In her February 23 article, "Sexualizing Girls," Mona Charen observed that the American Psychological Association "has discovered that too early sexualization of children, particularly girls, is damaging." They had to discover that? Normal people know instinctively that the last thing on a little girl’s mind is sex. Neither should young girls be compelled to deal with such a topicr. To have adult sexuality forced on a child is unconscionable.

So, how do young girls become sexualized so early? I am unable to formulate a reasoned response to that question, so I’ll be honest: idiot parents, parents with no ethical code at all, parents who are more immature than their children. What mother in her right mind would allow a pre-teen daughter to wear "eye-candy" thong underwear? Only one whose understanding of human sexuality is, at best, perverted. A mother who would do such is no better than the sexual pervert who preys on innocent little girls.

The sexualization of children is not the only crime being committed against girls and boys. According to an Internet article (no author or source cited), "half of young children (ages 7-11) are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern." These "facts" are the results of a survey of 1,150 children done by the UK supermarket giant Somerfield. One in four blamed politicians for global warming; 1 in 7 blamed their parents for not doing enough (those were the ones whose Mommies had just denied them a candy treat).

I have to say that after reading the article, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream in utter, angry frustration. A survey done by a supermarket of children ages 7-11 is to be taken seriously as an indicator of rates of childhood anxiety over global warming? Give me a break. Can anyone really believe that 7-11 year olds are concerned about "the possible submergence of entire countries"? I wonder about the emotional and intellectual stability of parents who would allow their children to develop such fears.

Sadly enough, too many well-educated adults get their science from a looney, loopy ex-Vice President; now they can look to supermarkets as an authorities on the emotional well-being of children. In the 80s, some of these same people were taken in by the "nuclear-freeze, nuclear winter" movement (funded in Europe, we learned, by the USSR). Earlier, many jumped on the global-cooling bandwagon.

Our three children, as far as I know, and they have never admitted to such, never had a moment’s anxiety about nuclear war. In all honesty, they never thought much about it; school, social activities, sports, family, recreation, etc. took up their time. None of them now are caught up in the global warming hysteria either.

For some reason, too many people, no, too many parents do not take their children seriously. Obviously, some parents see their offspring as a means to living out some unfulfilled fantasy of their own, or think of their children as nothing more than little adults. Children are children and do not need adult anxieties and concerns (global warming, sexuality) forced upon them. The well-bing of the children does not seem to be a priority for some parents.

In the debate over adoption of children by homosexuals, the issue is not the welfare of children, either. The legitimation of homosexuality is the overriding issue. How could children be the main concern in the debate over adoption by homosexuals?

When children are adopted by homosexuals, they are immediately faced with certain issues they do not deserve to have to contend with. Why should a child be required to work out the dynamics of why he has two daddies or two mommies, unlike most his friends, who have a mother and a father. Will a little girl with two daddies or two mommies ever have sleep-overs with her friends? Will children of homosexuals grow up in typical neighborhoods doing the things children normally do?

Biology tells us that heterosexuality is the norm and that children need, from conception on, both a mother and a father. Ironically, in America today, thousands of adopted children are going through difficult processes to find their birth-parents. While some may be driven by medical issues, most sense a deeper need to know who they are.

Children, those in their mid-teens and below, should not be immersed into the world of adult issues. Global warming, as in the current Gore-fashioned fantasy, should not be forced on children. Why should children have to deal with sexuality when most adults have trouble with the topic? Why should a child have to figure out why he does not have a mommy and a daddy?

Couple A is in their early twenties. At one time, both were hourly wage earners, living in a rural area, supported by extended families. They learned that their two-year old child had a tumor behind one eye. After a lengthy period of hospitalization, surgery, and post-surgery therapy, they brought their child home. He had lost one eye, but remains cancer-free. This couple was willing to incur a debt they might never pay off in order to save their child’s life.

Couple B is in their late twenties. One is college-educated and is a self-employed sales rep for a major corporation. The other owns his own business. This couple’s goal was for the wife to establish herself in her career prior to having a baby. Consequently, because of the costs involved, they opted to not include pregnancy coverage in their health insurance. To their surprise, the wife found out she was pregnant. On her second visit to her doctor, during the ultra-sound, she heard her eight-week old, unborn child’s heartbeat. As she later told her mother, her life was forever changed. They will incur over $10,000 in medical bills due to the pregnancy.

