Dan, we get the point. You probably won't find a single reader of your blog who doesn't agree that a homosexual couple can raise a child as well as a heterosexual one. Bringing up every single case of absurdly bad parenting by heterosexual couples does nothing more to prove your case, it just makes you look like an ass. These are tragedies, gross, criminal tragedies, and using them to prove a point that you've already proven just makes you look bad. Please give it a rest.

No, actually, Dan, keep posting. I prefer not to be ignorant of the ignorant.

And David, we know the Iraq war is bad, shall news outlets stop reporting the bad news? Dumbass.

I agree with David. This sucks, but it's not the result of parents who are sexually screwball, or whose actions were caused by heteronormative roles, or ...well, if the baby'd had a bad allergic reaction to normal medicine, but the mother didn't call an ambulance because she's not allowed to talk to other men on the phone, or the father didn't act because he wanted to toughen his crybaby son up, that'd be one thing. But these people were just plain idiots, and it's entirely possible that they're idiots with beloved gay babysitters, friends, et cetera.

Point: Don't coop senseless, politics-free tragedy into a campaign. Report it if you'd like--it is pretty horrendous news and news is important, by virtue of being news. But as David said, politicizing it makes you look like an asshole.

I have to admit that I don't quite get the point of this series of posts. It's obviously aimed at critics of gay parenting, who believe that a child needs a mother and a father. And examples of heterosexual couples being awful, irresponsible parents will convince these critics that they're wrong? I just don't see how it's effective, or how it really addresses any of the issues at hand. How about a series of posts interviewing people who were happily raised by gay parents and ended up just fine? That would be much more valuable than any of this.

And I think you run the risk, what with this series of posts coupled with Last Days' favorite theme, of seeming like you're getting some voyeuristic kick out of reporting awful incidences of child abuse. It reminds me of a disturbing trend in the UK: the extreme popularity of those Dave Pelzer books, e.g. A Child Called It. They're always there at the checkout counter, at or near the top of the bestseller paperbacks. People love reading about abuse and neglect in graphic detail, and at some point that in itself creeps me out.

i think the point is that often people act as if the only requirement for having children should be that there is a mother and father.

Unfortunately The Washington State Supreme Court used as part of its logic that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples protects children. http://thestranger.com/blog/2006/07/the_decision_washing I think Dan’s posts are here specifically to document the fallacy of this argument.

I too find these post upsetting but there is one sure way to get Dan to stop posting them… Lobby your legislators to provided full marriage equity. I am sure as soon as Dan’s son has the protection any child with married parents have Dan will post more about deviant sexual practices or something equally lascivious.

main difference between gay parents & hetero parents: if you're gay, you have to be minimally successful, competent & respectable to even get ahold of a baby to parent.

straight couples can be dumb as dirt & get a kid - all you need to know is how to fuck.

wait till the first gay fuckup parents - they'll be pilloried 24/7.

Konstantconsumer, point taken. I just question the effectiveness of these posts and think the focus should be on illustrating that gay couples can be great parents.

I'm just glad same-sex parents are so utterly perfect in comparison.

Adding to 7 ... Try, just try to imagine gay parents when reading any of these stories. What do you think the christianists and homophobes would say? They'd hold it up as the prime example of gay parenting and the reason why those despicable homos shouldn't be allowed to adopt or even have biological offspring.

Dan, not only should you keep posting these, you should dedicate a web page to linking all these posts so that we can easily reference them when confronted with right wing dimwit bloggers who work to deny you your rights.

for matt

Every time I read one of these posts, I am reminded about how little we hear about same sex parents unless they are being used for political opportunism.

Keep posting them Dan. Same sex couples are held to a higher moral standard than different sex couples. If we must prove our worthiness, then they should be forced to explain thier numerous occassions of not adhering to the standard that has been set for us.

Otherwise, what are their grounds for exclusionary, bigoted legislation?

Thank you!!

scratch that matt: this google fu is even better click me

Gracias, seattle98104

Is this ignorant enough?
Every child - 6 of them - needs a different mother with the one father.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070310/NEWS01/703100357/1056/COL02

"I be concubining"

I was raised by a single inattentive mother and had an absent asshole for a dad. I think if I had been raised by two strong adults, be they a hetero couple, two loving gay men, or two loving gay women, I wouldn't be the pussy I am today.

ditto elswinger #17, only mom left and was raised by an idiot father.

Dan,

Regardless of the ones here that get the point, many, many, many others don't.

Keep spreading the word and don't give up the ship.

Dan- KEEP POSTING! I am so sick and tired of people complaining about the news that they choose to read/watch. Sadly, the people who should be reading this arent, but sooner or later your message will get out.

Thanks for doing your part well.

To everyone else who wants it to stop: it's really REALLY easy! STOP READING IT.

i think we know we can stop reading. the point is that some people think these posts are harming the cause as opposed to helping it. just because i stop reading doesn't mean everyone will...

i haven't decided if i think it helps or not. i have to say, the first couple seemed okay, then -- for a reason i've as of yet been able to define -- i felt a little odd about them. as if they were not news, but sensationalistic tools of propaganda only. more examples doesn't mean there is more proof. and proof of what, anyway? are we arguing that some hetro couples shouldn't have kids or that same-sex couples should be allowed to be bad parents as well? don't get me wrong, i get it.

but i must defer to dan's expertise in this area. i sincerely believe he has considered the effect of these posts, weighing the consequences, and believes they are doing more good than harm.

i'd just stop reading them myself, but i have a twisted streak in me for this sensationalistic news that prevents that from acutally occurring.

