Counterculture Con HQ

June 9, 2010

Science! Lesbian Parents raise healthier kids

Science discovers children need fathers like fish need a bicycle.

Ooh, James Dobson is going to hate this: A new study has found that the kids of lesbian parents turn out just as well-adjusted as their peers. What’s more, they have fewer behavioral problems and greater self-confidence. That is to say, lesbian parents not only do just as well as hetero households on the child-rearing front, but they actually manage to do some things better. Who’s “focusing on the family” now, huh?

You might be familiar with the past research frequently cited by marriage equality activists finding that kids raised by gay families do just as well as those reared in straight homes. But this study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first of its kind. Over the span of 25 years, researchers Nanette Gartrell of the University of California at San Francisco and Henry Bos of the University of Amsterdam followed 84 families in which mothers identified as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination. That’s key, as it ruled out women who got pregnant while in a heterosexual relationship before transitioning into a lesbian relationship.

Using a standard behavioral checklist, the parents evaluated their kids’ emotional, social and academic behavior five times from birth until age 17, and the young’uns were interviewed at age 10 and age 17. The outcome: Kids raised by lesbians were less likely to have behavioral issues, and exhibited greater confidence and academic performance. So, this is all just wonderful. Surely “pro-family” organizations will take this as a directive to legalize gay marriage in the name of children’s well-being, right?

Of course not, silly goose. Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, told CNN: “This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome — to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household.” It is certainly true that the study was partially funded by LGBT advocacy groups; it’s also true that this is a peer-reviewed study. I heartily encourage Concerned Women for America to fund its own study and attempt to get it into a reputable scientific journal.

The truth is, we don’t know why these kids fared better in certain behavioral respects — and it might not have to do with having lesbian parents, per se. One factor that seems awfully important here is that these pregnancies were all planned. Like, really, really planned. There were no forgotten pills, broken condoms or one too many glasses of red wine; these women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination. It’s always possible these results have less to do with gay parenting than with planned parenting — not that ultra-conservatives would find that any less upsetting.

Source

Not only healthier, but already pre-programmed in the Gay Agenda/ lifestyle, all without even having to pay some university to do it for you!  Sigh. And would the journal of Pediatrics have published a study commissioned by Concerned Women for America or James Dobson?  That was purely a rhetorical question.  It’s simply inconceivable that they would.  And this illustrates perfectly how the Progs maintain their dominance in the culture.  With their “peer review” process, they vet the studies, deciding which ones to review and which to reject outright, and then they invoke as “authority” their very own peer reviews.  Case in point the study above, as the journal of Pediatrics and the authors of this study give each other the big reach around.  This “peer review” circle jerk is similarly used by the global warming movement to propagate their narrative while shutting down their detractors.

First we should commend these Lesbian couples for raising happy children.  To the extent this study is accurate, that is an accomplishment unto itself.  We aren’t criticizing these Lesbian families, only what masquerades as science which is then is used to further a political agenda.  CCHQ promotes a judeo-christian standard in the macro, but never at the expense of compassion in the micro. We don’t condemn individuals just because we support a higher ideal or different standard.   This post, therefore, is not about the Lesbian couples, but about the study.

The study is bogus.  Fake.  Ersatz.  And it illustrates perfectly just how thoroughly the Left has politicized every aspect of society, even our science.  Better to have two mommies than to have a mom and dad.  How many of you really believe that?  That is absurd on its face.  Most of us need no further convincing of that, but for those of you that do, consider that the article already admits these Lesbian families are “planned.”  Every attention to detail is given to their family “project.”  That alone throws the study off, and if this were all the evidence we had the study was bogus, it would be enough.  But there’s more.

They have taken 3-4 dozen lesbian couples, presumably stable (“over the span of 25 years…”), all middle to upper middle class, educated and professional (or they couldn’t afford the artificial insemination process); while the hetero families used in the study are presumably taken from the population at large, with no such controls for affluence, planning, or stability.  In other words, they have compared a highly selective, narrow sample of Lesbians to a random and diverse group of heteros.  That too, alone, should be enough to invalidate its conclusions.

Most important of all is the bogus, results-skewing method in which the data is gathered.  The article states, the parents evaluated their own children’s behaviour. Picture this: Scientist shows up with his survey forms and says, “Ladies, we’re conducting a study to see how children raised by progressive, tolerant Lesbian couples stack up against those raised by closed-minded, hetero-centric, homophobic couples in the population at large.  There’s no agenda behind this at all (wink, wink!).  Please feel free to record your own results, we’ll be back to collect them shortly.  Oh, and remember there’s no agenda behind this at all!  Nudge! Nudge!”  Has the study factored this into its results?

The fact is, these highly politicized and incentivized Lesbian couples on an GLBT crusade are probably not entering this study with their eyes closed the way random, oblivious hetero couples probably are.  The latter group isn’t going to be all fired up about scoring points for heteros the way I suspect are GLBT couples.  So naturally the self-reporting by Lesbian couples is going to be skewed.  This too is obvious on its face, and this too alone invalidates the study.

And finally, this Gay Agenda-funded study defines the parameters of what constitutes “healthy”, and then pushes that standard as the norm. Let’s just take their first criteria– Self-esteem– as an example.  In study after study, American high school kids show far higher levels of “self-esteem” than high school kids overseas, yet they score the lowest at every academic level.  So on what precisely is this false sense of “self-esteem” based?  Certainly not on accomplishment!  The American “self-esteem” movement has completely de-linked self-esteem from accomplishment, and now even some social scientists are admitting that “self-esteem” has crossed into over-confidence. And in a godless, secular society where a man’s worth cannot be measured by the transcendental or divine, what exactly is this so-called “self-esteem” based on then?  If not on accomplishment, what’s left?  Nothing!  The sad truth about the self-esteem movement is that they have actually harmed the cause of our children, not benefitted them.  When I hear “self-esteem” from these Sec Prog do-gooders my ears ring with the word NARCISSISM.  This faux “self-esteem” is both the cause and the result of civilizational decline.  Yet, this study cites self-esteem narcissism as a sign of “health”!

What about signs of dysfunction that the study ignores in their survey?  Does a child that grows up EFFEMINATE and probably gay or bisexual himself because he had no father as a role model qualify as “healthy”?  According to this study it does!  What about other studies that suggest girls raised by single moms–  with no male presence in the home– are unable to relate to men in the real world? I’m willing to bet this isn’t counted against Lesbian parenting by our study either!  The fact is, their criteria are purely subjective and agenda-driven.  That’s why this study is bogus.  It relies on the fallacy of misplaced empiricism, which is the assumption that they– the arbiters– can design a survey form that reflects “reality”, when all it really does is capture their bias.  Social scientists with an agenda commit this fallacy all the time.

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. Total B.S.! If you want to see what they have in store for us, watch “Gattaca” (1997): notice that once they have the technology (check), and the laws in place (about halfway there), they can rebuild humanity in their image. All perfectly “hygienic”, in Sanger’s terminology. Barney Frank is calling for more power. If they think they can perfect human nature by tinkering with the tax code, wait ’til they get their hands on the genome.

    Comment by Thorvald — June 9, 2010 @ 06:22


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: