Supporter of ‘religious liberty’ bill could lose his Senate chairmanship

Chances of yet another fierce battle over “religious liberty” legislation in the state Capitol dropped significantly on Thursday evening, as members of the Senate Republican Caucus made a decision that is likely to cost one of the measure’s principle backers his leadership position.

We’re told that, at a private meeting at the Capitol City Club in downtown Atlanta, Republican senators overwhelmingly agreed to merge the chamber’s two judiciary committees into one. Only two senators were said to oppose the merger at the closed-door meeting.

In past sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee has handled matters of civil law, while a separate one focused on criminal concerns. The chairmanship of the new,  merged committee is likely to go to Jesse Stone, R-Waynesboro.

If that’s the case, Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, who had been chairman of the judiciary committee that oversaw civil matters, would be left out in the cold.

For the past three sessions of the Legislature, McKoon has been an uncompromising supporter of “religious liberty” legislation designed to shield conservative Christians in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s declaration that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

The Legislature passed HB 757 last year, but following strident opposition from the LGBT community and major Georgia business interests, Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed the measure.

The legislation bypassed his Senate Judiciary Committee last year, as did much other legislation, but in 2015, McKoon was able to launch his measure via his chairmanship. Should that no longer be the case, odds of a fight over the issue are greatly diminished.

Deal’s veto isn’t the only obstacle. While Georgia lawmakers debated the issue last year, North Carolina passed a similar measure – and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it. McCrory lost his re-election bid in November to Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat.

Removing McKoon from Senate leadership could also have the benefit of smoothing over differences with the House in the coming session, which begins Jan. 9. McKoon last year had a significant, public confrontation with Speaker David Ralston’s lawyer. Several years ago, the Columbus legislator also pushed through an ethics measure restricting lobbyist giving, over the objections of Ralston. The issue still rankles.

Another sign that the two chambers are trying to cooperate more: The significant scheduling and procedural overhauls we outlined earlier Thursday were largely done in concert with Ralston. And with McKoon, who has pushed to slow down the legislative process, in the dark.

McKoon didn’t immediately comment, but this could be a mixed bag for him. Committee chairs don’t just carry political clout, but they also tend to attract political donations, which would obviously help his likely run for Attorney General or other statewide office.

But being on the outs with the state Senate could also bolster his insurgent credentials, especially if he plans to revive the “religious liberty” fight again. And this setback could make him even more determined – and more likely to run for higher office.

Reader Comments 0

113 comments
Vicki Reynolds
Vicki Reynolds

Excellent! We do not need religious bigotry in our state! We need to be the model of the South in acceptance and diversity of religious freedoms.

Kelly Wright
Kelly Wright

Are we all just going to ignore that hideous yellow tie he is wearing?

Kim Riggins
Kim Riggins

Good. McKoon is not fit to be in charge of paper towels in a men's restroom.

Mo Dean
Mo Dean

Josh McKoon, No big deal, you were sent to represent the people not chair a committee.

Elizabeth Chapman
Elizabeth Chapman

Persecution Runs Rampant, but accusations of Bigotry is a poor excuse for not Speaking the TRUTH! McKoon may well lose his committee status, but his Political Career is just Beginning ~ The GOD of Abraham, Issacc, & Jacob - The Judao-Christian GOD WILL have the Final Say! Those who worship at the Altar of Business are NO longer lasting than those who Worship at the Altar of Abortion or MURDER of THE UNBORN! Don't Rejoice too Soon... The Christian Faith Built this State & Country and continued Success depends upon it's Foundations!

Kelly Wright
Kelly Wright

Pro Tip: Typing words in all caps doesn't make you sound any less crazy.

Elizabeth Chapman
Elizabeth Chapman

Kelly Wright Thank YOU! I Cap for Emphasis, my Dear ... and Remember, it takes One to Know One! Have a Blessed Day! :)

Elizabeth Chapman
Elizabeth Chapman

Truth is always more Logical than Arrogance...is it not, Anonymous!

Joshua Morris
Joshua Morris

So what? Who does he work for? His constituents or other senators? Wake up, people.

