Boseman v. Jarrell: A Gay Mother Tries to Use Legal Discrimination To Her Advantage

Julia Boseman and Melissa Jarrell were domestic partners in Wilmington, North Carolina, and always wanted to raise a child together. In May of 2000, they decided to make their dream a reality, and began the process of having a baby. They decided that Melissa would do the child-bearing, but Julia would be equally involved in the process in every other respect. They  chose an anonymous sperm donor together after researching and discussing various options. They jointly attended the medical session necessary to conceive their child and to administer proper prenatal care. Julia read to the gestating child in Melissa’s womb and played music for him; she also cared for Melissa during her pregnancy and was present at the birth. Melissa and Julia jointly chose their son’s first name, and agreed that he should have a hyphenated last name composed of their surnames. In every way, they behaved publicly and privately as the parents of the child, introducing him into their respective extended families.

But North Carolina refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, so in the eyes of the state, Julia was not legally a parent. To remedy this obstacle, she sought and received a court order adopting the child without severing her partner’s legally recognized parental rights. Officially, their child now had two, same-sex parents. Then the couple split acrimoniously, with the acrimony greatly magnified when Melissa sought to limit Julia’s contact with her son.

Julia sued, arguing that she was the child’s parent as much as Melissa.

The North Carolina Supreme Court, in the case of Boseman v. Jarrell, came to a wise and fair decision. No, the adoption wasn’t valid, and shouldn’t have been granted. You can’t adopt a child while the child’s biological parent maintains parental rights, except in a step-parent scenario. Because North Carolina doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, however, Julia Boseman couldn’t qualify as a legal step-parent. Nevertheless, the court ruled that Melissa’s conduct indicated that she had voluntarily abandoned her rights as the “paramount parent”…

“The record in [this case] indicates that defendant intentionally and voluntarily created a family unit in which plaintiff was intended to act — and acted — as a parent. The parties jointly decided to bring a child into their relationship, worked together to conceive a child, chose the child’s first name together, and gave the child a last name that “is a hyphenated name composed of both parties’ last names.” The parties also publicly held themselves out as the child’s parents at a baptismal ceremony and to their respective families. The record also contains ample evidence that defendant allowed plaintiff and the minor child to develop a parental relationship. Defendant even “agrees that [plaintiff] … is and has been a good parent.”

“Moreover, the record indicates that defendant created no expectation that this family unit was only temporary. Most notably, defendant consented to the proceeding before the adoption court relating to her child. As defendant envisioned, the adoption would have resulted in her child having “two legal parents, myself and [plaintiff].” In asking the adoption court to create such a relationship, defendant represented that she and plaintiff “have raised the [minor child] since his birth and have jointly and equally provide[d] said child with care, support and nurturing throughout his life.” Defendant explained to the adoption court that she “intends and desires to co-parent with another adult who has agreed to adopt a child and share parental responsibilities.”

With all that on the record, the court’s majority determined that Melissa could not now deny that Julia was, in fact, a parent too.

You see? The law isn’t always an ass!

But people often are. Melissa Jarell’s legal machinations to deny Julia Boseman’s parental rights may have been a clever litigation strategy but were unforgivably unethical. She made cynical use of North Carolina laws that she had doubtlessly condemned in years past as discriminatory, heartless, bigoted and homophobic. Her case against her former partner depended on North Carolina’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages, though she and Julia clearly regarded themselves as being married in every other respect. Melissa also regarded herself as a victim of anti-gay bigotry, until laws based on that bigotry gave her an apparent edge in her efforts to deny what she had spent six years asserting: that Julia Boseman was also her son’s parent. Then she decided to use those laws to make Julia a victim. This was dishonest, unfair, and cruel.

Fortunately, a court realized that Melissa was harming their son as well.

 

 

39 thoughts on “Boseman v. Jarrell: A Gay Mother Tries to Use Legal Discrimination To Her Advantage

  1. Dear Jack:

    There’s another and sorrier aspect to this… even beyond the heartbreaking one of a child in thrall to homosexual parents who, as the bulk of such couples do, split after the “thrill” as gone; the child being a trophy… at best.

    What you failed to further note was that Julia Boseman was a long term Democrat state senator from Wilmington NC who was dramatically rejected by the voters and thrown out of office. Her sexual peccadilloes, to an endless and wearisome degree were only part of her downfall. North Carolina’s sudden rightward shift, spearheaded by a number of groups who know about her full story, was another factor.

    You see, Boseman’s child exploitivity did not stop at her doorstep. Such things rarely do. In the summer of 2006- and as a relentless backer of Wilmington’s ill-famed Screen Gems Studios- she went on record in defense of the worst and most child pornographic film ever made in a “legitimate” American production. Her assistance was vital in suppressing a number of movements aimed at applying the common law to the filmmakers, the three child actors’ handlers and their abettors.

    That story I know only too well. The movie was “Hounddog”. As a result of its making- and the failure to seriously investigate or prosecute it by local or state authorities- children are in greater physical and spiritual peril than ever before. Not just the Hollywood kids, either. All of them. And for reasons I’ve discussed in detail around the internet and on my blogsite for years, now.

    Julia Boseman helped make that happen. When you aren’t above using your own (legal) child as a tool in your personal agenda of sex and greed, should it surprise anyone if it’s revealed that you used other people’s as well? And even on film?!

