Category Archives: The Left

Scientists Refute Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,”

however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels.

It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of  the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence  that they mention, whether true or not,  cannot  be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases

“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.”

(NCA, Page 23)

RESPONSE:

Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government’s finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of  EPA’s Three LoE.

This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo…2.pdf  

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected. Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.

Models (top) vs. Measured Temperatures Changes (bottom) Latitude

NCA CLAIM #2:

“Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”

“The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.”

(NCA, Page 23)

RESPONSE:

“Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g.  NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d 

See NOAA NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CTR ., State Climate Extremes Committee, Records, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records (last visited 12/15/ 2013)

If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest  –  in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak. This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor. It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades.

Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and  solar cycles, not carbon dioxide.  Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.

NCA CLAIM #3: Thir LoE – “The Climate Models”

The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate.

(NCA, Page 24)

RESPONSE:

The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. These

Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics.

The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

Model Lower Tropospheric Temperature forecasts versus actual

NCA CLAIM #4:

“Extreme Weather – Temperatures” “global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.”

(NCA, Page 8)

“The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)

RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years. See Decadal forecast, METOFFICE, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.

See National Space Sci. & Tech.Ctr., North of 20 North Temperature Anomalies UAH Satellite Data: Lower Troposphere Degrees C, available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ t2lt/uahncdc.lt (last visited May 17, 2013).

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate

Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.”  The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”

NCA CLAIM #5 “Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”

“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.”

(NCA, Page 20)

“Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods” “both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.”

(NCA, Page 33)

RESPONSE:

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.

Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity. The data on droughts paint a similar picture.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions , droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….”

The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.

Still More NCA CLAIMS

RESPONSE:

All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.

SUMMARY

The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.”

(NCA, Page 1)

“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.”

(NCA, Page 7)

“There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts”

(NCA, Page 2)

RESPONSE:

This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short-term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.

Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.)

However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels. Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost. What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.

Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.  

Signed by:

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. S. Fred Singer Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University BEE, Ohio State University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Madhav Khandekar Retired Scientist, Environment Canada Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents

George Taylor Certified Consulting Meteorologist President Applied Climate Services Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists B.A. Mathematics, University of California M.S. Meteorology University of Utah

Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

The Least Transparent Administration in History; the President can Document This

Gov. Ducey: Resist Tucson’s Demand for Special Homosexual Rights

Message for newly elected Governor Doug Ducey: be wise and resist the pressure from Tucson city leaders to envelop the State of Arizona with the radical homosexual agenda.

Tucson’s city council is demanding Gov. Ducey do just that, based on a vote by the city leaders this week:

The City Council voted unanimously to call on Governor Ducey and our state leaders to support marriage equality, equal LGBT rights, and advocate for a highly diverse statewide workforce and community. The City’s Small, Minority and Women-Owned Business Commission originated the recommendation and sent it to Mayor and Council for action yesterday.

 

Gov. Ducey, if you are not aware … this is a power move by a radical, fringe element of society that wants to make all of America subservient to a freedom-destroying agenda. It will elevate a tiny, tiny majority — less than two percent of Arizona’s population — to a status of privilege that will subjugate the masses to a severe loss of constitutional freedom.

 

The call for equal rights is a red herring that will substantially harm free speech and the free exercise of religion for all Arizonans.

 

The demand for a highly diverse statewide workforce and community is subterfuge for an extreme left-wing movement to silence the voice of Bible-believing Christians. As you know, Gov. Ducey, Arizona is a highly diverse state now. Any special privilege given to this tiny, vocal left-wing minority will result in policy that will be dangerously above and beyond the Constitution. Anyone who opposes this agenda on moral grounds will be severely demonized. We are already seeing the results of this agenda, as hard-working, honest and law-abiding citizens are under attack for attempting to exercise their rights of conscience. Litigious groups across America are proving that religious freedom and the homosexual agenda are not compatible.

 

Marriage equality has existed throughout Arizona’s history as a state since 1912. More than 1.2 million Arizona voters went to the polls to enact marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is the bulwark of society the world over.

 

But then last fall one rogue federal judge in Phoenix disenfranchised those voters to throwing their votes in the trash can and, legislating improperly from the bench, unilaterally declared same-sex “marriage” legal. Our attorney general is now opposing that alarming and outrageous act of judicial over-reach. We pray that higher courts will sensibly overturn this unwise action by the federal judge and restore the social order in Arizona. We ask that you support the efforts of Attorney General Mark Brnovich and others working to strengthen the marriage culture in Arizona and to protect it from further judicial incursions.