Michael Joyce
Michael Joyce

dont force you religious crap on everyone else.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"the former fire chief and a former government worker at the public Georgia health center lost their job" Yes, they actually did, and most of those commenting here seem to support firing someone just because of his religious, ethical or political views. Because these commentators are Democrats, not democrats. They are homosexualists gloating about Republicans caving in to their antisocial, antidemocratic and anti-Christian agenda.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

""Homosexuality is natural and right because it fits their human nature better than any alternative to it." This was right if this was true. But since it is not genetically determined it does not constitutes part of human nature. " the norm found in nature" Not simply in nature, the Animal Kingdom, but among the results of social science research. And as for the well-being of children... Well, I have a collection of research results that shows otherways - very differently, indeed - than the way these organizations claim it is in this question and I will copy it here.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"Cameron's work has been rejected by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association" No wonder when these organizations betrayed science when they cowardly caved in to the violent, terroristic political pressure from homosexualist hate groups. Their declarations and opinions have nothing to do with science since then. They are lying political propagandists not scientists in this field.

Elizabeth Chapman
Elizabeth Chapman

While you are anxiously awaiting a yes or no answer, Tom, I have a question for you. Where are you going when you Die? I don't know if you also call yourself a Christian or not, but I would like to ask you IF you believe in a Heaven & a Hell? IF you are familiar with the Teachings of Jesus Christ, he spoke quite frequently of both places as future residence options after we leave this Life. You might consider that the Men who were Fired from their Leadership positions were more concerned about their employees than those who simply obeyed the Policy? The leader of Hell wishes to silence the voices of Pastors who Preach the Gospel of Truth so that he can be assured of as many as he can get in his residence hall. It took courage, conviction & caring for that Fire Chief and that Public Health Administrator to take the stand they took as they knew the consequences... yet, like Jesus, they CARED for the Souls of those they lead. You can trash me as you did them, or you can think about what I said, realizing I have No Risk, No Gain either way.

Kim Riggins
Kim Riggins

And yet all these christian child molesters are straight. WEIRD.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Southern Poverty Law Center is a homosexualist hate group with zero credibility.

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Akos Tarkanyi so you think as a department head, distributing a book someone personally authored to employees labeling some of them perverts is an example of GOOD judgement and leadership? Let alone comports with the employers non-discrimination policy??? Policy compliance by the way, is a condition of employment. This is a simple yes or no. I'm anxiously tapping my foot waiting for your "yes" or "no" reply....

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Individual conscience can be right and official policy can be wrong in some cases. In those cases the individual must revolt against policy and that is the ethically right thing. And this is a question of freedom of conscience in the field of law.

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Akos Tarkanyi so if someone's individual conscience believes that God separated the races on different continents and therefore did not believe in interracial marriage - should be able to discriminate against interracial couples in employment? Or a hospital should be able to turn interracial couples away from the emergency room for medical care because interracial marriage is against their deeply held religious belief based on freedom of conscience?

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Elizabeth Chapman.. I think I answered your question above. But I support Ron Priebus who in his Christmas message said that Donald Trump is our new king or Messiah. Moreover evangelist Pat Robertson said that the Lord appeared to him in All His glory in a vision where Donald Jesus Trump was standing on the left hand of the Lord. So according to Ron Priebus and Pat Robertson Donald Jesus Trump is our new savior. So personally, I'm debating about worshiping our new King. In fact, based on the gospel from Ron Priebus, we celebrated Trumps birthday instead during Christmas and prayed that he will finally be the one to restore dignity, respect and family values to the office of the president. How about you?

