[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Homosexual Parents (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/21/2012 8:27:55 AM EDT
|
Informative read on the subject.
Homosexual Parents by Kerby Anderson What happens when a scientific study contradicts political correctness? A witch hunt is likely to take place. That is the best explanation for what happened to Mark Regnerus. He is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His study challenges the idea promoted by gay activists that children reared by homosexual parents turn out as well as children raised in traditional homes. He used one of the largest data sets ever put together for such a study. And he examined children in more than 40 categories. He concluded that children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than children reared by married heterosexual parents. When children with gay parents grow up, they have problems with impulse control, depression, and thoughts of suicide. They are also more likely to need counseling or psychotherapy. When the journal article gained national attention, a writer who uses the pen name “Scott Rose” filed a complaint of “scientific and scholarly misconduct” with the university. And, of course, Professor Regnerus was savaged in the press. One critic writing in Slate called him a “hateful bigot” whose research study was “intentionally misleading.” The university put together a four-member advisory panel of senior university faculty members along with an outside consultant. They concluded that “none of the allegations of scientific misconduct” listed in the complaint were “substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.” The university also said they consider the issue closed. Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith asked a good question in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past?” He went on to say that in today’s political climate, and particularly in sociology, Professor Regnerus would be branded as “ a heretic, a traitor” who “must be thrown under the bus.” Fortunately, the professor has a bus ticket. He has tenure. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view. more info |
They needed a study to know THAT?
Quoted:
Informative read on the subject. Homosexual Parents by Kerby Anderson What happens when a scientific study contradicts political correctness? A witch hunt is likely to take place. That is the best explanation for what happened to Mark Regnerus. He is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His study challenges the idea promoted by gay activists that children reared by homosexual parents turn out as well as children raised in traditional homes. He used one of the largest data sets ever put together for such a study. And he examined children in more than 40 categories. He concluded that children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than children reared by married heterosexual parents. When children with gay parents grow up, they have problems with impulse control, depression, and thoughts of suicide. They are also more likely to need counseling or psychotherapy. When the journal article gained national attention, a writer who uses the pen name “Scott Rose” filed a complaint of “scientific and scholarly misconduct” with the university. And, of course, Professor Regnerus was savaged in the press. One critic writing in Slate called him a “hateful bigot” whose research study was “intentionally misleading.” The university put together a four-member advisory panel of senior university faculty members along with an outside consultant. They concluded that “none of the allegations of scientific misconduct” listed in the complaint were “substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.” The university also said they consider the issue closed. Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith asked a good question in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past?” He went on to say that in today’s political climate, and particularly in sociology, Professor Regnerus would be branded as “ a heretic, a traitor” who “must be thrown under the bus.” Fortunately, the professor has a bus ticket. He has tenure. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view. more info |
| I get it he is just doing his job. But he has to know that if you publicly mention homosexuality at all, and aren't 100 percent in favor of it you will get crucified by the media. Look at how much they used the word "hate" for the CFA guy when all he said was that he believed marriage is between a man and woman. hell, I read an article a while ago about the marine that flew the rainbow flag downrange. One of the comments was from a soldier who admitted he was homosexual, but the only flags that should fly in a combat zone are US and unit flags....you guessed it he was called a homophobe, hateful bigot, etc. As fucked up as it is, you have to be really careful with these subjects. activists groups are out for blood. |
|
Quoted:
There was already a thread on this. There are studies saying the exact opposite. So, depending which way you view it, you'll use either study to fit your needs. And if this study is actually a broadly-based as the mere article claims it to be, then it probably has more merit than previous studies. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better than going from foster home to foster home. I would venture to since homosexual couples can't reproduce so they have to adopt and in turn adopted kids are going to have more issues than a kid raised by their mom and dad. babies come from vaginas Into which orifice would they insert the pacifier? 
|
|
Quoted:
I get it he is just doing his job. But he has to know that if you publicly mention homosexuality at all, and aren't 100 percent in favor of it you will get crucified by the media. Look at how much they used the word "hate" for the CFA guy when all he said was that he believed marriage is between a man and woman. hell, I read an article a while ago about the marine that flew the rainbow flag downrange. One of the comments was from a soldier who admitted he was homosexual, but the only flags that should fly in a combat zone are US and unit flags....you guessed it he was called a homophobe, hateful bigot, etc. As fucked up as it is, you have to be really careful with these subjects. activists groups are out for blood. This is my point. We are getting to a place where opposition to the standard view will not be tolerated. Regardless of information there is a goal that has been set by the liberals and they will protect it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I get it he is just doing his job. But he has to know that if you publicly mention homosexuality at all, and aren't 100 percent in favor of it you will get crucified by the media. Look at how much they used the word "hate" for the CFA guy when all he said was that he believed marriage is between a man and woman. hell, I read an article a while ago about the marine that flew the rainbow flag downrange. One of the comments was from a soldier who admitted he was homosexual, but the only flags that should fly in a combat zone are US and unit flags....you guessed it he was called a homophobe, hateful bigot, etc. As fucked up as it is, you have to be really careful with these subjects. activists groups are out for blood. This is my point. We are getting to a place where opposition to the standard view will not be tolerated. Regardless of information there is a goal that has been set by the liberals and they will protect it. And this is why we need to Not Back Down |
|
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents.
The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that. 
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. |
|
Quoted:
Better than going from foster home to foster home. I would venture to say since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have to adopt and in turn adopted kids are going to have more issues than a kid raised by their mom and dad. Well, you raise a valid point. However, when you take a kid's that's fucked up to start with and he is raised in that environment, with all the ridicule he/she will face among it's peers, there probably not going to be a lot of good outcomes. |
|
Quoted:
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that.
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. Well, Canada has found interesting socio-demographic risk factors for spousal violence: "Those who self-identified as gay or lesbian were more than twice as likely as heterosexuals to report having experienced spousal violence, while those who self-identified as bisexual were four times more likely than heterosexuals to self-report spousal violence." http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf So there may be risks more inherent to certain relationship types to begin with. If I remember correctly, Canada found practically identical results from a 2004 study as well, so this wasn't a one-off data finding. |
|
Quoted: Well shit, that sounded reasonable. Nice going. From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that. The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well shit, that sounded reasonable. Nice going.
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that.
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. Yeah, I actually READ the study and looked at the statistics, analyses, sampling, etc. 
|
| I could give a fuck how their kids turn out, not my problem. My only problem with gay parents especially lesbians is the hetero sexual hate I always here them professing, influencing their children negatively. I dated a girl with two lesbian mothers and she was a wreck. |
|
Quoted:
Better than going from foster home to foster home. I would venture to say since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have to adopt and in turn adopted kids are going to have more issues than a kid raised by their mom and dad. the next study should compare the homosexual parents to foster homes. I would bet the fulltime homosexuals would be better, on average, than a string of foster homes. I would also believe that the average hetero-raised kid is less likely to have problems than the homsexual-raised kids. |
|
We really need scientific studies to work out that kids raised by stable people, in healthy relationships, who put energy into preparing the child for life generally turn out pretty decent?
And that the interjection of instability, unhealthy behaviors, and parents focused on themselves turns out fuckups? Really? |
|
Quoted:
He concluded that children raised by homosexual parents have more problems than children reared by married heterosexual parents. Pretty much invalidates the study right there. Said another way, children raised by single or "unwed" parent(s) have more problems than children reared by "married" parents. Duh. |
|
Quoted:
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that.
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. I agree with everything you have stated above. Variable isolation is important in any "experiment" and it would be almost impossible in a study like this. However... Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn from the study then is that children of homosexual parents have more emotional/psychological problems because their parents provide less stable homes. The homosexual community is well known to have higher rates of domestic violence, drug use, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that.
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. I agree with everything you have stated above. Variable isolation is important in any "experiment" and it would be almost impossible in a study like this. However... Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn from the study then is that children of homosexual parents have more emotional/psychological problems because their parents provide less stable homes. The homosexual community is well known to have higher rates of domestic violence, drug use, etc. Same can be said of poor people. |
|
Quoted:
Better than going from foster home to foster home. I would venture to say since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have to adopt and in turn adopted kids are going to have more issues than a kid raised by their mom and dad. ahem......BULLSH!T (achoo) |
|
Quoted:
From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that.
The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. This is what I would like to say, but it came out all unrefined and sounded terrible. |
|
Quoted:
Is it really possible to have homosexual parents? How does that work? StonerStudent has a child. He may be gay, but still managed to father a child with a woman. Of course, I don't know how involved he is with raising the child. Homosexuality doesn't make a person automatically infertile. Conception just won't happen through homosexual means is all. Then there is also adoption. |
|
Quoted:
Is it really possible to have homosexual parents? How does that work? Well, you see, when a daddy loves a daddy and they want to have a baby, they buy some one else leftovers; and, when a mommy loves a mommy, one of them goes and finds some random dude to bone her.
|
|
Quoted:
Better than going from foster home to foster home. I would venture to say since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have to adopt and in turn adopted kids are going to have more issues than a kid raised by their mom and dad. Never heard of Melissa Ethridge or Rosie O'Donnell, huh? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I get it he is just doing his job. But he has to know that if you publicly mention homosexuality at all, and aren't 100 percent in favor of it you will get crucified by the media. Look at how much they used the word "hate" for the CFA guy when all he said was that he believed marriage is between a man and woman. hell, I read an article a while ago about the marine that flew the rainbow flag downrange. One of the comments was from a soldier who admitted he was homosexual, but the only flags that should fly in a combat zone are US and unit flags....you guessed it he was called a homophobe, hateful bigot, etc. As fucked up as it is, you have to be really careful with these subjects. activists groups are out for blood. This is my point. We are getting to a place where opposition to the standard view will not be tolerated. Regardless of information there is a goal that has been set by the liberals and they will protect it. The thing is, it's not the "standard" view. It's an abnormal view that the media are helping the homosexual apologists push into the spotlight. It's not normal. Heck, it's even pushed here and I expect I will be vilified by some following posters. Tolerance (Page: 1515) Tol"er*ance (?), n. [L. tolerantia: cf. F. tolérance.] 1. The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance. Diogenes, one frosty morning, came into the market place,shaking, to show his tolerance. Bacon. 2. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration. 3. (Med.) The power possessed or acquired by some persons of bearing doses of medicine which in ordinary cases would prove injurious or fatal. Tolerance of the mint. (Coinage) Same as Remedy of the mint. See under Remedy. |
|
Quoted: From a scientific viewpoint, ALL the study actually shows is that it is better to have grown up in an environment with two stable, married parents. The problem is that in the sample, there was lots of OTHER instability for the respondents that had gay parents (such as single parent, or non-stable partners, or not living with their parent for an extended period of time, etc.). When that's taken into account, it's NOT CLEAR at all that the "negative" difference between the people raised in stable married families and the ones raised by homosexuals actually has much to do with the sexual orientation of the parent, and isn't just explained by all the other instability in the situation. The negative differences are similar when people from the stable married families are compared to people who were raised in step-families, for example. So in reality, the study doesn't REALLY tell us anything useful about what's wrong with people being raised by gays - it pretty much only tells us that there's a benefit to being raised in a stable family with two parents. And we already knew that. The RELEVANT comparison (i.e. the studies that are actually necessary to answer the question being posed) would be the following: 1. Compare the person raised by a stable married family to a person raised by a stable gay family with the same two partners during their entire childhood. 2. Compare the person raised by a single heterosexual parent to a person raised by a single homosexual parent. Those studies would tell us if there's a difference. The study discussed in this thread does NOT allow any such conclusions to be drawn. You're correct that they're trying to correlate two possibly dissimilar sets of parentage situations, but what is the likelihood of a stable homosexual relationship vs. a stable heterosexual relationship? There is a lot more information that needs researched presented, but I don't think either side of the issue really wants that to come out. |
|
Quoted:
There is so much bitterness in that photo, that my left eye is drawing shut. Oh yeah, IN! I guess that is mommy daddy with the tie on the right and mommy mommy on the left? Is the well adjusted little darling in the middle Pat or Pat? 
|