    If there’s any decency left in that state, the child will be remanded to foster care and, God willing, wind up in the custody of actual parents who can try to repair the mental damage that these two vermin have wrought. This Melissa Jarrell creature should simply be tossed out of the courtroom… with the sure and certain knowledge that she’ll be back in connection with some crime before long. And Julia Boseman, for any number of reasons, should be prosecuted for numerous crimes- both state and federal- covering malfeasance by an elected official and the indecent exploitation of children in all degrees.

    Corruption, depredation, perversion and degeneracy. You find one, the others are almost invariably waiting in the wings.

    • I did not make the connection between the case and the “Hounddog” scandal, which was every bit as sinister as you say (and have well-documented, too—a real public service.) Boseman was still treated unconscionably by her partner—but her willingness to aid and abet the child abuse by the makers “Hounddog” would make me very dubious of her fitness as a parent, legal or otherwise.

  2. Julia Boseman is not vermin because she is homosexual, as the previous comments imply. She is vermin because she is vermin. The fact that Jarrell
    sought to limit her contact with the child is testimony to her fitness as a parent. Contrary to homophobic beliefs, she IS the actual parent of the child. This entire scenario could have played out between any couple not legally married in the state.

    • That is exactly right, Jan. And she is the parent. I don’t think the mere fact that her former partner tried to use the legal mess in NC to de-legitimize her parenthood can be taken as proof that she was a bad parent; remember, Melissa actually said Julia was a GOOD parent in court filings.

      • I should have said IF Julia Boseman is vermin, and I apologize to her. After doing some Googling, it turns out she merely backed a bill giving tax incentives to filmmakers in NC. Given the “Hounddog” controversy, she has already said she is willing to change it. Turns out, she could very well have been a good parent. If I didn’t have a broken arm and wasn’t typing with one finger, I would say more.

        • Dear Jan:

          I’ll ignore the mandatory “homophobia” label from you and go directly to the heart of the issue.

          First off; parents exist to provide protection, nurturement and moral guidance to children- as I’ve often said. This requires a stable home with a mother and father. A mannish lesbian cannot substitute for the latter. Two deviants in tandem- regardless of natural gender or nature of perversity- cannot form a stable bond (and thus a family)- as the nature of that bond is unnatural to begin with. Homosexual bonds tend to be fleeting and based solely on sexual cravings. All too often, those cravings extend to children as well. To place children in the custody of known deviants (of whatever order) is therefore insane and inherently criminal.

          Second; Julia Boseman, like Wilmington’s (still current) District Attorney Ben David, owed much to her support from Screen Gems Studios, who have established a dominating position in the local economy. North Carolina’s statute which established a 15% rebate (taxpayer funded) for the production costs of a film made in the state was the key element in its success. Before she left office, I might add, that rebate was increased to 25% and work was started on a soundstage that is to be the third largest in the nation.

          Under the protection of such corrupted officials as Boseman and David- and abetted by an unsupervised NC State Film Office (an unelected and semi-autonomous body)- the Screen Gems facility quickly became the site of choice for the cheapest and sleaziest of independent film companies and the budget divisions of the major studios; both foreign and domestic. And it soon took the lead in ever more explicit works of child exploitation. This finally came into focus in July, 2006 when the worst of them to date (“Hounddog”) was made in North Carolina, utilizing SGS’s technical resources. In fact, it was likely the only place in the country that such a film- unabashed child porn in conception and execution- COULD have been made. Then.

          What’s changed since is both good and bad. It’s true that our campaign against the film had succeeded in preventing an overtly pornographic movie featuring preteen children from having been made again in America. But a number of others have since crowded up against the threshhold without quite passing it. This was because the failure to prosecute by NC legal authority and the tacit support of corrupt elected officials made it so. Nor has “Hounddog’s” financial failure (historic, too!) relieved the willingness of producers to fully utilize children in R-rated productions or teenaged children in full performances involving sex, drugs, gross violence and morbidity. If anything, it has expanded.

          There is yet another grim aspect to this… and one that Julia Boseman help to establish. It’s what I’ve come to call the Southern Connection. The demand for child actors has never been greater. Nor have the opportunities for their obscene degradation. Those kids have to come from somewhere. Increasingly, they come from the South. This Axis of Evil extends from Wilmington to Atlanta, where so many theatrical agents are based. It should be noted that, as a direct result of the North Carolina experiment, the State of Georgia has passed a 30% rebate on films. And (predictably) Screen Gems is establishing yet another facility in Atlanta which will become one of the largest in the nation when completed.

          AND… it was from Atlanta that an agency called Hot Shot Kids initially recruited ALL THREE of the children who were outrageously defamed in the “Hounddog” film. That included the only A-listed actress (and the once most beloved child star of her time) in the cast. Dakota Fanning… from Conyers GA. She was then 12. From North Carolina came Isabelle Fuhrman (9) and Cody Hanford (10). Also from there came former child stage actor Christoph Sanders (then 18) who’s chilling performance as Dakota’s molester should never be forgotten. Also his partner; William Yelton Smith- who was 13.

          Also in this list of infamy can be included the proprietors of Orton Plantation (a state historical site) and Rex Gore, D.A. of the 13th District, who likewise abetted and protected the “Houndog” production, as they had others before it.

          The corruption by Hollywood of localities when it establishes itself there is historic and its implications dramatic. But it cannot be done unless local officials lend themselves to the effort for their personal gain. There will always be clueless parents who will inticed (over time, usually) to purvey their children into perversity for profit. And there will be perverse agents and filmmakers to lead them on this dark journey. But the system must be in place for this to happen.

