Dissecting a One News Now article
First, I neglected to put the time in which I appear on the Gay Agenda tonight.
It will be 8 p.m. EST.
Now on to the post
Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is angry that Florida State Senator Nan Rich has filed a bill repealing the 1977 law banning gay adoption in the state. Rich filed a a second bill to give judges the authority to determine adoptions based exclusively on the best interest of the child.
One News Now gives Barber room to vent without the courtesy of presenting the other side. So I thought I would add the other side from another article which took a more objective view of children raised by gay parents:
"The actions here by Senator Nan Rich are clearly without merit, and she has the audacity to say that she is considering what is in the best interest of children. Well that defies logic, reason, and science."
A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.
Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.
"Frankly the studies have shown clearly that it is in the best interest of children to have a mother and a father."
The problem with the research cited . . . is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.
"There are virtually no studies that make a direct comparison with same-sex parents," he said, noting census data show one in four same-sex couples are raising a child under the age of 18.
Editor's note - Gates was speaking about research cited by James Dobson. However, Dobson was making the same claims as Barber - "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."
The lesson here is clear - Barber doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But that's business as usual with him.
Well of course children do better in a two parent household- economics alone would ensure that. However, a same sex two parent household is in no way the same as a single parent household.
Is there any other stunningly obvious thing this asshat needs pointed out to him? The sky is blue, water is wet, grass is green . . . the list goes on.
Amen to that. LOL
The problem is being able to be in a place to refute the talking points when they are said. There are other religious right members who use the talking points irregardless of the truth.
thank you ;p
Not a single credible study shows there is no difference between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. The studies you may want to site are either not longitudinal or their sample size is too small. The onus is on you to prove there is not difference. Otherwise children are at risk.
By the way, BlackTsunami, there is no such word as irregardless.
Sorry Austin. You won't win this one. Regardless of your claims, there are no studies which say that children raised in same-sex households are at risk.
And I think that you have touched on something that's interesting. You seem to think that the burden on proof is on either myself or those who believe the way that I do but the irony is that you have made the claim that children are at risk in same-sex households. wouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
Well it's irrelevant my friend. The fact that you are trying to score petty points by going to other posts on my blog and critique my word choices is much more interesting.
The burden of proof is on those suggesting something new. The new thing is children raised in homosexual households adn your proposition is that they will be as successful as those raised in normal households. There are no studies whcih confirm this. None. There are plentiful studies, however, that show that those children who are most successful, by all measures, are those who are raised in households with both mothers and fathers. This is something that homosexuals cannot provide.
I know, cheap shot on the irregardless thing :0)
Austin, it's obvious that you did not read this post. if you had you would know that those studies which say children do well in homes with a mother and father never looked at same sex households. You simply can't compare those two dynamics based on those studies.
And children being raised in same sex households is nothing new. According to data from the 2000 census:
"More than 39% of same-sex couples in the United States aged 22-55 are raising children; they are raising more than 250,000 children under age 18"
To suddenly come in and imply that these families are something new or as some folks like to say "a social experiment" is totally inaccurate and insulting.
In addition, several studies and experts point to the fact that children in same sex households are doing rather well:
Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids - http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
Children thrive equally with same-sex, heterosexual parents, psychologist testifies at Prop. 8 trial - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
The following article in particular has a statement from the American Psychological Association: 'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out - http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html
In order for studies like this to be credible they must meet the following criteria; the sample size must be large enough, and they must be longitudinal, that is, they must follow the subjects over decades. There are no studies like this backing up your claim that there is no difference. Before we begin experimenting on children once more, we should make sure our social science is in order. One thing we did learn from teh divorce experiment is that children need both moms and dads, something that homosexuals cannot provide.
I'm sorry but you simply don't have a leg to stand on here. There are too many experts who disagree with you. And also too many children being raised in same sex households that contradict what you are saying.
It's just you Austin against all of this evidence. Your opinion isn't credible enough to rate against this.
And on that note, just where are the studies that say children are negatively affected with being in a same-sex houshold?
Read what you post. The "study" you mentioned says this:
"Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.
"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships."
500 children. 260 children. 37 children? Like i said, these sample sizes are way to small to project across the entire universe. These studies are worthless. You need large sample sizes that are randomly selected and you ahve to study them over decades. These studies do none of that.
Any study you should will suffer form these problems. It is junk science.
Interesting Austin. And you would have a point if your words had not had tripped you up:
"500 children. 260 children. 37 children? Like i said, these sample sizes are way to small to project across the entire universe."