#21: "but i must defer to dan's expertise in this area. i sincerely believe he has considered the effect of these posts, weighing the consequences, and believes they are doing more good than harm."

Thanks for saying that. I think that's a good point, Dan just isnt throwing this out there like some verbal diarrhea. He's considered it. Dan's not stoopid guys.

these dont bother me. there's tons of crud on this blog anyway. i'd rather read about terrible parents than terrible architecture, anyway.

I agree on two points above: 1. Dan is preaching to the choir here, and , 2. Pointing out these horrific crimes of abuse seems mean spirited and does little to get to the real root of the problem. The truth is, this “child needs a mother and a father” rhetoric is just smoke screen to hide sexphobia/homophobia. Back in the 60s when Uncle Bill and Mr. French were bringing up Buffy, Jody and Sissy on the top rated show on TV, the message being broadcast loud and clear was that commitment is what makes a parent and love that makes a family. And America lapped it up with a spoon because – Uncle Bill and Mr. French WERE NOT SLEEPING TOGETHER. What suddenly sparked this about face and all these sudden concerns about Buffy, Jody and Sissy having a mother and a father is that there is a large contingent of people out there who cannot tolerate the idea that GAY SEX is going on in a household where – gasp – children are present. This crap has NOTHING to do with parenting and everything to do with sexphobia/homophobia, and Dan is not only wasting his time and ink, but is actually looking like an asshole who enjoys pointing these disturbing stories of child abuse. I think what Dan could do to best point out the failings of hetero parents is write an advice column about their kinky sex lives. I think if people could see that heteros not only have sex in a house where children are present, but often have REALLY KINKY SEX, a couple of dykes with lesbians bed death might look like a better option after all. What do you think of that idea, Dan?

It works because it uses their language. Every child does not need a mother and a father. Every child does not even need two parents, not that it isn't a nice idea.

Keep up the good work Dan. Thank god for free speech. In the case of Thomas Boettger and Lorrie Peck, agreed and point well made. This couple is the epitome of the case for exposing terrible parenting - they should not be and should never have been allowed anywhere near any child, ever. The authorities need to review how well the children of the woman - those she had before she met Thomas Boettger - are doing - they surely have spent many many years at risk and in danger being exposed the "parenting" of this horrible and dangerous couple. Hopefully those kids will be getting the assistance and support they need as they surely have been exposed to horrible situations living with those two creeps.

The two daughters of Lorrie Peck are now blessed with an amazingly loving, thoughtful, cultured and stable family - the oldest is on her own and doing great. The 10 year old lives with her dad and stepmom who are devoted and fun-loving parents.

Neither of them have ever been immunized. Ever. Neither of them have been to a 'public' or private school for that matter until JUST this year as their mother "homeschooled" them.

We are grateful they are safe and sound. Well, as sound as their 'new' family can enable them to become.

Not being immunized and being homeschooled also are not signs of neglect. Warch yourself on that.
Research immunizations and you may question them too. Of course, in this family homeschooling was most likely not a good scene.

No, they are not signs of neglect. They are simply supplmementary details that show this (parent) family thought they knew better than everyone else.

When you take each thing on its own, its isn't necessarily bad, but when you compile things it shows a parenting style which is based on doing the opposite of what conventional wisdom (or common sense, in the case of medicating the baby) would dictate.

Quick PSA: Required public immunization is one of the cornerstones of public health and saves millions of lives each year. Anti-vaccination paranoia is contributing to the return of deadly diseases such as whooping cough.

"Before the measles vaccine became available, there were approximately 450,000 measles cases and an average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the U.S. compared with the pre-vaccine era.

However, once the naysayers grabbed hold of public opinion, measles inoculations lapsed in 1989; 55,000 people got sick and 120 died."

So let's not let anyone have a child until they pass an IQ test. Darwinian, right? Refer to #17. You say that you are a pussy because of mom and dad. That's outplayed, and way to make this about you! The truth is, dirt sells news. If the media tells the truth, this would be a tragic story about a couple who made a bad choice. And now they have to live without their child/family. And if they were sooooooooo terrible, why is there no mention of authorities being involved with the other two daughters? There is no mention of a violent or neglectful history so far, why assume the worst?
And who is going to decide how smart you need to be to raise a child? God forbid we let the government take over that decision, too. And all of us better hope that it's not up to Father So-And-So at St. Sainthood Church. So that leaves procreation/adoption up to...

Lorrie Peck's oldest daughter is 19 she has been on her own for awhile now. The youngest daughter is 10 and she is with her father. I am told that she is currently in enrolled in public school and is doing really well.

Thomas had been in Lorrie's life for approx. 5 years. Thomas Michael Boettger II, was the only child of Lorrie and Thomas.

As far as a comment on either Lorrie or Thomas. I have none.

Save your prayers for the children....