Peter said (June 16, 2010):

Counselling literature makes it clear that gays and lesbians are not born that way - gay and lesbian behaviour stems from a "daddy problem". Simply put, a son needs to have his male identity affirmed by his father. Likewise, the daughter's female identity is affirmed by her father. When the father is absent or is abusive or dysfunctional in his ability to show and demonstrate love for his son or his daughter, the son or daughter suffers an identity crisis. As a result, they become confused about their gender and start looking in all the wrong places for the love they never received from their father. As they grow up, sons and daughters become comfortable and confident in who they are as male and female as a result of the affirmation they receive from their fathers. With that understood, how would it be possible for a girl or boy to properly mature and become well-balanced and functional when both "parents" are lesbians? The answer is simple - contrary to what Atlantic Monthly would have us believe, it is not possible. Somewhere, there has to be a real daddy in the picture.

Matt said (June 16, 2010):

There's a lot of talk about "love" when pro-gay people talk about "gay relationships". It's as if they turn a blind eye to the fact that these people are doing something that not only is despicable in the sight of God (and to men of character), but also is an act against nature. You guys don't seem to understand biology at all. The semen is there for a purpose. The uterus is there for a reason. You can try to counter my claim by bringing up populations of male penguins where female penguins have been taken away experimentally, and the two males are forced to function as surrogate parents for the sake of the offspring. What has that got to do with sodomy or lesbianism?

As for humans: don't you think homosexual "parents" will sugarcoat sodomy and lesbianism to "their" children? Does that sound right to you, readers? People must be out of their minds when they defend this obvious perversion and talk about "love". Well, I love a host of people. They are my friends. I don't have sex with my friends. Please do put love into the equation with the woman you have intercourse with (monogamously I hope) but don't put the label "love" on a relationship based on deviancy and unnatural roles.

Some readers here criticized the nuclear family. Nobody said anything bad about big families where everyone can pitch in, be they dad or mom, sibling or cousin. I'm all for that. It's still a "nuclear" family.

A child could fare well in any environment where there are positive male and female models, for that matter. But the family is not only for the child's benefit; it also builds character in the father, a sense of responsibility, and toughens him up.

But many folks today crown the children as kings and queens of the family. I say the man must be the tough but benevolent king and the woman the caretaking (second in command) queen, or else the family will self-destruct.

Many dads think that they have to sacrifice their hobbies and interests for the children's sake, which is dead wrong.

Keep your hobbies and interests and you will have something to teach your child, with real joy and enthusiasm. That's what a child needs in a father: his zeal and enterprising spirit that can only come from his own likes and dislikes, when he doesn't try to be someone else or be in pursuit of some standardized carbon copy image that would cover up his own self to the detriment of the whole family.

Dani said (June 15, 2010):

I understand the social engineering agendas that you write extensively about, and agree with many of your views on them, however, things are not always so black and white. As another reader pointed out the modern nuclear family is a new invention, and families used to take a very different form in the not so distant past. There is more than one way to rear healthy, functional children. I think single parent homes far more damaging than a home with two loving lesbians. Having only one parent shouldering the entire burden of the household, working sometimes multiple jobs in an effort to fill the financial void from the absent father, leaving the child(ren) unattended and fending for themselves with the media as their babysitter is far worse than the two parent stable lesbian household. In a way I still have reservations about the idea of gays rearing children because I wasn't raised around those ideas, and I think it probably is more natural to have both a female and male influence in the child's life. But then again the world has gotten so insane nowadays that it's become a matter of "what's worse" and "shades of gray." So if your choices are single parent home vs. stable two parent gay home....then the latter wins. Abusive male/female parent home vs. loving gay home.....then the latter wins, hands down.

---

Dani

I think you are overestimating the stability of gays, gay relationships, and their commitment to child rearing.

henry

Charles said (June 15, 2010):

One of the many difficulties a thinking person has with your position is that you take a slant that is not historically accurate in your umbrage with a contemporary position taken by a mainstream media publication.

In the first place, the nuclear family is new. Once upon a time, say prior to World War II, we had large extended families. Mothers and Fathers had roles to be sure, but the entire family raised the child. My mother was born in 1918 in rural Kentucky in a solid Protestant family that pioneered 3 counties with Daniel Boone. She was raised by her older sister-17 years older. Grand-Mom was busy with working on the farm.