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"Conscience" is a notion which can be defined different ways. And the way it is defined is a rather complex question. I only mention in connection with this for now that a usual parallel between race and sexual orientation - something I often meet since it became a popular polical argument - is false. Race is genetically determined and in itself have no influence on any individual's behavior. Thus coloured people cannot do anything against their race and this quality of theirs have nothing to do with the way they behave with others, with the way they influence society. All of this is different in the case of people with homosexual orientation. It is not genetically determined and when it is a lifestyle it is socially harmful and is against public interest. Some people think otherways, some people think it this way and both parties have not only feelings and slogans on their side but also scientific arguments. Thus this is a question under discussion - with rational arguments. This latter was (and is) not true about the racist side. And today homosexualists vehemently try to make everyone believe that it is not true to their opponents, either - so make them seem as unethical, unjust and irrational as racists wer/are. But they are not right in this. Anyone has the right to think it this or that way - and anyone has a moral responsibility to be intellectually open to the other's arguments - something which homosexualists think is true only to their opponents but not to themselves. And I just mention that the examples you gave are extreme and so false. Discrimination in employment against homosexuals in general is practically not a question in the USA (or specifically in Georgia, for that matter), but there are some specific cases and situations where it might be right and justified. One cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that this whole case is about sexuality, relationships and having children and that these are important and sensitive matters where responsible thinking is imperative - and are really related to the question of sexual behavior not like race to the question of travelling on a tram or not or working in an office or not or receiving hospital care or not.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"are you claiming that heterosexual orientation is genetically determined" No it is not. I claim that is is not, either. Heterosexuality must be the norm because our biological-psychological-social reality works relatively better this way than other ways and not because any kind of sexual orientation - even heterosexuality - would be genetically determined. Heterosexuality is natural and right because it fits human nature better than any alternative to it. "why would we want to discriminate against some who could change their sexual orientation" So do you agree that sexual orientation is not genetically determined but changeable? Otherways religion is about the transcendental and if such thing exist (as I and some people believe) a change of religion should be evaluated there. Sexual orientation on the other hand is about human relationships and not the least about family law. So its evaluation does have a lot to do with human legislation. Besides this I personally believe that there should be a "grey" zone between what is acceptable as "conscience of freedom" (say, a wjite zone) and what is not (say, a black zone). I don't think that just because rejecting people or excluding them from some services on the basis of race was unjust and irrational it would be so without exception in any case. And although some heterosexual couples choose do not procreate they still have the possibility at any minute to change this decision and still have common biological children - something homosexual couples can never do. Because a homosexual relationship is one which necessarily excludes having common biological children. So this is an essentially sterile model of sexual relationship - something heterosexual relationships are not (not even in the case of infertile couples because that is the exception not the rule in this - heterosexual - type of relationship).

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

So basically are you claiming you could change your own sexual orientation as easily as you change a pair of shoes? Science holds that for most people sexual orientation changes only for few people, but like race and gender is immutable for most. Or is your argument that only majorities should have constitutional protections from discrimination because they are more often the norm found in nature? Our constitutional tradition simply does not permit laws to single out a certain class of citizens for a disfavored legal status. Civil and human rights legislation is not based on a so called "norm" theory. The Constitution also doesn't enshrine so called "norm" wisdom of millennia, rather it enshrines equal protection of laws for ALL citizens of the United States of America. Moreover, the United States Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. You may simply think of the Bill of Rights as a "fad" that is timeless and simply never goes out of style. Also, homosexuals can also legitimately make the same argument: "Homosexuality is natural and right because it fits their human nature better than any alternative to it." Heterosexuals also adopt and use surrogacy if they cannot biologically procreate. We don't discriminate with there decision to do so. You may have missed my point about ones constitutional right not to procreate and be free of discrimination for so doing. This makes any procreation argumentation moot. Lets talk about family relationships for moment. Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute. It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key. It’s the quality of parenting that’s being offered by whoever is there, husband or wife, two women, two men, a single parent, as long as these factors are present: good mental health, good parent-child relationships, what we call an authoritative parenting style, which is warmth, stimulation, structure, and the availability of resources. Then we’re going to have a child who is much more likely to be healthy.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"are you claiming you could change your own sexual orientation as easily as you change a pair of shoes" I do not claim that as easily (and should you suppose this about my opinion that would be a misunderstanding or a straw man argument on your part) but I do claim that anyone can change his or her sexual orientation if intellectually and emotionally open enough to such a a possibility - if curious enough about the world of the opposite sex and if he or she is exposed to intensively and long enough to such a psychologiacal or cultural influence (eg. to homosexual or transsexual films, pictures, relatives or close friends). And when sexual morals are looser and more blurred - as it is today - then troubled, twisted, "gender bended" sexual orientation will become more frequent. And actual data show that exactly this is what is happening. "Science holds that for most people sexual orientation changes only for few people, but like race and gender is immutable for most." No, science does not hold that. Where did you read this?

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

The danger of homosexuals on others, the harmful effects of homosexual parents on children This study proves that the rate of child abuse and homosexual orientation of children was higher among homosexuals who adopted children than among heterosexual adoptive parents: Cameron 1998 Psychological Reports, p1155-1191 Cameron Paul – Cameron Kirk: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children. * Dale O’Leary’s useful summary about homosexual parents’ harmful effects on children: http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/hparent1.html * “Eighty-six percent of the offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” W.D. Erickson et al., “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83. * An article about the homosexual parents disturbing effects on their children's sexual identity: Judith Stacey - Timothy Biblarz: (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review 2001/2 * Among 150 interviewed homosexual men (30-39 years old) 69% had at least one underage partner since his 21 years of age and 45% had at least 6 underage sexual partners: Goode - Troyden; Psychiatry, 1980, 43: 51-59 * A recently published famous study about homosexual parents’ harmful effects on children: Regnerus, M.: How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new Family Structures Study. in: Social Science Research, 41: 752-770 About Mark Regnerus and his case see more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regnerus

