So, turns out that soy is "feminizing" (it is a phyto-estrogen, whatever that is, and apparently linked to breast cancer, which I see as an actual cause for concern, but that's not really the point of this article)
Which is making people gay.
Doesn't really explain me, maybe it should have made me straight? I've been a tofu eating treehugger for almost 20 years now and it doesn't seem to have hurt/helped me in that regard.
Also, in case you haven't heard, from Focus on the Family, responding to the news of Mary Cheney's pregnancy Carrie Gordon Earll, said in a statement. “Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s the best for the child. Love can’t replace a mom or a dad.”
What a choice to make! I'd say, though, that if it's a choice between the two the choice is obvious, maybe for all of us - we just choose different things!
5 comments:
“Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean it’s the best for the child. Love can’t replace a mom or a dad.”
As a child raised with two married parents but very little affection, I have no doubts about the choice I would make.
-e.
Somewhat relatedly, I just read about a study linking that linked rising IQs in children with the likelihood they will become vegetarian (and gay, apparently...)
you can read about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061215/hl_hsn/kidswithhighiqsgrowuptobevegetarians
m.
e-
I'm so sorry to hear it! I suppose I could say something similar about myself (though my parents divorced when I was 11) - except there was affection, it was just sort of skewed.
It's a shocking statement to me because I really had been going along believing that EVERYONE thought it was very important that children be loved by their parents, and that one of my "tasks" as a purveyor of the gay agenda :) was to explain to people how they can get it from a variety of types of families.
But it seems to boil down to a question of almost love vs. "normalcy" or some such thing. I would think there wasn't much to choose there, but apparently some disagree.
peace
Pam
Most people agree that children should be loved: whether or not they can love their own children is a different problem.
Having divorced parents is a different kind of hell, I think - but maybe nothing's easy for children.
But it seems to boil down to a question of almost love vs. "normalcy" or some such thing. I would think there wasn't much to choose there, but apparently some disagree.
But love heals the lack of normalcy, or so I've found. Besides: if gay marriage were legal, it would become normal. It wouldn't be so - awkward (as I'm assuming it is) for the children of gays.
Now it's reminding me of the couples who "stay together for the children", rather than divorce: we don't want to upset them, don't want them to be ostracized, don't want them to feel different from their classmates. (That was the argument when I was growing up, anyway.) But divorce is common now, and it is hard for the children - I'm certain - but I doubt very much they feel like the only kid in the school whose parents are split up. If we accepted gays into society, it wouldn't be so hard. Not that anything is easy, or simple: but I believe, absolutely, that things would change.
-e.
Well, the truth is (ahem) that miso (a fermented soy product) will cure whatever ails you. Thus, gays, lesbians, internet preachers, lawyers, head-trippers, punk-rockers, and dog-lovers should eat plenty of miso soup. If you are not "cured" after a month or so, it means you are fine as is. This is not a result to be taken lightly, as the realization that one is fine as one is is the first step toward genuine repentance!
But it all starts with miso soup. Sadly, Quakers don't talk about that much. Could that be because we are all so accustomed....
(to be continued).
Dave
Dog-loving lawyer
Post a Comment