institute publication Public Discourse called Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View in which he detailed growing up in a same-sex household.
He does not go into detail about his childhood, but the gist is it is tough growing up in a same-sex household. For his candor on this aspect, I don't fault him. Growing up in marginalized household, be it a same-sex household or a single-parent household is tough.
But what I do fault Lopez for is how he puts down his own family
By citing his childhood, Lopez attempts to give credibility to a recent study on same-sex households which has been criticized for its lack of good science.
This study, by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, was in part paid for by the Witherspoon Institute, the same organization in whose publication Lopez's piece appears in.
How very convenient.
Lopez says the following about the study:
Lopez's words are probably irrelevant. He is really a symbol.
Or, for lack of a better word, a pawn.
The fact that he is a product of a same-sex household whose words can be used to discredit those households is the important factor here.
And don't think NOM is wasting this opportunity.
Already NOM's former president, Maggie Gallagher, is citing Lopez in a column:
It is not known whether or not Lopez is receiving compensation for his "story." As it is, I really don't care.
The only question I have now is how long will it take before Lopez will be appearing on Fox News.
NOM deserved all of the trouble it got for this. However, in those same confidential documents is another strategy which seems to be now coming to fruition.
Equality Matters points this out:
NOM Intentionally Seeks Out Children Of Same-Sex Parents. . . . According to the organization’s internal documents, NOM planned to spend $60,000 in 2010 alone to try to get the children of same-sex couples to speak on camera:
I think it's safe to say that NOM has its spokesperson.
Robert Oscar Lopez, a self-described bisexual English professor, has just published a piece in the Witherspoon Institute publication Public Discourse called Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View in which he detailed growing up in a same-sex household.
He does not go into detail about his childhood, but the gist is it is tough growing up in a same-sex household. For his candor on this aspect, I don't fault him. Growing up in marginalized household, be it a same-sex household or a single-parent household is tough.
But what I do fault Lopez for is how he puts down his own family
By citing his childhood, Lopez attempts to give credibility to a recent study on same-sex households which has been criticized for its lack of good science.
This study, by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, was in part paid for by the Witherspoon Institute, the same organization in whose publication Lopez's piece appears in.
How very convenient.
Lopez says the following about the study:
Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.
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.
Lopez's words are probably irrelevant. He is really a symbol.
Or, for lack of a better word, a pawn.
The fact that he is a product of a same-sex household whose words can be used to discredit those households is the important factor here.
And don't think NOM is wasting this opportunity.
Already NOM's former president, Maggie Gallagher, is citing Lopez in a column:
In mediaworld, gay marriage activists are all ordinary loving couples who seek nothing more than to be left alone to snuggle as they choose, and opposing gay marriage is "controversial" for a business executive.
. . . Professor Robert Oscar Lopez, a self-identified Latino bisexual professor of English raised by two lesbian moms, wrote an essay praising professor Mark Regnerus' study on the subject.
Children with a gay parent, Lopez says, are typically kids like him, the product of a previous heterosexual relationship. By declaring the children of "bisexuals" off limits, critics of Regnerus are seeking to shut out the voices of the majority of children with a gay parent, Lopez says, the voices of people like him
He went on to say that Regnerus "deserves tremendous credit -- and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him."
It is not known whether or not Lopez is receiving compensation for his "story." As it is, I really don't care.
The only question I have now is how long will it take before Lopez will be appearing on Fox News.
12 comments:
really, he's kind of biting himself in the butt by making a point that being raised "differently" is the problem. If society would just shut their mouths and mind their own business instead of trying to stick their noses where they don't belong, none of these children would be treated differently! Maybe single parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their children because they are also raised "differently". Their argument is way too vague and will be torn to shreds by anyone with common sense.
I have started the following quote a lot. By itself, it says a lot about attitudes in general.
