The Week In Review

OOPS!

It turns out that the studies reported by gay-family advocates were deeply flawed and actually misrepresented the facts:

(phys.org) — The review by Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University finds that much of the science that forms the basis for the highly regarded 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the (APA) (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf) does not stand up to scrutiny. The new study by University of Texas sociologist and professor Mark Regnerus, provides compelling new evidence that numerous differences in social and emotional well-being do exist between young adults raised by women who have had a lesbian relationship and those who have grown up in a nuclear family.

Dr. Marks reviewed studies published between 1980 and 2005 cited by the 2005 official APA brief which asserted that: “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.”

[…]

According to his findings, children of mothers who have had same-sex relationships were significantly different as young adults on 25 of the 40 (63%) outcome measures, compared with those who spent their entire childhood with both their married, biological parents. For example, they reported significantly lower levels of income, more receipt of public welfare, lower levels of employment, poorer mental and physical health, poorer relationship quality with current partner, and higher levels of smoking and criminality.

Even the liberal online magazine The Slate:

Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things. Why such dramatic differences? I can only speculate, since the data are not poised to pinpoint causes. One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents, however, is household instability, and plenty of it. The children of fathers who have had same-sex relationships fare a bit better, but they seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.

[…]

The differences [between traditional families and same-sex families], it turns out, were numerous. For instance, 28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 percent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty percent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13 percent of the latter. Nineteen percent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 percent of the latter.

[…]

Kudos to those gay parents, like those of Zach Wahls, who have done a remarkable job in raising their now young-adult children. I’m sure the challenges were significant and the social support often modest. There are cases in the data of people like Zach, but not very many. Stability is pivotal, but uncommon.

Can we all now drop the idea that opposition to same-sex marriage is driven by hate and aversion to ickiness?

Cool = The New Dog Whistle Of Racism

Or something.  In the newest attempt at dismissing criticism against President Obama and his politics, Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucas said that:

“a lot” of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word “cool” in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.

“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I dont [sic] know what is.

She added that “even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].”

I find it dauntingly unethical how supporters of the president have stooped to calling his detractors racist any time they speak up against him.  It’s almost as if they believe Obama is so correct, that it is thoroughly impossible to disagree with him on any basis of merit.

Cheering For Abortion

Some people actually believe abortion advocates and defenders when they say ‘abortion is a tough personal choice not made lightly’.  And others know better.

(Melissablogs.com) — The War on Women panel featuring Elizabeth Warren revealed much about the leftist perspective on abortion. In an act of public bullying, one of the three speakers, Darcy Burner of Washington (the others being Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii), asked women who had had an abortion to stand up in front of other attendees.

It was difficult to estimate the number of women as they were sprinkled through out the audience. They stood alone while Burner admonished the attendees to hold their applause.

Then Burner asked the others seated in the audience to stand and give these women a standing ovation. The audience complied enthusiastically.

I sat during this spectacle.

Burner said,”If you are a woman in this room, and statistically this is true of  about 1/3 of the women in this room, if you’re a woman in this room who has had an abortion and is willing to come out about it, please stand up.”

She continued, “Now, if you are willing to stand with every woman who is willing to come out about having had an abortion, please stand up.”

The left is not just for “choice” they full on — with rare exception — advocate for abortion (See: But Where’s The Body?).  The fact that they cheer for it, and block legislation preventing aborting girls for the sake of being girls belies their claims to support “choice.

 

Comments

  1. Marshall Art says:

    Regarding the lead story, I can’t believe there have been no comments on this as yet. Where are the enablers?

  2. On vacation this week. But here’s a quote from the Slate article you cited…

    Yes, the analysis was flawed. But the errors can be deconstructed, and the data can be re-examined…

    Thanks for pointing it out, I’ll check it out more when I have time…

  3. Marshall Art says:

    I don’t know where Dan got that quote. Perhaps I missed it as I skimmed the one to which John linked, and a response article linked from that. One quote from John’s is telling:

    “There are limitations to this study, of course. We didn’t have as many intact lesbian and gay families as we hoped to evaluate, even though they are the face of much public deliberation about marriage equality. But it wasn’t for lack of effort.”

    The emboldened section plainly admits the limitation of the study that the response article cites as the major flaw that discredits it. The response articles suggests that a newer study comparing apples to apples, that is, “stable” homo families to stable hetero families is the only way to truly compare. Wow! What a concept! How sad that the enablers weren’t so concerned about direct comparisons before, just as Dan isn’t when denying “marriage equity” to adult consenting polygamous and incestuous marriage.

    Further, the response article makes the inane suggestion that only state sanctioned marriages are responsible for the stability of heterosexual families, and therefor denying such to homosexuals is unlikely to result in similar outcomes for their children. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. State sanctioning or a marriage license isn’t what makes a marriage stable. It is the commitment of the each to the other, the vow they take to remain faithful to each other and love each other no matter what befalls. This is another mistake in logic Dan routinely makes when he expresses the notion that sexual promiscuity will go down if only the hapless homosexual was allowed a marriage license and the rest of the world would regard the union as normal and just like the traditional.

    • But notice that the lack of stable committed gay couples needed to make the comparison was not for lack of effort or exclusion, they are simply uncommon.

  4. Marshall Art says:

    In fairness, they are uncommon because they comprise a small percentage of an already extremely small percentage of the total population. Yet, it should at least dispel or mitigate the attempts to put forth “stable” committed homosexual couples as common. I would suggest that even within their own population, the percentage of those couplings that are stable and committed are smaller than the percentage found for heterosexual pairings, considering all the data now available.

    • Marshall

      Its not that they are uncommon due to the small population of homosexuals. Stable committed monogamous long-term relationships are rare in the gay community, making them uncommon and difficult to gauge.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: