Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

An article published by BBC Earth News today cites the first scientific study that looks into the homosexual tendencies of penguins and concluded that some penguins merely "flirt" with homosexuality.

The occurrence of homosexuality, the scientists conclude, is the result of a high male population or higher-than-normal levels of testosterone. What's more - the scientists claim the homosexual pairs formed between the penguins are not long lasting - something interestingly similar to homosexual pairs formed between human beings.

One of the researchers, Professor Dobson explained:

So these [homosexual] pairs can bond. But, bonded pairs can split up if one finds a more preferred partner.

That's interesting because nobody refutes that people involved in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most promiscuous people in the world. For example, gay author Gabriel Rotello wrote:

"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity...I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."

If only penguins could speak.

Homosexual activists often take the position that, because homosexuality occurs in nature that homosexuality is natural part of life. They use this as a talking point in the effort to mainstream their deviant sexual lifestyle which they are working to force upon an unwilling society. They, not me, compare gay and lesbian human beings to members of the animal kingdom.

I use their own comparison to demonstrate that, as the study demonstrated, the homosexuality members of the LGBT community compare themselves to is short-lived, has nothing to do with family and most importantly, the homosexual pairs were observed later on paired with a member of the opposite sex raising eggs in the breeding colony.

The bottom line is that the 'gay' penguin pairs do not stay together and in fact, return to a heterosexual lifestyle centered upon breeding and raising the next generation of penguins.

The LGBT community was so excited to see two 'gay' penguins hatch and raise a baby penguin back in 2005. We shall see their reaction to this scientific study. My guess is that the LGBT community will throw the penguins under the bus. It's won't be pretty.

So what's the point? The point is that gay and lesbians ought to be free to live the sexual lifestyle of their preference. They ought not to be treated differently because of their preferences. But when it comes to redefining marriage for the entire society, that's another matter.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with family and child-rearing, something at the very core of marriage. A piece of advice for the homosexual community:  Stop comparing yourselves to animals. It is precisely the ability of human beings to understand the difference between right and wrong, paired with our conscience, which makes us unique from the members of the greater animal kingdom.

READ MORE - Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

One aspect of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps strategy would be a better word to use, is to mainstream homosexuality in our society as the debate over gay adoption and same-sex marriage continues across the Nation.

That is why over the course of the past few years we have seen reports published that, for example, claim that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexual parents. Of course, this particular study has been discredited and earlier this year we explained how the entire study was a propaganda tool of the homosexual agenda.

The study I'd like to draw attention to has been printed for the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science and a summary of the article can be found at the end of this article.

Most interestingly, the study confirmed that:

Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%...

This is interesting as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts the percentage of homosexuals in this country at somewhere between 3% and 8%. That represents a stark difference between the numbers presented by the study.

If 8% of the country as a whole are homosexuals and upwards of 16% of homosexuals' children are themselves gay or lesbians, it goes a long way to support the idea that homosexuality is, at least in part, a learned behavior - something the American Psychological Association (APA) would not refute, although they are highly supportive of homosexuality.

Last year the APA quietly came out admitting that there was no evidence of a 'gay gene', reversing a stance they held on the issue for over a decade and were only able to confirmed that many factors are at play when it comes to the determination of one's sexual orientation.

So what does this mean? Well, if the findings of the study are accurate and we as a Nation continue to impose social experiments on the family by way of gay adoption and same-sex marriage, it will equate into a larger population of homosexuals. Is that necessarily in of itself a bad thing? No, of course not.

On the other hand, homosexual activists are adamant that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and allowing gay couples to adopt children will not have any adverse consequences. Quite the opposite taking into consideration the findings of this study.

What it means is quite possibility that within a few generations of full-fledged gay adoption and same-sex marriage, the number of Americans engaging in homosexual activity will reach a point of affecting population growth and will, short of a medical breakthrough, lead to a dramatic spread of the HIV virus.

Dramatic conclusion you may think.

Firstly, I do not intend to say that homosexual activity will ever grow to such a level that would kill off the species. So immediately I would clarify that I do not see an extinction of the human race at stake here.

However, it is valid to mention given the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court had this to say about the role of marriage in it's 2006 ruling in Andersen v. King County:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.

Secondly, considering recent reports that 1-out-of-5 gay men are HIV-positive, it is quite fair to say that if the population of gay men increases, so will spread the HIV virus. The Center for Disease Control had this to say about gay men and HIV:

Gay and bisexual men of all races account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.

It's understandable that same-sex couples would like to adopt children. But let's keep adoption focused on what's best for the children. After all, adoption is about giving children the parents they need not giving parents the children they want.

For same-sex couples, adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of children but about fulfilling their objective to mimic the institution of the family which ideally consists of a mother and father who are married, and the child or children they conceive.

Now, the study I have been referring to is provided below. It was put together by Walter Schumm of Kansas State University who received his B.S. in Physics from The College of William and Mary in 1972, his M.S. in Family and Child Development from Kansas State University in 1976 before earning his Ph.D in Family Studies from Purdue University in 1979. 

Yes it is connected to Dr. Paul Cameron, a researcher highly disliked by the homosexual community for his work, but according to an AOL News article, it was this very same Dr. Paul Cameron who first wrote about the negative effects of secondhand smoke so in my book he's got some credibility.

CHILDREN OF HOMOSEXUALS MORE APT TO BE HOMOSEXUALS? A REPLY TO MORRISON AND TO CAMERON BASED ON AN EXAMINATION OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA

WALTER R. SCHUMM (2010).

Journal of Biosocial Science, Volume 42,
Issue 06, November 2010 pp 721-742

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=7907017

READ MORE - Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

So I came across a series of headlines that refer to a recent study which says that children of lesbian couples grow up just as well as children in households where there is both a mother and a father. These articles drew my attention because it goes right in the face of one of the core arguments of the effort to protect marriage: the idea that marriage is about family made by mothers and fathers together, who play distinct parental roles.

Dr. Henny Bos,
co-investigator

Dr. Nanette Gartrell,
lead investigator

Upon finishing the article I sat back and thought I better prepare for the onslaught of homosexual activists who will be coming to my Facebook page to post this article and to scream its results at the top of their internet lungs. And then I immediately wanted to know who conducted this study.

I'll be honest. My first impressions of the research team led me to start accepting the study as legit and professional. I mean, the research team is led by a Doctor Nanette Gartrell, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Center of Excellence in Women's Health for the University of California at San Francisco and a former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School. The setting of all this being in San Francisco raised a little red flag but I let it go at the time. After all, coincidences do happen, right?

Also on the team was Doctor Henny Bos, an Assistant Professor of Childhood Education and Family Support at the Department of Education of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. Talk about a long name, right? Dr. Bos is listed as a co-investigator.

So far my investigation into this study has concluded that it was conducted by an international team of doctors with expertise in relevant fields. The other project research staff includes a registered nurse at the San Francisco General Hospital, a statistical analyst who is a former member of the Stanford Medical School faculty and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

At this point anyone opposed to homosexual parenting must be pretty discouraged. That staff is pretty solid and I'll be the first to admit it. 

That is when the truth became clear to me. At the bottom of their webpage is a link to their supporters and funders. I'd like to go through each of these funders and let my readers decide for themselves if this study was research or propaganda. Remember, the project staff is a highly professional team. So all that is left are those behind the study, providing the grants and necessary financial assistance.

The first funder is The Arcus Foundation. It didn't take me more than ten seconds to understand what their position on this matter is. Upon opening their website, in big orange letters one will clearly read that The Arcus Foundation funds "pressing social justice and conservation issues." Furthermore, they openly claim to "work to advance LGBT rights". LGBT is an acronym used often in this report and stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender". The Arcus Foundation also seems to be interested in protecting the great apes but that's an unrelated matter.

As of June 1st, 2010, they have a new Executive Director, Fred Davie, who is replacing Urvashi Vaid so she can go off to write a book (most certainly a LGBT rights book) and, according to their site, "to continue her longstanding leadership role in the LGBT and social justice movements." I'll come back to Urvashi Vaid later on.

On to funder number two. Based in San Francisco like much of the project research team, The Horizons Foundation is another group which proudly and clearly states its support for the LGBT community on its website - this time in blue. Within ten seconds one will immediately understand that The Horizons Foundation "serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community." At least that's what they have printed right smack dab in the middle of their home page.

So what is this organization? Who runs it? Well, its Executive Director is Roger Doughty, who has served in many different posts around the country - all promoting the LGBT agenda. For example, Roger has worked as the Executive Director of Horizons Community in Chicago, IL. For those of you unfamiliar with that group, it is the largest LGBT social service and advocacy group of the Midwest.

Before that, Roger was the Director of Program Administration for the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. He was (is?) the President of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in Washington, D.C. and since 1998 has been a board member on the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Practically the each of the staff members of The Horizon Foundation are LGBT activists, lawyers and advisors.

Devesh Khatu is their Development Officer. He boasts that he is a "long-time volunteer at organizations that serve the LGBT community."

Their Program Officer, Jewelle Gomez, was a founding member of the Astraea National Lesbian Foundation and wrote a book which won two awards from Lambda Literary - a national gay book review organization that annually celebrates the best of lesbian and gay books.

The third funder is The California Endowment, which after a ten-minute review of their website, board of directors, mission statement, etc, I must say seems like a legit operation not controlled by the homosexual agenda like the first two. The same goes for The California Wellness Foundation, the project's fourth funder. So far we've got two LGBT activist groups and two neutral organizations. 

The Colorado-based Gill Foundation is the fifth funder. In blue letters along the top of its website the Foundation claims its status as "advocates for LGBT equality." The foundation openly supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

The founder of The Gill Foundation is himself a homosexual, married to another man and claims to be a strong supporter of social justice.

Remember Urvashi Vaid, the outgoing Executive Director of The Arcus Foundation? Well, she has been a board member of The Gill Foundation since 2004. The Gill website also speaks about The Arcus Foundation as "a funder of the LGBT movement," except here they give us more detailed information about Urvashi herself.

Apparently, she's a community organizer just like our current President. She worked for four years as the director of the Governance and Civil Society Unit of the Peace and Social Justice Program. She also claims to have worked for many years with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in various roles including Executive Director.

She's worked for the ACLU as an attorney and is a former columnist for the Advocate, a gay publication.

In 1996 she authored the book "Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation." So wait a minute. Does that mean that one of the funders of this research project is an expert on "mainstreaming" homosexuality? Wouldn't these research results do just that - make homosexual parenting acceptable and thus, eventually mainstream? 

So the next funder is not going to need any further explanation beyond its name but I will include some for for a little added flavor.

Funder number six is the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) which boasts itself as the "leader in LGBT health since 1981".

Officially, the organization claims to be the world's largest and oldest association of homosexual, bisexual and transgender health care professionals.

However, it's worthy to point out that this so-called "health care association" runs its very own "marriage equality initiative" aimed at creating a link between the same-sex marriage movement and GLMA's supporters in order to "bring the medical community's weight to the table of marriage equality." Their words, not mine.

Funder number seven is the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, which promotes and supports human rights, and according to its website is dedicated to social change and justice in the United States. Their website is seriously deficient of information. Nevertheless, a few minutes of research turned up some details which give us a clue as to its political leanings. This Foundation is listed as a human rights funder on the Human Rights Funders website.

Here is where Mertz Gilmore areas of grant funding are listed. Among those listed are "sexual minorities" and "equality". Now don't let that throw you off. It's part of their overall PR strategy to make homosexuality mainstream. Only relatively recently have homosexual activists begun to inject the word "equality" into the marriage debate. A visual example of this is GLMA's "marriage equality initiative" but earlier the PR strategy was about legalizing "gay marriage" and then it was about legalizing "same-sex marriage" and now it's about "marriage equality". 

After the first glance of the eighth funder, I thought we had our third neutral organization. But that was just my initial impression of the American Psychological Foundation. Any foundation that has been awarded for "combating homophobia" is clearly pro-homosexuality. 

Now combating homophobia maybe a noble cause. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else and should be treated like people. I'm a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage but that's not because of any hated of homosexuals. Nevertheless, boasting about combating homophobia is the type of language only used by those on that side of the issue.

The American Psychological Foundation is brought to you by The American Psychological Association, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in the early 1970s. However, in 2009 they quietly confirmed that there is no evidence of a "gay gene".

