Study: children fare better in traditional mom-dad families

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Did you just compare homosexuals with prostitutes, drug dealers, and prisoners? HAHAHAHAHA! Good job on your stance!

If we had more people like you, then I wouldn't need to push my ideas.



I listed them because your basicly stating that these types of people are unfit to raise children (by your logic) because society doesn't like who they are. So if society doesn't like homosexuals then by the status quo, homosexuals are unfit to raise them - despite the fact that homosexuals wouldn't be as harmful to a child s upbringing compared to a child who is brought up by a prostitute or an alcoholic etc.
And yet, children are raised by prostitues and the like, but a homosexual is denied any credibility as a parent because of there sexual orientation?

You've got some funny idea's!





You are a radical... anyone who says they want to eradicate something is slightly imbalanced.


I know, im a sick b*stard wanting to live in a world where forgotten children stand a chance



I am not saying homosexuals can't raise children... I am not saying they can't be good parents.... I am saying it is unfair the child


Ignorantly stating that its unfair to the child because other people will "make fun of them" - Yup, because no one will make fun of them for being abandoned by their parents and left to rot in care. I see your logic there.



.... Yet after countless times of saying that, you still are focused on the adults abilities, and not what's best for the child....


Firstly, you have basicly said that hetero's raise children better - Ignorant.
Secondly, ive focused on what's best for the child imo and that's growing up in a household surrounded and supported by loving, mature adults who hold that child needs above their own - And a homosexual couple is fully capable of doing this - Despite your dislike of that fact.

edit on 11-6-2012 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-6-2012 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It just seems to me that nontraditional is better than being raised in state care, think love is the most important thing in raising kids.
edit on 11-6-2012 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
These studies are stupid and easily manipulated by either side. No doubt people could pick and choose criteria and samples to make it turn out the way they want.

Look at single mothers. Sure an unmarried 15 year old might not be as good as a 30 married couple but there are cases where the 15 old is better. Even if she isn't you can't say who can and can't be a parent.

Each situation is different and people should be able to choose what's best for them in THEIR life.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Children raised by single-parents who DO have their priorities in order turn out just fine as well..






edit on 11-6-2012 by Isabelx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
"Study" Give me a break. Give me 15 minutes on the internet and I'm sure I can come up with several "studies" refuting any ignorant, bigoted stance people would like to put forth.

Also, homosexuals have been raising children since the beginning of children. There are plenty of closeted, gay married people raising children with their spouses right now.

Just because homosexuality makes you feel icky doesn't make it unnatural. Same sex shenanigans happen in all kinds of species, not just humans.

Ugh, someone save us from all the anti-gay, anti-islam, anti-people Christians don't like threads someone, PLEASE.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Maybe that's because they are discriminated against? Who knew that could be psychologically damaging...

I wonder how many anti-gay threads there's going to be today?


Oh no! Someone told the truth! And it goes against MY beliefs, quick! Someone jump on the politically incorrect bash wagon and claim they're being hated!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malynn
"Study" Give me a break. Give me 15 minutes on the internet and I'm sure I can come up with several "studies" refuting any ignorant, bigoted stance people would like to put forth.

If you wish to validate the study or challenge the credentials:
www.markregnerus.com...
www.utexas.edu...
or take a sabbatical break.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Why have you created 2 separate threads within a 7hr period of one another centred around gay people in society? You just having one of those awkward gay-bashing days?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Let's get rid of everything unnatural or abnormal! (Televisions, computers, houses, office buildings, organ transplant, etc...) Lets interfere in lives whenever others might be living under somewhat sub-optimal circumstances. Especially when that judgement is based on a measure of varying significance to different people at different times. Whenever we think we know better it is our right and duty to start bossing people around! And let us warmly invite others to interfere with our lives however they feel is best. So long as that interference is motivated by a strong moral foundation, or just good old-fashioned common sense, let us welcome it with open arms! Who's with me?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Please spare me. Trying to hide your prejudices behind pseudo-science does not make you look right and intellectual. It makes you look like you're trying to find a validation for your prejudices.



Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by Malynn
"Study" Give me a break. Give me 15 minutes on the internet and I'm sure I can come up with several "studies" refuting any ignorant, bigoted stance people would like to put forth.

If you wish to validate the study or challenge the credentials:
www.markregnerus.com...
www.utexas.edu...
or take a sabbatical break.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

The Washington Times, June 10, 2012
by Cheryl Wetzstein

Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married, mother-father parents.

"The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go," Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said in his study in Social Science Research.

Using a new, "gold standard" data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.

ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/print/

D'oh! Sounds like novel scientific hypothesis?

 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

edit on Mon Jun 11 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS


It's good to know that kids do better in drugged mom and drunk abusive dad family settings than with two loving, nurturing gay people. What a crock.

It's not sexual preference that makes a healthy family, it's kind and loving people.
edit on 6/11/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


...
Professor Mark Regnerus used data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) , a large nationally representative sample of just under 3,000 young Americans aged 18 to 39, to compare how children raised in eight different family structures fared on 40 social, emotional, and relationship outcomes.

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.
...
esciencenews.com...



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Two studies? That's it? Hardly concrete evidence if you ask me. Besides that anyone can do a study and make it say whatever they want. People rely too much on 'studies' and not enough on reality.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think this would be an obvious truth, same ways as kids tend to do better in stable families as opposed to ones where mum has sex with various men and the various half siblings rarely, if ever, see their dads.

Broken families are one of the main causes of social problems in the west- hence you get kids from Chinese families doing well acadmeically as they tend to encourage stable families and frown upon divorce



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
YHWH 1 / Homosexuals 0

And there are really people who think they know better than the Creator.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


www.biblegateway.com...

Judges 1:19 "Yahweh was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had IRON CHARIOTS."


Genesis 8:21 "Yahweh smelled the pleasant aroma. Yahweh said in his heart, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again strike everything living, as I have done."

Numbers 31:7-18



7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I absolutely know I know better than the 'God' of the bible. I could list pages upon pages of biblical accounts as to WHY. Nuff said.

As for the OP, are you going through some kind of self hating ordeal as to your own sexuality? I mean the two posts are sort of screaming 'thou dost protest too much'.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by jiggerj
 


...
Professor Mark Regnerus used data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) , a large nationally representative sample of just under 3,000 young Americans aged 18 to 39, to compare how children raised in eight different family structures fared on 40 social, emotional, and relationship outcomes.

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.
...
esciencenews.com...



All of these negatives are based solely on the sexual preference of the parents? Anyone smell anything fishy here? It isn't possible that the parents simply had bad parenting skills, and the children would have turned out the same if the parents were in a M/F relationship?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
Let's get rid of everything unnatural or abnormal! (Televisions, computers, houses, office buildings, organ transplant, etc...) Lets interfere in lives whenever others might be living under somewhat sub-optimal circumstances. Especially when that judgement is based on a measure of varying significance to different people at different times. Whenever we think we know better it is our right and duty to start bossing people around! And let us warmly invite others to interfere with our lives however they feel is best. So long as that interference is motivated by a strong moral foundation, or just good old-fashioned common sense, let us welcome it with open arms! Who's with me?

Your post assumes this isn't already being done.

I have a gay friend that couldn't hold hands with his friend because his friend was afraid to hold hands in public. He grew up in a more conservative atmosphere so naturally he's afraid...

I wonder if there're other issues? Of course. My friend finds it hard to associate with a large number of people simple because they're religious and conservative. So right there 30 to 50+ percent of people do not like him because of his sexual preferences. They avoid him - it's passive-aggressive and very hard to cope with. So many other things too. It's not easy...

You know growing up different than others is hard.

But it's hard to change your sexual preferences to something more comfortable with society. Even after all of the TV shows about gays and all of the support, society still is afraid of it. Even when commercials tell our children not to practice hate speech or to use the word "gay" improperly. Simmering beneath the surface of political-correctness is still a lot of prejudice for gays.

People can't always change themselves easily to accommodate others.