 

The people who are demanding you exercise your power to destroy Arizona’s marriage culture and hand them special privileges opposed your election. They are aligned with the Democratic Party. In fact, they and other radical left-wing elements have seized control of the Democratic Party. Their vision and their agenda for Arizona and the nation will cause long-term damage if they succeed.

 

Resist. Protect faith and families, religious freedom, free speech. Do not allow this trojan horse to damage Arizona’s cultural landscape. Stand against this attack on common sense.

 

Homosexuals are not subject to job loss or discrimination in hiring in Arizona. They have always had the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because they don’t like that choice is insufficient reason to change the law. The majority of Americans oppose their efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

 

There is nothing lacking in diversity in Arizona today and no reason exists to elevate rules, regulations or law that damage the balance of freedom in the Grand Canyon State.

 

We trust you will do the right thing, Mr. Governor. Thank you.

TAC to ASU Evolutionist: Open America’s Classrooms to Reason and Free Speech

Donald Johanson gave a remarkable speech October 24, 2014 at the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s 37th annual convention in Los Angeles. Johanson is an internationally known paleoanthropologist whose graduate student discovered the remains of the famous fossil “Lucy” — a small ape. Evolutionists claim Lucy is the ancient ancestor of modern humans, and her remains are supposedly 3.2 million years old.

Johanson is the founding director of the Institute of Human Origins, a so-called “evolution think tank” at Arizona State University. He lives in San Francisco.

We have taken selected portions of his speech in order to engage in “debate” with him. This is a lengthy read, but it is highly beneficial for those who want to understand the nature of the debate between creation and evolution; it will you in your arguments against those on the Left. Johanson’s comments appear as they were made. Our response is identified by our initials TAC:

This has been a very important part of my life, the study of who we are and where we come from. It has immense implications, philosophical and otherwise, everything from medicine to how we look at and treat one another.

As I was saying, it wasn’t necessarily that I was hoping to make this colossal discovery of a creature that has become pretty much an icon in terms of paleontology or paleoanthropology, but it was to understand our place in nature. The book that launched my intrigue about where we’ve come from was a book entitled Man’s Place in Nature by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a tea-drinking buddy of Charles Darwin.

They often sat and noodled on the question of human evolution. I can see them in Darwin’s garden in Kent while they discussed how they were going to bring this shocker to the Victorian world of Great Britain, that we actually descended from the apes. Darwin, as you well know, was very reluctant to do that because he didn’t want to upset the household, as his wife Emma was very religious.

And he only said that light would be thrown on the origin of man, until 1871 in his Descent of Man, when he articulated a number of scenarios for that. I read Man’s Place in Nature and realized the importance of this subject, for which paleoanthropology wasn’t really a moniker until the late ’50s or so. I realized that we have a remarkable record preserved in Earth’s geological strata that connects us with the past, with each other, and I think very importantly, connects us with the natural world.

We know, every single one of us in this room, who the creator was — Mother Nature. I will have much more to say about that as we get into this discussion.

I’ve also been asked to comment on why I’m an atheist. I’ve always been an atheist. I didn’t have to be converted. … And she [his mother] said, this little uneducated housekeeper from Sweden who immigrated when she was 16, deciding the New World was where everything was happening, “The first thing they’ll do is control you, then they will instill fear in you, and then they will take your money.”

TAC: This is an apt description of today’s public university setting. Students are indoctrinated, with grading held over their heads by autocratic professors.

I began to realize that believing in a creator being — someone I couldn’t see, someone who’s keeping track of me, someone I’d be afraid of — was really not my cup of tea. I was much more of a free thinker, as we say, and as I went through high school, I had a very adequate education at a public high school, which we should all bring back.

TAC: Bring back? That public school you attended never went anywhere. It is still run by people who share your worldview and who will not allow any dissent from the government position of naturalism. And as we’ll see below, you demonize others who disagree with you and refuse to recognize them as “free thinkers.” Why are America’s biology classrooms closed to free thought?

I lived in Berkeley for years, and my favorite bumper sticker said, “If you think education’s expensive, try ignorance.” During my education, I began to really understand that if I were to believe in this mythical creator — you know we only had one choice, right, since the downsizing? If you lived in Greece, we’d have a whole bunch of gods we could have prayed to, but now, with cutbacks and so on, we’re down to one — that I would have to unfortunately totally reject my objectivity and logic and leap into total fantasy. I just couldn’t see the benefit of that.

TAC: The same can be said of evolution and earth worship.

Science is such a rewarding, creative and charming way of looking at the universe. So why do people so resist evolution, the grand unifying theory of biology?

