A more reasonable resource on homosexuality is the US National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) site, which has a membership of over 1000 US psychiatrists.

http://www.narth.com/

It fundamentally promotes the point of view that reparative therapy for both male and female homosexuality has been used successfully for a very long time, results in beneficial change for those who undergo it (whether they chose to remain homosexual or decide to enter into heterosexual relationships afterwards), and has much sociological research in its favour (going back further than a century).

“What research shows- NARTH’s response to the APA’s claims on homosexuality”.
http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html

I had a look on you blog about yourself. It did not say when you came to New Zealand. I recall from your comments it was not that long ago. I came here in 1966 and have been most of the time since.

Like most people my opinions are based on what I read, personal experience and logic. I do not know any study that says what most lesbians think of men. However, after I got divorced about twenty-five years ago I have spoken to a lot of divorced men. A small percentage of them have had their ex-wives take up with another women. I base some of my opinion on talking to them. Around that time there was a newspaper called Broadsheet. It was a lesbian feminist newspaper – mainly lesbian. It went on about the patriarchy and how men oppressed women. In any case I believe many militant lesbians are very much anti male although I cannot point to research.

In the case of children of male gay couples are being at risk of sexual abuse there is much more research although probably indirect as for reason you pointed out. I will go from memory and not link every source if that is all right.

I hope you may be aware of studies that show that about 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused and about 1 in 7 boys are as well. The vast majority of both boys and girls are abused by men. The number of homosexuals and bisexual males in the population is less than 5% at the most. Therefore without doing the arithmetic it should be obvious that boys are much more at risk from homosexual or bisexual males.

While some children are sexually abused by women a disproportionate number are abused by men. To keep children safe from sexual abuse the solution could be to keep children away from men. While this may reduce sexual abuse a little it would have obvious downside.

While children are sexually abused by homosexuals disproportionately I cannot see the downside for children if they are not allowed to be adopted by homosexuals. This may make homosexuals feel bad and it is unfair on the majority of homosexuals who do not abuse children but children’s welfare should come first. There are of course other reasons why homosexuals do not make ideal adoptive parents.

I hope you have a look at the links I posted. I think if you read Dawn Stefanowicz’s book you might change your views.

The same holds true for the suggestion that children of male gay couples are at risk of sexual abuse. It sounds like it should be true, but the facts are scanty.

I do wonder whether the apparent lack of facts is due to indirect discouragement of research in these matters. I would imagine that an application for a grant to study the level of sexual child abuse amongst children of gay couples would meet with rejection from most politically correct funding sources.

There are separate problems for children raised by male homosexuals and lesbians.

In the case of lesbians the children are often brought up to hate half the human race. This is bad enough in the case of girls but must be terrible for boys. I realise that I am generalising but it is a fact that many lesbians view men as the oppressors of woman. I know there are some who don’t but a significant number do.

In the case of male homosexuals there is a real danger of sexual abuse particularly in the case of adolescent boys. This would not necessarily be from the adoptive parents but friends or in the case of a relationship breakdown the new partner. This happens when heterosexual marriages of relationships breakdown. However, there are more social sanctions against sex with adolescents with heterosexuals. If a 40 year old male showed up at a function with a 16 year old girl he would not be well received. If a 40 year old male homosexual did the same he would not have the same problem.

I know that if I had the care of a young teenage boy there is no way I would let him stay overnight with couple of homosexuals who had adopted a child. While that may not be a great risk from them their friends may be another story. I am sure there are plenty of parents who would feel the same. This cannot be good for the adoptive children.

Homosexuals try to promote the myth that they behave just like heterosexuals except that they are attracted to someone of the same sex. This is simply not true on average. There are obviously exceptions but on average they have far more sexual partners, their relationships do not last as long and many of these relationships are non monogamous. This is evidenced by their much higher rates of STDs particularly HIV.

The criteria for adoption should be what is best for the child not what is going to make some minority group feel good. While there is no shortage of good heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, homosexual adoption should not be considered.

For an alternative view check the following links.

http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page44.html

http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org/

But society relies on a preponderance of heterosexual relationships in order to function properly. It is important not to endanger that for all of our sakes, including the sake of the gay community.

Thats already endanger MacD – Gay marriage is just the latest assault on the institution, its real purpose to minimize the importance of marriage and healthy human relationships. in raising the next generation.

The origin of many of these pernicious ideas was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who realized after he returned to Italy after participating Russian revolution that western Europe would not revolt and remake society because the vast majority were too contented and the key to bringing about the revolutionary changes he sought was to capture the culture. He also saw that the most contented people in society were those with families who were also the least likely to seek change and be the most antithetical to the changes he would like to bring upon society.

Gramsci's ideas found their fullest expression in the English language where they were expressed as feminism – it is no accident that the earliest feminists were also marxists nor that they are amongst leaders in the charge for gay marriage despite decrying conventional marriage as a "patriarchal institution".

Of course the law of unintended consequences holds and all the implementation of Gramsci's ideas will bring is human degradation and misery – check out what the porn industry produces, itself another tool to cheapen human sexuality and hence human relationships, if you have any doubts.

And we know the real source of all this nonsense is the Adversary himself who wants to create as much human unhappiness as possible and will mislead people in anyway he can.

The people who promote these ideas are not evil in themselves they are just "useful idiots" serving as foot soldiers in an ancient war that they don't understand or even acknowledge exists in most cases.