However, if that doesn't satisfy you for proof of their tilt, I'd like to present for your reading pleasure a February 2010 publication by the American Psychological Association entitled "Claiming a Place at the Family Table: Gay and Lesbian Families in the 21st Century".

The PDF starts out something like this: "In light of recent setbacks to marriage equality…" Setbacks? You mean the restoration of marriage in California in 2008? Or do you mean the rejection of same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009? Those aren't setbacks, those are steps forward and anyone who claims they are setbacks clearly is on a homosexual agenda.

Next on our list of funders is the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation, which sports an amateur website and doesn't provide much information at all - at least about its political leanings. The website is dedicated to applying for one of their grants. 

However, a simple Google search of the Foundation provides the information we are looking for. For some reason The Family Equality Council comes up when you search them. Well, what is that organization? Seems like a play on words mocking the Family Research Council, a pro-traditional marriage group which opposes same-sex marriage.

But the Family Equality Council, according to its website, "works at all levels of government to advance full social and legal equality for LGBT families by ensuring that they are included in legislation, policies and practices impacting families." The Equality Council openly supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

So how is that associated with the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation? Well, maybe it would have to do with the fact that one of the places I checked my spelling of "Babson" when writing this report was on the list of supporters of the Family Equality Council. Yes, along with the LGBT Bar Association, The Arcus Foundation (remember them?), and The Gill Foundation, the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation is listed as a financial supporter of the Family Equality Council. 

The Uncommon Legacy Foundation is the tenth funder on our list and they don't have a website but a Google search pulls it up real quick. Apparently, it's a scholarship fund which dishes out $1,000 to "outstanding lesbian undergraduate and graduate full-time students". In order to receive the scholarship, one must demonstrate their commitment or contribution to the LGBT community.

As a side note they claim to have the website "www.uncommonlegacy.org" but I was unable to load it. That maybe due to the fact that I am in Russia at the moment and for some reason, I often have trouble accessing pro-homosexuality websites. Give it a shot. 

So we have one funder left to discuss and there are only two neutral organizations which funded this research and eight biased financiers which are dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda.

Our final funder is The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. According to its website, the Williams Institute "advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship," which it hands over to "judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public."

Bradley Sears, the Executive Director of the Williams Institute, interned for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the national gay rights legal advocacy group which is currently involved in lawsuits around the Nation to legalize same-sex marriage and to repeal DOMA. He also interned for the ACLU's National Gay and Lesbian and AIDS Project. 

The Williams Institute's Research Director, Lee Badgett, is an author of two gay-themed books focusing on the economic lives of homosexuals and about the future of society after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Its Development Director, Matt Strieker, is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. He's also active in the Young Professional's Council, which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The list of participants at the Williams Institute goes on and on - too far for me to list them all but it even goes as far as Taya Ball, the Administrative Assistant, who wrote a gay-themed thesis for her B.S. in Psychology. 

This Institute is monopolized by the gay agenda.

Let's bring it full circle. Doctor Nanette Gartrell, the one who led the twenty year study is herself a Williams Distinguished Scholar. Yes, of the Williams Institute at UCLA mentioned above. Beyond that, personal lives are personal lives but in this case it can't be ignored. Dr. Gartrell is a lesbian and married to the feminist, activist and filmmaker Diane "Dee" Mosbacher. 

So long story short, I'd hope that my investigative report has at the very least provided you with reason to not accept the results of this new study (propaganda?) as they are presented to you.

Nine out of eleven of the project funders openly and actively support the homosexual agenda. One of its key members is a specialist focused on making homosexuality a mainstream part of society. This is a clear aspect of their plan - present "research" (propaganda), which contradicts the common belief that homosexual households are not the best environment for raising children.

Children not only need a mother and a father but have the right to a mother and a father. When circumstances don't permit that, it is unfortunate. It doesn't mean that we should start promoting and encouraging that unfortunate circumstance by supporting same-sex marriage/adoption or the general homosexual agenda as a whole.

This article was originally printed on June 7, 2010 on our original website. It has been reposted here as we continue to transition to this website.

READ MORE - Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?