In the second place, I think a child needs love more than a dad. If a father is like Huck Finn's father one may suggest that alternatives might be feasible. I am not at all against mothers and fathers raising children, on the
other hand, I am not against two mothers or two fathers raising children either-so long as they do so with love.

Lastly, given the tragic history of Christianity, it seems to me that very few ever attempt to live their lives in imitation of Christ, so few in fact that they are the exception and not the rule. Recall Melville Mr. Makow?
In Moby Dick he sets forth his understanding of the narrow bigoted 19th century Christians by comparing them to a cannibal from the South Seas. Unfavorably I add pointedly.

Hypocrisy is as human as intolerance and ideology justifying burning women at the stake for witchcraft or hurling men into Holy Wars to reclaim the "Holy Land." Satanic those these times might be, I regret to observe that without Christianity perverted by Christians there is no Satanic conspiracy. Very few Christians are made like St. Francis after all. Far more are made in the mold of the Church Militant and the Dominican friars.

Mark said (June 15, 2010):

So very right on, Doc, and thanks for being one of the few out there to say what the politically correct police have tried to forbid.

Sex, is for reproduction as male and female express their love and affection... All else is perversion. The media controlled by the corporate mindset is spreading the perversion mind rot with a machine like persistence. Everything has been sexualized to the point of sexual insanity by this corporate effort.

No boundaries of decency exist for the Satanist black magic practitioners who run the media. Decency is thoughtful restraint from a person who cares about the impact of deeds and thoughts... The once highly held trait of decency has been targeted for extinction by mass propaganda. And, with so few people who control the media, only a fool would believe this not a premeditated attack on the moral fiber of a our nation by a wealthy and driven adversary/predator.

In a civilization that practices freedom of thought and speech, freedom of action still must be tempered to protect the innocent. The actions of the Zionist controlled media directly reflect the total lack of respect for Christian ideals or even just basic human ideals of consideration and responsibility. This is the Zionist/Illuminati attacking the sub consciousnesses of the "Goyim" masses to keep us at an animal level of behavior and submission.

The Zionist know that the moral strength of a Christian or anyone is the thing to be feared that threatens the Zionist/Illuminati plan to dominate the planet. One moral human scares the hell of them, because, One light in the dark can awaken many souls who are now under the Cabalist's black magic... We must bravely allow ourselves to be the light, by channeling the light in deeds, actions, thoughts and words in the face of this onslaught of Zionist/Illuminati black magic warfare.

A corporation that endeavourers to sexually corrupt the kids and young adults of this great country and of the world is a SEXUAL predator in the form of an legal corporate fiction that hides the true face of the ring leaders. The only way we are being fed this brain rot is through the news and entertainment media. These Zionist/Illuminati run corporations must boycotted, sued, and made an example of... This a 24/7 corporate attack we are under! The machine must be shut down and taken a way from those who seek to enslave all mankind. Time to shine the light on these vile insect minded perverts!

Take care and let the light shine!

Dan said (June 15, 2010):

Damn Dr. Makow, your articles are right in line with what I have been saying for years. The "Are Father's necessary?" article was just the tip of the iceberg. I recently read an article from the U.K. that covered 3 generations of a "family" that were fatherless. How did these women manage? No problem, the state (welfare) will provide. These welfare benefits allow women to make these foolish choices which are an illusion. "I don't need a man" is right, you are totally dependant on the system, without which the reality of your choices would grind you into hopelessness.

Thank you for covering such vitally important information that is a large part of our social ills that plague us today. I'm a fan.

Troy said (June 15, 2010):

I noticed something today and wonder if you have too. In a large majority of elections across the country, women are running for office and winning the nomination to run in November.
Do you think this is another part of the 'power's that be' plan to diminish the role of men in society, or is it just coincidence?

Frankly I won't vote for a woman. It's not a sexist decision but rather a power decision. In my opinion politicians are all power hungry snakes and at some point in the career they switch to selfishness instead of working for their constituents. It's already been proven that women have to work extra hard to break the glass ceiling and to me, since politicians are snakes, then these women have to been even more dishonest, deceitful, selfish, and manipulative than men. To me they are the worst possible politician we could get.