Posted on 07/25/2017 10:54:57 AM PDT by NYer
In his book 32 Yolks, Eric Ripert, head chef and owner of Michelin three-starred Le Bernardin in New York City, tells the story of his parents’ divorce when he was 5 years old:
I went from being a happy kid to a kind of pint-sized depressive. From the time I was 5 until I went away to cooking school and for many years after, I was rarely truly happy — just different degrees of sad.
Ripert says that from the moment his parents split up, when he was with his mother, he missed his father; when he was with his father, he missed his mother; when he was with his grandparents, he missed them both.
His parents’ divorce has haunted him his whole life. This is a man who runs one of the most celebrated restaurants in the world. He has his own television show, a wife, and a family; yet his memoir is largely a cry of the heart about his parents’ divorce.
Ask almost any child of divorce and you will hear the same story. Or ask any donor-conceived child — who wonders: “Who is my father? What is he like? Am I like him? Is he like me? Will I ever know him?”
Every child raised without one parent — whether a child of divorce, a donor baby, or someone growing up in a gay or lesbian family — asks, “Where is my father? Will he ever come back for me?” Or, “Where is my mother? Didn’t she ever love me?”
Gay men and lesbians want you to believe that the children they raise do not have these questions. They do not long for their mother or their father — whichever is missing from their lives.
Gay men and lesbians want you to know that the children they raise are just as happy, just as well-adjusted, exactly the same as children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.
The cynical defense of gay parenting has taken center stage in the national debate about marriage and family. Essential to the argument is the pretense that all lesbians and gays want are cute little houses with white picket fences, Little League games, PTA meetings, and yard sales.
Of course they can be parents — and just as good parents as anyone else. And they have tons of social “science” to show that there is no difference in outcomes between kids raised by two men and kids raised by their biological moms and dads.
The whole discussion is really a sideshow because there simply are not that many gays in America to begin with — as we have seen, there are more Methodists.
Stable gay couples are even more rare, and vanishingly small — in fact, practically nonexistent — is the number of gay couples who raise a child together from babyhood through college. There is hardly a large enough sample to measure.
But that has not stopped the gay advocates, the academy, and the mainstream media from insisting that the science is settled. They maintain there is no difference in outcomes between children raised in gay households and those raised in homes with their own moms and dads.
In fact, the science actually shows that anything less than the gold standard for children — being raised by their married biological mother and father — is detrimental to the child. But that doesn’t stop the advocates from claiming that science is on their side.
An influential 2005 brief produced by the American Psychological Association cited no less than 59 studies in support of the thesis that children raised by gays and lesbians turn out just as well as children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.
In fact, some of the studies claimed lesbian moms are even better. The brief concluded:
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.
In 2015, the Columbia Law School published a paper examining “78 scholarly papers” published since 1985.
Among those that met the law school’s criteria of “adding to knowledge about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents,” only four of 78 concluded that children raised by gays or lesbians faced any special difficulties.
All the rest concluded that same-sex parenting was fine. And the Columbia paper criticized the four outliers because the children in those studies all came from “broken homes.”
Apparently, the science is settled.
There was even a study out of Australia that concluded children raised by same-sex couples are happier and heathier than their peers. It showed that children of same-sex couples scored higher “on general health and family cohesion.”
On other health issues, such as “emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population.”
And of course, the message percolated into the popular press.
In 2009, The New York Times Magazine ran a short piece called “What’s Good for the Kids” that — while it bemoaned the lack of good data to prove it — reiterated what everyone already knows: Gay parenting is just fine.
The writer cited Clark University’s Abbie Goldberg, who assured us in so many words, “These children do just fine.”
Goldberg had just published her own analysis of 100 studies purportedly showing that children raised by lesbians and gays are not markedly different — except in a good way. They are “less conventional and more flexible when it comes to gender roles and assumptions than those raised in more traditional families.”
Little girls raised by lesbians, for instance, are more likely to want to be doctors and lawyers than little girls raised by moms and dads.
In June 2015, two days before the Supreme Court handed down its gay marriage edict, The Washington Post ran a story with the headline “How kids became the strongest argument for same-sex marriage.”
