« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Heterosexual Child-Rearing Far Superior To Same-Sex

By: roetenks (Diary)  |  November 29th, 2012 at 02:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Heritage Foundation Reports

Taking two separate surveys, on 2 different dates, two different unbiased organizations gave analyses on child-rearing with couples. This time, same-sex couples versus married husband-wife families were compared. Even Mike McManus elucidates how children of same-sex parents fare much worse than they usually do with a hetero-sexual couple.

Bob Unruh, states This 1 factor could cut child poverty 82% – Heritage Foundation .…. That factor is Mom and Dad being married. This does NOT include living together.

Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector (Senior Research Fellow): “…But the nation does little or nothing to discourage births outside marriage or to encourage healthy marriage. In fact, the welfare system often sends the message that marriage has nothing to do with poverty.” As can be explained as The report noted, “As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result”.

In the above report Rector says: “The collapse of marriage, along with a dramatic rise in births to single women, is the most important cause of childhood poverty but government policy doesn’t reflect that reality”.

Instead of promoting marriage, government only deplors it. It offers numerous programs, specifically for the one-parent family. It’s already known $330 billion (2011) went to single-parents with children.

The Washington Times also reported real-time facts about same-sex marriages. Mark Regnerus (University of Texas Scholar), found differing aspects with comparisons. As compared to adults raised in married heterosexual families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had detrimental consequences (in 24 of 40 classifications), and raised by gay fathers–had detrimental consequences in 19 classifications.

Parents Forcing Sex on Kids

In Exposing Liberal Lies: Homosexuality Hurts the Kids, Michael McManus [President/Marriage Savers] has found results detrimental from same-sex marriage. He says there is 11 times the chance of being molested by a parent: “only two people of those with married parents were ever touched sexually by a parent or an adult – while 23% of those with a lesbian mother had that experience.”

Other facts he unearths, you may not want to know. Only 8% of kids from intact families had ever been “forced” to have sex, versus 31% with lesbian, and 25% of gay parents.

The obvious evidence from this research, is confirmation that when Mom and Dad are actually married, they usually have a very positive effect in a child’s life.

But gays believe 5-8 million years of human responses can be forgotten in the last 30, when gay marriage has attempted to re-define actual marriage.

Alleged Discrimination

Usually, scathing innuendo has plagued accepted marriage in the last 30 years. How about the charge of ‘Christians constantly trying to discriminate against same-sex unions’? This charge is disproved by the privilege advantage. Certain people meet particular standards that enable them to take advantage of privileges offered. Many jobs include certain additional characteristics.

Airline pilots, for example, cannot be acrophobic (fear of heights). They cannot have uncontrolled seizures (e.g.,epilepsy), and many other requirements. That doesn’t mean they are better people than anyone else. Many occupations have special needs: the ability for one to weld, to drive a large machine, to repair a human heart, etc., etc….

Meeting Necessary Requirements

The privilege of marriage usually requires the ability to procreate-to produce new human life. Same-sex marriage, by efinition, prohibits procreation. Maybe it’s possible to paint a $250M portrait, similar to an existing “Rembrandt”. If not, it’s always possible to sue for damages because of discrimination.

Naturally, same-sex couples typically think a Rembrandt is more valuable than a baby.

© Copyright by Kevin Roeten, 2012. All rights reserved.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Sir Aaron

    Even if there were no practical earthly consequences, it would still be wrong. We want to pretend we can ignore the moral implications and speak to others in purely practical terms (e.g., stealing is bad for kids so we ought to outlaw stealing). Unfortunately, this wont work in the long term.

  • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

    We have reached a place where our media culture sells heterosexuality as if that is the alternative lifestyle and anything goes is the healthy choice that we all should make. Oh that’s right there are no more consequences, pass the food stamps please!

  • rolandlind

    The study does not say what you say it does. Mark Regnerus was interviewed by Focus on the Family and said the following:

    CL: The journal that published your study is going to run a response from you in the near future to all your critics. If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently?

    MR: I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them. My only hope for the study going in was to let the data say what it was going to say. I knew I’d make some friends and some enemies with the study — I just didn’t know who they were going to be.

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/10/26/friday-5-mark-regnerus/

    This was not a study of married homosexuals. It was not a study of homosexuals at all. It was a study of people have have had any sort of sexual experience with the same sex after they had children. In fact, of the 1800+ individuals studied, only 2 respondents lived with same-sex parents for the duration of their childhoods.

    • Melody Warbington

      The bottom line of the study is that it found “better outcomes for those raised in intact biological families when compared to peers in seven other family structures.” The courts have been trying to say otherwise when there is evidence to support the traditional family.

      See http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/15/why-the-liberal-intolerance-for-new-family-structures-study/.

      The conclusion of the study itself states:

      “But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and a cross a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psycho therapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.”

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/96719068/Regnerus-Study

      • rolandlind

        The courts are ruling on whether or not laws conform to the State and Federal Constitutions, not that the courts are trying to say otherwise.

        Either way, the OP claimed that there was a study of children raised by married homosexuals. No such study exists. The Regnerus study seems to prove that stable families produce more stable outcomes, while unstable families produce instability. That makes sense.

        It’s also why homosexuals should be encouraged to marry. If our first goal is to protect children, and we agree marriage does this, then we would seek to protect the children of homosexuals just as we do the children of heterosexuals.

