Below are some interesting points about the gay lifestyle and some of its associated problems excerpted from writings from those in that lifestyle, and I think it clearly points to the emotional and psychological damage done to children in that lifestyle. And it can also be seen in their writings that the view on commitment to long term relationships and fidelity to one's partner while in a relationship are not held in the same regard as they are held generally in the heterosexual mindset, and the statistics concur that it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle, and not merely a lifestyle where one gender is preferred or desired over another in a relationship.
The entirety can be found at the link below these excerpts.
In Lesbians at Midlife: The Creative Transition, one article, "Life as Improvisation," by Matile Rothschild, describes a bizarre scenario involving herself and her husband, a married couple who'd had children together, and both "come out" as gay and lesbian in their early 40s.
Of the more than 100 lesbian mothers in a group Rothschild surveyed, "only three or four had the same lesbian partner during all of a child's teen years. Only one mother had the same lesbian partner from the time the child was very young until age 18."
Suzanne Slater, author of The Lesbian Family Life Cycle, devotes an entire chapter to persistent "stressors" in lesbian couples' lives. She says numerous problems arise from lesbian "family" relationship attempts. What are some of these "stressors," and how will they affect children of these relationships?
Some lesbians, the author says, want to parent in ways that will break "patriarchal" child-rearing patterns.
In addition to protecting their children, lesbian parents must also articulate a clear and affirming family identity to their children. With no clear consensus on what lesbian families' areas of uniqueness and specialness are, the parents must demonstrate their pride in the family to their children. Difficult for any family that mainstream society devalues, lesbian (and gay) families' task is compounded by the fact that not all members of the family are lesbians. While family members within non-dominant racial, religious, and ethnic groups all share their minority identity, lesbian parents cannot assume their children will grow up to be gay. In that sense, these are not "lesbian families" at all, but rather families with lesbian parents. The child's likely identification with heterosexual peers complicates naming the family's shared group identity and potentially threatens the family members' experience of belonging.
Lesbian mothers often express disappointment or anger at what has historically been an inadequate response by non-parenting lesbians to the child-related needs of lesbian mothers. These women argue that non-parenting lesbians seem to view their parent status as some kind of artifact from their previous existence as heterosexually involved women. As a result, lesbian parents may feel ignored by the community as they see their needs and agendas superseded by those of childless lesbian women.
In other words, the gay/lesbian community doesn't always support gay parents. What affect will this have on children?
Specifically, many childless lesbians argue that the desire to have children has replaced earlier implicit commitments for lesbians to be each others' families -- different from mainstream nuclear families, and marked by primary commitments and a shared long range future. These women express feeling suddenly more alone as their lesbian friends re-define their immediate families, more closely emulating heterosexual family life and replace the primacy of their previous friendship commitments.
The lack of a relational and communal sense of unity in the world of gay lifestyles, together with the fact that most gay couples do unite (and often dissolve) solely on the basis of sexuality, seems to undercut one critically important basis for the successful committed relationships observed among heterosexual couples in Sex In America, and conducive to the relational stability vital to the emotional and psychological health of children: The fact that people who stay in committed sexual relationships tend to be people who have "connected" with other people like themselves. Again, this most vital foundation for successful child-rearing seems often to be missing from gay/lesbian relationships. As we have seen, gay "families we choose" appear more akin to intentional communes than to traditional families.
("Love alone makes a family" may be a popular slogan among gay activists. But if "love" alone makes a "family," then "unlove" alone may easily destroy a "family.")
One thing stands out in reading gay/lesbian discussions of "family": The gay world seems to be interested primarily in how children will affect gay "families" and not on how gay "families" will affect children. In most "gay family" speculation, one finds not one word of concern about the psychological and/or spiritual health of the children, other than that children of "families we choose" might be more accepting of gays and gayness as a result of being part of same-sex "families," and might have greater opportunity to be gay if they so desire. (When one lesbian activist author does raise the question of how all this will affect the children of "families we choose," she never goes on to venture an answer.)
All in all, the notion of same-sex "families" seems like a formula for creating highly unstable adult relationships and pitiably dysfunctional children. The effects of a massive influx of such children on society as a whole might well prove catastrophic.
Must our society be required to make its children "sacrificial lambs" on the altar of gay activist "spousal" expediency and "family experimentation"? In still another remarkable self-admission, one former lesbian activist admits to sacrificing her children in just such a manner...
Cherie and her lesbian lover, citizens of Auckland, New Zealand, appeared on TV's "60 Minutes" some years ago to argue the case for lesbian "domestic partnership" and parenthood by articifial insemination. By the time of their appearance on "60 Minutes," Cherie and her partner had had three artificially-inseminated children. For most of her lesbian life, Cherie considered herself a gay activist. Today, she has reversed her political stand and left the "lesbian life." In November, 1994, she told the world why.
I used my kids to deceive the public and get gay rights. I thought only of my own needs and not of their futures. Although I love my kids, I have damaged them. Now lesbians have got what I fought for, and I wish I'd never done it.
I became a lesbian because I was so hungry for love from women. My mother was an alcoholic. She didn't have what it took to love me, so I never got it from her. And as a result, I looked for love in women all my life.
My father used to beat my mother, so that made me not want to be a women either. I used to get out of bed and go in and pull him off her. I thought she was weak for not standing up to him. You don't want to be a woman, because being a woman means being kicked around by a man. My father used to sexually abuse me as well, so I grew up anti-male and hated being a woman.
A lot of lesbians are like that: detached from their mothers, abused by fathers or brothers and abandoned by men. We always said we were not anti-male, but we were.
We get into lesbian relationships because we want to be loved. Then we want children. When I became a lesbian I remember the devastation, thinking, "I'll never be able to have kids because I'm lesbian." So I got into lesbianism, boots and all, to get us the rights to have children, to show everyone that we had the same rights as heterosexuals.
Cherie met her last lesbian lover when she was 19, "and our relationship was dysfunctional from day one. We fought and hit each other and blackmailed and abused each other emotionally." She thought having children would make things better. It didn't.
But in 1992, Cherie, her partner and their (by then) three children went on "60 Minutes," to state their case for lesbian "dual motherhood."
We deceived society. We said gays only had problems because society put them on to us. We came across well. We portrayed ourselves as the warm, loving, normal, alternative family, and we used these children to get the gay rights message across.
They [the children] were so cute; they talked about having two "mummies" who loved each other like a mother and father, and they had us cuddling the kids and reading to them at bedtime.
We talked about all the male support and role models we had for the [two] boys. But it was a load of bull -- we didn't. My boys had no masculine role models and no masculine identity. Lesbians don't have many male friends, certainly not ones they know well enough to take their kids places and role model for them.
Jonathan's 11 now, and he's angry. He knows he was conceived by artificial insemination and that I don't know his father, but he's always asking me, "What color eyes did my father have? What does he look like? What does he do?" I can't tell him because I don't know. He's still in counseling -- all about his anger and his lack of a father. I see the hurt on the boys' faces daily -- especially when the father-son events come along, like school camps and father-son evenings.
I don't know whether I've pulled my kids out of the gay lifestyle early enough. I often hear the kids saying how neat it would be to have a Dad. They go straight to any man who will show interest in them. They're starved for male affection. Jenna [Cherie's daughter] is so hungry for male love I'm scared she'll be abused.
The societal impact that the legalizing of 'gay' marriage has had in Scandinavia can give us a pretty good idea as to how it will affect our own society if implemented here.