Posted on 02/09/2015 7:12:04 AM PST by NetAddicted
Fresh research has just tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting. Writing in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.
He says confidently: “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”
This defiant rebuttal of the “no difference” hypothesis is sure to stir up a hornet’s next as the Supreme Court prepares to trawl through arguments for and against same-sex marriage. It will be impossible for critics to ignore it, as it is based on more data than any previous study -- 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.
After crunching the numbers, Sullins found opposite-sex parents provided a better environment. “Biological parentage uniquely and powerfully distinguishes child outcomes between children with opposite-sex parents and those with same-sex parents,” he writes.
As he points out, this has immense implications for public policy. The Elton John/David Furnish model of lavishing love and licorice on the offspring of surrogate mothers won’t do. Throwing down the gauntlet before supporters of same-sex marriage, Sullins contends that “the primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc, although it does this), but that it presents them with their own parents.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mercatornet.com ...
That's "hate!"
I have a corollary for when a liberal has their nose rubbed into something one of their elite leaders does that is abominable.
First they deny it and call you a liar because their beloved idol would never do such a horrible thing as you are accusing them of.
“Wait, whut? He actually did that?”
Then they go into defense mode and give you all the reasons that it was the right thing to do.
ounds like you believe that if one Christian family moves into a neighborhood with a mosque and an synagogue, they should be able to silence the call to prayer and demand that Jewish businesses sell pork and stay open on Friday.
You have the process of forming public policy entirely backwards. Because a thimbleful of cases are the exception, the vast majority should not have to have their children sexualized in schools, flooded with gay propaganda, subjected to harassment for their family's religious beliefs, bullied by school administrators and preyed upon by transexuals in bathrooms, Yet that's what happens when government tries to make the exception the rule and calls all pre-existing normalcy a form of bigotry, ignorance or oppression.
You are talking about the success stories; however, as a statistical average, kids raised by single parents do not do as well as kids raised by their own two married biological parents in the home. And many of the children of divorce at least get to have shared custody and to know their other biological parent. Kids of single parents who do not do well are often from homes where they never knew their father, or where there is a succession of temporary sexual partners for mom or dad, with the resulting emotional chaos and higher rates of abuse.
It goes without saying that even if a child's parents don't live together, the child will be better off knowing who their biological parents are, and possibly get access to extended family members. Gay families, so eager to prove their experiment is the only good thing, would suppress the information as to who provided the stuff in the turkey baster, or confuse the kids about egg donor and womb donor, etc. It's adultery. And that's wrong.
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Does this study actually surprise anyone (with any common sense)?
Good post; but must take exception to your last sentence. You are conflating these mildly loony but relatively benign self-help groups like TM and EST with the truly toxic cults of that era that resulted in many deaths, like the Branch Davidian or Jonestown cults. No comparison, really. Even the still-thriving Scientology is worse than TM or EST, which are also still in operation without major scandal, unlike Scientology, Warren Jeffs, etc.
And no, I don't think the GBLT issue will fade from view. I think it will be fought for the rest of recorded history. It has so far been fought for all of recorded history; it's just that they are winning again because the West has renounced its JudeoChristian values. It is with us like depression, alcoholism or bipolar disorder. That's why your earlier point about preventing the search for objective study and attempts to ease the anxieties and suffering of those who do not want this disorder within themselves is so very malicious.
That may be true in the hard sciences, but it certainly is not in the social sciences. Far from it.
Credible Sociologists work with ranking PhD Statisticians and follow statistical designs that are scientific.
Not all sociologists but the ones that matter and the ones that get published in first tier journals all have formidable statistics that are useful and recognized as authoritative.
The author of this study is one of the credible ones because of his statistical sample design and approach. Because he is in the category of those with respected reputation he will not sacrifice it to leftists that his and threaten about his findings. His type of character is surprisingly prevalent at prestigious universities.
Second and third tier social science writers really don’t matter except to leftist journals. The reason they are not first tier is because of the university they are attached to and because their ‘science’ is simply not respected. Therefore, they can only get published in journals that are lower in rank and not authoritative.
3.5) Use government funds to pay for “scientific” studies to deny the truth and advance the lie.
The question is who does the media quote? How many judges are familiar with the rankings of researchers and publications? If our judiciary and congress are any examples, few appear to have any passing familiarity with the Constitution, much less with the field of social science research, as well as its limitations.
Emotional Problems among Children with Same-sex Parents: Difference by Definition
Although five panelists on the SCOTUS are Roman Catholic, my guess is that this study will be rejected out of hand in the upcoming SSM debate at SCOTUS because the author is a professor at Catholic University. Wouldn’t be PC to appear to approve of Catholicism-related research.
You are correct. As Mark Levin articulates so well we are unfortunately living in a Post-Constitutional Republic mutating into something else. Our moral fabric has faded and science is not able to restore its vividness because science is hard and undecipherable to most of the lay public. So social norms are sitting ducks for those aiming to knock them out.
But there is recourse. I invite you to listen several times and absorb fully the below linked tour de force speech presented in December 2014 to ALEC as part of the COS Project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
Sounds like a pro-homosexual article.
Oh, shoot. Then the report will be dismissed out of hand by lefties.
Sorry. Just reread your post, & didn’t realize I just repeated it.
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.