ZA OHRANITEV NOVEGA ZAKONA O ZAKONSKI ZVEZI IN DRUŽINSKIH RAZMERJIH

Quoted post

Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja

#1580 Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 06:23

Moj otrok je hodil k verouku, ker si je sam želel. Kasneje sem ga izpisala. Razlog:

1. da pridejo v nebesa samo kristjani, ostali ljudje pa ne.

2. pogoj za nebesa in da je človek dober kristjan je, redno obiskovanje maše in molitve

2.da je izgubljena ovca, ki se vrne bolj cenjena kot ovca, ki je zvesta.

Oba moja otroka poskušam naučiti spoštovanja do vseh ljudi, ne glede na raso, vero, način življenja in ne glede na SPOLNO USMERJENOST. Učim ju, da imamo VSI enake pravice do načina življenja, ki ga želimo živeti. Edini pogoj je, da ne izvajamo NASILJA nad sabo in drugimi.

Ugotavila sem, kako zelo sem naivna. ko poslušam in berem komentarje na to temo, me zvije v želodcu. Verjela sem v to, da smo danes ljudje bolj toleranti in spoštljivi do drugačnosti kot pred 100 leti. Žal ni tako.

Ugotavljam, da je moj način vzgoje napačen. Svoja otroka bi morala naučiti, da se imata pravico vtakniti v vsakogar ter ga učiti kako mora živeti. Samo moja otroka imata pravico ocenjevati druge ljudi, medtem ko sta onadva popolna in brez napak. Potem bi bila normalna, povprečna Slovenca. Zato predlagam dopolnitev zakona: takojšen odvzem otroka, ki se ga vzgaja po načelih kateri niso točno opredeljeni v zakonu. Ta načela pa naj opredeli narod na referendumu. Predlagam, da se z zakonom uvede delovni čas od 8. do 13 ure. Takrat otrok konča z poukom in je potrebno, da z njim delamo naloge, se učimo in preživljamo prosti čas.Trenutna zakonodaja mi onemogoča vzgojo otroka in posledično sem slab starš.

Mojega prvega otroka sem kmalu po rojstvu pokopala. Ko sem dobila drugega in tretjega otroka, sem prvič ko sem pestovala to majhno štručko, sem prosila Boga: edina moja želja je, da sta zdrava in srečna v življenju. Imam ju iskreno rada. Želim jima, da živita z ljudmi in v okolju kjer sta zadovoljna in srečna. Želim jima, da spoznata čim več različnih in drugačnih ljudi. Saj iz različnosti in drugačnosti se učimo in razvijamo.

Ob vsem tem zgražanju nad starševstvem pri homoseksualnih parih se sprašujem:  vsa slaba dejanja (fizično, psihično nasilje, obsojanja, zgražanja, ipd) so vas naučili ravno vaši heteroseksulani starši in popolnoma enako učite svoje otroke. Verjetno sem intelektualno omejena, ampak ne razumem kako slabše bi lahko vzgajali homoseksualni starši. Prosim naučite me kako naj pravilno vzgojim svoja otroka.

Za konec: sem egoistična HETEROSEKSUALKA, ne hodim v cerkev,  bila sem nekaj let v izvezakonski vezi z moškim s katerim imam dva otroka (sta pankrta), nato nekaj časa samohranilka, zdaj v izvenzakonski vezi z drugim moškim.   Pred 100 leti bi me izgnali kot kurbo na rob vasi kjer bi v revščini živela od miloščine sovaščanov. Moja otroka pa bi bila osramočena in ožigosana kot manjvredna pankrta. Danes lahko živim in delam kot polnopraven član družbe. In imam dva srečna otroka. Starejši ni homoseksualec (18 let), mlajša pa predvidevam da tudi ni (10 let). Zanju si želim, da najdeta v življenju partnerja oz. partnerko s katerim bosta srečna v življenju.

Egoistična sem pa zato, ker si močno želim vnukov. In če bi bila otroka homoseksualca, bi si želela, da lahko posvojita in bi jaz imela kopico vnukov. In ker sta dobra človeka, vem, da bosta vzgojila svoje otroke v odrasle ljudi, ki bodo tolerantni in spoštljivi do vseh ljudi.

