Debra Maggart, state representative from Tennessee, wins my coveted "bigot of the day" award by asserting that homosexual couples adopt kids so that they can molest them.
"We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse," she said.
Her research cites "Focus on the Family".
Posted by jherr at March 29, 2006 11:36 AMIt also said her research came from the ACLU. You left that out.
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 30, 2006 09:13 AMDo you agree with her?
Posted by: jherr at March 30, 2006 02:40 PMThat gay adoption shouldn't be legal? Hell no. I don't agree with her.
That there may some evidence somewhere that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted access and subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse? I guess it's possible, but I don't know for sure. She's either lying or she has case studies to back up what she said. Case studies and facts from Focus on the Family and the ACLU. I just wanted to point out that you omitted the ACLU from your post - seemingly to equate Christianity and gay-bashing - which isn't fair. Or honest.
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 31, 2006 07:07 AM"Focus on the Family" has a very clear record of publishing anti-gay material. The ACLU does not.
I have no idea why the ACLU was listed as a source. Perhaps it was to cite cases where the ACLU defended morons like her spouting bigoted hate speech.
The omission was intentional on my part. It was clear to me why she invoked "Focus on the Family". It was not clear why she cited the ACLU. The ACLU, despite it's opposition (fans of pill-popper Limbaugh, who is being defended by the ACLU), is a reputable organization that I support with my own money.
I don't have to cite it as a source just because some batshit crazy bigot says she uses it as a source. If people wanted to illuminate themselves on her drooling hate-filled ramblings they are free to read the article that I linked to, as you have.
Posted by: jherr at March 31, 2006 07:52 AMFurther reading indicates that she was referring to the work of her committee looking into a bill that would ban gay adoption. Information was presented to the committee by both the ACLU and Focus on the Family.
The bill didn't make it out of committee and the ACLU was cited as a positive agent in that victory. So I think it's pretty clear to me that the ACLUE is in favor of gay adoption and was not there to present material to the contrary.
Posted by: jherr at March 31, 2006 08:13 AMContinuing on with a little more research. It's definitely "Focus on the Family" since every time they reference gay adoption they also cite "abuse". Only once do they actually list a case and that is of Jakii Edwards.
This is not from Focus but from another source that talks about Gay adoption and Jakii.
Jakii Edwards, herself raised in a "gay home" said, "it does hurt the children to come up in gay homes. When a child [sees] mom kissing mom and dad kissing daddy, it leaves the child with gender identity issues. We question whether we have to be gay like mommy [or daddy] is gay. It causes a lot of turmoil." She says everyone she knows who was raised by a gay parent "has major anger issues…"Jakii campaigns across the country to remind a confused culture that if we really care about the needs of children, we'll do everything in our power to promote healthy, two-parent, heterosexual families. After all, she says, "what made June Cleaver, Donna Reed, and Carol Brady great moms was not the fact that they wore aprons and pearls. It was that they married their children's fathers."
The Creation design simply does not accommodate homosexual behavior; neither does it accommodate homosexual marriage.
Apparently one vaguely defined case is all it takes to persecute an entire population. Given the amount of sexual abuse that goes on in heterosexual households it's a wonder that Focus wants heterosexuals to adopt.
Posted by: jherr at March 31, 2006 08:37 AMAmen, Brutha. There should be a license issued to raise children - with training courses required.
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 31, 2006 09:32 AMI was relieved to learn that this Debra Maggart isn't running unopposed for re-election. There's a normal-looking, sane-sounding veteran and family guy running against her. His name is Patrick Gardner, and his web site is at
http://www.patrickgardner.org/
I hope people of all parties and persuasions who don't like ranting bigots will have a peek at what he says, and throw him a little support if they think he'd be an improvement over the incumbent. It's a small rural district, and probably the ad markets are inexpensive. A little Net support might go much farther than it does in a Congressional or Senate race.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)