Caller's Take on Same-Sex Parenting Story Surprises the Heck Out of the Host
RUSH: This is Rose in San Diego. I'm glad you waited and it's great to have you, hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I'm so excited to talk with you.
RUSH: Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
CALLER: I'm a Rush Baby. I've been listening to you since 1990. I'm also a conservative Hispanic, I'm proud to say.
RUSH: Wow.
CALLER: So my reason for calling is because yesterday you referenced a Politico article, and the premise of the article is that same-sex marriages are superior to heterosexual marriages. And in perusing through the article, I noticed that it doesn't say anything about children. I just thought to myself, "That is just so typical of the left."
CALLER: Well, that's interesting, because I would venture to say that the very thing that these so-called relationship experts tout as a positive in a same-sex marriage would be to the detriment of children. Because you have two people of the same sex that are -- well, according to them -- very similar and they get along. But children need a mom and a dad. They need a mom that has the nurturing aspect and the dad who is the risk taker, and it leaves that out. I found a study, a different study that was published this year in February that's titled "New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best with Mom and Dad."
RUSH: Look, I've got a break coming up in 20 seconds and I want to keep talking to you.
CALLER: I'd love that.
RUSH: So you can hang on through the break?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Because I must tell you, you have done something here that really, really, really interests me that surprises the heck out of me, and I'll tell you what it is when we get back.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: El Rushbo with Rose in San Diego. An admitted Hispanic conservative, Rush Baby. Rose, before I share with you my reaction to the beginning of your call. Before what I have here leaves my ability to see it, I want to read to you, I went back and I looked at one of these pieces that I knew I had read about the supremacy of gay parentage.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: I want to read a little bit to you before I get to my main point, the reason I asked you to hold over with me. It's from Life Science. It's January 12, 2012: "Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents." Just a couple of things from the article. "Gay parents 'tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,' said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting.
"Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. 'That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.'" This "Kids Do Better with Mom and Dad" article from the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education Societal Behavioral Sciences is the one you're quoting where kids do better with a mom and dad. But here's... Look, here's what I was going to say to you.
CALLER: Okay.
But the premise here that gay marriage is superior to straight marriage? To me, it's an insult to my intelligence to even -- and to have it in Politico, it wasn't worth reading. The headline alone told me all I needed to know about the story and to throw it out and reject it. The premise is silly. But you didn't reject it. You didn't throw it out. You read it -- and I did too. I'm just comparing our attitudes.
And what your attitude tells me is that you've shown me another way that the Drive-By Media gets its hooks into people in ways... I'm still not quite there. My assumption is that any normal person seeing that would laugh and reject it, recognize it as propaganda, and the last thing they would do was take it seriously. But you took it seriously from the standpoint of reading it and wanting to be able to refute it.
CALLER: Well, yeah, and the article that I am citing here, this is from Public Discourse. And I believe it's the same one, perhaps it was published in a different medium. But this particular article says that with same-sex couples who have children, they're dissolution rate is higher than that of heterosexual couples.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Wait just a minute. Here you go. Same-sex couples do not have children!
CALLER: (giggles) Um, well, some of them get married, already having a biological child.
RUSH: Here's the point. Is it in any way possible...? If I'm wrong about this, somebody needs to tell me. Is it any way possible that a man and a man having sex, can the result ever be a child? Can a woman and a woman having sex, can the result ever be a child?
CALLER: Of course not.
RUSH: Well, then!
CALLER: (giggles)
RUSH: Would somebody explain to me how in the world we arrive at who is the best parents? How do you even get there? In the one instance, natural parenting is impossible.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: Adoption is the only way. So that's why this story from Live Science. Did you hear this? Gay parents are more committed because they choose it. Fifty percent of heterosexual children, production, is accidental and therefore the children are not nearly as wanted. But with a gay adoption, that is a desired and a wanted child and therefore it's going to be raised better, with whatever. I don't know. More love, more compassion.
Half of these kids born in heterosexual marriages where they didn't care whether I had a kid or not... I'm sorry, it breaks down for me. Just on the basis of logic. So these studies have to come out. There has to be something like Live Science that has to come out and say that gay parenting is superior to heterosexual parenting. They have to do that because there is no natural way for two homosexuals, either lesbians or gay men, to have children. Now you watch, I'm going to get Trump'd on this.