          Julia Boseman helped make this system. Her fall can be attributed to the fact that she came to support a production so vile that it aroused the disgust of every decent parent who came to learn the story. But, having become a willing accomplice in past infamies, she became trapped in the toils of her own making. That she now recants it- since she’s now out of office and entangled in another case involving children- means absolutely nothing.

  3. I… have trouble seeing how this decision is as “wise and fair” as you characterize it, unless that was a particularly subtle bit of sarcasm I totally missed. Unless everything I’ve read about this court decision is wrong, it doesn’t just apply to Boseman and Jarrell, but to everyone in North Carolina who *thought* they had a valid second-parent adoption. (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/hostile-north-carolina-co_b_800876.html, which asserts that the ruling applies retroactively.) Even if that’s not true, it’s still true that as a result of Jarrell’s legal action, no couple in North Carolina from this ruling onward can validly be granted a second-parent adoption. This is hardly “wise and fair” of the state Supreme Court. Moreover, I don’t quite know how I’d describe Jarrell’s actions in this scenario — “evil” comes to mind, or “scorched earth” — but “unethical” doesn’t come close to describing it.

    • The way I read the opinion, the Court was interpreting the law correctly; it’s not up to the court to change the law. A second parent adoption is valid when the second parent is married to the first—that makes sense. The problem is that NC doesn’t allow same sex marriages. I don’t think you are right about the precedent…the opinion mentions the step parent adoption. If the state wants to allow second parent adoptions without marriage, it is up to the legislature to pass such laws. Sorry—I don’t think legislating from the bench is generally wise or appropriate.

      Readers are welcome to their own characterizations. Jarrell’s betrayal speaks for itself–I was more concerned with her hypocrisy, using the state’s refusal to recognize gay marriages to her legal advantage. It is an ethics blog, after all, not a good and evil blog.

      • I’m sorry, I still think you’re being disingenuous here — you totally ignore the wider scope of the ruling. There are plenty of other same-sex couples in North Carolina who until this ruling had perfectly good second-parent adoptions in place; their rights are now in question. Jarrell’s vendetta against her former partner has harmed not only her own family but many others; like I said, I think this goes beyond merely “unethical.” I don’t see what the remedy for this harm would be, other than to legalize same-sex marriage in NC, which will certainly not be happening legislatively any time soon. So… what are folks supposed to do in the meantime, then? Can’t have a stepparent adoption if you can’t get married, after all.

        • The ruling correctly interpreted the law. Have you read the decision? The fact that courts had allowed illegal adoptions does not make it right, or legal. The legislature could fix the law, hopefully by allowing same sex marriages, but if not, by allowing second-parent, non-step-parent adoptions, which, as I read the current law (and apparently the court read it as well) is not provided for in the statutes currently. This doesn’t mean that the court “hates gays” as some silly web sites are arguing. It means the court is doing its job by making sure the laws, as written and passed, are followed. Even bad laws. That’s the job of the courts. Do bad laws hurt people? Yup—which is why they need to be changed, not,as seems to have been the case in North Carolina, violated or ignored. When that happens, THIS happens—a responsible court reminds everyone what the law really is, people get pissed off, and maybe the legislature has to do the job right,

          • But… once again, we come back to Jarrell — you described her actions as “unethical” and condemned her “hypocrisy,” but you seemed to totally ignore the fact that what she did has much wider-ranging implications than just this case. Which, in my mind, deserves an upgrade from “unethical” on the scale of bad actions. But, hey, you’re entitled to your objectivity.

            I’m not going to back down on “evil,” though — because, seriously, what are all these people whose adoptions just got invalidated supposed to do? Move? Because unless my research has led me badly astray, the NC legislature is not terribly likely to address this issue in a way that is favorable to the same-sex couples in question. You seem to be implying that it’ll be a simple matter for the legislature to do the job right, which strikes me as a naive point of view, or at least a point of view coming from someone who’s never spent much time lobbying any state legislature for LGBT civil rights laws.

            • But… once again, we come back to Jarrell — you described her actions as “unethical” and condemned her “hypocrisy,” but you seemed to totally ignore the fact that what she did has much wider-ranging implications than just this case.

              As Jack said, that’s not on Jarrell. That’s on the legislature. What she did was legal. What she did was only unethical and hypocritical due to her previous actions.

              I’m not going to back down on “evil,” though — because, seriously, what are all these people whose adoptions just got invalidated supposed to do? Move? Because unless my research has led me badly astray, the NC legislature is not terribly likely to address this issue in a way that is favorable to the same-sex couples in question.

              They’re screwed, but it’s not on Jarrell. It’s on the law.

              You seem to be implying that it’ll be a simple matter for the legislature to do the job right, which strikes me as a naive point of view, or at least a point of view coming from someone who’s never spent much time lobbying any state legislature for LGBT civil rights laws.

              By your comments, it appears you have lobbied for LGBT civil rights laws. I think this is coloring your perspective. You see the legislature as hard to deal with (obvious) and not sympathetic to your desires (likely) so you lash out at the person who ruined the end run around them. While I agree with your cause, your distribution of evilness appears to be a bit out of whack. If Jarrell is evil, is the legislature the super devil?

