Obama: 24 Mass Shootings. Trump: 4 Mass Shootings

There have been eight mass shootings under Clinton, eight under Bush, and 24 under Obama.Ten Mass Shootings out of 24 since 1966 have happened under the Obama Administration. Four under Donald Trump.

One would never know the statistics with the pounding drum beat blaming Donald Trump. Did anyone blame Obama for all of the mayhem under his watch? Johnson? Reagan, Bush, Obama? Let’s step through the fog of mass shootings. Republicans are responsible for the violence?

Bonus information Democrat cities:

200th person Murdered in Baltimore this weekend.

7 killed this weekend in Chicago. 53 shot.

But I digress:

The first mass shooting in the collective American memory was the University of Texas at Austin shooting in August 1966. The shooter, armed with six weapons and ensconced at the top of the University of Texas Tower, killed 17 people, wounding more than 30 others.

Johnson’s first reaction sounds familiar to 21st-century ears. On August 2, 1966, the day after the shooting, White House press secretary Bill Moyers read a statement by the president that said, “What happened is not without a lesson: that we must press urgently for the legislation now pending in Congress to help prevent the wrong person from obtaining firearms.”

The statement added that “[t]he bill would not prevent all such tragedies. But it would help reduce the unrestricted sale of firearms to those who cannot be trusted in their use and possession.”

In July 1984, during Ronald Reagan’s first term as president, a gunman killed 21 people at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California.

Unlike Johnson, Reagan did not say anything publicly about the shooting. In fact, a search by the New York Times revealed that “[t]he Times did not report any comment from the administration of President Ronald Reagan. His public papers show no statements on the subject in the days following.”

When the Tylenol poisonings took place in Chicago in 1982, Reagan had also stood back, letting Johnson & Johnson take the lead in the response. Reagan appears to have been of the view that local tragedies should be handled at the local level, deferring to private-sector entities, when appropriate, to handle problems.

Reagan also appears to have remained quiet after the other two mass shootings during his presidency, one in Oklahoma and one in California. The 1986 Edmond, Oklahoma, shooting appears to be the first one in which a disgruntled post-office employee was the killer, the start of an unfortunate trend of about half a dozen of these shootings that would inspire the phrase “going postal.”

Similarly, Reagan’s successor and former vice president, George H. W. Bush, also generally avoided making statements about the four mass shootings during his administration.

The tradition of presidential silence in the wake of most mass shootings came to an end in the 1990s during the Clinton administration.

President Clinton did not weigh in on every one of the eight mass shootings during his tenure, but these events were now frequent enough to warrant presidential attention.

Source:
https://bunkerville.wordpress.com

VeggieTales Co-Creator Says Christian TV Shows Will Soon Need to Address LGBT Issues

The co-creator of VeggieTales says Christian television programming will one day have to address LGBT issues on their shows.

Phil Vischer told the Christian Post that those topics are going “to show up more and more.”

“Parents are definitely going to have to deal with a growing LGBT presence in children’s media,” Vischer said.

“It’s going to show up more and more as the world has decided that LGBT issues are in the same categories as race and civil rights issues. So to say you shouldn’t have a same-sex couple on Sesame Street is the equivalent of saying you shouldn’t have a black couple on Sesame Street.”

Vischer said there are already many shows addressing LGBT issues. In 2017, the children’s Disney show Doc McStuffins aired an episode that featured a same-sex couple of two mothers, CBN News reports.

Also, as Christian Headlines previously reported, this year the PBS show Arthur showed Arthur and his friends attending their teacher’s gay wedding. One character told the group at the wedding, “Yep, it’s a brand new world.”

Vischer said he worried that none of the characters were portrayed as questioning the wedding.

“The most striking thing about that episode of Arthur wasn’t that they thought it was time to introduce kids to gay marriage; it was the reaction of all the kids on the show,” he said. “None of them asked questions about why two men were getting married. Their reaction was, ‘Oh, OK! Great!'”

He said it will not be long before Christian shows may have to take on the topics.

“I think it will have to be addressed at some point; I do think it’s a matter of time,” he told the Post. “It’s tricky because it’s so divisive.

“I think it would be difficult for a couple of reasons. First: the nuance of how to treat LGBT issues isn’t agreed upon within the Church; and secondly, some parents may want to have that talk with their kids.”

Source: christianheadlines.com

‘Chewbacca Mom’ on How She Overcame Suicidal Thoughts and Depression and Found Lasting Joy

Candace Payne captured hearts around the world last year when a Facebook Live video of her trying on a Chewbacca mask in a parking lot went viral.