TAC: Softball question. Evolution has no foundation in truth. It is based on sinking sand. Why are America’s biology classrooms closed to free thought?

Yet a retiring Englishman who went off on a five-year boat cruise once figured out the grand unifying theory of biology. The robustness of the “theory” of evolution is that: The same tenets that Darwin suggested and proffered in the middle 1800s are still the core ideas of biology. If Darwin were sitting in the back of the room and I mentioned DNA, he wouldn’t have a clue. He didn’t know things were inherited. He observed and interpreted and understood how important that elusive thing natural selection is, and how powerfully explanatory it is.

TAC: The world has moved well beyond Darwin’s unenlightened time, to DNA and molecular science and a better understanding of the building blocks of life and the reality of how life originated. Darwin interpreted incorrectly, yet men and women of great technological times are still following his disproven theory of pseudo biology.

I suspect most people just don’t think. I don’t want to be too anti-clerical or anti-church; I respect people’s beliefs and I don’t try to destroy them. I understand that if you were born in X culture, you believe in X god, and if you were in Z culture, you believe in Z god, and so on. Before I knew about FFRF, I used to say that we have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion in America.

TAC: As this debate unfolds, it becomes clear you do not respect the beliefs of people who disagree with you. In fact, those held captive to America’s biology class rooms are not really permitted to engage in free thinking. … And if you were born in the home of an atheist, you’re more likely to be an atheist. The First Amendment allows for free speech and the free exercise of religion — which also allows for the freedom not to worship. You’ve always had freedom from religion. We have freedom from your religion of humanism, but only outside the classrooms of public schools and universities.

Darwin, if he were alive today, would probably be very happy with this poster [“In Reason We Trust”]. I want you to support science and reason. So take God’s name off our money we all worship and replace it with “In Science We Trust.” I don’t think we’ll do that, but we do need to get God’s name off our money. There’s no question.

TAC: You and the evolution industry are not afraid to rake in those dollars bearing God’s name — billions of them fueling your careers. Science and reason are open to free thought and inquiry — outside government classrooms, that is. The pseudo science forced on students today does not meet the definition of science.

The anti-science aspect of religion is what bothers me most intensely. It’s personified in this cartoon: “Welcome to church, you won’t be needing that [your brain] in here.” Just take this brilliant organ out that has evolved over 6 million years of natural selection, that happens to put us at the pinnacle of intelligent life on the planet, in the solar system, and maybe even in the universe, to be so bold.

TAC: Were Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Bacon, and so many others anti-science? They were Christians and scientific pioneers. … Welcome to the biology class room, students of the 21st century. Please check your brain at the door; this class room is closed to science and reason, and your professor has already done your thinking for you.

There’s something very impersonal to most people about natural selection. It isn’t touchy-feely like a god that creates us in his image. Who’d he look like? You? You? You? We created him in our image, obviously, not in his image.

TAC: You have it backwards: God created us in His image.

You often see, and sometimes even television documentaries go at this from the wrong perspective, that Darwin is dead. No argument with that. He is dead, I agree. Evolution is just a theory. Right, you know what? Isaac Newton is dead, too. But gravity ain’t going away, even if his ideas were called the “theory” of gravity.

TAC: It’s a stretch to compare Newton to Darwin. Newton’s theory is verifiable and has stood the test of time. Darwin’s theory has not. Evolution has never been observed. It’s not verifiable. Yet, TLC, the Discovery Channel, the Animal Planet, the History Channel and many other cable channels and documentaries repeatedly refer to evolution — without offering a shred of evidence or citations of proof. They expect us to take it on faith.

I regularly lecture at colleges, universities and museums.

TAC: Lecture or indoctrinate?

It’s always interesting to say, “Raise your hand if you believe in evolution.” And you know, there’s a certain percentage that do. I say, “It may all surprise you that I don’t believe in evolution” — there’s this big sigh of relief — “any more than I believe in gravity.” It doesn’t take belief; this is a fact. If you let something go, it’s going to fall to the ground. You don’t have to believe in gravity, it is a fact.

TAC: You’re right. When speaking of gravity and evolution, gravity is factually evident.

In biology, going back to Darwin, I think it was Dobzhansky, the great geneticist, who said that “In biology, nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution is a fact, it’s not good, it’s not bad, it has no moral compass.

TAC: The great geneticist sells biology short. A reasoning person can very easily lack faith in evolution, its so-called icons, its advocates (many of whom have been proven wrong), and especially the hollow claims of a sl-called supporting fossil record.