  4. Addendum:

    In January of 2007 (during the height of the “Hounddog” controversy on the occasion of its first public screening at the Sundance Film Festival… which became a fiasco) Julia Boseman made the following statement. “We should consider the end product, which is what the current system is designed to do.” What she intended by that statement was to purvey the Hollywood concept that the final, edited content is all there is… and that the effect on children from the concepts and on-set conditions during the filming (which cannot be edited!) are to be disregarded. Instead, her words- taken literally- amounted to self-condemnation. She was not the first of the “Hounddog” principals to verbally shoot herself in the foot! A consequence of this was not only her being thrown out of office, but the concurrent rise of her chief senatorial opponent in the “Hounddog” issue- Senator Phil Berger (R- Rockingham)- as the majority leader in the new GOP dominated state senate this year.

    It should further be noted that Boseman sponsored and passed the “Healthy Youth Act” in the former senate; a bill that mandated sex education (to include instruction in deviant sex) being taught in North Carolina’s public schools. True to form. Committed perverts will use any measure they can to legitimize themselves… even in their own minds. And it’s necessary to maintain their power base. Homosexuals are not “breeders”- as they scornfully refer to normal people. Thus, to maintain their “community” (and its power base) it behooves them to recruit as widely as possible. That means children. And the only better way to do this than mandatory public school indoctrination- or by way of a degenerate popular culture- is to do so directly by adopting them into pseudo-families of homosexuals. Julia has managed to cover all these bases.

    • You gay-agenda fabrications don’t have much to do with the ethics of the situation.

      Also, your quote does not in any way imply that the on-set conditions don’t matter.

    • Your gay-agenda fabrications don’t have much to do with the ethics of the situation.

      Also, your quote does not in any way imply that the on-set conditions don’t matter.

  5. No fabrications, TGT. They’re open enough about their aims. It’s just that few dare oppose their voting power.

    And Boseman’s quote was made in keeping with what a number of other Hollywood lackeys (including Trevor Goth, head spokesman and master of ceremonies for the Sundance Organization) were saying at the time in a desperate attempt to stave off public outrage. This mentality was also evident from a number of pro-Hollywood talking heads who were featured as guests on the two primary television programs covering the event; CNN’s ShowBiz Tonight and Fox’s Hannity & Combes. The ultimate example of this was apparent during the pathetic (and disasterous) press conference held at Sundance when it became evident that the “Hounddog” situation was spiralling out of control.

    Julia Boseman, like these other people, was attempting to do a little CYA. And, like them, she failed miserably. One had only to behold that conference- with the two principle filmmakers (Deborah Kampmeier and Robin Wright Penn) and the heartbreaking sight of a tiny, dolled up Dakota Fanning sitting between them, controlled and heavily prepped in her statements- to see the full panalopy of cultural degeneracy at work. This is what Julia Boseman made possible. Her supporting statements were only an icing on the cake of her own personal depravity.

    • No fabrications, TGT. They’re open enough about their aims. It’s just that few dare oppose their voting power.

      I don’t see anything deviant in the Healthy Youth Act. I don’t see anything warranting the “perverted” attack. I don’t see any recruiting occurring, and I have no idea what a pseudo-family is, well, other than a family that’s for show, not for love.

      The gay-agenda and their powerful voting power exists just as much as the war on christmas and the powerful atheist voting bloc.

      It appears you are severely misinformed and substituting dogma for reality.

      And Boseman’s quote was made in keeping with what a number of other Hollywood lackeys (including Trevor Goth, head spokesman and master of ceremonies for the Sundance Organization) were saying at the time in a desperate attempt to stave off public outrage.

      Much of the early criticism was of the existence of a child rape scene. Just like smoking in movies, the existence of an act isn’t necessarily bad. That’s all that statement responds to. It was not said in response to the conditions Dakota Fanning may have been subjected to and it is not appropriate to apply the phrase as if it was.

  6. TGT: Frankly, I don’t know what points you’re trying to make… if any. I’ll try to answer your ambiguous comments.

    First: North Carolina’s “Healthy Youth Act” was one of a series of such measures from around the country introduced (under the guise of “healthy” sex education) to indoctrinate children in concepts they’re not equipped to handle or evaluate… and whether the parents like it or not. These actions are part of the homosexual agenda’s campaign to sexualize children; both in their own minds and in those of adults. The connection to the cinematic trends that I mentioned here should be obvious. And Julia Boseman’s own activities in both provide a ready link.

    Second: A traditional, nuclear family consists of a man, his wife and his children. This has been recognized throughout human history. It is a condition rooted in the very nature of mankind itself and institutionalized by God Himself. Only in this framework can true love , devotion and mutual responsibility flourish. “Love” does not equate “lust”. Heterosexual unions based on lust quickly falter. Homosexual ones, being based solely on deviant lust, are doomed from the start from any real meaning.

    Third: The homosexual voting block, along with the atheist movement are very real things indeed. They’ve proven it often enough. In fact, they practically go hand in hand. No pun intended.

    Fourth: Your last comment was the most ambiguous of all. I’ll just say this. The “rape scene” in “Hounddog” necessarily attracted the most attention as it was the single worst (known) one in the film. It was by no means, however, the only one. The film was about nothing but child sex and adult degeneracy from beginning to end. There were twelve scenes in the original cut suggestive or demonstrative of children in sexual situations with both adults and with each other. There were others in the working script that didn’t make the first cut. There were at least three (probably four) major editing events in “Hounddog” over a two plus year period, culminating in its abortive release (to around a dozen “art houses” nationwide) in September 2008. Of those twelve scenes I mentioned, six were eliminated entirely in the final release; the other six being “moderated”. The “rape scene” itself was cut down to the bare bones. This was because the newest owners of the film, realizing that it could not be rehabilitated to any real extent, chopped it up to avoid further criticism and sold it off as best they could as a package deal with other seventh rate films.