Couple C is in their early thirties and the parents of a 4-year old son and a 2-year old daughter. The wife is an RN, the husband a journeyman pipefitter. The husband has a 13-year old son from a previous marriage. The wife works with a home health agency and is able to manage her schedule so that the children do not have to stay in day care for more than 4-5 hours a day. Often, the husband is required to work 6 and 7 day weeks. When necessary, he takes time off to care for the children. The term "free-time" is a joke.

The time and financial resource demands on these three couples are not unlike those experienced by thousands of parents across America. Surprisingly, to some, most of these families are successful and rear their children to be well-adjusted, productive adults. Even with limited resources, parents find the time and material resources to do what must be done to make things work.

Reading the American Sociology Review article on adoptive parents (See Part 1), one would expect only adoptive parents (APs), with their age, education, and financial advantages, to rear far more well-adjusted children than all other family types. Indeed, the article suggests that because APs can invest so much in their children, they should be better parents. Is such the case?

I have known many adoptees throughout my life. Further, based on my 33+ years as a Baptist minister, I can say that the adoptedees I have known, both as children and adults, were no better or worse, as a group, than children who had been reared by their birth parents. Of all the people I have known who had been adopted as a child, they all share one trait with most other children I have known: they grew up in homes with both a father and a mother.

As I noted in Part 1 of this response to the ASR article, the authors appear to take a favorable view of same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples. If such is the case, then the results of this study could be used in defense of adoption by same-sex couples. Conventional wisdom says, on average, homosexuals have higher incomes than the general population. Would not an older, more-educated, more affluent same-sex couple appear to be good candidates for parenthood? Based on the ASR article, we might expect to hear a resounding yes.

In actual fact, time and money are not the key components of good parenting. Money in particular is not essential for one to be a good parent. Why, you might ask? What parents have to give cannot be bought at a local department store. Parents, in spite of whatever limitations they might have, are responsible for rearing healthy children. In spite of limited funds and limited time, poor and middle class parents succeed just as well as their more affluent peers; neither do they fail at a higher rate than wealthy parents.

Children need committed Moms and Dads; every child deserves both. Daughters need to learn what only mothers can teach; sons need what only fathers can give.

A number of observations are in order. First of all, the authors pointed out that "two-adoptive-parent families have significantly higher annual income and levels of parental education than all other family types (104). Further, the article pointed out that APs also tend to be older than other parents (101), and must go through "some sort of screening and waiting process" prior to adoption. Typically, the screening process is very thorough and demanding, and not all applicants are approved.

I would add further that the authors appear to take a favorable view of the idea that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. APs are categorized by the researchers as one kind of "Alternative Family Types." Also, in the section "Measures of Independent and Dependent Variables," the authors style their categories of parent types in such a manner that adoptive homosexual couples could have been included in the study. One could also interpret a statement in the introductory section as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The authors observed that courts have used evidence of the superiority of biological parenthood in court cases regarding same-sex marriage "as a compelling rationale for the current legal definitions of marriage" (97). One way this study could be interpreted is that biological parenthood may not be the best form of parenting.

Are Hamilton and her co-authors attempting, albeit subtly, to make a case for adoption by homosexuals? The authors stated "Lesbian and gay parents—facing high levels of discrimination, homophobia, and stigma—may also engage in compensatory parenting mechanisms that benefit their children" (112). Given the underlying tone of the article, the authors appear to believe that not allowing homosexual couples to marry and adopt children would be examples of discrimination and homophobia. We will visit the issue of the fitness of homosexuals as parents in a later posting.

Now, the article indicates that APs have advantages over all other types of parents. On its face, this conclusion might bear some significance. But, in real terms, what is the significance of the conclusion? From the start, I would raise the issue of the validity of comparing a very narrowly defined population (APs) with another that is broad and general (all BPs). For instance, what value can be found in comparing a set of adoptive parents (with all the advantages listed above) with a young married couple with children who may be in their late teens to early twenties, which is quite natural and normal.