Vse bi nekaj prosila: lepo prosim če mi lahko kdo posreduje strokovno literaturo kjer je s strokovnimi raziskavami dokazano, da so homoseksualni starši slabši od heterosekusalnih oz. v čem so heterosekusalni starši boljši. Kako in na kakšen način homoseksualni starši škodijo otrokom? Jaz je primejduš, nisem našla.

menim, da je to vprašanje stroke in ne nas navadnih slovenceljnov.

 

PS: nekoč so bili tudi veliki upori, da se ljudi z različnimi oblikami invalidnosti vključi v "normalno" okolje. Se spomnite haloja glede tega, da se invalidni otrok šola v normalni šoli? Danes pa jih niti zapazimo ne, pa so.

 

Replies

Salomon Kralj

#1581 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 07:22:51

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 Spoštovana računovodkinja, razumem vašo zelo človeško potrebo po družbi kopice vnučkov. Nihče ne želi ostati sam na stara leta. Toda žal niste ne prva ne edina, ki je prišla na zamisel "šopingiranja" tujih otrok. Na tolerantnem Zahodu je na desetine milijonov takih "egoistk", tako hetero- kot lezbo-seksualnih. In, glede na njihovo višjo potrošniško kupno moč, je povsem možno, da vaša otroka na tem tržišču ne bosta sodelovala kot kupca, temveč kot dobavitelja. Kot pravi Zakon Karme: Kdor drugemu jamo koplje...


Gost

#1582 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 07:32:33

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 Gospa, hvala za napisano. Misim, da je vaš način vzoje pravilen. Vaše razmišljanje in ideje, ki jih prenašate na svoje otroke so zlata vredne. Verjetno bosta mogla kdaj stisnit zobe ali utrnit solzo, ko bosta videla, kako delajo drugi, ampak vedela bosta, da delata prav.

Ni res, da se ne sme izrazit svojega mnenja,kot ste ga vi sedaj, a v družbi kjer se to lahko, zmagajo tiste, ki so najboljše, ne tiste, ki se širijo najbolj glasno. Velika razlika je med javnim ocenjevanje in izražanjem mnenja. V vsem pa je potrebno obdržati tolerantnost do mnenj drugih.

Verjetno ste že opazila, kako neargumentirano se vzpostavljajo mnenja nasprotnikov. Če bosta vsaj malo skeptični v svojem razmišljanju bosta taka neargumentirana mnenja prepoznala in jih zavrgla. Tako bosta koristen člen v rasti in osebnem razvoju družbe. Tako kot ste vi s svoji izraženim mnenjem in podano izkušnjo.

Ne vem kako verna ste, ampak verjetno to, da ste poslali otroke k verouku je bil odraz vaše vere. Spoznanje navedenih točk verjetno ni bilo preprosto, ker so to točke, ki nasprotujejo krščanskim načelom. So pa del zgodb v Bibliji. Ohranjanje vere, kot se širi med generacijam je zelo pozitivno in konstruktivno. Vsiljevanje kot to izvaja Cerkev, ki je bila ustanovljena s tem namenom in prek stoletji deluje na tak način ni niti konstruktivno niti zdravo za družbo.

Tudi sam mislim, da je šolanje najpomembnejši del otrokove vzgoje. Ravno tako je res, da zakon ne določa kako se mora vzgajti otroke in njegovo mesto. Prednost družbe je, če je vsak posameznik tako izobražen, da se zna odločati in deluje naivno. In nasprotno kot je v konotacija besede naivno v Sloveniji, NAIVNOST v sprejemanju mnenj in drugačnosti je POZITIVNA LASTNOST.  Slabo bi bilo, če bi bila naivnost povezana s slabo izobrazbo, ker potem takih mnenj nismo sposobni premisliti in izluščiti pozitivne note. Zato bo vsaka družba, ki je pripravljena pritiskat na učitelje z nižanjem plačila in razvrednotenjem njihovega dela neumna družba.

Če vam kaj lahko dodam vaši prekrasni misli je, da spoštujte učitelje, ki učijo vaše otroke, ker so podaljšana roka vas. Oni nadaljujejo delo, ki ste ga vi začeli od malega. Vaša skupna pot bo poskrbela, da bo vaš otrok odnesel maksimalno na poti do odrasle osebe. Ne jih ocenjevat, ker za to so strokovnjaki in rezultati. 

Nisem učitelj v šoli, sem pa učitelj, ko me nekdo povpraša po mnenju. 