We need to cherish that, and we have to understand that this is an exciting opportunity to be alive and not sit around and worry about some omnipotent being keeping score to decide whether we’re going to end up in eternal ecstasy or unending damnation. As I say, how could he have time to keep score on each one of us? He’s so damn busy helping people sink 6-foot putts in Arizona and get extra points in football games. He doesn’t have time to keep track of us.

TAC: You also sell God short. We actually make the decision ourselves whether or not to accept God’s free offer of salvation. We have the free will to decide. And God abides by the decisions we make.

The problem is that people’s prayers don’t get answered. Why? Well, here it was in The New Yorker [cartoon]: “God finds all the prayers of mankind in his spam folder.” We now have an explanation.

TAC: Not all prayers are in alignment with God’s will. We pray for many things we think we need, sometimes we don’t get them answered, and then later we are thankful. We realize God had a better plan for us than what we prayed for. We aimed low, and God had a plan far better than what we envisioned.

One of the things about natural selection, which we all grow up learning, is the survival of the fittest. I was taught by my mentor at age 13 that it’s really the elimination of the unfit. If you think about it, that’s a better way to look at it.

TAC: How did we all grow up learning natural selection if we had to return to that time, as you asserted earlier? It is the worldview which has given us Margaret Sanger and eugenics, forced sterilization, euthanasia, the profit-driven Planned Parenthood and abortion, and genocide. These horrors were orchestrated by those who assumed they had the right to determine who was unfit and undeserving of life. They shared one thing in common: the religion of humanism.

The problem with natural selection is you can’t weigh it, you can’t see it …

TAC: But you better drink the Kool-Aid in biology class, or you might be a “bigot” and a “fool.”

Atheists, and I guess there are a few in this room, get a pretty bad rap, very often. Religious people accuse us of lacking morals, having no family values. Well, unless I’m reading the wrong newspapers, I don’t recall any atheists out there beheading people, stoning women or burning people at the stake.

TAC: Read the papers again. People who shared your humanist religion — Stalin, Hitler, Mao — were all atheists. The current beheading crisis in Islamic countries is the work of those who believe in Mohammed.

Our world is filled with endless moments of inspiration, real inspiration, available to each and every human being endowed with a conscious brain created by evolution. We need not rely on creation myths for inspiration.

TAC: Call creation a myth. But answer this question: how did evolution create so something so extraordinary as a human brain? How did it create the 11 different bodily systems which operate in compatibility to make the miracle of life? How did all 11 evolve at the same time? How would human life have originated if the 11 systems evolved a couple or a few at a time? How did evolution create the complexity of the human jaw with its ligaments and muscles working in coordination? How did evolution wrap a human’s abdominal muscles in such a precise way? How did evolution create the incredibly intricate network of nerves serving our bodies? Was it just plain luck? An accident? Evolution can’t answer any these questions because the complexity of life is light years beyond it … and because evolution does in fact not exist. “Evolution” has created nothing … but a fervent imagination and a worldview needed by people desperate for an alternative to Creator God.

Atheists are accused of not playing fair since we don’t teach creationism in science class.

TAC: It’s a well-earned charge, too. Because atheists control the government schools and use that power to control the curriculum, tilting the playing field, shutting off fair examination of alternative theories of creation, sending children to the principal’s office for disagreeing with evolution. If atheists were so confident of their belief, their worldview, they would welcome a fair playing field allowing free speech, reason, and open debate. But they are opposed to these — in thought, word and deed. Hear this: open America’s biology classrooms to free thinking and honest inquiry.

Well, if you’re going to teach creationism, why don’t we teach astrology with astronomy? In medical school we’d have to teach witchcraft along with medicine, and alchemy with chemistry. Where’s it going to end?

TAC: Since you are already teaching mythology in science classes, why not give students all the relevant theories of life and let them decide? Instead of indoctrinating them? Instead of coercing students, teachers, and professors to believe in the theory of evolution, or to walk the academic plank? You can’t handle the truth and you force-feed the unwilling with something you have never proven to be true.

OK, you American Airlines pilots, today we’re going to discuss the flat Earth. You get on a plane in L.A., you’re hoping to see the Metropolitan Opera in New York, and the pilot believes in a flat Earth? You’ll never get there.

TAC: Flat earth is an interesting analogy for those who follow a 19th century dreamer and claim the debate is over because they know they do not have to allow a real debate among captive audiences of children — with the threat of grade reduction held over their young heads. Flat earth appropriately describes the classrooms of humanist schools today.