In the video — seen by over 170 million people — the wife and mother-of-two laughs infectiously as she wears the Star Wars mask, earning her the nickname “Chewbacca Mom.” According to Forbes, the video became so popular that the mask sold out from every online retailer.

Watching Payne’s uninhibited joy and laughter, one would never guess she once struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts.

“When I was in college, I compared my worth, my value, anything and everything, to those around me,” she told The Gospel Herald in an exclusive interview. “When those thoughts happen, they spiral out of control and you feel under the weight of them over anything else. Comparison had such a grip on me that it led me to diet pills, to self-harming, and to having suicidal thoughts.”

It wasn’t until a college roommate caught her self-harming that her life took a drastic turn.

“The greatest discovery I made about joy was the way my roommate loved me,” she shared. “She didn’t give me advice, she didn’t scold. I would cry out of shame and embarrassment, and she’d walk with me and hold my arm when I needed it. It reminded me that joy, sometimes her only job is to bring us comfort, to keep her mouth shut. I really believe that some people need to know it is possible to experience joy even in their worst thoughts.”

Payne shares her incredible story of perseverance and faith in her new book Laugh It Up: Embrace Freedom & Experience Defiant Joy (Zondervan/HarperCollins). She offers strategies for maintaining freedom in the midst of life’s challenges and the secret to unshakable joy that no circumstance can take away.

A worship leader and stay-at-home mom, Payne never expected to become an overnight sensation.

“It was bananas,” she laughed. “It took me on a wild adventure. It’s a video of just me laughing, so I never expected the impact it’s had. But, it’s been a catalyst. I’ve had so many people ask me, ‘How do you stay positive and find joy when you don’t find it around you? So, I decided to answer those questions with this book. It seemed like a natural fit.”

Joy and happiness, Payne is quick to clarify, are two different things

“Joy is eternal, it’s not something that I call those ‘itty bittys,'” she explained. “Those are happiness, and happiness are things that happen to us, they’re things that are able to gratify that urge for joy, but they don’t satisfy and they don’t ‘sustain. Joy is eternal.”

The source of her joy, she said, is simple: “You can’t have true, lasting joy outside of the Holy Spirit,” she asserted. “Joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and there’s no more clarity than that. For me, the hope of joy comes from my faith, my relationship with God, the fact that He’s the one that gives it and created it.”

One strategy she offers in her book is the idea of practicing “defiant joy,” what she defines as “going against the grain of what should be our normal response.”

“Nobody is immune from hareatbache or suffering or regret and depression,” she said. “If you’re alive, you’ll have those things. When life hits you, defiant joy stands up and fight backs and refuses to let negative circumstances define her. Defiant joy finds her identity, her worth, in Christ.”

To acquire this kind of joy, it’s important to put into practice Romans 12:2 – “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” Payne advised.

“Your biggest battle is inside of your head, especially for joy,” she said. “You say things to yourself that you wouldn’t say to your worst enemy, and this has to shift and change. There are so many things that God says about us in the Word, and repeating those words over yourself is a bullet for the enemy. You’ve got to shoot that gun. When you begin to think differently, neurologically, you’re making new tracks in your brain that are moving away from negative habits.”

Through her unexpected platform, Payne hopes to provide hope to those struggling to find joy in turbulent times — and draw attention to the power of social media.

“I would encourage people today to be cautious with their words,” she said. “Today, we are painting ourselves in a corner with the way we respond to tragedy. If you’re not offering hope, encouragement, or a solution with what you’re about to post, don’t post it. We have a God who says He is love, peace, and joy. If your post is not reflective of that, I’d say be careful in how you respond.”

She added, “As for what you take in, commit yourself to the same thing. Be careful what you read. Not everything is going to be encouraging and hopeful, or full of light and positivity. You can choose to join the ‘negative Nancy’ party, or you can choose to say, ‘Alright, I believe that we may be living in the worst day, but it’s not our last.'”

Source:
https://www.gospelherald.com/articles/71591/20171109/chewbacca-mom-overcame-suicidal-thoughts-depression-found-lasting-joy-exclusive.htm

‘Breakthrough’ Film Highlights Power of Adoption, Unconditional Love

“Breakthrough,” the incredible true story of one mother’s steadfast love against all odds, highlights the power of adoption – and shows that love comes in many different forms.

Produced by DeVon Franklin (“Miracles from Heaven”) and directed by Roxann Dawson (“House of Cards,” “Bates Motel”), “Breakthrough” recounts the true story of John Smith, who in 2015 ventured onto thin ice on a frozen Missouri lake. They crashed through, and John sank to the bottom. He was rescued by firemen after 15 minutes and was rushed to a nearby hospital. With a body temperature of 88 degrees and no pulse, he was pronounced dead.