The universe? You seem to be deliberating calibrating the fact that the sample size is too small and doing it badly. Again, the study reinforces the majority opinion of social scientists, psychologists and researchers that children suffer no adverse effects in same sex households. You seem to be nitpicking on that one part in an attempt to take attention away from the fact that it is just of the few studies I cited. And you totally omit the opinions of experts, including the American Psychological Association.
And again you are following the theme of "if children aren't harmed in same sex households, then it is up to those who believe this to prove it."
That reveals YOUR bias, Austin. Irregardless (it's my word) of the fact that children in same sex households have existed for a while now, you are lodging the accusation that they cause children harm. Where is YOUR evidence? You came here throwing out the accusation and you have yet to provide proof of this.
Nitpicking about studies seems to be your way of obscuring this. Why don't you just admit that you have no proof of your charge.
Dear boy...universe is a reference to the universe of the group being projected to. The universe here would be the universe of all children being raised by homosexual couples. In order for a study to project across all of them, the sample size has to be large enough.
Nitpicking? Social science studies require certain criteria in order to be taken seriously. The main criteria are sample size (they must be large enough to project), randomness of sample selection (they cannot be a self selected sample) and length of study (they have to be long enough and not a simple snap shot in time). If any of these are missing, then there is a problem.
Also, you assert a majority of social scientists hold your position. Can you show me that study? Was there a vote? Of course not.
Nice cover about the universe but come on. You know it was a dodge on your part.
Now about your question:
“Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.” - Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, the American Psychological Association 2004
“Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Contrary to popular belief, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:
* Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
* Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
* Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
* Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).” - American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, August 2006
If there is any proof that same-sex households cause children harm, I would ask that you show it. Any studies, etc. You have yet to do that.
I'm guessing that you can't show me any proof that a majority of social scientists - if any- believe that same-sex households cause children any harm.
What dodge? I am truly confused. What dodge are you accusing me of.
A study of 200 to 500 children is totally insufficient to project against the entire universe of homosexual raised children.
Also, do you have a link to the article you mentioned in your recent post. I would want to see about sample size, randomness, etc. It is a simple fact of social science.
I suspect this is a psychiatrist talking about studying a few chidren in a snap shot in time. These kinds of studies are useless in determining long term results, whcih is what we need.
Austin, the link to the article is clearly in the post.
But I'm going to have to cut you off. You make statements which you do not quantify with proof (i.e. children are harmed in same-sex households). When I asked you for proof, you ignore my statements and try to base your entire disagreement with me on one study, while ignoring other studies and the words of credible associations and social scientists (which by the way, you asked for.)
I think that folks should take a look at our exchange so they can see just how morally empty your position is since you have to play such games.
At risk means at risk for being less successful by various measurements; happiness, doing better in school, less change of doing drugs, etc. What we have found from numerous credible studies is that children do best in married in tact families with a mohter and a father. I fear that "at risk" has raised your suspicions i mean "at risk for sexual abuse." I am not saying that at all.
What's more I am not saying that studies show that children who are raised by homosexuals are at risk by the definition above. I am saying there are NO CREDIBLE STUDIES which show this one way or the other.
There was a great experiment on children that is called the divorce experiment. Like homosexual advocates, advocates for divorce said that divorce would not harm children adn that in certain circumstances divorce would be good for them. What we have found, through dozens adn dozens of credible studies, is that divorce was profoundly harmful on children. Therefore, before we embark on antoher grand experiment, this on with homosexual parents, why not do some credible studies to see if the proposition is true; that there is no difference between mother adn fathers on one hand and homosexual couples on the other.
I hope that clears things up.
Austin, this is the last word on the matter for your sake. The more you talk, the deeper you dig your hole.
Studies, which are credible, and researchers show that children suffer no negative effects of being in a same sex household. There are no studies proving otherwise. Period - that is unless you count the discredited work of one Paul Cameron.
The studies you allude to never compared children in same sex homes with those in heterosexual households. The fact that you keep alluding to them even after informed of this shows an attempt of deception on your part.
I won't comment on your divorce argument except for to say that I find it insulting that you continue to think of same-sex households as an "experiment." Your attempt to dehumanize same sex couples and their children and your refusal to take into account the fact that same sex couples raising children have existed too long to be thought of as a social experiment only demonstrates your homophobic bias.
By the way, Austin Ruse, adn isn't a word.
Post a Comment