Douglas Murray at his most lucid:
Douglas Murray at his most lucid:
There's certainly good statistical evidence that two parents provide better outcomes than one. Makes sense, given that parental attention is a hugely important factor in child development.Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.). Gender is certainly a non-factor compared to having two caring, attentive parents. Not that it's either/or, but it's helpful to focus on the right causes.
I've heard left leaning same sex Muslim partners have made the best parents.
Well seeing as a very small percentage of gay couples raise children it's still the case that the mother/father is the norm and the ideal.
That also sounds like propaganda to me - I wonder how they determine what a 'better parent' is?
Oh and look:
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.http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-st...vious-researchThere 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
I've highlighted my favourite statistic.
The Family Research Council sound like a bastion of fair and balanced reporting, going off their website anyway.
FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society.
Harold really does not give a fuck with his sources. He doesn't even try to hide it.
It's because Harold decides to hold the opposite or most controversial view and then back it up on the fly if called out on it.
"I'm not homophobic but I think homosexuals are child molesters."
You could tell from one of the negative consequences being woman supposedly having more sexual partners that is was coming from a pretty judgemental source.The Family Research Council sound like a bastion of fair and balanced reporting, going off their website anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_R...ps_controversy
The study by that academic doesn't seem to have actually been on same-sex relationships and was only on instances where one of the parents of a heterosexual partnership turned out to be gay.
Harry: conflating science with "science" since 2005.
Interesting that both of Harold's sources there are incredibly and overtly religious.
I thought 'low crime rates' was the better endorsement.
From reading the excerpts I did wonder whether that was the case.
Some actual studies, rather than the Regnerus study, which is considered an embarassment even within the anti-gay community (specifically for comparing broken homes with a non-heterosexual parent to stable homes with two heterosexual parents).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000058/ (the big US-census-data study)
https://www.nllfs.org/ (the longest-running study, going since the '80s)
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publication...ented-families (summary of research literature, with links)
http://journalistsresource.org/studi...search-roundup (research roundup for journalists)
This is one of those things where it's trivial to find a dozen studies or more, which is why I included a pair of research summaries, each of which collates a number of individual studies. The studies follow the same trends when it comes to positive outcomes (measured in terms of education attainment, later mental health issues, etc.) - attention from multiple parents is the most important factor, with socioeconomic effects the next after that.
I'm sure you believe in equality, but you (and others) seem to be trying a bit too hard to prove that gay = better. That's not equality. There's nothing about being gay that makes you a better parent. I put it to you that it's virtually all down to class/money. How many working class gay couples are adopting? Not many, I bet.
Yeah, it's definitely down to class and money because the qualifications for adopting are so much higher than for having your own kids by shagging.
I'm not sure anyone's trying to prove it's better though. Just that it's not any worse.
I wonder if straight adoptive parents make better parents? Anyone bothered with that yet?
Better than the average natural parents? They probably do, yeah, for the same reasons. I'd imagine some sociologist somewhere has studied it.
That's actually exactly what I said, and what the studies reflect:
Same-sex parents tend to score higher on socioeconomic factors and parental attention. Largely because they have to adopt, and therefore have to both make the deliberate decision to have a child, and also prove that they are financially capable of raising the child. Once you account statistically for those factors, there's no statistical difference in measurable outcomes between same-sex and different-sex couples.But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.).
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be encouraging families. But in terms of child welfare outcomes, the most beneficial thing you can work towards is making sure that families (no matter what bits the parents are smuggling) stay together, and that people plan sufficiently for children. Encouraging family stability, parental care of children, and sensible family planning, are the most effective things you can do to ensure children get the best start they can.
Nobody has said that.
Has anybody tried to prove that gay = worse?
Better than gay adoptive, since the studies which claim the gays make magnificent parents doesn't seem to compare like with like.....
Better to just stop the lower classes breeding, perhaps.
Lord Corbyn giving it back to the Chief of the Defence Staff is good stuff. I seem to remember Gordon Brown keeping it shut when ex-officers were giving him grief, presumably for fear of being seen to DISRESPECT OUR BOYS, where as Jezza obviously figures it doesn't really matter what he does there. Good for him.
I see Corbyn has COMPROMISED HIS PRINCIPLES wearing a red poppy and so forth.
He didn't even bow enough today. Burn him.
Only the Liberal Britain hating left would bow in the manner that Corbyn did. He should be hounded out of the country for such disrespect.
There was a piece on Sunday Politics today which was pondering why there was a lack of Londoners wanting to join the armed forces. This after they were confused as to the polls showing Londoners were more anti-gay than was expected.
I'm baffled, too.
They've probably also got better things to do.
Pray?
Theatre and meat liqor.
The BASTARD!
If a war came along he'd be on the front line with 'em.
What really annoyed me about Corbyn and his ridiculous cheerleader Owen Jones - and I usually find them laughable rather than annoying - was telling the Chief of the Defence Staff he had no right to comment on 'political matters' such as Trident.
They aren't saying that when doctors comment on 'political matters' such as Our NHS.
Big Pete in playful mode here.
The lefty libertarians will actually be on his side on this, I think.
And one not for the left perhaps, even though he's gay and therefor this will confuse some of the left. The irrepressible Milo:
Insghtful, articulate, powerfully straightforward. I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
Does anyone else really dislike Peter Hitchens' face? You can absolutely tell what kind of twat he'll be.
I judge him by what he says and how he acts.
Me too. Shame his views are as shit as his face.
He's just another Oxbridge bore whose life is basically one long sneer.
Peter Hitchens' review of The Long Good Friday is one of the best things on the internet.
Just read that. Bloody hell.
I'm pretty sure he isn't Oxbridge educated.....not that it would invalidate what is an extraordinary man.
There also is nobody else like him, so what you mean by 'another' I don't know.
It's probably the most revealing thing he's ever written. Imagine living your life like that. It's the same sort of mindset that finds everything offensive on some level.
I think you misread him entirely. Complaining about things does not mean finding them offensive - a term he hates being bandied around. He is a man of great integrity.
I think you've misread my post entirely.
If you're not complaining about the almost impeccable Peter NHitchens then it's fine. Meanwhile, I've also dug this out for the people. More proof that I am not homophobic too, because I like what some gay people say:
This mangina gets torn limb from limb. A great watch.
Fucking hell.
I'll give them a 2% ticking off for Blairish mawkishness but other than that they are absolutely spot on. It astonishes me that people are willing to give this man the time of day because the 400,000 most left wing people in the country voted him in.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote