France | Gay Adoption | Gay Marriage | New Zealand | News

Another Look At The Anti-Gay 'Fatherless Deviant' Yarn

Womens_workGarth McVicar is unyielding in his claim that same-sex marriage leads to violent crime. Though most people, including MPs, laughed at the New Zealand anti-gay activist's outrageous claim - and his various misspellings - McVicar this weekend dedicated himself anew to convincing people he's on the right track, and that gay nuptials are a detour to depravity.

In an interview with The New Zealand Herald, McVicar doubled down, saying, "If you look at the court stats, most of the crime that has been committed has been committed by fatherless kids." He also warned that gay adoption would have a similar effect, adding, "That's where it's heading - this is just another step in that politically correct journey that we've been on as a country."

Asked if two gay men, two dads, adopting would cancel out the detrimental effects, McCivar, not surprisingly, said no. Kids need a mother, as well. That's the basic formula for almost all anti-gay marriage movements. Opposition to gays raising kids is one of the main reasons the anti-marriage equality movement in France has such widespread and varied support. In France, in New Zealand and the world over, the conservative refrain remains largely the same: kids need both a mom and a dad, not two moms and not two dads. And, yes, this math also considers a single mother is less than, too.

And that's one of the subtexts that's often unexplored in these conservative arguments: the idea that a woman is not sufficient enough to raise a child alone. That women in general are not equal to men, that their power is only activated when complemented by a man's. Even then the woman's abilities are only suited for cooking, cleaning and birthing. Rational people living in this time period know that's not the case. Even still, it's this old, debunked theory that laid the seed for its more contemporary odious offshoot, the "no two dads; no two moms" meme.

When McVicar and his allies are attacking gay couples, they're also implicitly attacking women. It's hard, tiring - and tiresome - work. And yet most of the right wingers like McVicar still find time, and opportunity, to fulfill what they call their main goal: procreation. Where's Lysistrata when you need her?

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. It is an undeniable and extremely well-documented FACT that boys raised in fatherless households on average fare more poorly in life than those raised in households with both parents present--in terms of educational performance and by virtually every other measure.

    It is also an undeniable and extremely well-documented fact that most of the violent crime in the US is committed by young males from fatherless households.

    Does this mean that a boy raised by a single mother will necessarily turn out bad or at least worse off than he would have been with a father present? No, but statistically speaking the odds are much higher that he will have problems than if he grew up in a household with a father present.

    "And that's one of the subtexts that's often unexplored in these conservative arguments: the idea that a woman is not sufficient enough to raise a child alone. That women in general are not equal to men, that their power is only activated when complemented by a man's"

    That idea is entirely valid and born out by the facts. A teenage boy can easily walk all over his mother and disregard her "demands" and refuse to let her discipline him, which he cannot do, generally speaking, with a father. Why? Because women are NOT equal to men--they are weaker and have no power other than what they can derive through social manipulation.....which does them no good when it comes to dealing with an unruly male teenager.

    The gang in inner-city neighborhoods replaces the absent father, as boys seek to find their masculinity in the absence of a legitimate role model.....the consequence of single mothers trying to raise boys when they are ill-equipped to for the most part.

    If you want to convince people that gay people can be good parents, you would do well to stay away from a) attacking fatherhood, and b) pretending that being raised by the biological mother and father is not the IDEAL situation for a child, because it is.

    A gay couple is capable of raising a child successfully, but let's not pretend that it is totally equal in every way at the SOCIETAL level to (b) above--it is not and is never going to be

    Posted by: Rick | Jan 20, 2013 1:56:26 PM


  2. And, by the way, I have no doubt that it is not a coincidence that the effeminacy one often sees in gay men is disproportionately found in those who had bad or non-existent relationships with their fathers....and who feel hostility towards their fathers and towards men in general.

    If the shoe fits..........

    Posted by: Rick | Jan 20, 2013 2:04:49 PM


  3. Oh, Rick grow up!

    And, so, if boys need a Father at Home to become Real Men, then we should outlaw divorce? Marriages must stay intact--regardless of the parents' 'feelings'--for The Sake of the Children?

    Posted by: Christopher | Jan 20, 2013 2:09:06 PM


  4. "we should outlaw divorce? Marriages must stay intact--regardless of the parents' 'feelings'"

    Divorce should be strongly discouraged and difficult to obtain, as it was until the last generation or so.

