Posted on 01/29/2005 2:13:24 PM PST by Sonny M
Are children worse off being raised by gay or lesbian couples than by heterosexual parents?
Responding on Thursday to a question about gay adoption, President Bush suggested that they were.
"Studies have shown," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The New York Times, "that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
But experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse - socially, academically or emotionally - than their peers raised in more traditional households.
The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried.
But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."
Dr. Stacey, who published a critical review of studies on the subject in 2001 and has argued in favor of allowing adoption by gays, added, "The debate among scientists is all about how good the studies we have really are."
Since 1980, researchers have published about 25 studies comparing children from same-sex households with peers in traditional families, using measures of social adjustment, school performance, mental health and emotional resilience. Some of the studies have focused on elementary-school children, others on those not quite teenagers, a few on adolescents; a handful have followed children for years. Uniformly, the authors have reported that there are no significant developmental differences between the two groups of children.
Yet the field is still highly controversial, in part because the research on gay households with children has so far tended to be small; usually no more than a couple of dozen families have been involved.
"You can't force families to participate, and there aren't that many of them out there to start with," said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who has studied gay men raising boys.
"There is also a strong volunteer bias: the families who want to participate might be much more open about sexual orientation" and eager to report positive outcomes, Dr. Bailey said.
Critics of the studies have more often charged that it is the researchers who are biased, failing to probe aggressively enough to find differences.
"In many of these studies, they simply aren't asking hard questions," said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University who has agued against adoption by gay couples.
The researchers, Professor Wardle said, ask the families about the children's self-esteem, "about whether they have friends - soft and fuzzy questions - but not about sexual behavior, sexually transmitted disease and drug use."
Dr. Stacey said one small survey of people raised in lesbian households, published in the late 1990's, did pointedly address sexual development and identity. In it, she said, two English researchers reported that of 30 young adults raised by lesbian parents, 6 had had a gay sexual relationship by the time they reached their 20's.
She added that other small studies had also suggested that children raised in same-sex families might be more open in their attitudes toward gay relationships, if not gay themselves.
"To me, it is plausible that their attitudes toward homosexuality would be more open, but here again the studies are not large enough to say anything for certain," she said, adding that a vast majority of these children grow up to be heterosexual.
A more reliable finding, Dr. Stacey said, is that children in same-sex families tend to be more communicative with their parents.
One undisputed reality for children raised by gay parents is that they tend to face teasing, discrimination and bullying in the schoolyard because of who their parents are. That many of these children can navigate such nastiness, on top of the usual social and emotional squalls of growing up, and still be found as well adjusted as their peers on standard psychological tests is remarkable in itself, some researchers say.
As the political debate over same-sex parents becomes more contentious, the quality of the research appears to be getting better, some social scientists say. Last month psychologists at the University of Virginia and the University of Arizona published a study of 44 adolescents from all over the country being raised in female same-sex households.
The families, with a variety of income levels, were drawn from a huge, continuing national family survey. The survey was random, and therefore unaffected by the sort of volunteer bias created when, say, families with good stories to tell respond to advertisements placed by investigators. In addition, the interviews were conducted by a team of government researchers who were interested in a wide array of social and demographic factors, all but eliminating the researcher bias that some critics point to. The survey's results, published in the journal Child Development, confirmed some previous findings: the 44 girls and boys were typical American teenagers, the researchers found, no more confused or moody than a comparison group of 44 peers from similar but traditional families.
"They even reported being more involved at school, in clubs, after-school activities, things like that," said the report's senior author, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. "I have no idea what that means, but we sure didn't expect it."
The New York Times also, will not cite any negative statistic that is harmfull to gays, something that should be acknowledged, considering that the NY Times has numerious homosexuals on staff.
An irony here, notice this.
Dr. Stacey said one small survey of people raised in lesbian households, published in the late 1990's, did pointedly address sexual development and identity. In it, she said, two English researchers reported that of 30 young adults raised by lesbian parents, 6 had had a gay sexual relationship by the time they reached their 20's.
She added that other small studies had also suggested that children raised in same-sex families might be more open in their attitudes toward gay relationships, if not gay themselves.
"To me, it is plausible that their attitudes toward homosexuality would be more open, but here again the studies are not large enough to say anything for certain," she said, adding that a vast majority of these children grow up to be heterosexual.
Now gay groups themselves claim that they make up 10% of the population (based on a study by Dr Alfred Kinsey thats results have never ever been duplicated, by gay or religious groups), according to this study, that 20% of the kids are gay from gay couples, thats an absurdly high number.