However, when John’s mother Joyce (played by Chrissy Mets) showed up and prayed over his body, he began to show flickers of life. Miraculously, the teen recovered without neurological impairment.

John, played by Hispanic actor Marcel Ruiz, was adopted from Guatemala – a fact that Dawson told The Gospel Herald drew her to the story.

“I have an adopted daughter and I also have a biological daughter as well,” she shared. “And I have two photos of them in my office. My photo is when my biological daughter was handed to me for the first time, and the other is when I held my adopted daughter from China for the first time. My expression in both photos is the same.

“I want people to understand that love is the same, our children come to us in different ways,” she continued. “They’re both of my babies, and I love them. So, I identified with Joyce and her love for John, even when John couldn’t understand her love and questioned his abandonment. All of that rang very true for me.”

“Breakthrough” is based on Joyce’s 2017 book “The Impossible,” which documents how she refused to give up hope that God would work a miracle over her son. The film is releasing just in time for Easter – a movie Franklin told GH was intentional.

“We need this story right now because we need hope,” he said. “I think so often we let our differences to keep us apart. And I think this movie says that even if we have differences, we can still come together, we can still pray together, we can still love one another. And I do think that this movie at this time is really perfectly divinely timed, so to speak.”

Franklin told GH that a number of miracles occurred on the set of “Breakthrough,” adding: “A lot of people think Hollywood is a place that has no faith. That is absolutely not true. You’ve got to have faith to get a movie made because there are so many obstacles in our way.”

“When you look at the vision and you look at the production value, I mean, it’s just amazing to me,” he continued. “So for me personally, I look at that and say, ‘Wow, it’s incredible what can happen when we come together and really put the story first.'”

While “Breakthrough” is an overtly Christian film, Franklin said it will resonate with all audiences because everyone – regardless of their faith or background – experiences struggles.

“It’s just a really good film and a great story and, and it’s true,” he said. “I think it’ll hit people in different ways, but it’s certainly not just preaching to the choir.”

Source:
https://www.gospelherald.com/articles/71954/20190416/breakthrough-film-highlights-power-adoption-unconditional-love-exclusive-interview.htm

16 Percent of Christians Think the Church Should Apologize for America’s Racist Past

According to a new study undertaken by Barna research group, just a tiny fraction of the American church feels obliged to repent of the country’s racist past.

In Barna’s latest publication entitled, “Where Do We Go from Here?,” just over 1,500 practicing Christians were asked what they believe should be done to make amends for the decades of racist history that plagued the United States.

Respondents were presented with several different answers to choose from, including nothing, “repair the damage, “repent,” “pursue restitution,” “lament,” and “don’t know.” Shockingly, just 16 percent of American Christians asserted that the Church needed to repent for America’s racist history of slavery and segregation.

Among African-American participants, the percentage of those who believe repentance to be the way forward was at 24 percent, whereas among the white respondents it plummeted to just 13 percent.

Interestingly, some 26 percent of all respondents indicated they “don’t know” when asked about what the church’s response should be to historical racism, perhaps indicating a lack of insight or understanding on the issue.

“This could represent confusion over the specific options provided, which range from the symbolic to the material, or it could simply be a way of saying respondents are unsure what should — or even what can — be done by churches to help with racial reconciliation,” Barna noted.

In light of the survey’s results, well-known left-leaning Christian leader, Jim Wallis told the Christian Post that “until the Church, notably the white Church, acknowledges its history and complicity with racism, we cannot move towards healing.”

Often, white Christians “refuse to recognize that racism is more than a problem from the past,” Wallis added, before noting that “until the operative word in ‘white Christian’ is Christian, we won’t move towards a place of healing.”

Wallis insisted that an active repentance “for the sin of racism” will “bring congregations together.”

Source:
https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/will-maule/16-percent-of-christians-think-the-church-should-apologize-for-american-s-racist-past.html

STUDY: RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS, NOT FAMILY REJECTION, LEADING CAUSE OF HIGHER GAY SUICIDES

While many assume that family rejection is the leading cause of depression among LBGTI individuals, a new study has found that in fact the problem appears to stem predominantly from the higher incidence of relationship problems among homosexuals.

Dr. Delaney Skerrett led a team of researchers from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRAP) in studying suicides in Queensland. He found that a leading cause of suicide among “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) people is stress from their romantic partners.

“We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” Dr. Skerrett said.