    The uptick in divorce is partly related to the Baby Boomer's total focus on self and regarding marriage and relationships as a source of personal fulfillment and "romantic" adventure rather than as a responsibility....just as feminism is all about women focusing entirely on themselves and what they want to the detriment of their children and of society in general.

    This total lack of social responsibility and utter selfishness is the principal reason that American society has become unhinged......and it is reflected in everything from childhood obesity to tragedies like Newtown.

    If this society does not return to core values, then it is doomed.

    Posted by: Rick | Jan 20, 2013 2:20:51 PM


  5. Someone wrote a wall of text? Had to check if it's indeed Rick/Jason before I bothered reading

    Posted by: Steve | Jan 20, 2013 2:25:34 PM


  6. Rick wrote: "It is an undeniable and extremely well-documented FACT..." Really? The last research I read seemed to indicate that children of 2 lesbian mothers fared better -- even better than children from mixed-parent households in most societal measures. Of course for any single child such statistics are meaningless no matter which side they favor. One can skew the measurements in such a way as to present children who are black, blonde and green-eyed are better-adjusted that others if one is devious enough. I don't believe that your premise that mixed-parent households are measurably better is undeniable or a FACT. In fact -- I think that probably qualifies as an old wive's tale. And, as to feminine traits in boys -- that myth has been disproven over and over so you are speaking from a veritable warehouse of ignorance and misinformation. In fact, our western society is seeing a move towards recognizing feminine traits in males across the board and that is a good thing -- not a bad one. Please don't try to present your prejudice or bias as fact. You might hold that as a theory or a bias, but that does not make it a fact. Get over yourself.

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | Jan 20, 2013 2:32:49 PM


  7. RICK, look it up. The condition is called Vagina Envy. It is not too late to get help. Continuing denial just makes more miserable and frustrating. We all love you. We don't to have to see on the news of another `masculine` gay man hurt himself by self-castration and home-made vaginaplasty.

    Posted by: MalaysianHo | Jan 20, 2013 2:48:01 PM


  8. @steve Did the same thing myself! Saved me some time!

    Posted by: Will | Jan 20, 2013 3:02:04 PM


  9. I don't know. Sometimes a boy raised by a single mother becomes the first African American President of the United States serving his second term in office.

    Posted by: mvecera | Jan 20, 2013 3:02:54 PM


  10. It's poverty that messes with families. Single parent families are far more likely not to have the resources - time as well as money - to give their kids the best. Sadly, alleviating poverty is not only a low priority to these anti-gay crusaders, it's considered immoral, as actually helping families (as opposed to putting up obstacles to them) is against God.

    Posted by: Glenn I | Jan 20, 2013 3:10:22 PM


  11. MVECERA - you just won the debate. There we have it.

    Posted by: Mikey | Jan 20, 2013 3:14:33 PM


  12. Rick-

    I have friends that were married in CA before Prop. 8. They are a male same sex couple. They adopted two beautiful children who were stuck in the CA foster care program. No opposite sex couples wanted them because their son has health issues due to his mother's drug use in utero. The kids are thriving in life and in school. There is so much love in their family. We recently spent time with them in New York. The kids are the most polite well behaved children I have ever met.
    They have a YouTube channel called "depfox"-check them out.
    Would you rather they remain in foster care?
    Your statistics make no sense. There are literally thousands of children in the foster care programs in CA alone. Do these children not deserve to be in a loving nurturing environment? Trust me..these are LUCKY kids. If there were more people like my friends the world would be a much better place..

    Posted by: Jim Stone | Jan 20, 2013 3:54:36 PM


  13. NO.

    The overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by CHILDREN OF STRAIGHT PARENTS. I bet if you go into any prison in the country, you will be hard pressed to find even ONE criminal who was raised by two dads or two moms, because children of gay couples are always wanted and loved, unlike children of straight couples, who can be accidents.

    THAT is the statistic we have to talk about.