Zaimivo se mi zdi, da ste uporabili besedo izvenzakonska skupnost. Verjetno zato ker je to strkovni izraz za nas,ki živimo na koruzi in si najdemo partnerja, ki mu lahko zaupamo in smo z njim tako dolgo, kot nam skupna pot dovoljuje. Vzpostavljamo kompromise ne zato ker moramo, ampak ker je tako prav. Gradimo družine ne zato ker nam je dovoljeno, ampak zato ker je tako prav. Delimo z bližnjimi, ne zato ker moramo, ampak ker je tako prav. Nič ni večno, traja pa teko dolgo kot je le mogoče z doprinosom vseh vpletenih. In danes nas ne pošiljajo na rob vasi.

Vsak oseba je najprej človek in šele nekje kasneje spol, barva kože, trajna poškodba (invalidnost je tujka s precej negativnim pomenom), psihične težave, velikost in stas in nekje na koncu seznama spolna usmerjenost. Precej majhni so ljudje, ki ne znajo videti prek vseh razlik, kaj šele ko ta svoja videnja odražajo v usmerjanju družbe.

Vsi smo Slovenci in če je trenutno spolna usmerjenost vredna tako velike vsote denarja, ki bi se lahko porabil za stvari, ki bodo Slovenijo obdržale v stanju, ki jo zaslužimo, se nam slabo piše. Mislim, da nas je veliko, ki lahko sestavijo seznam prioritet, ki so veliko bolj pereče kot povrnitev neenakosti.


Gost

#1588 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 11:56:29

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 Evo dokaza kako sposobni so istospolni pri vzgoji otrok:

 

google: drustvo psihologove slovenija istospolni


Gost

#1590 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 16:02:37

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 

New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research

By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies 
 

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.

The Debate Over Homosexual Parents

In the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures--particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex "marriage." The argument that "children need a mom and a dad" is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone:

  • Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, "Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage." This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.
  • Pro-homosexual activists respond, "Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents--not with homosexual parents." (This is also true--in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)
  • The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents."
  • Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.

The New Family Structures Study--Restoring the "Gold Standard"

This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field.

Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents--making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of "self-presentation bias"--the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.

Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.

The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups:

  • Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
  • Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale--for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
  • Finally, "event-count" outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences--e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested--and the number of sex partners.

Nearly 15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.

What the Study Found

The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with "lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures.(The only exceptions: children of "gay fathers" were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of "gay fathers" used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).

Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is "statistically significant." This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is "statistically significant." (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant--just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)

Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways--first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of "intact biological families" ("IBFs"), and second by "controlling" for a variety of other characteristics. "Controlling for income," for example, would mean showing that "IBF" children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for "LMs" (children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay fathers) separately.

There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

  • Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
  • Have lower educational attainment
  • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
  • Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
  • Are more likely to suffer from depression
  • Have been arrested more often
  • If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
  • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
  • Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
  • Use marijuana more frequently
  • Smoke more frequently
  • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
  • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Differences in Sexuality

When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves--were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of "statistical significance" as those mentioned above, they remain important.

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals "are no more likely to be gay" than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

These data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women) are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However, Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men. And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been victims of sexual touching by "a parent or adult caregiver" than even the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive.

However, it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother was touched by "a parent or adult caregiver" does not mean that the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the "touching." An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for example--hypothetical, but plausible--is one in which a child is molested by her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later enters into a lesbian relationship.

Limitations of the Study

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting."

The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study--by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent's partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children's lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus' dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year.

Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple. But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on "gay families"--the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most "homosexual parents" have their own biological children who were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships.

Conclusion

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

 


Gost

#1592 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 16:05:02

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 

Resources from Marriage Savers: Columns

What Social Science Says Of Same Sex Marriage

Column #1,172 / Copyright Michael J. McManus.

In hours of debate by the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention over whether to legalize "same sex marriage" the more articulate advocates opposed a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to "one man, one woman."

Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, an African American said she was born "one generation removed from slavery" in an Arkansas shack "because the public hospital would not allow blacks to deliver children." She saw same sex marriage as a civil rights issue: "I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else. I could not in good conscience ever vote to send anyone to that place from which my family fled."

However, marriage is not a civil rights issue. No one at the Constitutional Convention noted that America's major black denominations support a Federal Marriage Amendment which states "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Democrat, was eloquent at one point, "Every society, every culture, every nation in all of recorded history, including Massachusetts, has up until this point at least defined marriage as one man and one woman."