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Akos Tarkanyi Shame on your sources. re: Cameron 1998 Psychological Reports, p1155-1191 re: Cameron Paul – Cameron Kirk: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children. First, Psychological reports is NOT a peer reviewed replicable science and evidenced based journal.. anyone can pay to publish. Use of his propaganda or other opinion pieces and Conservative based Amicus briefs, does not help or support your argument. This reflects poorly on credibility where you don't take the time to vet or fact check your sources before holding them as an acceptable standard of evidenced based science. Therefore, how can anyone take you seriously? According to the Southern Poverty Law Center. "Cameron dresses up his "studies" with copious footnotes, graphs and charts, and then pays to publish them in certain journals. Cameron's work has been rejected by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association, yet his ludicrous statistics are frequently referenced in sermons, news broadcasts, politicians' speeches and even court decisions. And Mark Regnerus? Thoroughly discredited. I listened to his testimony in Michigan regarding marriage equality. Regnerus contributed to an amicus brief in opposition to same-sex marriage and appeared as an expert witness in a 2014 federal court hearing regarding Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Citing widespread criticism of NFSS methodology, Judge Bernard A. Friedman rejected Regnerus' testimony, alleging the arguments derived from methodologically flawed data were "not worthy of serious consideration" and served rather to please the conservative organizations (Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation) that underwrote the survey research project. Major academic organizations including the American Sociological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association dispute the validity of Regnerus' data and conclusions reached thereof, arguing that unlike previous studies, the statistically tiny number of same sex couples in a study whose sample group largely consisted of failed heterosexual marriages where one of the parents was allegedly homosexual, make it impossible to extrapolate any information about same sex parenting. A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that: The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Again, more propaganda. The study, “Behavior patterns of child molesters” by W.D. Erickson, N.H. Walbek, and R.K. Seely which appeared more than twenty years ago (1988, didn’t set out to determine the sexual orientation of child molesters. The study, of 229 convicted child molesters in Minnesota, (which, by the way, was never intended to be nationally representative in any way) was focused on the types of sexual contact the men engaged in with their victims — vaginal or anal penetration, oral contact, and so forth. In this particular sample, 63 victims were male, and 166 victims were female. But the ”finding” . . . is encapsulated in just one sentence: “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”Also, the authors of the study never made the claim that that 86% of men who abused children -- without regard to gender -- said they were gay or bisexual. Credible sources, i.e. the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that gay men are not more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.

Kim Riggins
Kim Riggins

It didn't take courage and conviction. It took a small amount of hatred. You wouldn't know Jesus Christ if he flipped over your money changing tables. You are either crooked and corrupt like your religious leaders or you simply follow them blindly like a fool. Either way, you will both fall into a pit. Your pastors and your leaders are liars and sinners. They are corrupted by greed and religion. They do not know Christ and I would venture to say, by proxy, neither do you. If you believe Christ condones your religious crusade against gays and Muslims and all the other people you turn your nose up at and consider undesirable, you do not know him. You are liars and God will judge you for EVERY careless word you have spoken. His words. Not mine.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Homosexuality “not an illness” – the background of this forced, deceptive, political and unscientific decision An important quotation from a Wikipedia article: „As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”[27] This activism occurred in the context of a broader anti-psychiatry movement that had come to the fore in the 1960s and was challenging the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis. Anti-psychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations.[28][29]” http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Diagnostic_and_Statistical... Another source about the same events: Medical News & Perspectives | August 12, 1998 Gay Is Okay With APA—Forum Honors Landmark 1973 Events. Lynne Lamberg JAMA. 1998;280(6):497-499. doi:10.1001/jama.280.6.497. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187846 And about the antecedents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Liberation_Front

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Homosexuality can be healed Spitzer, R.: Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation, Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003, pp.403-417. See more about Robert Spitzer and his case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist) See further information about this latter question at www.narth.org

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Akos Tarkanyi Good lord Akos, there you go again, no fact checking or vetting.. You cannot be taken seriously. Why can't you spend two seconds fact checking what you post. do you know how silly you look? I'm done with your misrepresentations. You appear to have no understanding of peer reviewed, evidenced based and replicated research. Finally, in regard to Robert Spitzer: “You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

"A review carried out by the American Medical Association noted that: The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.” This is all so because troubled circumstances are natural in most of the cases of same sex parenting and leaving this out of consideration and concentrating only on a tiny fraction of such cases where everything is nice would mean an artificially biased sample, a "Potemkin village". Regnerus simply investigated the reality children with same sex parents experienced.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

But a meta-analysis of mainly "Potemkin village" studies still could find some bizarre results. An article about the homosexual parents disturbing effects on their children's sexual identity: Judith Stacey - Timothy Biblarz: (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review 2001/2

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

" You appear to have no understanding of peer reviewed, evidenced based and replicated research. " What do you base this serious claim on? Would you, please, explain this in detail? I am a researcher in the field of social sciences myself, too, and I know all these things very well.