    And RICK: shut up.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jan 20, 2013 4:05:49 PM


  14. Rick is a closeted adult troll with no testicles.
    what's his logic? that if you're raised without a dad you'll either become effeminate or a violent criminal?

    hilarious. i like it. one of my favourite bands of all times is The Violent Femmes, so that's something to celebrate.

    it's not the type of family, it's the circumstances.

    this isn't "omg! you didn't have a dad! you're gonna be fem or violent!"

    it's about the circumstances. the specifics. what's the family income? are the kids left alone? WHY is there no father? what's the socioeconomic reality of their lives?

    but hey, nuance isn't for anonymous internet trolls.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 20, 2013 4:07:17 PM


  15. to kevin's point - we gays aint the ones dealing with "unexpected pregenancies".

    our children are wanted.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 20, 2013 4:09:49 PM


  16. Not so sure about the last part of this story saying that he is against women in general. He seems pretty clear that his point is that a child needs two parents of opposing sexes. His perspective seems to be that kids need to have a feminine AND masculine role model. Shame that this took an otherwise strong story about an absolute fool and ruined it by drawing conclusions that are clearly not true.

    Posted by: Isaak | Jan 20, 2013 4:27:38 PM


  17. RICK - Are you on board with the white mother and white father IDEAL?

    Posted by: Matthew | Jan 20, 2013 4:53:13 PM


  18. Clearly, having rich white parents is the ideal. All of us other poor sons of bitches shouldn't even think about having a family.

    Posted by: Matthew | Jan 20, 2013 4:54:37 PM


  19. "...That women in general are not equal to men, that their power is only activated when complemented by a man's."

    And likewise, men are only valued if they are "protecting and providing for" a woman and her children.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Jan 20, 2013 5:32:30 PM


  20. @RICK--I'd like you to point me to the overwhelming "facts" to which you refer. I'm a social scientist doctoral student whose minor field is urban crime, and I'm quite well acquainted with the literature on parentage and incidents of crime. What you fail to realize is that single parentage is closely correlated to poverty and the many socioeconomic disadvantages that travel with poverty (poor mental and physical development, poor bonding and bridging social capital to positive peer influence, etc.). The correlates of poverty are what leads to the specious connection between single parentage and offspring crime. Once you control for the former, the latter connection becomes either insignificant or so small in magnitude as to be meaningless. You can also consider race and that arrest and prosecution of minority youth is much more likely. The narrative as it currently stands in the social science literature is that a child of a single white mother in an affluent neighborhood is going to be better off than a child of a single parent or mixed parents in a ghetto. The same is true so far, based on much more limited evidence of course, of gay couples who tend to also be higher income and live in better neighborhoods.

    You'd also be wise to not throw around the word "fact" so loosely. Social science does not produce facts. It merely produces evidence that supports or fails to support hypotheses, and these hypotheses are generalized into a theory. The hypotheses you present simply do not have strong evidence to back them up.

    Posted by: Stefan | Jan 20, 2013 6:00:46 PM


  21. I also take issue with Andrew's reasoning in this article that being against gay parents implies being against women. I think we need to be aware that many of those who are anti-gay are simply that: anti-gay. I've met feminists who are vehemently anti-gay, and I've met men who are surprisingly feminist in their view of their wives and women in general, but are nevertheless strongly anti-gay. Andrew might be right, but let's not make logical leaps without support for them.

    Posted by: Stefan | Jan 20, 2013 6:06:42 PM


  22. don't ask Rick for explanations - ask him for proof that he is what he claims he is, and that he isn't what he rails others for being.

    Not a cowardly, wimpy, closeted grown-adult with no balls?
    You're a strong, empowered, masculine manly openly-gay man?

    prove it. URL. don't make your boastful claims from a place of cowardly anonymity.

    don't ask him for facts. ask him for the only fact that matters - whether or not he's man enough to say it Visibly.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 20, 2013 6:41:31 PM


  23. STEFAN - thanks for your input which sounded rather more carefully reasoned and informed than RICK'S and was of course far more mature than KIWI's usual hysterical ranting about RICK'S testicles and character. Was there ever such a sicko? That's why they call him Frankenfag, the smartest little wingnut in the hemisphere.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jan 20, 2013 8:35:05 PM


  24. Of course, I'm only commenting in hopes of getting KIWI's attention because I'm rather obsessed with him. That's what guys like me do; we obsess over younger gay men because it provides the distraction necessary to keep us from killing ourselves.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jan 20, 2013 8:47:34 PM


  25. I wish my family called me Frankenfag, though. They wouldn't even acknowledge that I was alive.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jan 20, 2013 9:03:14 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «President Obama Officially Sworn In For Second Term: VIDEO« «