    Despite that, the film remains despicable in content. In condition and concept, it’s overtly child pornographic. Those of us who thoroughly researched this movie and the history of its making are aware of these facets in detail, just as we are as to what it portends. It was a bitter landmark event in Hollywood’s ongoing downspiral.

    P.S. Do I understand that you’re trying to equate this sort of thing in a movie with SMOKING?!

    • My main points:

      1) You are blind to reality. I do not how you came to your view of reality, but I know that many of the things you put forth as truth are not actually true.

      2) You are blind to how reality is determined and how truth claims can be supported. Reality is what is, not what we desire it to be or are told it is. Truth claims need to be supported by evidence that exists in the world. Religious dogma and studied scripture are not evidence for reality, but only evidence for what people have believed and enforced.

      You can not use a claim that X is part of Y to claim Y is doing X. That is circular reasoning. Using the same logic I can “prove” that 1=2 and Jack is an invisible pink unicorn.

      Onto direct response to your individual points:

      1) There is no indoctrination. There’s presentation of actual facts. That the facts don’t match your beliefs is a problem with your beliefs, not with the facts. You don’t believe the facts can be properly handled and evaluated by the children, but child psychologists believe they can. I will lean to believing the actual experts on this one.

      2) Your second paragraph is untruth after untruth. (a) Family structure of man + woman + children is very rare in history. Clan structures are more common. Polygamy is also not exactly rare thoughout history, and man-boy relationships were considered healthy in many cultures. Clearly, we can’t use previous societies’ family and cultural structures as evidence for what should and should not be done. (b) God did not institutionalize anything; the Pope and Canon of Cardinals institutionalized things. These were human beings with severe failings. Note that female servitude was also institutionalized by these people. Not all their ideas were good. You need to support your 1 man 1 woman + children theory with actual benefits, not questionable fiats from authority figures. (c) There are homosexual relationships that are built on love and trust and are just as good as successful and long lasting as heterosexual relationships. When California legalized gay marriage, didn’t you see all those couples who had been together for 20 years and 40 years getting married? Your denial of homosexual love is denial of reality.

      3) The atheist voting bloc? Only about 10% of the population is atheist. Even if everyone voted in sync (which we don’t), we’d be well below the Christian coalition voting bloc. The “homosexual voting block[sic]” would necessarily be even smaller as it is built out of an even smaller portion of the population.

      4) You previously claimed the on set conditions were hard on the children. I denied that. Nothing in your last statements has anything to do about what the children went through in filming Hounddog. Your attack on the artistic merits of the film and history of editting have nothing to do with anything that concerns the state. You don’t like the film. That doesn’t matter. I thought the passion of the christ was torture porn, but that doesn’t matter either. In both cases, the films were legal to make in the U.S. and the people who made the films were unharmed. Would you like to remove the 1st amendment from the constitution? It appears you are attacking the film because you don’t like it’s message, not because the filmmakers actually did anything wrong.

      the p.s.) Compare rape to smoking? no. Compare how rape is portrayed in a movie to how smoking is portrayed? Sure. Raping a child is bad, depicting the occurrence though, depends on the context. It sounds like you would fight to remove “Julie of the Wolves” from middle school curriculums because it treats rapes in a serious way and fully explains the emotional effects on the protaganist.

  7. @Jack

    Remember that discussion about the positive and negative effects of religion and general religious views? Above is a good example of the poisonous nature of religion. How do I fight against religious backed denial of sex ed and homosexual relationships when his argument is “GOD SAID IT?”

    Because religion has pushed faith at the expense of reality, Steven can believe that their are large atheist and homosexual religious blocs, despite their complete lack of existence. He can use circular reasoning to defend the existence of the homosexual agenda. He can say that age appropriate sex ed is sexualizing kindergarteners when it is doing the exact opposite.

    When I called him on how his statements were not based on reality, he doubled down on his faith and rationalizations. Somehow, my direct, reason based attacks were ambiguous. You see, he has faith. There’s no place for reason.

  8. Dear TGT:
    Seldom have I seen such a frantic tirade of false conceptualism as your’s. At least, in rebuttal to anything I’ve ever said. I’m honored… I think!

    I don’t accuse you of being a liar. I just maintain that your concepts of morals, reality and their applications have been warped by your environment to such an extent that you’re incapable of logical incisiveness. I’ve seen a lot of this over my life. It’s a state I often refer to as “disreality”. To take a few salient points:

    Despite what your “expert” child psychologists have told you (Dr. Spock, perhaps?) the reality of childhood defeats you. The modern concept (as often expoused by Hollywood) can be summed up in two statements. “Children are little adults” and “Children are sexual beings”. Both are inherently false and both serve to further an agenda of abuse for the purpose of either profit or perverse satisfaction. Often both in tandem. Children are (as I have often expressed it) human beings in the process of development. That development, in a moral and loving family, is critical to any society’s survival. It is, in fact, the very basis of every successful society’s endeavors. It is the central purpose of any civilization worthy of the name.

    I’m glad you agree that molesting a child is wrong! I maintain that indecency with children is the worst crime of all… and for the reasons I just outlayed, if for no others. And for children led to perform such acts- even if not truly comsummated- the mental result is little different from the actual crime. And, since such performances are made and aimed at both perverse adults and (through the agency of a popular child star’s name) to other children, the scope of the crime compounds dramatically. This is being done, you should note, for the fortunes of the adults who have ordained such events. Child exploitation in all facets has grown into a huge issue that must be dealt with. And it happened because of decades of people turning their heads, telling themselves that it would go away on its own… in spite of every lesson of history.