Yes, but why? Social science research can answer that question, but it was not offered.

Outside the Constitutional Convention, Ron Crews, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute said, "The reason we are in this battle to preserve the definition of marriage is that we believe the state should be concerned about the highest good. And we believe that the highest good, the ideal, is that children need a mom and a dad."

That is backed up by a large and growing body of social science research. The Witherspoon Institute at Princeton has posted the "Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM)."

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

A third of lesbians have children according to the Census. Some do it by In Vitro Fertilization, deliberately creating a class of children who will never know their father. Yale Psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask, "Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't he like me?"

2. Children need fathers:

"We know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls," says Witherspoon. "Girls who grow up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family."

3. Children need mothers:

A fifth of gay couples have children. There will be more if SSM is legalized. "Mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional and social challenges (of) puberty and adolescence."

4. Evidence suggests children raised in SS homes experience gender and sexual disorders.

Judith Stacey, an advocate for SSM and a sociologist, writes "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." For example, sons of lesbians are less masculine and daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers...reported having a homoerotic relationship."

5. Sexual fidelity.

Witherspoon asserts, "One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage." In his book, "Virtually Normal," Andrew Sullivan writes "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Research of civil unions and marriages in Vermont reveals that while 79 percent of heterosexual men and women value sexual fidelity, "only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions" felt similarly.

6. Women & marriage domesticate men.

Witherspoon reports, "Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services and are more sexually faithful...It is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way heterosexual marriage does." Gay activists like Andrew Sullivan disagree but are likely "clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage."


Gost

#1594 Re: Kako naj vzgajam?

2015-03-22 16:07:39

#1580: Izčrpana navadna računovodkinja - Kako naj vzgajam? 

 

AFFIRMED: STUDY THAT 'GAY' FAMILY CHILDREN MORE TROUBLED

University investigation reveals no evidence of research misconduct

The University of Texas at Austin says it has investigated and found no evidence of research misconduct in a study that found adult children from “gay” families are “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” than children from traditional mom-and-dad households.

“The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school announced yesterday.

It said a four-member advisory panel of senior university faculty members was consulted and an outside consultant, Alan Price, was asked to review the charges as part of the university inquiry into allegations made by Scott Rosensweig in a letter to the school.

The conclusion was that the issues raised fell under the clause that “ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations of or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral and ethical behavior or views are not misconduct.”

The university said it considers the issue closed after school Research Integrity Officer Robert Peterson told officials “none of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth by Mr. [Rosensweig was] substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.”

He wrote “there is no evidence” to support Rosensweig’s inference that because he believed the research was flawed, there must be scientific misconduct.

Regnerus had written a commentary about his study for Slate.com. He said that one “notable theme” among adult children of same-sex parents who reported higher levels of “male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood” than children of mom-and-dad households was “household instability, and plenty of it.”

He explained his study “collected data from a large, random cross-section of American young adults – apart from the census, the largest population-based dataset prepared to answer research questions about households in which mothers or fathers have had same-sex relationships.”

Regnerus said all participants who responded affirmatively were interviewed.

“The differences, 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. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted.”

He said the bottom line of the study is that “social scientists, parents, and advocates would do well from here forward to avoid simply assuming the kids are all right.”

In a commentary, also in Slate, William Saletan wrote, “Mark Regnerus is a hateful bigot. … His new research paper on same-sex parenting is ‘intentionally misleading’ and ‘seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents’ … His ‘junk science’ … deserve[s] no coverage or credence.”

Rosensweig had alleged there were problems with Regenerus’ “seeming falsification of data,” “seemingly inadequate, inappropriate research design,” his “possible bad-faith, invalid comparison” and that he “seemingly feeds into NOM’s defamatory conflation of homosexuals with pedophiles.”

But the university determined “since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom said the New Family Structures Study “suggests that differences exist in outcomes for young adults raised in various environmental with different family experiences.”

“America’s universities should always serve as truth-seeking, free marketplaces of ideas,” said David Hacker, ADF senior legal counsel. “Disagreeing with a study’s conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct” ando “we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless.

“This comprehensive, peer-reviewed research study consisted of leading scholars and researchers across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. We agree with the AT-Austin inquiry’s conclusions.”