"Questions of truth do not enter into social issues." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
if there was a job being offered to children of opposite sex families that paid $60,000.00 and we got to go on camera and talk about how that was 'to blame' for all that was not right...? let's even surmise for a moment for A) turning us Gay or B) turning to drink) or C)the high rate of divorce or D) you follow my drift... For $60,000!!! Holy Smokes!!! we could blame a lot on opposite sex families I think... this makes not sense to me. Mom and Dad did not have enough quality time together so... and then ...
Well let me first state A.) The fact that children are treated differently because of being part of a gay or lesbian family is part of the huge underlying issue that we are fighting to resolve. B.) The insinuation that children treated differently should somehow have less emotional damage if their current families have more turmoil is absurd at it's core. Child psychology would suggest with strong evidence that stability is the most important factor in a child's mental well-being, and part of that is emotional stability on the part of the parent/guardian. C.) They insinuate that not allowing gay marriage will end the existence of the homosexual parental couple. This is an obvious folley since the man writing the book has a phd, making him too old to have been raised by a married lesbian couple. What then could this be used for as an argument against homosexual marriage. Even if we accepted their premise for the sake of argument their suggestion consists of "this is occurring and it is bad let's not let it get financially stable and thereby less bad" so even if the absurd premise was accepted the argument remains invalid
Well you also have to address the economic picture. There is still wide spread disparity between the wages of men and women.
So let's say you have two women making $30K a year. That's a total of $60K.
But lets say you have two men making $60K a year - that's $120K or double!
Me thinks Lopez does indeed have his head up his own ass.
Don't attempt to use logic. Funny how this flies in the face of the many children of same sex couples who have come out just fine, and strongly feel their families had as much value and goodness as any "traditional" family.
It is simple with the right wing. One example is sufficient to either prove or disprove whatever they are trying to prove or disprove. Even if 99% of the available examples disprove their position, they will flog that 1% as proof they are right. I have to wonder how horrible his childhood was that he overcame it to gain a PhD.
Wow... Obviously it's hard growing up in a household with same-sex parents! Just like it was hard for me growing up with just my mom, or for my friend who was in a foster home. Or for my cousins, whose parents are divorced. It's hard not because of who they are, but because of the way society TREATS those children. "OH, you have two gay dads!? Eww! Gross!" or "Wow, you only hvae a mom? Where's your dad? Did he get bored of you?" or "You're in fostercare because your parents didn't want you!" NOM is using this man as a mouthpiece to give credit to their agenda and make people feel bad for the children of same-sex couples. It's sad that the people of the world are so quick to ignore the real issue of bullying and blame all the hardship on the parents.
offer a 'staight' family child the chance at that money and a good chirch going family would be torn to shreds just the same, no family has ALL there s#$t so tightly wrapped up that someone can't find falt or blam
Even if Lopez's same-sex parents were awful, what would that prove about any other same-sex parents? There are countless heterosexual couples who are awful parents as well.
Being raised differently is a problem in a world where jackasses like those in NOM make it their life's mission to torture people for being different. Given their way we would all be identical...and boring as hell.
There should be more details on the study... Was there no control group that had similar environmental factors?
It seems like life is stressful and crappy for a lot of young people now with rampant physical and cyber bullying, not just for children of same-sex parents.
Shouldn't there be observations of another 248 children that live in the same neighborhoods, that eat the same foods, that have the same socio-economic factors, that attend the same schools, and have opposite-sex parents?
How does this even objectively measure up in research perspective?
Also, uhh, it seems like he's made it pretty far in life. A PROFESSOR? It's not like any hooligan off the street could attain that status.
I read Lopez's article. He may have some valid points, but mostly what it sounds like he's doing is whining. He is, by his own admission, socially awkward. He doesn't know how to relate to people. He doesn't have any friends. The trouble is that he blames all of this on his parents. He claims that the lack of a male role model seriously damaged him--but I find it hard to believe that he had no cousins, uncles, grandfathers, brothers, male teachers, principals, bosses--NO male role models AT ALL? It seems to me that Lopez is suffering from the victim mentality. Nothing is HIS fault. So he lays the blame at the feet of his parents--much to the detriment of the fight for equality.
Post a Comment