In fact, he said, “The numbers are telling us there’s a general acceptance at the family level,” something he said is “great” and “really heartening!”

Instead, the study, which was published on April 2 in Asia Pacific Psychiatry, found that “LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often” than heterosexuals, “with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non‐LGBT cases.”

That confirms previous studies finding that homosexuals also face higher rates of intimate partner violence than heterosexuals. A 2007 study in the Journal of Urban Health, which is published by the New York Academy of Medicine, found that 32 percent of homosexuals have been abused by at least one partner during their lifetime.

The researchers with AISRAP also found that a higher percentage of homosexuals took their lives [out] of despondency, rather than other psychological illnesses. While one-eighth of all Queensland suicide victims had been diagnosed with a psychosis that impaired their judgment, Skerrett reports “there were no such diagnoses among LGBT individuals.” The conclusion adds to the consensus that depression disproportionately besets active homosexuals.

Previously, I blogged about a gay activist who thought that disagreement with gay rights caused gays to commit suicide. I wonder what he would do with a study like this? I also blogged previously about the “epidemic” of domestic violence among gays, and the article I linked to for that was from the left-leaning Atlantic Monthly.

But there’s more to say – let’s look at an individual case now, which will put some meat on the bones of the studies.

Here’s an article from the liberal New York Times.

Here’s the set up:

BOB BERGERON was so relentlessly cheery that people sometimes found it off-putting. If you ran into him at the David Barton Gym on West 23rd Street, where he worked out nearly ever morning at 7, and you complained about the rain, he would smile and say you’d be better off focusing on a problem you could fix.

That’s how Mr. Bergeron was as a therapist as well, always upbeat, somewhat less focused on getting to the root of his clients’ feelings than altering behavior patterns that were detrimental to them: therapy from the outside-in.

Over the last decade, he built a thriving private practice, treating well-to-do gay men for everything from anxiety to coping with H.I.V. Mr. Bergeron had also begun work as a motivational speaker, giving talks at gay and lesbian centers in Los Angeles and Chicago. In February, Magnus Books, a publisher specializing in gay literature, was scheduled to print a self-help guide he had written, “The Right Side of Forty: The Complete Guide to Happiness for Gay Men at Midlife and Beyond.”

It was a topic he knew something about. Having come out as gay in the mid-1980s, Mr. Bergeron, 49, had witnessed the worst years of the AIDS epidemic and emerged on the other side. He had also seen how few public examples there were of gay men growing older gracefully.

He resolved to rewrite the script, and provide a toolbox for better living.

“I’ve got a concise picture of what being over 40 is about and it’s a great perspective filled with happiness, feeling sexy, possessing comfort relating to other men and taking good care of ourselves,” Mr. Bergeron said on his Web site. “This picture will get you results that flourish long-term.”

But right around New Year’s Eve, something went horribly wrong. On Jan. 5, Mr. Bergeron was found dead in his apartment, the result of a suicide that has left his family, his friends and his clients shocked and heartbroken as they attempt to figure out how he could have been so helpful to others and so unable to find help himself.

Look:

To his friends, Mr. Bergeron maintained a positive tone. He went on vacation, dated some, visited museums.

Still, he privately expressed misgivings about what the future held. Olivier Van Doorne, a patient of Mr. Bergeron and the creative director of SelectNY, a fashion advertising firm, recalled Mr. Bergeron telling him that every gay man peaks at one point in his life.

“He said a number of times: ‘I peaked when I was 30 or 35. I was super-successful, everyone looked at me, and I felt extremely cool in my sexuality.’ ”

Mr. Siegel, the therapist who supervised Mr. Bergeron in the early days of his career, said: “Bob was a very beautiful younger man, and we talked a lot about how that shapes and creates a life. The thesis of his book is based very much on his own personal experience with that. And the book also emphasized what to do when you’re not attractive or you no longer have the appeal you once had. The idea was to transcend that and expand your sexual possibilities.”

And:

With the book about to be printed, Mr. Bergeron became convinced that he’d written too much about the shame and isolation involved with hooking up online; that people weren’t even really doing that anymore, now that phone apps like Grindr and Scruff had come along.

His book, he felt, had become antiquated before it even came out.

[…]Though some of his friends, Mr. Rappaport among them, wondered whether drugs were involved, leading to a crash Mr. Bergeron did not anticipate, the suicide seemed to have been carried out with methodical precision. On an island in the kitchen, Mr. Bergeron had meticulously laid out his papers. There was a pile of folders with detailed instructions on top about whom to call regarding his finances and his mortgage. Across from that he placed the title page of his book, on which he also wrote his suicide note. In it he told Mr. Sackheim and Mr. Rappaport that he loved them and his family, but that he was “done.”