But while in any conversation about gay parenting, you will hear that science shows us there is no difference — the science is settled — as a matter of fact, none of the studies that purport to show that there is no difference between the two groups of children meets the basic requirements for robust social science research.
The “scientific” findings that advocates and the pro-gay media cite tend to come from convenience samples. That is, these are “studies” on subjects that have not been gathered randomly.
Instead, they’re done on decidedly unrepresentative samples that have been collected from places like bulletin boards at gay parenting support groups, where everyone has an interest in proving that gay parenting is a success.
Moreover, even if the samples were not put together for the convenience of the campaign to normalize homosexual parenting, the numbers are inevitably tiny, so that the findings cannot be projected accurately to larger populations.
Even worse, these “no differences” studies tend to interview the parents rather than the kids. It is inevitable that gay parents are going to say their kids are doing just fine — particularly if they know that it is their own gay parenting that is being measured.
This excerpt was taken with permission from Austin Ruse’s book Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data (RegneryPublishing, 2017).
What lies must they tell the children, that there are bad people out their who hate daddy and daddy.
Love is based on truth and truth is based on love, whereas lies are based on hate and hate on lies.
No wonder they hijacked “love”. Sick signs, but the irony is that the signs are correct, just not in the way they think.
“Gay men and lesbians want you to believe that the children they raise do not have these questions. They do not long for their mother or their father — whichever is missing from their lives.”
And if they ever even hint this question, they are soundly shouted down by their “parents” as for being “homophobic.”
“Stable gay couples are even more rare, and vanishingly small — in fact, practically nonexistent — is the number of gay couples who raise a child together from babyhood through college. There is hardly a large enough sample to measure.”
It was actually quite amazing that Dr. Regnerus was able to capture in a statistically random sample a few such family structures.
Most homosexuals were sexually abused as children.
They seek to normalize their behavior so as to attain better access to molest YOUR children.
Yes, exactly.
SJW???? What’s that stand for?
That’s one of my pet peeves. Call them what they are, “homosexual,” not “gay.”
SJW = Social Justice Warrior
They just redefine what outcomes are "bad" or ignore others.
For instance, the sodomite studies don't see the outcome of provably higher incidences of homosexual identity in same-sex raised kids as a negative.
SJW???? What’s that stand for?
_______________________________________________________
Social Justice Warrior.
Totally. When in a discussion about homo marriage with someone promoting or in favour of this idea, I have been known to say "Can you inform me with absolutely assuredness that anal sex has the same legitimacy as a healthy form of sexual activity as vaginal sex between a man and a woman?" The discussion usually ends right there.
Then list the diseases that can be found there. Millions, billions? of people have become very ill or have died from what comes out of the south end of a north bound human.
One of the greatest inventions and technological developments of all human history is how we manage and process these waste products and certain people take pleasure in.... well I won’t say anymore. You get the idea. Yuck!
I have been trying to remember to use “gay” often with its proper meaning. We should refuse to let the left distort our language.
Politics has so infected all of the “social sciences” and no less “studies” produced by the social sciences, that very little produced in that realm should be considered true by any true and unbiased scientific measure.
Most “studies” the social science produces of late are biased to confirm an intended outcome, and if we were discussing something like astrophysics would be thrown out as “junk science”.
You said it! Its frustrating when our side uses the Left’s terminology..
Check out the recent case of Dr. Paul Church of Boston, see what happened to him: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/DrChurch-BIDMC/tp/index.html
And the tragedy is that gays may be more careless and take more risks because they are told that there no danger in their lifestyle. They do probably try to be careful but the AIDS epidemic seems to be a serious thing to them and the rest and you don't get HIV/AIDS from occasional or monogamous sex. Yet, you have to walk through the PC minefield if you discuss this and other facts about AIDS.
Lets be honest: it is a dangerous lifestyle! And you may not die from AIDS as there are so many other diseases to be caught from the gay lifestyle. This is the truth.
Yup....playing in the sewers does have natural and definite consequences.
ah ha, thank you!
Not surprising that there is a natural aversion to it too. Its unhealthy. And like eating something rotten that might make us very sick the brain tells us not to do it and avoid it. Yet connecting it to procreation allows some to override this aversion and do something very harmful and dangerous. I think it is called a perversion. The real question should be what causes 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.