RUSH: Uh-huh. And so from all of that you are concluding what?
CALLER: Well, I am concluding that the Politico article is not taking something into consideration. It's completely selfish. It's all about how the couple feels. It's all about them.
RUSH: Why would the Politico do that? Why would the Politico leave out such key, relevant data?
CALLER: Because it doesn't serve their purpose. (chuckles)
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: It doesn't serve whatever agenda that they have.
RUSH: Okay. All right. That's probably true. I grant you that that's probably true. So therefore it makes it what?
CALLER: Well, you can't just take it at face value. You have to read it, do your research, because if you're going to talk about it, you've got to keep in mind that marriage is the foundation of society.
RUSH: No, it isn't anymore. See, it's not. It never was. That was a bogus tradition that was always a big lie. But we've dealt with that now! You need to forget all that you thought about marriage because that's not what it is anymore.
CALLER: (pause) Are you being facetious, Rush? (giggling)
RUSH: (chuckling) Well, halfway!
CALLER: (giggling)
RUSH: But it also happens to be true!
CALLER: I guess. I just love you so much. I'm trying not to be offended here (laughing), because it's all about feelings. (giggling)
RUSH: Wait, wait. Whoa, hold on.
CALLER: (giggling)
RUSH: How have I maybe offended you? That's the last thing that I think has happened. So if I've offended you, you need to tell me.
CALLER: Now I'm being facetious. (giggling)
RUSH: No, you're not, don't back out. There's no wrong answer, how have I offended you?
CALLER: No, you haven't. You haven't at all.
RUSH: You just said you're feeling offended.
CALLER: No, I was joking. It was a joke.
RUSH: Noooo, you're not.
CALLER: (giggling)
RUSH: Don't slither out of this. We're not married. You can tell me exactly what you think.
CALLER: (giggling) (pause) Well --
RUSH: A little joke! Can everybody lighten up? Can we just lighten up? Everybody's wound so tight.
CALLER: Yes, absolutely.
RUSH: Snerdley is in there thinking I'm going to get Trump'd over that, too. No, look, the last thing in the world I want is to offend you. I know what it is. You're feeling quasi-offended because of the way I explained my surprise at your treatment of this story that you read it. You're offended because you think I insulted you by saying you even took this seriously.
CALLER: No, not at all.
RUSH: Okay. Okay. Good. Then you're offended because I laughed when you didn't think I should have laughed?
CALLER: No. I -- I -- (giggles)
RUSH: We're getting warmer. (laughing)
CALLER: (giggles) No.
RUSH: We're getting warmer.
CALLER: No, I'm just... I guess I'm in awe that I'm talking to you, to the Rush right now. That's all.
RUSH: Well, let me send you away with this. Rose, don't ever doubt your instincts. Your instincts when you read that Politico story were probably right. You thought this is a joke. What would the point...? You see a story that, especially with this kind of timing that gay relationships are superior. Isn't it enough that we now have transformed sufficiently that there's gay marriage? Why do they have to say, "Gay is superior, gay is superior there, gay is superior child rearing. Gay relationships are superior." What's the point of all that?
RUSH: That's not really, if you think about who works in these businesses.
CALLER: Well, true. It is made up by leftists, I understand.
RUSH: The gay population in the country may be 1.82% percent but the gay population of Hollywood? I don't know what it is, but it's much higher than 2%.
CALLER: Probably.
RUSH: There's no question. Same thing in media.
CALER: Right.
RUSH: I don't mean reporters and people on TV that you see. I'm thinking assignment editors, editors, producers, people that you never ever see that tell the brain-dead reporters every day what stories they're going to go cover. The assignment people and all that. I guarantee you the gay population in those various businesses is far greater than what it is just nationally. I only mention it Rose because that's where you will find the answer to your question as to how it appears to be much larger than it is. Anyway, I'm glad you called, and I very, very much appreciate your compliments and nice words, and I wish you all the best. I'm actually flattered that you care enough about all this to dig deep for your own edification and understanding. Good for you.
Sent from my iPhone
No comments:
Post a Comment