30 days with a gay ypsilanti couple with kids

An upcoming installment of Morgan Spurlock’s television show “30 Days” will feature a gay Ypsilanti couple with kids. (Click on “Installment 04.”) Here’s the blurb from the show’s site:

RESIDES – Fullerton, CA
OCCUPATION – Substitute Teacher
AIRDATE – Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Kati believes that children should be raised by a mother and a father and not by same-sex parents. As the mother of two adopted sons Kati believes that she has ample experience to determine what kind of environment is conducive to healthy, successful adoptions. In fact, Kati was adopted as an infant herself.

For 30 Days, Kati will live in Ypsilanti, Michigan with domestic partners Dennis and Thomas Patrick and their four adopted sons: Josh, 11; Paul, 8; Joey, 8; and Raul, 6. The Patrick’s have been together for 10 years, and in 2001, Thomas legally changed his last name to Patrick. Kati will attend church with the family, help the boys get ready for school each morning and talk candidly about her views on parenting and gay adoption as she observes how the Patrick’s parent their boys.

I suspect we’ll see a tidal wave of gay families forming on the horizon by the end of the month… That doesn’t leave us much time to act… Hopefully Tom Monaghan will come back to protect us.

[Thanks to MM.com reader Andrew for the tip.]

This entry was posted in Ypsilanti. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Dirtgrain
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I know those guys. They are great, nice people, and they do a hell of a job raising their kids. They moved out of the city of Ypsilanti several years ago, though, somewhere in the country on the ouskirts of Ypsi (one kid still attends Ypsi schools, though, I think).

  2. Paw
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    I for one plan to greet our homosexual overlords with flowers and chocolates.

  3. Brent
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    I’m fully rooting for a Monaghan protest. Let’s steal the ingenious idea Aut Bar did several years ago and have people pledge $1 for every minute he protests. We’ll have that Freighthouse open in no time!

  4. Jim
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    For the record, Tom and Dennis both changed their name to Patrick. And why can’t people use a comma properly?

    Anyway, Tom and Dennis are great parents. It should be an interesting episode.

  5. Kristen Cuhran
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the post- I put it in my calendar. I can’t wait to watch this (I know, I know, I say that now but who knows what scary things might happen with Kati). I am also looking forward to seeing the CARE and LMN people – it will be nice to watch people I know on national TV!

  6. Robert
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I got a sneak peak at the episode. Everything is going just fine between Kati and The Patricks until, all over town, she starts seeing severed unicorn heads, boxes of porn, any Ypsipanties strewn everywhere. It drives her back into the very defensive and judgmental position she took at the show’s outset. She ends up loading the whole family as well as her own into the back of a van and driving it into a lake.

    I guess any PR is good PR though.

    Oh, and Jim, sign me up for your comma usage course. I forgot all the rules about 15 minutes after I first learned them. I’ve been just goin’ with my gut since then.

  7. Posted June 5, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Hey, we just ran into Tom on Saturday at the Farmer’s Market and he didn’t mention he was now a TV star! How exciting!

  8. Posted June 5, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    What got me on the first read was not the commas, but the apostrophes.

    “The Patrick’s have been together for 10 years”

    In the words of Bob the Angry Flower, No! Wrong! Totally Wrong! Where’d you learn this? Stop doing it!

  9. mark
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    For those of you that don’t remember, there was a wonderful time when Tom M protected our town from the evil gay.

  10. Posted June 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    They got the semicolons right, at least.

  11. Jim
    Posted June 5, 2008 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Geez, yeah, I meant apostrophe. That’s what I get for being judgmental.

  12. Mark H.
    Posted June 6, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Tom and Dennis are wonderful, loving parents. Every child on earth deserves such loving, capable paretns, but most children aren’t so blessed.

  13. Mark
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    As a gay man, who is also a recovering Mormon, watching the dynamics between Kati Blackledge (Mormon mom) and the Patrick family was truly fascinating. First of all, I’m amazed she even took on an adventure like this. Second, I’m in awe as to how this wonderful couple could stand living with a political nemesis for 30 days, knowing her unwavering stance toward them.

    Coming from an LDS background, I get how Kati is just so steeped in her dogma and even though Dennis and Tom were exemplary fathers to their sons – she wouldn’t get past her own judgments and faith-based rhetoric. It’s as if protecting her church’s reputation and beliefs were more important than providing kids with a decent home.

    At any rate, I wish the Patrick’s the best with raising their sons and getting laws passed in Michigan that support their family’s needs.

