Posted on 06/22/2012 6:31:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since 2005, when the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting, political correctness has demanded that all agree with the spurious assessment that children of homosexual parents do fine. The APA declared, "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
In a fit of concurrence, elite opinion-makers, academics, and those in the mainstream media voiced their wisdom by declaring that any household structure works well as long as there are loving relationships within the family unit.
In the absence of research to the contrary and a barrage of positive media images of homosexuals in family settings, public attitudes were manipulated into widespread acceptance of same-sex parenting. The few lone dissenting voices were harassed and discredited.
But the prestigious Social Science Research journal recently published highly credited research that counters the prevailing public and scientific attitudes. Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University, authored "Same-Sex Parenting and Children's Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association's Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting," which uses objective scientific methods to examine the APA assertion about the outcomes of homosexual parenting. Marks' research calls into question the validity of research methods and analysis of the 59 published studies cited by the APA.
Marks concluded that the APA assertions about homosexual parenting were not empirically warranted -- i.e., the data presented doesn't validate their hypothesis. He found that the sampling that these researchers used was not representative: the samples are too small,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“functioning as well as...”
Consider that their yardstick is broken...
Interesting historical facts. Thank you for sharing.
Liberals are r-selected psychologies, within a K-selected species. They are just instinctively seeking to surround themselves with the r-selected environment they are designed for, and they will believe anything which justifies them doing this. See my profile page if you’re curious why nature produces these two psychologies, and how this produces politics.
Here with the Liberal gay parenting thing, we are just seeing an innate low-investment rearing psychology, which is designed to not concern itself with the competitiveness of offspring, or the quality of their rearing. To a K-selected, high-investment rearing psychology it seems bizarre, but other r-selected organisms would view it as normal.
Sensate vs. rational
Emotion is their guiding light.
“American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief...”
Their fascination with the deviant behavior of SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) individuals and their attempt to normalize their behavior exposes them for the frauds they will always be.
Some of the peculiar psychologies of liberals bear an eerie resemblance to behavioral changes brought about in rodents by toxoplasmosis.
The protozoa is almost unique in that it produces an enzyme that affects dopamine production in the brain, particularly the pleasure center. By doing this, it trains the rodent to be attracted to what it fears, specifically the odor of cat urine, ending up with the rodent being eaten, a necessary step in the reproductive cycle of the protozoa.
An estimated 11 million Americans are believed to be infected by this protozoa, via undercooked meat or cat feces. And since rodent brains are somewhat similar to human brains, it raises the question of the psychological effects of infestation.
Just on the surface, this might explain why liberals are so attracted to America’s enemies, and are so repelled by the idea of us, as a nation, protecting or defending ourselves.
This is only speculation, of course, as associating subtle changes to the brain with psychological results is difficult at best.
COMMON SENSE will tell you that raising children without the benefit of having either a mother or father in their lives will result in a less than optimum outcome.
Children raised in broken homes at least have the advantage of being parented by the absent mother/father, if the parents decide to do their jobs and parent. But in a homosexual union, the children are intentionally denied access to a mother (male couples) or a father (female couples). It’s just bold-faced, law of nature wrong.
You are correct. I use that in the paper, to support the contention political ideology is related to dopamine signaling.
My guess is r and K are fundamental states of mind, and the effects of T. gondii are just a simple exploitation of that pre-designed neurological system.
By shifting rats towards an r-strategy, T.gondii not only makes them approach threats. It will also increase rat reproductive rats by making them more r, thus producing more rats to get infected, and get eaten. If the rat’s didn’t become more r, they might get eaten to the point their population disappeared.
Oddly enough, France has near 80% T. gondii infection in humans, due to raw meat consumption. Animals on farms pick the cyst up from cats and rats, and harbor it in their meat. If the meat isn’t cooked, the cyst will make it into humans. Cook your food.
...the socialist-communist theory adamantly refuses to accept this idea.
Actually, they are simply persistent. They are determined to produce a race of "post-Adamite", if you will, Cadmus-men shorn of any semblance or connection to divinity, to be their servants and corregidors in a Communist dystopian world foreseen by Orwell. The campaign for the "new Soviet man" has been unrelenting since Communists first acquired state power in 1917.
The singular is "protozoon". It's a New (scientific) Greek neuter; -on in the singular, -a in the plural.
Gk. spelling: prwtozwon.
That’s a singular that I doubt will gain popularity with use, as it just sounds (literally) silly, and if you used it, you would have to spend several posts explaining why, and they still wouldn’t believe you.
It does kind of roll off the tongue, however. I’m thinking of some space alien. “I am Protozoon of the planet Fnargle!”
Read the article, though. This is stunning, but plenty just as stunning:
•Samples did not include heterosexual comparison groups. Marks finds that "many same-sex parenting researchers did not use marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but instead used single mothers." That is to say, outcomes for married, intact mom-dad families were not the basis for comparison in the research studies to the same-sex parents; instead, same-sex and single-mother households were compared.
Question: If you cheat right out in the open, can you pretend it's not-cheating?
Nope, think on the number of unwed teen mothers without a HS diploma. That's the comparison standard. IIRC less than 10% of households have a traditional family style - working father, stay-at-home mother and children.
Now, consider the need for two generations of consequence-free sex ed among heterosexuals. The dumbest of us will be the most easily fooled, most vulnerable, and least likely to note the detrimental effects of their behavior. The Devil couldn't do it better.
I've been teasing my cat-loving (obsessed) friends about that for years. There is in fact a correlation between some cultural tendencies and the rates of infection by Toxoplasma gondii, most especially high rates of neurosis.
It is interesting to note that the study finds a tendency for these studies to find that even with the benefits of highly educated wealthy (lesbian) parents, that the children appear to develop only as well as with a typical single mom - which suffer about a 10 point IQ drop and a host of other “quirks” and deficiencies compared to a typical heterosexual parented child.
Maybe, though studies of neurological control by parasites shows that some have a rather astounding detail to their control. The pre-design is already there, but it seems more than a "simple exploitation."
Mice form social bonds with other mice, and are inherently afraid of cats, which the T. gondii parasite changes to an affinity for cats. Maybe it is simple in one sense, but it seems a very detailed mechanism, as it would be simpler to shut off fear altogether, which I have not read that it does.
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.