        • Melody Warbington

          I guess you missed the part about “mother and father.” Homosexual couples cannot provide those roles.

          • rolandlind

            That may be true, but we don’t get to make those decisions, And neither do lots of kids who don’t get to have a choice about mothers, fathers, and who fulfills those roles in their lives.

            People make their choices in a free society. The State has an interest in protecting their children, regardless of the choices they make. You cannot force a homosexual to marry an opposite-sex partner and expect it to go well for the children involved, any more than you can expect a heterosexual to do well when forced to marry their same sex.

            At the end of the day, children are protected by marriage, and denying children of homosexuals that protection is simply unjust.

          • Jack_Savage

            Children are protected by decent, loving homes and parents. Most often those homes have a mother and a father who are married. I think that is what the original post argues.

          • Sir Aaron

            Rolandlind proves my point. People want to divorce gay marriage from morality and then argue the case using purely practical facts. Gay marriage proponents don’t care that homosexual behavior is terribly unhealthy, leads children to more sexual promiscuity, and a myriad of other terrible consequences. They’ll just say that it is better to have a kid raised by homosexuals then by whatever straw man they raise up. You could counter every point and they’d just use Tarzan as an example. See, it’s better to be raised by homosexual parents then by gorillas in the jungle!

            The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is grossly immoral and by government endorsing and normalizing it, the underpinnings of a successful society are unrecoverably shattered. Every broken moral has practical consequences. Adultery, theft, drunkeness, etc. all have bad consequences in this life. Many of us don’t want government to enforce these morals because we fear that a government with such power can be easily abused and then made to encourage the very immorality we were trying to avoid not to mention restricting our ability to worship according to our beliefs. But every conservative agrees that certain sins have such dire consequences that the government must be given the authority to penalize them. The question is whether homosexuality is one of those. I believe it is.

        • westcoastpatriette

          No such thing as “children of homosexuals” as homosexuals cannot reproduce.

          • rolandlind

            Homosexuals do, in fact, reproduce. I’m not sure how you could possibly believe otherwise.

          • westcoastpatriette

            With each other? No wonder you support homosexuals marrying — you are unable to grasp the simplest of concepts.

            The only way homosexuals can reproduce is if they are actually bisexual and mated with the opposite sex in their promiscuous past. Otherwise, you have gone stark-raving mad in your defense of sexual debauchery — to the point of pretending two men or two women can reproduce.

          • rolandlind

            Of course they can’t reproduce with each other. But that does not change the simple fact that homosexuals can reproduce, and do reproduce. No amount of bluster will change this.

            Since we have to deal with the society we have, these children need protection, like all children in the myriad families in our country.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Homosexuals cannot reproduce. If you want to be effective in your arguments, call them bisexuals not homosexuals. Your insistence that homosexuals can reproduce makes you look stupid. Hysterical about it, even.

          • rolandlind

            I’m not sure you know what a bisexual is. Or a homosexual. Neither of them are identified by what they do. They are identified by what they are attracted to.

            You and I are both heterosexual. We are not identified by heterosexual sex. We are identified by attraction to the opposite sex.

            Is it possible for a heterosexual to breed with another heterosexual who they are not attracted to? Of course. Is it possible for a homosexual to breed with a heterosexual they are not attracted to? Of course.

          • eltuba

            Bull. My heterosexual parents couldn’t reproduce. They adopted me. I am their child.

          • Freiheit

            Wow. Best comeback I’ve seen served to westcoastpatriette in awhile. For you: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc4m1azMpM1qlyh48.gif

          • streiff

            either that or they were just unclear on the concept. Your cute rejoinder is really a plate of smoking dumbness. Unless you are saying you are the offspring of two or more homosexuals who then put you up for adoption. I am open to that explanation.

          • eltuba

            It has to do with the difference with the ability to procreate as opposed to the ability to parent. My father and mother couldn’t procreate but they were capable of parenting. My appreciation for the gift of the love they chose to give me enables me to regard myself as their child and to regard them as my parents. My only parents.

          • Sir Aaron

            It doesn’t change the fact that your parents didn’t reproduce.

          • eltuba

            It goes to the original statement which was that there were “no such thing as the children of homosexuals”. I was trying to point out that there were ways that homosexuals could have children. Adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination come to mind.

            I think Rosie O’donnell is a lowlife loudmouth, but I’m not going to say her children aren’t hers. She’s a homosexual and even though she didn’t give birth to them, she does indeed have children.

          • streiff

            Adopting is not “having children”. Buying a car is not “manufacturing an automobile.” Neither is surrogacy. Unless you failed middle school biology, it should be pretty obvious that artificial insemination is a heterosexual process unless you are now claiming that the world’s beef cattle herds are all gay, and based on what I’ve read thus far I am not ruling that out.

          • eltuba

            I’m afraid this will devolve into a filioque type argument on the meaning of “have”. Not wanting to create a schism, I withdraw.

  • Colin Carr

    I would assume that the post is accurate and I personally agree that mom and dad raise families better than anyone else can.
    However, it would be a fruitless tree to plant for the GOP to make gay parenting any kind of a political priority.

    • avgjo

      And what, let the left and militant homosexual movement run roughshod over the family structure?

      I understand where you’re coming from, but ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away, and in fact exacerbates it.