  14. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    The Mormon church had racist doctrine not too long ago. They decided to change it, overtly anyway. So maybe they will change their stance on gay parents some day with the changing times.

  15. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Mark. You were raised in the LDS!?

    I can’t believe you never told us.

  16. EoS
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    I saw the whole show and was very surprised to see the balance they gave to both sides of this issue. I had expected it to be biased to the PC view but Katie was portrayed as far more tolerant than the Patrick family. She lived with the family for a month, went to WRAP, a les*ian picnic, handed out fliers opposed to her point of view, and attended a number of social functions where she had to defend her point of view with everyone else at the function opposed to her viewpoint. She was not homophobic, she stated her views in a kind and gentle manner, and expressed her desire to continue her friendship with the Patrick family after the 30 days. They were the ones who refused to be friends with someone who held a different point of view.

    The show included a segment of a young woman who had been raised by two dads. The woman talked about her difficulties embracing her gender role identity after living in a household that devalued all women. She spoke about how she had no venue to explore this issue as she was growing up and how it still effected her life today.

    Another segment showed 2 adults who had been in the foster care system but who weren’t able to be placed with families. Instead, they were placed in group homes in horrible neighborhoods. These two persons thought that it would have been better if they had been placed in a home with same sex parents. That’s a no brainer. Most would prefer being beaten by sticks than with crowbars, but its not exactly an endorsement of sticks.

    Even one of the children seemed aware of the reality of his situation when he told one of the two men that he wasn’t really his dad. It’s too bad these kids won’t grow up knowing the love of both a mother and a father. But the show did portray them as clothed and well fed. I’d be interested in watching the boys be interviewed in 10 or 15 years.

  17. Glen S.
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    EoS: “She was not homophobic…” “They were the ones who refused to be friends with someone who held a different point of view.”

    “Holding a different point of view” is not the same as simply rejecting someone for who they are. These two men have, obviously, made a very conscious and thoughtful decision to welcome these children into their lives, and to provide them with a stable, loving home. This is not some “opinion,” or “point of view” — rather, it is their their real, every-day life.

  18. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    “The woman talked about her difficulties embracing her gender role identity after living in a household that devalued all women.”

    How ironic that Katie is a Mormon, quite possibly having been raised in a household that devalued women.

  19. Andy C
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Katie showed everything wrong with religious people. If the bible said to molest children, they would. And not to would be to quote Katie.”Go against everything I believe”. John Wayne Gacy was a family man, I’m sure the kids would be much better off with him.

  20. Mark H.
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    Glen S, you said it exactly right. Thanks.

  21. EoS
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Except the show made it perfectly clear that she did not reject them for who they were. She didn’t reject them at all. They rejected her for her personal views and her real, everyday life. Just like Dirtgrain and Andy just did based solely on her religious beliefs.

    They also subjected their children to the public spotlight of a nationally broadcast TV program. They exploited them for political gain because it is their personal view that gender doesn’t matter in child rearing. However, there is a large body of empirical evidence that proves gender does matter – very much so. It’s not about the desires of two adults, it’s about the ultimate psychological well being of four impressionable young boys.

  22. Glen S.
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    EoS: So, you’re suggesting that having these kids revolve through a broken foster care system (as long as the foster-parents were straight), is a better alternative to having them live in a stable, loving (and permanent) home with two same-sex partners?

    Likewise, regarding your concern for the “ultimate psychological well being of (these) four impressionable young boys” … what, exactly, are you suggesting?

  23. EoS
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m suggesting that they be adopted by a family that includes both a mother and a father.

  24. Glen S.
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Wow! EoS – If there were, somehow, a long waiting list of male/female couples eager (willing, even) to adopt children — especially minority kids, older kids, and kids with special needs — do you really think there would be so many kids in foster care to begin with?

  25. EoS
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry. I didn’t mean these kids, but other kids who find themselves in similar circumstances.

  26. EoS
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Yes I do think there are long lists of couples eager to adopt. Many of the kids in foster homes are waiting for the courts to make them eligible for adoption.

  27. Posted July 10, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    EOS: “yes I do think there are long lists of couples eager to adopt. Many of the kids in foster homes are waiting for the courts to make them eligible for adoption.”

    EoS – go to this website:


    If you do a search, you’ll see that there are 247 kids in Michigan foster care who are in need of parents as of right now. Like Glen S. pointed out, most of these kids – 80-90% in fact – have some sort of special need.

    I’m sure these kids would do pretty much anything to be placed in a loving, safe, same-sex household.