Generally speaking, natural, birth-parents (BPs) are young, less experienced, have less formal education, are less financially, socially, and psychologically stable. While APs make their decision about children in a kind reasoned way, many times, pregnancy is a wholly unexpected event for young couples.

Many, if not most BPs must resort to two incomes in order to meet the economic demands of family life. Younger parents generally are in the beginning stages of their careers, and must work longer and harder to make their professional mark. Being young and in the early stages of a career, they are not at the peak of their earning capacity.

For APs, the option of choosing children who might have few if any severe medical problems is available. BPs do not have such an option. The child born to them is the one they must care for, regardless of the financial burden.

Young fathers and mothers, at the beginning stages of their careers, find time to be at a premium. APs are more likely to be able to choose for one partner to not work. Or, the APs could elect to send their child to a more expensive day-care facility. At school-age, sending their child to an upper level, scholastically elite private school is more possible than for the average young parents. Being more secure in their careers, and having elected to adopt, APs surely are more probable to have the time and resources to invest in their children. Younger fathers, especially those who are the sole income-earner in a family, have much less time available than older, more financially secure APs.

One wonders if the authors of this article believe that having more money, material resources, and time are all that is that is needed to rear socially and psychologically well-adjusted children. The question of the applicability of this study must also be asked. What is the point of comparing APs with all other parent types? Why not compare APs with BPs in the same professional, educational, social, and economic strata? What meaning does the authors’ conclusion have? Surely they do not think adoption is preferable to children remaining in their birth family?

The current debate in the world-wide Anglican community over homosexuality underscores the deep divisions and confusion within the Christian family about human sexuality. Ironically, no document could be more clear than the Bible regarding human sexual behavior. In spite of the few examples of polygamy, the consistent view of Scripture is that monogamous heterosexuality is the norm for God’s people. Both adultery and homosexual sex are proscribed for believers.

Yet, in the modern era, some denominational groups appear unwilling to affirm the biblical model of appropriate sexual conduct.

When we moderns disagree with the guidelines of Scripture, we attempt to discredit the messenger so that we might invalidate the message. Paul, for instance, is accused of being both a homophobe and a misogynist. Thus, we can re-interpret his message, stripping it of its "cultural biases" and out-dated and time-bound opinions. As a result of Scripture being redefined, we are able to declare confidently that Scripture rejects only some kinds of homosexual sex, but not homosexuality in general. Further, we can also affirm that God is in favor of "loving relationships."

Yet, we cannot blithely ignore and disregard the teachings of the Bible regarding human sexuality. By "modernizing" the Bible, we trivialize its teachings. To rationalize the Bible’s statements about homosexuality allows us equally to rewrite Scripture’s teachings about other behaviors as well. Incidentally, what do we do about pedophilia? The Bible, quite frankly, doesn’t give us a lot of guidance on that subject.

Let’s recognize the fact that adultery, pedophilia, and homosexuality all stem from sexual "feelings." So, what about those feelings? If we argue, as Part 1 of this series illustrated, that since we cannot identify the source of our feelings they must be of God, what feelings do we include, which do we exclude? Can one involved in an adulterous affair not claim "God made me this way" with as much authority as one with homosexual urges? Further, if God smiles with favor on a "loving" homosexual relationship, why not on a "loving" adulterous relationship?

So, we are faced with the question of whether or not God is to blame for one’s having homosexual feelings. What do we do? Well, a good starting place would be a couple of statements in the Epistle of James in the New Testament. "Let no one say when he is tempted (enticed to indulge one’s desires or feelings), ‘I am being tempted by God.’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

In saying that God "does not tempt anyone," the writer appears to be saying that God does not tempt or entice anyone with evil (compare the overall context). God has never created anything that is inherently evil. Grapes, corn, tobacco, the leaves of the coca plant, cannabis, poppies, the female body, the male body, and children were not brought into existence in order to be a source of evil. The problem is not the object; the problem is human desire.

"But each one is tempted (see above) when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust (unwholesome desire)." Evil is resident, at the least, in our desires, our feelings. Now, not all desires or feelings are bad. We simply must affirm that the feelings Scripture has declared to be evil, unhealthy, and unproductive must not be indulged. Among those feelings the Bible rejects as having their source in the baser part of the human identity is homosexual sex. Homosexual desires are no more to be acted upon by a believer than the urge to steal, lie, or commit adultery. Giving in to any desire that is deemed by Scripture to be inappropriate for believers leads one, ultimately, to his ruin.