Thats the equivalent of me punching somone in the face and saying thats proof I'm not violent.
Also, note, that NY Times, has an open and clear policy of advocating a homosexual agenda, this is straight from them, check articles written by Dan Okrent, the ombudsman for them (though he does act more like a spokesman who happens to have a column). He does say this himself.
Common sense says that men and women in general differ in their ways of thinking and acting, and that a child will pick up different things from a father and a mother, and that that is the ideal. I don't care what kind of bogus gay activist propaganda studies they come up with, I will stick to my common sense.
What ever happened to common sense?
"They [children raised by gays] even reported being more involved at school, in clubs, after-school activities, things like that," said the report's senior author, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. "I have no idea what that means..."
Dr. Patterson have you considered that it may mean they don't want to go home?
"But experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse - socially, academically or emotionally - than their peers raised in more traditional households.
The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried.
But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children." "
Don't the experts sort of contradict themselves here?? Kids are better off with two, married, heterosexual parents-sounds like their studies actually show that--but at the same time they insist that doesn't mean kids are worse off with gay parents. These people are in denial...
Of course not. In the first place, such studies would not be funded or published today in most scientific journals, which are controlled by government grants, leftist foundation grants, and politically correct academics.
In the second place, what does it mean to "do worse"? For instance, a Christian might think that a child "did worse" if it grew up to be a pederast or a sodomite, or was sexually abused by his parents, but the New York Times no doubt would consider that such a child "did better."
Anyone who wants to argue that such actions within a household are not deleterious to the children is a rank, lying fool. Even if that person is an "expert."
Congressman Billybob [TWO different columns this week]
Click for latest, "Homer, Shakespeare, Pope, and George Bush"
But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."
________________________________
The reason there are no ligitimate scholars out there disputing this argument is because they have managed to shut them and anyone else who disagrees with them!!
I beleive there was a posting about a Scholar at the Smithsonian who had some arguments against homosexuality on aposting here at FR yesterday! they were going to throw him out of his job. They had already moved him out of his office.
So the faggots and there supporters now try to tell us their deviant lifestyle is socialy acceptable necause they have managed to shut up or possiably killed anyone who have disagreed with them.
You mean self proclaimed experts.
The key word in that statement is "legitimate".
Actually, there are alot of studies and finding that children of gay couples do do worse then regular familes.
A quick serach and some digging through google will prove that.
As I noted, and as Dan Okrent of the NY Times stated, the NY Times does not acknowledge any studies or finding that are critical of the gay agenda.
Okrent has made it clear that its unofficial times policy not to cite studies that are against the gay agenda, notice in this article alone, not a single scholar who has done a study is mentioned, only a law professor who is against gay adoption, the Times acts like studies they don't like don't exist, they do.
This article is patenly intellectually dishonest and lazy on its surface.
The hypocrisy on the left knows no bounds.
Check the archive of articles written by Dan Okrent, he pretty much states as such, and he's the ombudsman for the NY Times.
The NY Times does not mention or cite any research that is critical of the gay agenda, its unoffical policy, but the Times is very open about it.
Read the article again--
"The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried."
They actually CONTRADICT themselves in their own article--with their own studies--and still claim that's not what these results really mean.
BS @ 100MPH ALERT!
Because everyone who says anything that makes sense on this issue is BY DEFINITION no longer a "legitimate scholar."
There is a reason for this question right here and right now.
The 11th Fed DCA upheld homosexuals may not adopt laws. The USSC refused to hear the appeal letting the ban stand.
The issue goes deeper than just homosexual adoption.
There is also the issue of homosexual SEX PARNTER adoption of children. (aka second parent adoption)
There are 27 states with restrictions or prohibitions on second parent adoptions. IOW hether can't have two momies there as a matter of law.
One of the reasons for the recent FL federal case with attorney ELlis Ruben, was to allow not only the lesbians to have their Mass. marriage recognized. It was also to force the sex partner adoption of the lesbians children.
There are six states which do not allow homosexuals to adopt children or restrict it explicitly. FL, Miss., and UT prohibit homosexuals adopting chidlren.
The fact the NYT is taking this position means they are adopting the homo-agenda division of people into sex for recreation and sex for "breeders".
Is the NYT relavent any more? It seems the weekly world news has more credibility and gravitas than the NYT.
They're trying to drive us all MAD!!! They hate us and they hate what we and America stands for and it's driving them MAD!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.