Tag Archives: Gay

Commentary

Are lesbian couples better for kids than heterosexual couples?

9 Comments

Apparently, lesbian couples can be as good at parenting children as traditional married couples. That was the conclusion of a new study anyway. Who authored it, and who funded it?

Excerpt:

Several media outlets including CNN, Time magazine, Reuters and US News and World Report, have promoted the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which claims children raised by lesbian parents are “psychologically well-adjusted” and have “fewer behavioral problems” than children raised by heterosexual parents.

Of those four outlets, however, only Reuters reported that the author of the study, Dr. Nanette Gartrell, is herself a lesbian. According to the New York Times Gartrell wed her partner, Dee Mosbacher, in 2005.

Seven out of nine groups that provided funding for the study are gay advocacy groups, including the Gill Foundation and the Gay Lesbian Medical Association. Reuters, Time and U.S. News and World Report did not include the sources of funding for the study.

[…]The problem with many studies regarding children of gay parents, according to the late Steven Nock in a 2004 National Public Radio interview, is that they rely on “self-recruited” subjects. The question, Nock said, is “whether or not people who volunteer to participate in studies resemble the sort who do not.”

Gartrell’s study reportedly recruited its 78 subject couples “through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers” in Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, according to CNN.

So already we should be on guard.

But there’s more! Here’s the methodological problem with the study: (H/T ECM)

In a letter published online in Pediatrics, Professor Walter Schumm, who has served as an expert witness for the State of Florida in a trial concerning gay adoption, points out, “at least 67 per cent of the mothers in the [lesbian family study] had at least a college education compared to approximately 28 per cent of women of similar age in US Census data” so that the effects seen could be partly due to higher levels of education rather than “gender” per se.

Another letter points out that ethnicity and region of residence also differ considerably between the two groups, with the control group having “many times more minorities and many more children from the South” of the US. For example, around 68 per cent of the controls were “white/Caucasian” compared with 93 per cent of the study group. That writer expresses surprise that there was no attempt to adjust the results for these differences, and that the study was accepted all the same by Pediatrics — the journal of the country’s leading professional group.

So this study is as reliable as East Anglia studies on man-made global warming. But a lot of people in the media will cite it anyway, because it sends the right message. It sends the message that people who oppose same-sex marriage are ignorant bigots and that fathers are totally unnecessary for the development of children.

And that’s what the elites in media, education and government want people to believe. They want that view to be made into law and reflected in public policy. And they don’t really care if children are raised without fathers, just like they don’t care if unborn children are killed in the womb. Because adult happiness is more important than children’s well-being.

Here is my previous post explaining how same-sex couples differ from traditional couples.

News

New study compares donor-conceived vs biologically-conceived children

3 Comments

The study is here. (H/T Dr. J from RuthBlog)

Dr. J writes:

The Institute for American Values has just published a new study, My Daddy’s Name is Donor, of how donor conceived persons are doing in comparison with those who were born and raised by their biological parents and in comparison with those who were adopted.

And she notes this comment from a gay man who thinks that the fact that he and his partner PLANNED their donor-conceived child, that they are therefore justified morally in doing so.

The gay man writes:

I’m a gay man who has had a child, with my partner of 8 years, through surrogacy and egg donation. The egg donor and surrogate will be known to our son.

One way that I explain to people our experience with the artificial reproduction process is that it is the opposite of being ‘knocked-up’. We were very involved in the planning and conception and the growth and birth of our child. Our child’s conception and birth was considered, thought about, planned for, dreamed about, fantasized about. He was most definitely wanted. He is loved and treasured.

We did not have sex to have our child. We did not have wedded, heterosexual, within marriage, we-want-to-have-a-child-sex. We did not have wedded, passionate, spur-of-the-moment at the wrong time of the month (or the wrong time of our life) sex. We did not have wedded, spur-of-the-moment, right time of the month sex. We did not have any of these types heterosexual sex as unmarried heterosexuals.

But so many children are born to heterosexual couples via each of these eight scenarios. So many. Many more, around the world are born in wider range of unloving scenarios.

And then one of the authors (Elizabeth Marquardt) of the new study responds by citing evidence.

I just want to note that one way of looking at the My Daddy’s Name is Donor study is as a study of three groups: The first completely one hundred percent wanted and intended — that is, the donor offspring. The other two groups made up of a lot of unintended pregnancies — that is, the adopted and those raised by their biological parents.