If God has ever given anyone homosexual desires, or made him a homosexual, then the Lord of Heaven must be the ultimate schizophrenic. Why would he inspire writers throughout history to declare that homosexual behavior was wrong, and then, cause people to be homosexual? If such is the case, God loses all credibility and nothing he has ever said is to be taken as binding upon humans.

Happily, such is not the case. God has never made anyone a homosexual, pedophile, adulterer, liar, thief, murderer, or racist. People hate, are greedy, and desire what is not legitimate because they indulge the wrong feelings. Yet, the mere presence of a feeling is not the problem. The behavior that grows out of feelings is the issue.

Scripture expects God’s people to reject the world’s pressure to conform. The world teaches us to indulge our "feelings." The Bible reminds us that feelings are nothing more than emotional urgings. Some lead to good behavior, or result from such; others lead to destruction. Feelings do not define us. We are not what we feel. For Christians, the only true guide for responding to our feelings and urges is Scripture. Without the clear ethical guidance of God’s Word, we are set adrift and in the sea of moral confusion and chaos.

The "Why" question can be asked legitimately by any number of people. Why do so many males feel an overwhelming desire to look at naked women? Why are some people drawn to sex with children? Why does a person have racist feelings? What makes a person want to steal? Do drugs? Get drunk? What generates all these feelings? Does the source really matter?

Our society, by the way, defines people on the basis of feelings. One is a homophobe because he does not believe homosexuality is normal (Obviously, some would argue, only hate for another person based on his sexual orientation, not a reasoned argument, could lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is abnormal.). One is a homosexual because he feels attracted to a person of his own sex. One is a racist because he speaks despairingly about a person of a race other than his own, regardless of the nature of his criticism.

To an extent, we are what we do. But, is a person’s whole being defined by one set of emotions or one act? The truth is that "normal" people have feelings or emotions whose origins may be lost to them. These feelings may draw that person to modes of behavior that are at variance with what is considered normal, acceptable behavior. If I have feelings of jealousy towards a co-worker, and am tempted to lie about that person to improve my own position, am I a liar?

Let us return to homosexuality. Is a person a homosexual because he has certain feelings or sexual attractions? Or, is a person just a person who happens to have what are termed "homosexual" urges? To what extent is a person defined by his feelings?

All of us are born predisposed to heterosexuality. We are born either male or female, with the associated physical attributes. No one has ever been born with physical traits that predispose him to homosexuality. Biology trumps emotions.

Having said that, what might we infer from the biological facts of our sexuality? Can we say that all heterosexuals share a set of common traits that set them apart from homosexuals or celibates? Certainly not. All one can conclude from the statement that a person is a heterosexual is that he has chosen to be sexually involved with a person or persons of the gender opposite his own. No conclusions can be drawn about such a person’s overall identity simply because he likes heterosexual sex.

The same is true of homosexuality. Beyond the sexual and emotional aspects of homosexuality, no commonly shared set of traits can be defined that set homosexuals apart from heterosexuals or celibates. Beyond the object of one’s sexual and emotional desires, no other trait appears to be universally shared in the homosexual population.

So, homosexuality is all about one’s preferred mode of sex. Homosexuals desire a sexual and emotional relationship with someone of their own gender. No one has ever been compelled to be sexually involved with any other person on a regular basis (apart from coerced activity). Our feelings cannot make us do anything. Our feelings can only lure us in some direction or another. What we can affirm about human sexuality is that, beyond the obvious procreative function, sex, as an activity, is not necessary.

Modern Americans live in a highly sexually charged environment. We are treated to TV ads promoting treatments for herpes; promotional spots for cures for male erectile dysfunction; enticements to diets that will make one more sexy; and commercials for products that will restore hair to the bald, thus, restoring sexual potency. We have become one-dimensional creatures, and appear to not question the idea.