The child or children had to grow up knowing all this and dealing with the "jokes" from their peers. So really I wouldn't be surprised if this had some negative consequences on them.

But some of them will come out of it stronger and become trail blazers. This is something that's easy to miss. Out of adversity can come amazing people. They're rare, but it happens.

Just like how especially famous successful people can come out of poor families. While this is not the norm and, generally, poor families produce poor adults, it does occasionally happen.

If same-sex couples can't have children then neither should poor families since both (if this is to be believed) hamper the abilities of their children to succeed over the course of their life.

It's true that evolution is not primed for same-sex couples. So, quite naturally, evolution is not prepared for it so children (in some way) will likely suffer. Evolution can't anticipate everything we do.

In a way, same-sex couples (and their children) are sacrificing themselves for the freedom to choose. As a result, in hte future, people might marry without as much of the prejudice or (evolutionary) difficulties which exist today. Of course, did they ever think of what the children wanted? But this can be said for any couple that has done something passionately, fervently, with purpose, though imperfectly and potentially negatively impacting their children (depending on who you ask). If we're to be so self-righteous about same-sex couples we should apply the same standards to everyone else.
edit on 11-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
It is because a mother and father relationship is the natural order of things....

One has to simply look out of their window at the natural world to figure these things out.

It will always be an objective of a minority to justify their ways, or say it is ok because of this or that - when it is simply not the case.

I have heard many gay people say, "I wish I wasn't this way... but I am." Why would you then want to expose children to that?

When you partake in an UNNATURAL social situation, then you must accept the guidlines of nature. Ie: If you are in a relationship that doesn't allow you to reproduce, then don't try to take what you are not naturally allowed to have.

It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it too - and that's just another way to say you are being selfish.


I like that. Country logic that works.


That study said a whole bunch of nothing.

Instead of focusing on whether children are “well adjusted” based on their parents' sexual orientation, maybe they should foucs on whether children are happy with their lives based on their parents' abilty to parent. I haven't seen the questionaire that the participants answered, but I can almost guarentee you that while they asked what the sexual orientation of their parents were, they didn't inquire about the specific parenting practices that helped make the child well adjusted or not. And if they DID go into that kind of detail, they obviously omitted those facts from the study, thereby making it biased.

I know, they do studies like this for the purpose of informing and catering to certain groups of people, like lawyers or polititians, and that's why they word their studies the way do. But that being the case, they should keep this information for the specific groups they're targeting. The way scientists prepare papers and case studies for peer review ONLY. You give the genral public information like this and they'll treat it like gospel with certain groups of people pointing to others saying “See, I told you so”, thus generating conflicts. Look at what's happened when someone only WROTE about the study.

I can guarentee you that I can take that study, re-word it while keeping it factual for what it is, and give it to other groups of people, like real parents for example, and get a totally different reaction. Social studies like this remind me of medical studies, in that in 2005 they may say that carrots are not REALLY that good for your eyesight, then in 2008 come out and say, “Well that study was flawed because we came up with new evidence to refute the original study”. They're nothing more than well packaged op-ed pieces that really belong on someone's blog. Much like what was quoted in the OP.

And to make matters even worse, they're written by people with college degrees in certain fields. People who have studied these subjects and have studied how to write them. People are writing professionally worded studies to other people who weren't taught how to fully understand them simply because of the way they're worded. And people like Mz. Wetzstein pretty much quoted it verbaitem. It's like singing to someone who's tone deaf. With a mute interpreter. ( Thank God I don't have THAT problem anymore)

These studies and the op-ed pieces that try to explain them are not very informative, insightful or even helpful. They shouldn't be taken seriously but, sadly, they will be.




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 

People can handle the truth, broadly. Individually, maybe not.

It seems you're advocating hiding it so less conflict is created. I disagree because while this is about more educated people versus less educated people, that's not the same thing as parent versus child. In a parent versus child relationship, the parent will often withhold information to protect the child. But I do not believe more educated people have the right to "protect" less educated people by hiding information. In fact, it's their duty to educate them. They're not THAT special or superior.
edit on 11-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join