Which group is faring the worst? The 100 percent wanted, planned, intended group. The donor offspring, overall, even with controls, are twice as likely to have struggled with substance abuse and delinquency, and 1.5 times as likely to have struggled with depression, compared to those raised by their biological parents (and these differences are significant). The adopted generally fall in between except with regard to depression in which case they were higher than both the donor conceived and the raised-by-biological.

No one is saying, T, that “all” of those raised by biological parents are doing great. But when you look at these populations, measured by our study, you find that, contrary to today’s conventional wisdom, being wanted isn’t enough. What the child is born into — who the child is raised by — matters.

Some more stats from Maggie Gallagher.

Excerpt:

Forty-five percent of these young adults conceived by donor insemination agree, “The circumstances of my conception bother me.” Almost half report that they think about their donor conception a few times a week or more. Forty-five percent agree, “It bothers me that money was exchanged in order to conceive me.”

Nearly half of donor offspring (compared to about a fifth of adopted adults) agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” Similarly, 53 percent (compared to 29 percent of adoptees) agree, “It hurts when I hear other people talk about their genealogical background.”

This is not fair to children – it treats them like a commodity instead of as a gift from God to be treasured and nurtured.

News

Liberal Democrat Treasury Secretary paid 68K of taxpayer money to gay lover

Leave a comment

Story here from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

Treasury Chief Secretary David Laws was fighting to avoid becoming the coalition Government’s first casualty tonight after it was revealed that he funnelled £40,000 of taxpayers’ money to his secret gay lover.

The Liberal Democrat, who is in charge of slashing public spending, is facing growing pressure to quit after he claimed up to £950 a month in expenses for five years which was paid in rent to his partner.

Mr Laws was last night confronted with evidence that he could have breached Parliamentary rules on expenses, which ban MPs from renting from spouses or lovers.

[…]Mr Laws is a multi-millionaire former investment banker who earned a double first in economics at Cambridge.

[…]Mr Laws escaped censure by the numerous Parliamentary inquiries into expenses because he had never admitted his homosexuality, meaning officials had no way of knowing his landlord was also his lover.

But between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, South London, owned by Mr Lundie, who was also registered as living at the property.

He’s a Liberal Democrat, which is the socialist party in the UK. His secret gay lover is a lobbyist who used to work for former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. So, Liberal Democrats all around. Lib Dems are not just hostile to capitalism, they are totally opposed to religious liberty, the rights of the unborn and traditional marriage. Their UK leader Nick Clegg wants to force Christian schools to endorse homosexuality, (similar to what Dalton McGuinty tried to do in Ontario, Canada).

Something similar happened a while back in Canada

This is not the first time that a prominent socialist has stolen tens of thousands of dollars. Svend Robinson, a former New Democratic Party Member of Parliament in British Columbia, Canada, also committed theft.

Excerpt:

Former NDP MP Svend Robinson has received a conditional discharge and one year probation after pleading guilty to stealing an expensive diamond ring from an auction.

Robinson faced a range of penalties from absolute discharge to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

[…]Robinson had been shopping for a diamond engagement ring he wasn’t sure he could afford just a week before he committed the act of theft.

[…][Robinson’s defense attorney] read several letters from MPs, friends and other colleagues attesting to Robinson’s good character. The letters were from such high-profile as former NDP leader Stephen Lewis, environmentalist David Suzuki, and cabinet minister Stephen Owen.

In court to show their support were Vancouver NDP MP Libby Davies, and Bill Siksay, Robinson’s longtime constituency assistant who won Robinson’s seat in the June federal election.

Svend was able to avoid jail time, but this scandal did not break before he had played a crucial role in legalizing same-sex marriage and passing Canada’s hate crimes and hate speech legislation.

The NDP is the Canadian equivalent of the UK Liberal Democrat Party or the US Democrat party. Robinson was instrumental in criminalizing speech critical of homosexuality in Canada, (Bill C-250). Speech that is offensive to the secular left can be prosecuted criminally in Canada and in the UK, and Obama also passed a bill criminalizing free speech in 2009.

But all of this stealing by socialists is not surprising when you reflect on what socialism is. Socialism is the view that demagogues should gain political power by promising “victims”, (people who freely choose to make irrational and/or immoral decisions), their neighbor’s money. It’s basically theft. So it isn’t really surprising that two socialists should be convicted of stealing other people’s money. That’s what socialism is – THEFT.

Note: comments to this post will be strictly monitored in keeping with Obama’s law restricting free speech.