Crossdressers-Haven.com

Real harm is coming from 'hetero' parents


Jun 18 2005


Editor, The News:
I recently returned from Galveston, Texas. Outside the courthouse, the state's child protection agency mounted a grim display. Children's tiny shoes were mounted in an arch, each shoe bearing statistics on child abuse. In one year alone, 206 Texan children were murdered.
Here is the relevance to Canada: Statistically, the most common killer of children is their parents (heterosexual parents). Child abuse is not confined to Texas but extends to all of North America, including every Canadian province.
It is time to be blunt. Heterosexual adults in the two-parent family slap, punch, kick, starve, choke, strangle, drown, burn and lock in the closet their helpless children.
Yes, heterosexuals do burn children. Before mouthing ignorant slogans about the family as the bedrock of civilization," we should all bite our tongues - hard - and look again at the pictures of poor young Matthew Vaudreuil, whose pictures used to be on the front page of B.C. newspapers.
Note the burns on the dead boy's corpse. Those are cigarette burns. His parent - a heterosexual - put out cigarettes on the boy's flesh before he died. It wasn't a homosexual.
My own introduction to the horrors of the two-parent family came with the case of an infant who had a pen thrust up its rectum. Actually, the doctor testifying in court was not certain whether it was a pen or pencil. But the judge had no doubt that it was a parent - a heterosexual - who assaulted the child. It wasn't a homosexual.
It is time to name the true enemy of children. It is not atheists, humanists, Supreme Court judges, social engineers, ethical relativists, the Liberal government or followers of John Dewey. Instead, the statistical norm is that the most likely place for a child to be murdered is the family.
Files of social workers from Texas to British Columbia bulge with examples of the horrible effect that heterosexuals have upon children. Governments must protect children from heterosexuals. Homosexuals are no threat; they are merely a diversion from the true enemy.
By what right do heterosexuals fancy that they should be allowed to marry? Why must the heterosexual family be forced on children? Remember, not the Alamo, but Galveston. Remember the cigarette burns on Matthew Vaudreuil.

Gosh, Sis,
that is some heavy stuff!!! I raised two great kids, I never assualted either of them and playing devil's advocate to all this there are millions of heterosexual couples that love their children and never lay a hand on them. What the article does not address is the number of Gays and Lesbians that assual kids! It is my considered opinion that the number is very low. Guys like John Wayne Gasey who killed numbers of kids was, to the best of my knowledge heterosexual not gay.
Just very interesting,
Virginia

Hi Sis,

I don’t think that gays are any more immune from abusing children than the heterosexual. I guess what the article points to is the position many try and sell us that a gay family would be so much worse. I wonder if there would be all that much difference?

I guess what I see is that what we now have is a by product of the heterosexual marriage that has been apart of society for as long as I can remember. I am convinced that some homosexual relationships would produce heterosexual people, just as heterosexual relationships have produced some homosexual people.

I am not taking any sides, but I think the article is leaning a bit strongly to far to the opposite side of the spectrum as illustrated by the statement that: “Homosexuals are no threat; they are merely a diversion from the true enemy”. Homosexuals are not any more perfect than heterosexuals.

Darlene.

Darlene wrote:I am not taking any sides, but I think the article is leaning a bit strongly to far to the opposite side of the spectrum as illustrated by the statement that: “Homosexuals are no threat; they are merely a diversion from the true enemy”. Homosexuals are not any more perfect than heterosexuals.

The writer of the letter is being overly dramatic when he or she writes, “By what right do heterosexuals fancy that they should be allowed to marry?” I assume this is an intentional ironic twist on the conservative religious position that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry—because they would be so bad for children.

I am somewhat familiar with crime statistics, which are relevant to my work. According to the FBI, if we consider only homicides where the victim and offender were acquainted before the death occurred, about ⅜ of those homicides occur within families, and overwhelmingly those families are two-parent traditional families. Statistics on lesser forms of family violence—which may involve serious emotional scarring, but do not result in physical death—are hard to obtain, because most family violence is never reported to the police. Certainly, the idea that two heterosexual partners automatically create a wonderful setting for children, however, is romantic nonsense.

The letter-writer concludes, “It is time to name the true enemy of children. It is not atheists, humanists, Supreme Court judges, social engineers, ethical relativists, the Liberal government, or followers of John Dewey. Instead, the statistical norm is that the most likely place for a child to be murdered is the [two-parent traditional] family.” I think he or she is right on target; however, I also think Darlene’s point is an important one. Homosexuals are no more perfect than heterosexuals are. Two lesbians may create a wonderful home for their children, but so may two heterosexuals.