Our main duty in getting to one of the core issues of what I’m talking about tonight is to reawaken a “reverence” for the natural world and our place in it. [We have a duty] to respect the creativity of the true creator, Mother Nature, to protect her, to take seriously our responsibilities as the most creative, but also the most destructive species that’s ever lived on Earth.

TAC: Re-awaken a reverence for evolution? When you are in full control of the nation’s public school and university science classes and faculties? When the mass media is indoctrinating the public to take evolution on faith, without evidence? When the so-called Learning Channel repeatedly alleges life evolved and offers no supporting evidence? In a nation where earth worshipping is common, due to years of public education indoctrination? You can’t be real.

The future is in our hands, and it is time that we stop turning our back on the natural world and start listening to her and working with her.

TAC: It’s time to stop turning our back on the scientific method, on free speech, reason, freedom of thought and academic rigor.

The Creation Museum [in Petersburg, Ky.] is one of our favorite places. Where else can you witness the science of cavemen cavorting with their favorite pet dinosaur, Skippy, 5,000 years ago? Is this a time warp and we’re back in the Dark Ages or something?

TAC: Time warp? From one who worships at the altar of a 19th century dreamer and one who believes the earth and universe are billions and billions of years old. Talk about darkened ages! LOL!

This is lying, cheating, deceiving, warping and perverting people’s knowledge. To make what? Money. How much money does the Creation Museum make at the same time it destroys young peoples’ opportunities to look at the world through an open mind. That’s what upsets me probably more than anything else about the museum.

TAC: Science teachers beholden to the god of evolution wouldn’t know an open mind if it kicked them in the shins. The study of evolution is a career launcher, and sustainer and golden parachute — with billions of taxpayers’ dollars, courtesy of the National Science Foundation and other government agencies and foundations. Thousands of taxpayer-funded research professors are working with large teams of taxpayer-funded graduate students, on the frivolous study of evolution — and proving nothing. Careers are based on this study; it is very, very profitable — thanks to taxpayers. So you might not want to talk about the Creation Museum charging an admission fee to pay its employees’ salaries.

And one would expect a “free thinker” to welcome various viewpoints and theories on the origins of life and the universe. You mean that trapping young people in government school science classes isn’t destroying their opportunities to look at the world — or freedom to visit the Creation Museum — with an open mind? If evolution is so right, why do you so greatly fear other explanations of life? You’ve got all the public schools, the universities, the mass media, and government. Yet you can’t let one ministry offer another view without condemnation.

Well, part of my mission in life has been to educate people about the fossil evidence for human evolution.

TAC: This empty mission can be completed in the blink of an eye. There is no fossil evidence of evolution. Lucy and her friends were apes, and that’s why their descendants can be seen in zoos. If she had lived a billion years and birthed a billion offspring, none of them would have ever developed the capability to advance to a higher order, much less human.

A born-again, Francis Collins, asked me to give the single most important talk that I’ve given in years, on Darwin’s 200th birthday, at the National Institutes of Health. He’s deeply religious and is the head of the National Institutes of Health. … Collins, whom I knew and had debated, and I had a huge interchange where he said, “Well, there are just some things that science can’t explain.” I said, “Yes, then it’s not science.”

TAC: Just a few years ago, one of the leading scientists at a major research university told me that a satellite sent photos of Saturn to earth rendered all the text books about that planet useless. So I assume the knowledge existing before these transmissions wasn’t science either. And furthermore, much of the so-called “science” posited by evolutionists in earlier times was proven fraudulent. That’s why you won’t want to discuss the Piltdown Man, the discredited experiment of Stanley Miller, or the other hoaxes and unsubstantiated claims of evolutionists. And how about the moths that were nailed to a tree for a photograph by an evolutionist?

Lucy is really the poster child for paleoanthropology and human origins. When you read about new fossil finds, they’re either younger than Lucy, older than Lucy, more complete than Lucy, not as primitive as Lucy, or whatever. So this was a remarkable discovery for me. It launched an incredible 20-year series of expeditions. We now have over 400 specimens of Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis.

TAC: 400 specimens of an ape, with no linkage to humans. Lucy was just another ape. Take it on faith. You won’t want to do that, but that’s what you are telling people to do with your unproven claim that she was an early fore-runner of humans.

And if you go to the Creation Museum, there she is. She’s a four-legged, quadrupedal knuckle-walker. This is because of Dr. Ham. I don’t know what he got his doctorate in, may have been one of those things you get at Sears [Dr. of literature, Liberty University].
There ain’t no way that Lucy was walking on her knuckles and forelegs. A child goes in, sees this and is impressed by it. The child doesn’t know one way or another.