  28. Posted July 10, 2008 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    And also, EoS, could you please clarify….are you somehow suggesting that’s it’s OK for minority/special needs foster kids to be placed in a same-sex household (which you declare are somehow unworthy or not as good), but it’s not OK for white/non-special needs foster kids?

  29. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    “Just like Dirtgrain and Andy just did based solely on her religious beliefs.”

    What did I do exactly? Please explain, as I don’t understand.

    “However, there is a large body of empirical evidence that proves gender does matter – very much so.”

    Alluding to a large body of evidence, without citing any of it (you’d think if it was a large body of evidence that it would be easy to cite a few studies), is weak and specious.

  30. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    I did a quick search of “research gay parents” on Google and found the opposite of your claim to be true.

  31. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Check the next link I found out: The G__ Science. It’s a 2004 piece that notes that both sides of the g__ parenting issue acknowledge that studies up to that time had been lacking–but these studies do not support your claim.

    The third link that came up follows: G__ Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds — Authors Believe G__ Parents Have “Some Advantages”.

    The first page of my search turned up similar articles, none at all supporting your claim about the “large body of empirical evidence.”

    There may be research out there that supports some of your claims. You need to cite it or link to it.

  32. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    I found this: L_____ & G__ Parenting, a study of the research out there on g__ parenting. Here is part of the study’s conclusion:

  33. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    “In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that l_____ women or g__ men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of l_____ women or g__ men is compromised relative to that among offspring of hetero___ual parents. Not a single study has found children of l_____ or g__ parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of hetero__ual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by l_____ and g__ parents are as likely as those provided by hetero__ual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

  34. Dirtgrain
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for posting that piecemeal and out of order of how I originally intended to post it. I’ve been trying to post the comment for over a half hour, but Mark’s website’s software kept blocking me. I wondered if his spamblocker was blocking my posts because of the terms l-e-s-b-i-a-n and g-a-y, so I abbreviated them. I’m not sure if that is what was holding the comment back, but it got through. I hope nobody is offended.

  35. egpenet
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Still thinking …

  36. EoS
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    I apologize for my comment that you rejected Katie for her religious beliefs. I agree that she might possibly have been raised in a family that devalued women. Your comment was appropriate and not an attack on her personally. Sometimes I respond too quickly in the midst of the work day and my accusation about your view was wrong. I’m sorry for offending you.

    I also concur with you “that both sides of the g__ parenting issue acknowledge that studies up to that time had been lacking.” There hasn’t been enough time to do any scientifically valid longitudinal studies and the majority of studies to date have been accomplished by authors with an inherent bias one way or the other.

    I do believe that there have been numerous studies that show detrimental effects of fatherless families on children. Boys raised without fathers are more likely to be delinquent, to drop out of school, and to use illegal drugs. Girls raised without fathers are more likely to become promiscuous and to get pregnant out of wedlock. Families without fathers are more likely to be economically disadvantaged.

    Boys and girls raised without mothers have more difficulties in forming future relationships with the opposite sex. Many psychological studies have shown the need for children to pattern their gender behavior based on their same-sex parent and to avoid many of the gender behaviors of their opposite-sex parent. The role models of both heterosexual parents help the acquisition of the child’s gender identity. The empirical evidence I referred to was mainly conducted in heterosexual families.

    Cousin Geoff

    The “these kids” my comment referred to were the Patrick boys. I didn’t mean for my previous comment to be interpreted that I thought it would be a good idea for the kids to be taken from their home just to be “re-adopted” by heterosexual parents. Glen’s comment slipped in between my two posts. I hadn’t yet seen his comment when I posted the second. I hope this clears up some of the confusion.

  37. Posted July 10, 2008 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    To go back to the issue of why Katie was in the end rejected by the family: It was not because of her differing view point.

    While I was a bit disappointed when the end of the show came around and the Patrick family did not try to reach across the table to her, I understood their reasoning. Katie not only said what her view point was on gays adopting children (opposed), she also said she would continue to actively work to pass laws against it. So, not only did she have an opinion; but, she was choosing to force that opinion on others. Her political activism on the issue was threatening to the Patrick family very specifically.

  38. Andy
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    EoS: “I do believe that there have been numerous studies that show detrimental effects of fatherless families on children.”
    Single-parent family outcomes have no bearing on 2-g*y-parent families. Apples and kumquats.

    “The empirical evidence I referred to was mainly conducted in heterosexual families.”
    Then it’s irrelevant, innit? Unless sexual preference was explicitly factored in , you really can’t apply those studies here.

  39. mark
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    So, all you people have cable?