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”- Edmund Burke

    And, yes, I’m as guilty as any. It took something as blatant as the “Hounddog” movie to make me understand my own unconscious folly of so many years. Now… what will it take to snap YOU awake?

    Your assertion that atheists and homosexuals are small minorities is absolutely true. What you ignore is the power of the block vote. These people are fanatically devoted t0 their causes; each for their own reasons. Those reasons, however, co-incide with other leftist causes. Under a huge array of co-operating, discretely entitled organizations- grouped under similarly titled “umbrellas”- they have inflicted an agenda on this country that is a complete negation of every value upon which it was founded. An agenda of decadency… and destruction. It doesn’t take many people in concert to do this, as history further proves. The bones of dead civilizations around the world attests to this.

    Finally, your extremely negative concept of history in general and Christianity in particular provide the key to your overall outlook. But I’m not an ordained clergyman or a missionary. You’ll have to handle that one on your own. I can only tell you that God will help you… if you let Him. He did me. I grew up in a harsh household that can be described, at best, as agnostic. It was a difficult journey out of that shadow. But it’s one that I, my brother and my sister swore we would rise above for the sake of our children. I think we have. Discovering God played a huge role in this.

    P.S. You described families as being historically secondary to clans as the basic unit of human society. I need to remind you that a clan is nothing more than an extended family; bound together by both consanguinity and purpose. I and my siblings form such a “clan”, as do many others. We’re family. The formation of tribes and nation-states came about as an outgrowth of this- with families and clans uniting for self-protection in common cause. But, as I said, the basis of it all is the family and IT’S prime purpose- the protection, nurturement and moral guidance of children. All else is secondary to this goal.

  9. Response to your points in order:

    1) I did not imply that you called me a liar. My post to Jack was referencing a previous thread where there was a large discussion about the difference between lying and telling falsehoods that you believe to be true.

    2) I don’t see how age appropriate sex-ed sexualizes children. You spouted off general concepts that do not in any way refute the age appropriateness of the instruction. What, specificly, in the production of hounddog was damaging to Dakota Fanning? They did know she was a child and didn’t treat her as an adult who has all the background on right vs wrong.

    3) they have inflicted an agenda on this country that is a complete negation of every value upon which it was founded. An agenda of decadency… and destruction. What agenda? Give me details. Negation of morals? Agenda of decadency? What do these mean? Also, that entire paragraph comes over as a paranoid conspiracy theory.

    4) Historical clan family structures were nothing like the 1 father 1 mother structure. You’re equivocating on the word clan.

    My earlier points and their state of rebuttal:

    Point 1) You used ad hominem attacks on an actual authority, and responded to a strawman (sexualization of children) by saying it’s morally wrong and inherently dangerous. Do you have any evidence of this danger or that the instruction we are talking about sexualizes kids at all?

    Point 2) You partially responded to part A, but as noted above, your response is invalid. My original point stands. Points B and C were ignored completely.

    Point 3) responded to and replied to above. You are coming up with sinister movie plot lines without supporting them.

    Point 4) You somehow think that acting out a rape, where the kid knows exactly how they are going to be touched (not sexually), agrees to it, is in total control, and agrees to everying is anything like an actual rape. I can’t follow your logic.

    Of my two main issues up top, you clearly did not follow what I was saying, as you think my negative view of christianity and history lead to my outlook. In actuality, my knowledge of history, logical reasoning skills, and general morality lead me to a negative view of christianity. I was raised by ex-Jesuit who is still devoutly Catholic. Other than being bored at church, I had good direct experiences with Religion. Then I learned how to think. That you believe that it is morally wrong to tell kids who are in puberty about puberty is prima facie evidence against the religious twisting of morality. The ability to deny reality (gay love) because it disagrees with your religios beliefs is further evidence against your worldview.

    • I managed to miss your extended rant until now, TGT!

      1. The difference between lying and falsehoods is a matter of intent. A black lie is one told for one’s personal gain and is therefore immoral. A white lie is one that is used to spare the feelings of another when truth is otherwise irrelevant. Then there’s the consideration as to whether one telling a falsehood knows the difference to begin with.

      2. Of course, “sex-ed” can’t help but alter children’s thoughts as to concepts of appropriate sexual conduct. You ignore the nature of children, here, who quickly pick up these concepts- both good and evil- and begin to build their worldview on them. Guys like Kevin Jennings and his ilk COUNT on this. So do filmmakers like Deborah (Hounddog) Kampmeier. What kids can be told about now in a classroom, three children in an American made movie were led to PERFORM before cameras. It wasn’t long afterward that smuggled scenes were available on the internet, so that children could watch their favorite child star doing this. Get the picture?

      3. “Paranoid conspiracy”? It’s called a “power agenda”. Every paternalistic or authoritarian movement (the line between them is often obscure) understands that to envoke the changes needed to obtain power, certain things must be accomplished. Redefining or corrupting a nation’s free institutions is one. Taking charge of children’s education in order to mold them into compliance is another. So is controlling that nation’s sources of public information, to include entertainment. All these (and more) must be achieved for a new ruling class to consolidate its hold and thereby direct the “national will”. The communists and the nazis were not the first to understand this. They just helped perfect the process.