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Akos Tarkanyi Because the sources you provide either have no credibility (Cameron, Regnerus et. al) or you misinterpret their findings. As you do yet again. "There is significant, reliable social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children fo same-sex coupels are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children, gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole. We also reject the assertions of Professor Craig Hart. His analysis is intellectually flawed and the studies cited are irrelevant to the issues in this case." http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.html

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

You should also read the Cameron study even if a source you feel is "on your side" politically (SPLC) attacked him. Of course they did if they do not agree with him. But accusations in themselves do not prove they are right. Stacey and Biblarz are "good comrades" on the Leftist Liberal side, I never questioned that. But what you quoted from them is a different work of them than what I have referred to. Does this count? Yes it does. Because in that 2001 study of theirs they debunked a lot of scientific claims togethe with their cheatings and mistakes in smaller and biased pro-homosexual parenting studies. They proved in a meta-analysis that actually there were distortions in the sexual identity of such children but these were hidden, not mentioned in these studies. And their conclusion was, of course that these distortions are actually good, not things to be hidden and ashamed of. The destruction of traditional male and female sexual identity is a good thing beause this means the destruction of the traditional gender roles maintained by the oppressive, patriarchal system of male chauvinist pigs. Yes, in such a framework of interpretation the American Sociological Review let this scandal of pro-homosexuality pseudo-researches be debunked because they felt the homosxualist movement is already strong enough so that this would not hurt it. And it didn't, did it?These two authors claimed, as you quoted that "research shows that children fo same-sex coupels are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents". Yes, because a twisted, distorted gender identity is not counted to be "emotionally unhealthy" by them.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

About the 1988 study by Erickson et al you also wrote critically. "“Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”Also, the authors of the study never made the claim that that 86% of men who abused children -- without regard to gender -- said they were gay or bisexual. " Do you really seriously think that heterosexual men are attracted to boys and so they try to have sexual contacts with them? If so, why? To me it seems to be an absolutely sober and common sense conclusion that these men were homosexual. What argument does exist to the contrary? "Credible sources, i.e. the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that gay men are not more likely to molest children than heterosexual men." This research result shows that they are not right in this. And some others I also quoted.

Tom Alfred
Tom Alfred

Moreover your fathers site is another personal opinion piece using twin studies to support their false "not born this way narrative." Twin studies do not account for why twins can have different tastes in music or hobbies or other interests. Using your logic, certainly identical twins should always have the same interests, they don't. Even Dr. Spitzer said he was wrong which you also try to hang your hat on. My guess is that you will take anything at face value that supports your conservative agenda without much regard to being scientifically sound. In addition, taking the optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion, empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident. I'm not going to dissuade you from using junk science. I can only hope others will do their own independent verification and due dilligence.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

And I don't understand exactly what your problem is with identical twins. Would you explain it a bit more clearly?

Kim Riggins
Kim Riggins

I find it amusing that religious people, who decry science at every turn, try to use it to justify their blatant hatred and hypocrisy. The Earth is only 10k years old and climate change is a hoax but here's some "science" proving it's ok to hate gay people. Seems legit.

Kim Riggins
Kim Riggins

The lengths "christians" go to to justify their hate. It's pathetic.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Tom Alfred no aswers from your side - no wonder...

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Homosexualism means name-calling, calumnies, hypocrisy... And oppressing freedom of conscience... Practically the building of a dictatorship of sexual libertinism, crushing families and children and organizing the systematic persecution of Christians.

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Kim Riggins I wish you read our debate above. I have never said the Earth is only a few thousands years old. I know it is nearly 5 billion years old. It is easier to suppose weird things about those people who do not agree with us because then we could feel we should not think about their opinion. Don't you think so?

Akos Tarkanyi
Akos Tarkanyi

Not because of a book and not better. You are simply not interested in social science studies and statistics of this age and you avoid them by using religion as a straw man.