Skip to comments.Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids? (Study: Children of gay couples are disadvantaged)
Posted on 06/11/2012 8:25:46 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
In his new Social Science Journal study...Mark Regnerus set out to answer the question of whether children who have parents in a same-sex relationship experience disadvantages when compared with children raised by their biological, married parents.
The answer, contra the zeitgeist, appears to be a resounding yes. Children with a parent in a same-sex relationship underperform in almost every category.
Some of these differences may be relatively benign whether one voted in the last presidential election, for example but most are decidedly not.
One deficit is particularly worrying: Less than 2 percent of children from intact, biological families reported experiencing sexual abuse of some nature, but that figure for children of same-sex couples is 23 percent.
Similarly disturbing is that 14 percent of children from same-sex couples have spent some time in foster care, compared with around 2 percent of the American population at large. Arrest, drug experimentation, and unemployment rates were all higher among children from same-sex families.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
My experience, watching the media, is that they just won't cover it at all. It does not exist. It goes down the memory hole, because it doesn't fit the narrative/agenda.
You’re probably right. Unfortunately, looking at the responses to this thread most of the conservatives here seem content just to say “well duh.” If that apathy translates to the rest of the conservative movement, and this study (or similar ones) gets “buried,” the gay rights groups will win this one for sure.
Actually, it looks like the lib reaction to this is that it actually supports same-sex marriage (?!). Basically, the argument is that all of the problems that are highlighted in this study result from the instability of same-sex relationships, and that same-sex relationships are only unstable because they can't get "married." Here is a typical lib reaction, from Slate.
If same sex alternative lifestyle relationships are considered to be the actions of consenting adults in private, when do the CHILDREN consent to being brought into an alternative lifestyle home?
And what is the percentage preference of boy children over girl children among two-mens couples?
I would weigh in here, but I’m a homophobe, so my opinion doesn’t matter on this subject.
I think we are missing the boat on how to fight the homosexual agenda. We tend to argue morality with people who have no fear of God. Chuck Coleson recommended using purely secular arguments when confronting the Godless.
Instead, we should treat homosexuality the same way we treat smoking. It harms the physical and mental health of those involved in this behavior, and yes, like secondary smoking, it harms those non-practicing family members who are repeatedly exposed to the lifestyle. Homosexuality leads to a shortened life span, increased STDs, and increased depression and suicide.
Yes, there are other moral and social issues, but that alone should be enough for our local secular school boards and politicians.
It’s time to CORRECT the POLITICALLY CORRECT. It’s not ok to act like normal people when your not normal. You are going to screw your kid up big time when they realize what is going on.
23% is over 1 in 5 and nearly 1 in 4.
Permit these kids to carry loaded firearms to protect themselves against molestation.
Paging Natural Law, modernity is calling.
The short answer is they are a corrupt bunch of faggot.
End of story.
To expand on that explosive statement, the Sex Positive agenda (which uses the Homosexual Agenda as the battering ram to society's laws and moral restraints) seeks to end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, or species of partner(s). They consider orgasm to be a birthright to be enjoyed at every age and they consider abstinence to be "unhealthy" since it supresses sexual desires.
Knowing THOSE benchmarks of what they argue and where they are taking this, moral arguments won't win the day with the faggots. You have to work on the moderates who are slouching towards Gomorrah to "get along" and not be considered unpopular or a "hater".
They hate religion. That hate is okay with the moderates.
Search the term "sex positive" eduction/training/theory.
Even the wikipedia entry makes it clear.
You will hear them say it should be "consensual" but they even support rape fantasy and seek to indoctrinate youth to experiment.
Free love ain't free.
Anyone else considering that the Pacquaio job was orchestrated my the Lavender Mafia?
The fox is in the henhouse.
Or as zero states, "a punishment".
This report is more ammunition against the tidal wave of homosexual marriage.
People could care less if someone has a religious conviction against homosexuality. Conservatives need to package their opposition to homosexual marriage based on one thing: its damage to children. Children deserve to be raised by a mother AND a father.
How can this be surprising? These so-called "same sex couples" are in reality sick, perverted sodomites. Of course, they are going to abuse children in the pursuit of their pederatistic perversion. Their goal is children.
At least one of the party is going to be genetically unrelated, possibly both via adoption. This is an ideal environment for sexual exploitation. I think 23% is unnaturally low.
“I think we are missing the boat on how to fight the homosexual agenda. We tend to argue morality with people who have no fear of God. “
Agree. See my post #37.
Used to be an O’Reilly fan, we have a signed book. Until the day that he interviewed Rosie O’Donnell and “changed his mind” about homosexuals adopting children.