  40. EoS
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    The issue cuts both ways. The Patrick family is actively working to pass laws that would allow same sex partners to adopt children. If they are successful, their political activism would impact everyone in the community. That’s how the system works. Those with opposing points of view should always seek ways to reach across the table and remain friendly regardless of the outcome.

    My guess is, and I don’t know all the facts, that one of the two Patrick adults has adopted the four boys. They are the party trying to change the laws and impose their beliefs. Katie is merely expressing her desire to maintain the definition of family that has existed and proven beneficial for child development. It’s difficult for many to endorse changes that may negatively impact the lives of innocent children for years to come. And after the fact, if we decide that this social experiment has failed, we can’t go back and provide different family environments for the children who have been raised by same-sex partners.

  41. Posted July 11, 2008 at 8:55 am | Permalink


    I wouldn’t be using dial up to read MM.com Are you crazy?

  42. Posted July 11, 2008 at 9:04 am | Permalink


    This is not an hypothetical case. We are talking about four children who are loved. Katie herself said that they were a happy family.

    But, Katie and others (you maybe?) would actively try to pass laws that would cause those specific four children to be taken from their loving home and put into a foster home somewhere else??? Can’t you imagine the pain those four children would go through if that happened to them?

    Jesus said to love and care for each other. He didn’t admonish us to tear each other apart.

  43. EoS
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink


    The current laws in the state do not allow a same sex couple to adopt children. I don’t support changing the existing laws.

  44. Katy
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Mark – don’t have cable, but do have hulu.com. They have all all episodes of 30 Days online. It’s my latest internet love. I didn’t realize another episode in season 1 was filmed in the area until I saw it online last night – was about being Muslim in America, and pretty good.

  45. Glen S.
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    EoS: Unfortunately, there are plenty of straight people (singles and couples) who are terrible parents. Would you advocate laws to keep them from having or raising kids, if it were deemed to be in the best interest of the kids?

    My point is this: I think how well kids do in a particular family environment has much more to do with the particular individuals (or couples) involved (stability, dedication, patience, moral values, etc.), and not whether kids are raised in a single- or dual-parent family, or in a traditional or non-traditional one.

  46. Andy C
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    The premise of “30 Days” is to give people a look at the other side of things. Most of the people on the show understand this and keep an open mind. I watched the vegan and the hunter one and, while being a vegan, I cringed at the vegan family. At the same time I really liked the hunter who was curious to learn and open to debate. In the end usually some common ground is found.

    The problem with Katie was any argument posed to her was an attack on her religious beliefs. To reject one part of the bible is to reject all of it. You can’t argue against that. There for she spent the whole show crying and seemed to use it as a test of her faith. They really needed someone who was a bit more open to discussion and willing to make a rational decision.

  47. EoS
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Permalink


    Unfortunately, I agree that there are some heterosexual parents who have low or no parenting skills. If their lack of judgment endangers their children or causes them harm, then there are existing laws and venues to remove those children from their custody and keep them safe. And yes, I do believe that this is a wise policy.

    It is very difficult to raise children as a single parent. It requires an enormous amount of self-sacrifice. The Federal government considers these children to be at risk. There are a number of programs and charitable organizations that do everything they can to help support these families in order to help keep the children with their biological parent.

    The majority of same-sex parented households fall in this category since most of the children raised by homosexual parents are the biological offspring of one of the two partners. The biological parent stays with the children after the partner leaves. The average duration of same-sex parenting is less than three years. There are the occasional exceptions to the rule, where partners overcome the challenges and obstacles, and provide a stable home environment for the duration of childhood. However, the majority of children in these situations endure multiple parental changes. Yes, some heterosexual parents practice serial monogamy to the detriment of their children, but its not the case for the majority of heterosexual marriages. Stepparents are far more likely to abuse the children in their custody than the real parents.

    For the welfare of the children, its best to be in a family with their biological mother and father.

  48. maryd
    Posted July 11, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    The federal gov’t considers many children being raised by a bio mom & dad at risk also. There are many different reasons a child may be considered “at risk”, such as family density, an unemployed parent, an incarcerated parent, chronically ill parent/sibling (physical, mental or emotional), low family income, language deficiency or immaturity, non-English or limited English speaking, family history of low school achievement or dropout, housing in rural or segregated area and family history of low school achievement or dropout. None of the above reasons are particular to straight or gay families.

  49. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    Didn’t see the show, so I’m not sure how much I have to say.

    But, it strikes me that we all could come up with our own particular lists of folks we don’t think should be adopting kids.

    Frankly, I’m not sure I want Mormons adopting kids.