To hear the latest advertisement, sex, and only sex means anything. Human beings will never find happiness and fulfillment apart from being sexually active. Somehow, we are not truly human if we are not sexually potent and active. You see, sex is the irresistible urge (All teens will be sexually active; they can’t help themselves. So, give them condoms. What an absurdity.). Thus, some have been led to believe that unless they indulge their sexual attraction to a person of their own gender, they will never be happy.

*Warren Throckmorton, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College. He is the coauthor, along with Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, a new paradigm for responding to sexual and religious conflicts. He maintains an active blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.

Most likely, Perry’s order will not stand up in court. One would hope such is the case. The order by the Texas governor involves parental privacy rights and gender issues at least. One wonders why the governor has not mandated mandatory flu shots for all children in Texas as a requirement for school attendance. The flu virus kills 60,000 people annually in the U.S. Only an estimated 4,000 fatalities from HPV and cervical cancer (related to HPV) occur each year. What’s more dangerous to a child’s health, flu or HPV?

Perry’s actions are similar to those of proponents of universal HIV/AIDS testing. Both mandatory HPV vaccination and universal HIV/AIDS testing imply that anyone can become infected with either of these sexually transmitted disorders. Not long ago an AIDS Summit was hosted by California mega-church pastor Rick Warren and his wife Kay. The Warrens are to be commended for taking the lead in getting the church involved in addressing AIDS. The church has been silent and inactive far too long, as Warren has pointed out. Yet, what Warren and Senators Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., did during the conference is cause for criticism. Each was publicly tested for HIV.

What, you might ask, is the problem with their being tested for HIV/AIDS? Fundamentally, the same problem Gov. Perry’s mandate involves. Both HIV/AIDS and HPV are sexually transmitted diseases. Does Pastor Warren believe that members of his congregation, or Americans in general, are in danger of becoming HIV positive? How many parents in Texas expect their 11- and 12-year old daughters to be sexually active? Those who expect their daughters to be sexually active anytime prior to marriage have a strange notion of their role as parents.

Teens, especially girls, are not predisposed to promiscuous sex, as some would have us believe. In her article on Townhall.com, "Teen sex Leads to Depression and Drug Use," Janice Shaw Crouse highlighted the results of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study on teen patterns of drug use and sexual activity. Their findings, Crouse pointed out, go against the grain of the position held by social liberals of our day. The UNC-CH showed that especially among teen girls, extremely negative effects are experienced as a result of sexual activity. Depression was shown clearly to result from either drug use or sexual activity. In fact, the study showed that depression does not lead to sex. In fact, "Depressed girls who are abstinent, however, have decreased odds of engaging in any high-risk behavior," Crouse stated.

Personally, I read the message being sent by Gov. Perry, in particular, as well as by Rev. Warren, as being that we can assume that most people are, have been, or will be sexually active outside marriage. The Texas governor seems to believe that all girls in Texas are in danger of contracting HPV. Why else would we vaccinate all girls if such were not the case? Why be tested for HIV/AIDS unless you have been sexually active outside of marriage? For men, by the way, being HIV/AIDS positive suggests homosexual activity at some time, unless the virus is passed to the male by a female.

Gov. Perry has no business telling all parents in Texas they should expect their daughters to become sexually active. Obviously, he has no confidence in Texas parents. If Gov. Perry is so health conscious, not only should he also institute mandatory flu vaccination as a requirement for school attendance, he should also order HIV/AIDS testing as well.

Children rise to the standards set by their parents. My wife and I reared two daughters and a son. We not only expected them to abstain from sex and drugs, we did everything in our power to assist them in resisting popular pressure to do both. Each made a True Love Waits commitment, which each of our daughters honored till they were married. Our son, a Marine, has done the same.

Parents should resist any attempt by any agency, governmental or otherwise, to force them to have their daughters vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. If, when a girls becomes an adult, she decides to be vaccinated, let her do so. Young girls should never be forced to take such a step. Parents, and parents alone, are the ones to make such decisions.

Gov. Perry needs to do some homework. All girls are not going to be sexually active; in fact, most will not be, especially those who are challenged to be abstinent. If Gov. Perry’s ruling stands, and some girls feel safer in being sexually active, they definitely will pay an emotional price for the "freedom" the good governor granted them. Consequently, he will bear a share of the responsibility for the emotional price those young women will pay.

Parents, your children's health is in your hands, not the governments’.