TAC: Were you there to see how this ape walked? If this child attends public school, she has been indoctrinated by evolution-touting teachers. And in response to your insolent remarks about Ken Ham, you and your evolution colleagues are living proof that years and careers spent in academia are not guarantees that academics are truly open to the scientific method, and they are not immune to biases and the dictates of their worldviews. Take the so-called most respected universities in the U.S., (Stanford, Ivy League, et al) and you can’t guarantee that an education at any one of these humanist/evolution indoctrination centers offers a more truth-oriented education than the tiniest Christian college … or a creation museum. While speaking of museums: we have a dinosaur museum in Mesa with signage claiming life ascended through a family tree over eons of time. There are no footnotes or corroboration; we’re supposed to take it on faith. And we don’t.

It’s terribly important that we don’t shut these minds down so early. The longer you have a mind that is shut down the more time there is to develop and reinforce bigotry.

TAC: Truer words were never spoken, but for the opposite reason you intended your statement. Thirteen years of public school, plus four years of college, plus 2-10 years of graduate education is an awful long period of shutting minds down. Open the schools and universities to science, to reason, to genuine debate and an authentic search for truth. Open the door to open inquiry, freedom of thought and speech. Stop firing professors for exploring non-evolutionary theories! End the bigotry now!

Here [in a cartoon] he’s saying, “Look, it’s not personal, it’s religious.” There have been so many sacrifices in religion — burning at the stake, beheading people, stoning people to death or ripping their hearts out and eating a live pumping heart (if you’re an Aztec) — what’s that left us with? A bunch of dead bodies.

TAC: Humanist dictators murdered 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. Sadly, America’s government and education establishment have adopted their religion of secular humanism. It is convenient for you when you want to demonize Christians to lump them in with Muslims, Aztecs, and Canaanites. The God Christians worship says to “choose life.” Who is killing children today? Planned Parenthood. God says: love your neighbor.

Make some real sacrifices, sacrifices to Mother Nature, who will, unlike the false gods to whom we have made sacrifices, reward you.

TAC: This so-called “Mother Earth” had a Creator.

We will be rewarded with what? Healthy clean air with reduced pulmonary disease, and we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief. I could go on and on about this, but I think you all get the gist. We live in a beautiful world.

TAC: Created by a majestic God.

We need to stop being Homo egocentricus and start to become a more deeply contemplative species that makes decisions intelligently, not out of fear or self-interest and not because of how much money we’re going to make. Make decisions that will help us regain the balance between ourselves and our creator, Mother Nature.

TAC: Set the example. Give up your stubborn predisposition to evolution and allow students free speech and freedom of thought. Listen to their reason. Give up your self-interest in perpetuating myths. Along with the taxpayer dollars funding your career. Give up your entitlement mentality.

It’s time, really, that as we look back on 4 million years of evolution, 3 million with Lucy. She is a link, not the missing link but one that reminds us of our link to the natural world.

TAC: Glad to hear you admit the so-called evolutionary link is still indeed missing. Game, set, match.

Lucy didn’t know where she was going; we don’t know where we’re going. She didn’t know that her descendants would end up as Homo sapiens, but it’s an interesting perspective to know that we are united by our past, that we have this commonality of beginning, that we undoubtedly will have a common future, and I think a common destiny globally.

TAC: I’m sorry you do not know where you are going. You are not related to Lucy or to any other apes. Your only common destination with apes is visiting jungles and zoos. You were wonderfully made by a Creator, God.

The most important thing from here on forth is to stop acting as if there’s some place else for us to move to. We are destined to be on, as my late friend Carl Sagan said, “this pale blue dot.” Let’s take those responsibilities seriously.

TAC: The late Carl knows so much more now than he did when he made that audacious statement. He has met his Maker and changed his worldview. If he could come back now, he would urge you to do the same.

Religious Liberty Under Assault from Special Rights Efforts

An Open Letter to the Judge Who Disenfranchised 1.2 Million Voters

An Open Letter to U.S. District Judge John Sedwick:

I am one of the more than 1.2 million Arizonans who was disenfranchised last fall when you exceeded your authority and redefined marriage in our state. The nature of highly important issues like marriage is best left to the voice of their people or their elected representatives in the legislative branch. Arbitrary decisions like yours were never intended to be left to the judicial branch. You acted without the authority to do so.

Here’s how your regrettable decision will impact our communities:

More children will grow up without their father. Fatherlessness has wrought a devastating effect on our society.

More children will grow up without the nurturing care of their mother

More children will struggle in school.

More children will grow up in confusion about themselves and their sexuality.

More children will be subject to pornography. More of them will act out what they’ve seen, on other children.