    But, fact is, I’m not adopting them. I’m, at this stage, not willing to make the sacrifice. So, although I like to think I care, how much do I really care about them?

    These kids are wards of the state, i.e., our collective kids. I’d suggest that those who are actually willing to adopt them and sacrifice for them as their own, are those who actually care the most for them. (Kind of goes back to the “good Samararitan” story. To paraphrase: “Who is your parent … The one who showed mercy to me.”)

    Anyone who really wants to save kids from the gay mormons and furrie fundamentalists can start here.

    Otherwise, I’m not sure what gives us the right to judge.

  50. Posted July 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    As someone who is raising an adopted, special needs kid–in my g a y family–which has remained intact for 20 years, I guess I can speak to this. And I say, EoS, you’re just a bigot. Full stop. I, too, when I need to, can pull out lots of justification for my prejudiced views. Congratulations, you win the literacy test. While you can’t think, you CAN read and you CAN cite, kind of. Bravo!

    Sometimes I just feel ENRAGED at how free people feel to judge my family and our choices. Here’s one I got a lot while we were raising our older child: “But didn’t you ever consider that she would face lots of prejudice?” Um, yes. Black children also face lots of prejudice, but no one would suggest that they not have children. Most people rightly recognize that racism as a fault of society, not the parents who bring children into a bigoted world. Another gem: “Doesn’t she have a father?” Yes, indeedy. Pretty much required. How bout, “Won’t she suffer from the lack of male role models?” Gosh, I don’t know — she only has my father, my brother, my uncles, our male neighbors, my partner’s dad, her male teachers, etc., to rely on — just like the child in her class whose father was killed in a car accident. Her girl scout leader said, “I’m afraid she will be confused as to who her ‘real’ mother is…” (This was in Ann Arbor– I have to specify, because in Ypsi, most authority figures were just thrilled that there were TWO parents, whatever their gender.) She was quite well aware that she had two real mothers. Both of us were actual, rather than fictional mothers, parenting her night and day throughout her life. She survived the experience. She has told me multiple times that she felt sorry for the majority of her friends, who hated their parents, while we were and are extraordinarily close.

    Now, raising this second one, I just get a lot of awed and grateful silence. I’ve had to really live my values–an enormous, difficult challenge which I’m still living through.

    And by the way, EoS, there’s been plenty of time to study the effects of g a y parenting. More than a dozen years ago, I collected studies on g a y parenting for a friend’s dissertation– printed out, the stack was several inches thick. Since then, more research has been done. We have, in fact, participated in several studies. We have been studied by researchers and, rest assured, not found wanting. We’ve known the Patricks from afar for many years, and EoS, you only WISH you could be the kind of exceptional parents that they are. We pale in comparison. They are ideal parents. As usual, g a y men are always showing up us les bians!

  51. Posted July 12, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Gosh, sorry for the typos. Obviously, les bians are angry, ungrammatical and poor typists… Probably should not be raising kids.

  52. Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Lisele! Way to speak your mind.

  53. Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    And I mean yes to your first post, not about the sarcastic second one :) Very inspiring…

  54. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    I can say gay. (Bear with me, I’m just trying to figure out the filters.)

  55. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    But I can’t say l e s b i a n?

  56. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Honestly. Even if the only word I type is “l e s b i a n” I get “invalid comment.”

  57. Ol' E Cross
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    These tests of your public broadcast systems are now completed.

    Carry on.

  58. Posted July 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for speaking up on this issue. I think the way you live your values daily is a testament to how silly it is to question “gay” parenting.

    Your example, and that of people like you, will, I believe, stamp out this particular bigotry in the end.

  59. EoS
    Posted July 13, 2008 at 8:59 pm | Permalink


    You do seem very angry and intolerant of other viewpoints. Do you think you are persuading me into changing my viewpoint by calling me a bigot? You said your older child survived the experience – is that your measure of success? Is the older child your biological daughter? Were you aware that you were a les bian when you gave birth or was your attraction to other women something that occurred later in your life? Were you born a les bian or is it a choice you made? Is it more important to you that your daughters consider you their friend or an authority figure in their life that sets boundaries on their behaviors? Do you have a good relationship with your mother? Was she a strong influence in your life and in the life of your daughters? How would you feel if your daughter decided to marry a man because she thought that would be the best way to raise her children? Do you see any advantages to heterosexual relationships in our society? Can you discuss these issues and educate me without YELLING? Do you feel its your right to raise children regardless of how it might affect their future or do you feel that your same-sex relationship is advantageous for them? If you think it is an advantage, can you tell me how?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Ruth Marks