      4. There was no equivocation on the terms “family” and “clan”. A clan, by definition, is an extended family. Uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents. That blood tie has always been an important factor in the development of human society. It’s denegration by socialists should be a red flag as to their motivations.

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      1. You speak of children as “strawmen”? They are central to the entire purpose of decent human society. Their treatment and good upbringing is the focus of all worthwhile endeavors. When this is ignored or despised, there begins a civilization’s fall.

      2. If I ignored a point of your’s, TGT, it was because it wasn’t worth bothering with.

      3. “Sinister”? I possess the two versions of the “Hounddog” script plus that of Dakota Fanning’s second porn movie (“The Runaways”)- all obtained from valued sources who are unimpeachable. If I’d ever read anything sinister and depraved in my life (and I’ve seen lots!) those scripts epitomize the very terms. When I obtained the working script to “Hounddog” early in my researches, it confirmed my worst fears and added more. It also, as by base of research grew, provided me a bigger picture as to the nature and history of what has become institutionalized child exploitation; not to mention the financial and political agendas behind its rise.

      4. You ignore the entire nature of children by granting them the power to discern, in the manner of an adult, actions based on fiction or reality. Children are not mature. When you force concepts of depravity upon them (in any context, much less acting out these scenarios on camera in front of adults… and WITH adults) you place them at terrible risk. Any parent worthy of the name can tell you that.

      In conclusion, your contention that you “learned to think” is a common self-deception among self-proclaimed leftist intellectuals. In fact, you live in a false universe that you have molded along lines that deny any purpose higher than your own ego. You also make the false equivalence (so common in my generation!) between love and lust. They are two completely different things. Poles apart, in fact. You can speak of “gay lust”, if you will. You can also speak of pederasty, which is a form of it. But not in terms of “love”. This is the ultimate denial of the entire concept.

  10. Section 1:

    1) Yes, intent matters, but not the way you said. A little white lie is still a lie, whether your intent is to help or harm. I want to reiterate that I don’t believe you are lying.

    2) You didn’t respond to my point about appropriate sex-ed. You just went straight into poisoning the well (attacking the people, not the ideas) and begging the question (starting from premises that assume the conclusion). Everything you said was immaterial to the discussion at hand, and is being ignored until you respond to the actual point. If you want, we can come back to these new ideas once the original discussion has been resolved.

    3) You didn’t list a single thing that is part of the “agenda” or any negative effect of the so-called agenda. Instead, you gave a treatise on authoritarianism and indoctrination. You’re putting the cart before the horse. You have still provided no support for your position.

    4) Your equivocation was unintentional, but it’s still wrong. Early clans were not Mom+Dad over children with similar units attached and helping. It was more like: Mom+Mom+Mom over the children and Dad+Dad+Dad over the moms. It was nothing like todays idea of extended family structures. Your evidence for your position is again eroded.

    ========================
    Section II:

    1) Stawman is a philosophical term. You attacked a position I did not hold. There’s no way I agree that sexualizing children is good. You need to support the idea that age appropriate sex-ed sexualizes children.

    2) Early on, you claimed “Second: A traditional, nuclear family consists of a man, his wife and his children. This has been recognized throughout human history. It is a condition rooted in the very nature of mankind itself and institutionalized by God Himself. Only in this framework can true love , devotion and mutual responsibility flourish. “Love” does not equate “lust”. Heterosexual unions based on lust quickly falter. Homosexual ones, being based solely on deviant lust, are doomed from the start from any real meaning. ”

    I tore that to pieces. You attempted to respond in part. I tore your partial response in even more pieces. Everything you said in that statement is false, and your ignoring my rebuttal is not because the points aren’t worth responding to. You simply have no response, but are unwilling or unable to change your mind. At this point, you are conciously denying reality.

    3) More strawmen. You claimed a homosexual agenda. I asked for proof of one. You have continued to not respond. .

    4) “You ignore the entire nature of children by granting them the power to discern, in the manner of an adult, actions based on fiction or reality.” Children can discern the difference between fiction and reality. They do it everyday. Your “in the manner of an adult” caveat is begging the question. “Children are not mature.” True. “When you force concepts of depravity upon them (in any context, much less acting out these scenarios on camera in front of adults… and WITH adults) you place them at terrible risk.” This conclusion is completely unsupported and goes against the existing evidence. “Any parent worthy of the name can tell you that.” Appeal to questionable authority. Poisoning the well. I’m glad you’re not my parent.

    Conclusion sections:
    In conclusion, your contention that you “learned to think” is a common self-deception among self-proclaimed leftist intellectuals. In fact, you live in a false universe that you have molded along lines that deny any purpose higher than your own ego.

    I have evidence for all my assertions. The only evidence you have shown has proven to be false. Most of what you have said is unsupported conclusions that is counter to the evidence. Despite this, you claim that I am the one living in a false universe. When you lose an argument on the merits, baselessly saying the other person is delusional does not help.

    You also make the false equivalence (so common in my generation!) between love and lust.

    I did no such thing. I made a clear distinction. It is dishonest of you to claim I did not.

    You can speak of “gay lust”, if you will. You can also speak of pederasty, which is a form of it. But not in terms of “love”.

    I showed examples of gay love. You ignored them. Ignorance of reality (whether by chance or intent) does not change reality. Pederasty has nothing to do with homosexuality. That’s just plain wrong. There is no support for that position and plenty of evidence that they are completely separate things.