More children will be placed at higher risks of sexual assault and rape. They’ll carry this trauma with them the rest of their lives.

More adults will be subject to domestic violence. This will create a greater drain on public resources left to pick the pieces.

There will be more divorce.

Your actions will reward alcohol and drug abuse.

There will be more STDs and AIDs in our Arizona communities traceable directly to your decision.

And you can’t have more drug and alcohol abuse and more disease without having more absenteeism in our work places.

All of these claims are backed up by decades of social science research in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you doubt that, please scan The Arizona Conservative website or contact us for the data.

Furthermore, you have seriously damaged the democratic process in Arizona. How many Arizonans will now be skeptical about engaging in the proposition process? How many more people are now left with an attitude that asks, “why should I bother to vote when a single judge can just throw my vote in the trash?”

You may never realize the damage you have wrought. But as we wrote to you before: when you come to a gate in the road, stop and ponder why it was placed there in the first place before you remove it.

Arizona, and America, need a strong marriage culture. It can’t be strengthened by redefining it, as you did. Nor can you lightly brush off the disenfranchising of 1.2 million Arizonans who enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment with good intentions and for good reason.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Respectfully,

The Arizona Conservative

Does Abuse Contribute to the Development of Same-Sex Attraction?

You won’t get the following scientific information from the left-stream media or the government schools. They are purposely withholding the truth about same-sex attraction. To be fully informed about the truth, please read below:

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday. People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the ‘non-exclusively heterosexual” groups. Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.  Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behavior.”

http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/117336/sexual-orientation-link-past-study

Several studies have demonstrated that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to report childhood abuse and adult sexual assault. It is unknown, however, which sexual minority women are most likely to experience such abuse. We recruited adult sexual minority women living in the US through electronic fliers sent to listservs and website groups inviting them to complete an online survey (N=1,243). We examined differences in both childhood abuse and adult sexual assault by women’s current gender identity (i.e., butch, femme, androgynous, or other) and a continuous measure of gender expression (from butch/masculine to femme/feminine), adjusting for sexual orientation identity, age, education, and income. Results indicated that a more butch/masculine current self-assessment of gender expression, but not gender identity, was associated with more overall reported childhood trauma. Although one aspect of gender expression, a more butch/masculine gender role, was associated with adult sexual assault, feminine appearance and a femme gender identity also significantly predicted adult sexual assault. These findings highlight the significance of gender identity and expression in identifying women at greater risk for various abuse experiences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758810/

43 percent of males with same sex attraction reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of males with opposite sex attraction.

Source: Manosevitz, “Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males,” Journal of abnormal psychology, 76 (1970), 396-402.

A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became same sex attracted, versus opposite sex attracted.

Source: Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, Sexual preference: Its development in men and women (1981). 7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.

Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became same sex attracted suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse did not.

Source: Sheir and Johnson, Sexual victimization of boys:… (1988) pp. 1189-93

“This report describes the high prevalence and context of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among men who have sex with men (MSM) across 3 independent qualitative studies.” ‘Childhood sexual abuse in men who have sex with men: results from three qualitative studies.’”

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY…2008 Oct;14(4):385-90.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954175

One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner. They are only 2-3% of the entire population. And the median age of first contact was as young as 10 years old!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1486514

The Archives of Sexual Behavior: “One of the most salient findings was that 46% of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”

(Marie, E. Tomeo “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons.” Source:Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

..homosexual attraction was greater in pedophiles than in other adults involved with sexual crimes with nearly a 2:1 difference.”

‘Review of 554 Medical Reports on Pedophilia’

Dr. John Hughes D.M.,M.D.,PhD., Medline Clinical Pediatrics: (See here & here).

A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”

Source: Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1737828/

A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes.’”

Source: Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people who experienced no victimization as children.”

Source: Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”

Source: Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): pg. 582.

The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”

Source: Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995). p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

Some homosexual activists have argued that sexual abuse shows no causal effects for lesbianism. Feel free to dig around on this point. You will find that is probable that self-identified lesbians have been participants in the samples of these studies, but they rarely have been studied separately from their heterosexual counterparts ( Source: Baker, 2003. Lesbian survivors of childhood sexual abuse: Community, identity, and resilience. Canadian Journal of Community, 22, 31-45).