As his father remembered it, Mr. Bergeron also wrote, “It’s a lie based on bad information.”

An arrow pointed up to the name of the book.

The inference was clear. As Mr. Bergeron saw it at the end of his life, the only right side of 40 was the side that came before it.

I think that the problem is that in the gay lifestyle, you have a typically male emphasis on physical appearance, sex and pleasure. There is none of the moderating influence of women, which tends to push men into commitments, responsibility and stability. Stuff that provides fulfillment and meaning and purpose after you lose your youth and appearance.

If you really love a person, then you don’t tell them that the dangerous thing they want to do is not dangerous. That’s not love. It’s easier for you to approve of them and be liked by everyone, but it’s not love.

Source:
https://winteryknight.com/

FIRST OPENLY GAY EPISCOPAL BISHOP TO DIVORCE SAME-SEX PARTNER

This is an Associated Press article, so it is extremely liberal and sympathetic to the gay bishop. (H/T Tom)

Excerpt:

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop, who became a symbol for gay rights far beyond the church while deeply dividing the world’s Anglicans, plans to divorce his husband.

[…]Robinson, 66, had been married to a woman and had two children before he and his wife divorced. He and Andrew had been partners for more than a decade when Robinson was elected to lead the New Hampshire Diocese. The two men were joined in a 2008 civil union in New Hampshire, which became a legal marriage when the state recognized gay marriage two years later.

[…]Robinson was… widely celebrated as a pioneer for gay rights, became an advocate for gay marriage and was the subject of several books and a documentary about Christianity, the Bible and same-sex relationships. He delivered the benediction at the opening 2009 inaugural event for President Barack Obama and, after retirement, became a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with close ties to the White House.

The interesting thing about this is that although Americans have been fed a steady diet of propaganda from Hollywood to make us think that gay relationships are stable, the reality is that they are NOT stable.

Let’s take a look at the data

Consider this post from The Public Discourse which explains that there are few stable, long-lived gay relationships – even the ones with children.

Excerpt:

The [NFSS] study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples. A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages” such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.

Therefore, while critics of the NFSS have faulted it for lacking comparisons between children of IBFs and the children of committed and intact gay or lesbian couples, this was attempted, but was not feasible. Despite drawing from a large, representative sample of the U.S. population, and despite using screening tactics designed to boost the number of respondents who reported having had a parent in a same-sex relationship, a very small segment reported having been parented by the same two women or two men for a minimum of three years. Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true, and the above-cited studies of different nations show that on average, same-sex couple relationships are more short-lived than those of opposite-sex couples.

I think this is an important point to make – and it’s consistent with the research from previous studies. The bottom line is that gay marriage is another step on the path towards making marriage about the needs and feelings of adults. In natural marriage, parents are concerned about how breaking up will affect their children – so thy have a reason to stay together and work conflicts out. The needs of the adults are secondary to the needs of the children. But in gay marriage, there is no such constraint. The children are not related biologically to both partners, and so that protection is not in place.

Source:
https://winteryknight.com/

ARE GAY RELATIONSHIPS MORE STABLE THAN STRAIGHT ONES?

Let’s look at this post from The Public Discourse and see if gay relationships are as stable, or even more stable, than straight ones.

Excerpt:

The [NFSS] study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples.[3] A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”[4] such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.[5]

This paper from the Family Research Council makes the same point:

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this “snapshot in time” is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”[5]

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[6]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[7]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

It’s a Grindr lifestyle. And it’s not a good environment for meeting the needs of children. (Example)

There is one study (Rosenfeld, 2014) that tries to argue against the conclusion of all these other studies, and the problems with it are discussed in this post.

The right way to think about gay marriage is to think about it as an extension of no-fault divorce. The same feminists and leftists who pushed for the legalization of no-fault divorce told us back then that the children would be fine, that children are resilient. No-fault divorce was a change in the definition of marriage. The leftists said that divorce would never become widespread, and that it would not harm children in any way. It was all a pack of lies. If the practices of the gay lifestyle become conflated with marriage, then marriage will come to denote relationships engaged in for “love” not children, such that unchastity, infidelity, increased domestic violence and frequent break-ups are incorporated back into the definition of marriage. Marriage is about permanence, exclusivity and building an environment that can welcome children and supply for their needs. It’s not about government giving people respect for their romantic feelings. Those are volatile. What government ought to be rewarding is lifelong commitment.

Source:
https://winteryknight.com/