    You clearly do have logical reasoning skills, but you are rejecting them anytime they lead to a conclusion that is against your preconceived notions. Maybe, just maybe, some of your preconceived notions are incorrect. If you were open to the world (as you claim you are), you would consider the possibility that your religious ideas do not match the world around you. If your religious ideas contradict reality, your religion has to be wrong. It’s a scary thought, but scariness does not equate to falsehood. Face your fear. I believe you can do it.

  11. Dear TGT: I would say that “poisoning the well” is your forte, not mine. I addressed the pertinent issues. You just don’t like the answers and reject them because it conflicts with your own concepts. Okay, fine. But don’t bother trying to talk down to me in a way meant to bolster your self-image of intellectual superiority. I’m not buying it.

    (Yes, dear, I know what a “strawman” is. Leftists are particularly adept at using them.)

    What this entire huge post of your’s amounts to is trying to nitpick the entire issue to death while concurrently attempting to redirect the argument. You do this in hope of discouraging further comment through wearying the other poster and thereby getting the last word. This is COMMON, TGT.

    I stated my views and reasoning in a clear, concise manner. Since you can’t answer them directly, you resort to harrassing raids on my flanks! Again, common tactics.

      • As a veteran, I tend to think in military terms, Jack! When an opposing force lacks the ability to attack the main body, they resort to hit-and-run raids on the flanks to distract the enemy as to their real intentions and to try and confuse him as to his own. Sun Tsu was the expert on this! I offer a rhetorical analogy. In fact, that carries over into the Giffords related debate about political groups using military style terms in their tactics. The analogies have been there since politics went public! And no, it wasn’t meant to be sexy!!

      • Excellent imagery. Unfortunately, it’s completely wrong. I’m slamming right through his armies. That he doesn’t understand the underlying bases of an argument does not diminish what is actually occurring.

    • I would say that “poisoning the well” is your forte, not mine. I addressed the pertinent issues. You just don’t like the answers and reject them because it conflicts with your own concepts.

      When have I poisoned the well. Please support your position. Everything after that is also just made up. When you did not respond the points I made, you do not get to claim that you did. It’s not uncivil to call a falsehood false.

      Okay, fine. But don’t bother trying to talk down to me in a way meant to bolster your self-image of intellectual superiority. I’m not buying it.

      I was not trying to talk down to you. I saw two possibilities. (1) You understood what I was saying and were, in bad faith, twisting my argument. (2) You did not know what these terms were.

      In the belief that you would not do 1 on an ethics website, I assumed 2. There was no intent to talk down to you. My only intent was clarity.

      (Yes, dear, I know what a “strawman” is. Leftists are particularly adept at using them.)

      Uethical people and people who don’t understand logic are the most common culprits. Left vs right has nothing to do with the matter. Did you notice that was poisoning the well again?

      What this entire huge post of your’s amounts to is trying to nitpick the entire issue to death while concurrently attempting to redirect the argument. You do this in hope of discouraging further comment through wearying the other poster and thereby getting the last word. This is COMMON, TGT.

      Nitpick, or find inconsistencies? My only objective is to properly describe reality and determine appropriate ethics for that reality. When you make claims I believe to be false, I attack them. When you refuse to support them, they must be taken as false.

      There is no intent to wear you down. Finding truth takes time and can be tedious. Slogans and simplified statements are quicker, but often incorrect. If you can only handle the latter, you likely will never find the former.

      I stated my views and reasoning in a clear, concise manner. Since you can’t answer them directly, you resort to harrassing raids on my flanks! Again, common tactics.

      Apparently, the bases of your beliefs are now your flanks. When you say that gay love does not exist, attacks that belief directly is not a flank. When you say that gays do horrible stuff, I want evidence of the things they do, and evidence that these things are horrible. Again, not a flank.

      • Addendum. I apologize for using words that could be construed as patronizing. My intent was clarity. I failed to express that, and I apologize for that deficiency.

  12. I missed this until now! I think I stated my case pretty well, Tiggy. All you’ve responded with is nitpicking blather… as per usual. I stand on what I’ve said and, I think, have made a pretty good case of it. Your attempts to talk around it only diminish you.

  13. Dear Tiggy:

    What you mean is “your opinion is politically incorrect, so I must ATTEMPT to ‘rip it to pieces’ by reframing the argument away from the basic question of human perversion and the deeds of the one in question”. I answered your snide attacks where they had any relevancy and ignored those that hadn’t. Those latter consisted mainly of innuendo, back door personal attacks and familiar political gibberish. If I took the time to answer every one of these, I’d not only be insulting the intelligence of the other posters, but I’d put myself continually on the defensive… which is what you wanted. I’m not incognizent of these cheap ambulance-chaser tactics, my dear.

    Here’s the case. Julia Boseman, the disgraced former state senator from Wilmington NC and overt “married” deviant, has attempted to use an adopted child of her unholy “union” to her own advantage. I know of this woman of her actions beforehand and thereby am unsurprised by this further revelation of her corrupt character. Using children for gain is nothing new to her. She was instrumental in protecting the filmmakers and studio executives based in her district from the consequences and public outrage engendered from the production there of the first legitimized American child porn movie in 2006. These factors, combined, draw the portrait of an utterly despicable woman.

    I must say here that MS. Boseman’s own rhetoric over time remarkably resembles your own. But trite phrases and deceitful manueverings can only go so far in concealing the ugly reality. When one looks at the content of statements from such creatures as Julia Boseman to any degree, one can’t help but be struck by their familiarity of phraseology and that they are framed so as to throw attention off the core facts of the case. This woman, Tiggy, is no one you should seek to emulate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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