So the reality is that there hasn’t really been a big effort to study a link between child sex abuse and lesbianism, but it looks like some have more recently…

“Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%).” (2008 May;17)

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447763/

“…lesbians reported a greater incidence than their sisters of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as adult sexual abuse.” ‘Sexual and physical abuse: a comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters’”

University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 2009;56(4):407-20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19418332

“Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013) presented evidence that childhood maltreatment is related to adult homosexuality, using an instrumental variables regression analysis. Briefly, several instrumental variables—presence of a stepparent, poverty, parental alcohol abuse, and parental mental illness—were related to adult homosexuality, but these relations were statistically mediated by childhood maltreatment. Roberts et al. concluded that childhood maltreatment causes adult homosexuality.”
 

And more independent data found within this link:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/

Mom + Dad = Marriage

California’s Embryonic Stem Cell Research a Complete Failure

Investors Business Daily reports what we all knew 10 years ago when Californians foolishly passed an amendment for unproven, unreliable destructive embryonic stem cell research, which treats human life like a mere commodity …

A Casualty of Love: the daughter of two moms speaks out

A single Arizona judge has taken the audacious step of overthrowing Arizona’s constitutional marriagement amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. He mistakenly and purposefully is denying children of what they need most: a mom and a dad. Read this account of what this judge, and many other judical activists around the nation, are doing by writing new, unwanted laws, from the bench.

By Meg

I was raised by my biological mother and her same-sex partner. I have only a few fuzzy memories of my father: a phone call here and there, his deep and unfamiliar voice wishing me a happy birthday, and a dim picture of the way the furniture had been arranged in his house. I have less than a handful of pictures of him. My mom and dad were married for a short time but she left him when I was too young to remember. She always knew she was gay and she wanted a chance to be happy with someone she really loved—with a woman.

I was raised in an area that was pretty liberal, open, and accepting of gays and lesbians. I know my mother experienced a lot of pain at the hands of others because of her sexuality, but as a child of same-sex parents, I was never mistreated because of it. I had two loving mothers who cared for my every need and with whom I have many wonderful and sweet memories. There was one need, however, that they could never meet no matter how much they loved me: the need for a father.

I love my mom deeply, fiercely, and unconditionally. She is an incredible woman, but I cannot pretend that her decision to leave my father and raise me with another woman did not have long-term and devastating consequences for me. I am a casualty of same-sex parenting. You see, I also love my absent father. I love a man whom I don’t even know. A man who, by all accounts, is a lousy father. I don’t know why I love him, I just do. When you are separated from a parent, for whatever reason, a wound is inflicted upon you. I ached for my father to love me. I ached for the father I knew I would never have. Losing my father was a tragedy in my life and it is a loss that I feel deeply every day. It’s a loss that can be ignored or numbed, for a short time, but never forgotten. Growing up without my dad colored everything about me. I had abandonment issues. I expected and feared that everyone close to me would leave me. Even as an adult I still grieve for what was taken from me. It wasn’t until my husband and I had children and I watched him with our kids that the full weight of what I’d lost with my own father hit me. And it hit me like a ton of bricks. Many people believe that so long as a child has two parents, gender doesn’t matter. But it does. I shouldn’t love my dad, but I do. I should love my “other mom,” but I don’t. I can’t change that, though I’ve definitely tried.

My relationship with my “other mom” was awkward. She helped raise me through my most formative years and I cannot recall life without her. I have many fond memories with her, but what I mostly remember is how awkward and uncomfortable our relationship felt. I had a mom, a dad whom I ached for, and then I had her. I hated the times she would try to parent me by offering me comfort or discipline. I accepted her only as my mom’s partner, not as a parent. Later, when she and my mom split up I felt relieved. I felt sad for my mom but I didn’t miss my “other mom” despite the fact that she raised me as her own daughter.

As a child growing up within the gay community, I was exposed to a lot of inappropriate things very early on. From the adult toys and pornographic magnets in the local gay and lesbian bookstore, to the men who parade around in S&M costumes at gay pride festivals. My interaction with and exposure to these parts of the larger gay culture and my missing father created the perfect storm that led to my early sexualization. As I got older, I used attention from boys to try to fill the wound my missing father left. I found myself in two abusive relationships in college because I was looking for the love and approval of a man but I had no idea how a good man should treat me. I accepted almost anyone who would “love” me.

Do I wish my mom lived a miserable life married to a man she didn’t love? No. I want my mom to be happy. But I also wish that she and my dad did love each other and that somehow it could have worked out. Her happiness cost me a great deal. We have to recognize that all children of same-sex parents are being raised in brokenness. Something precious and irreplaceable has been taken from us. Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent. In my case, and in many like mine, I was raised by same-sex parents because I was intentionally separated from my other biological parent and then told that “all that matters is love” and “love makes a family”. Love matters, but accepting and promoting same-sex parenting promotes the destruction of families, not the building of families.