Should anything tragic ever happen to my family – heaven forbid – and the media and photographers descend on me like a flock of crows, may God grant me the grace to resist the impulse to shove their cameras so far up their asses that they can take pictures of the cavity where their hearts used to be.
Oreo came out yesterday and said they “Support Love”. And so, today this site comes out and says we ‘Support Authentic Love’.
See ya, Kraft products. And no, (see below) we won’t rethink our stance…
- Oreo’s gay pride Facebook post prompts threats of boycott (guardian.co.uk)
- Rainbow Oreos: Will Nabisco Make Cookie Inspired By Pro-Gay Facebook Photo? (ibtimes.com)
- Oreo Gay Pride May Start Boycott: DNews Nuggets (news.discovery.com)
- Gay Oreo Inspires Internet Outrage (escapistmagazine.com)
Re-blogged from CatholicVote:
One of the pillars of the argument to redefine marriage to be genderless has been that there is “no difference” in the outcomes witnessed between children raised by both their biological parents and kids raised by gay parents.
This has not been just a side argument, it has been one of the core arguments put forward by advocates of redefining marriage. It has become gospel truth for all the major national pro-gay marriage organizations, it is repeated over and over again by mainstream media, and was even part of the ridiculous ”findings of fact” issued by the activist judge who ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
Now all that could change.
My particular hope in all of this is that individuals who originally changed their views about marriage because of previous misleading research about child outcomes display the intellectual honesty to revisit their support of same-sex marriage now that we have more conclusive evidence to the contrary.
As Lauren Hoedeman helpfully reports on these pages, the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus is the new gold standard when it comes to analyzing outcomes of children raised by a gay parent (or gay parents). It analyzes a far larger and more representative sample of kids who grew up in a household with a gay parent than every previous study on the subject.
Tying together strands found not only in the Regenerus research, but other research (including U.S. Census data) it is now pretty clear that gay parenting is a) extremely rare compared to heterosexual parenting and b) when it does take place, being raised by a gay parent (or parents) is a very destabilizing experience.
How rare is rare? Out of this study of 3,000 respondents, only two individuals said they were raised from birth-to-age 18 in a same-sex household (both of them in lesbian households, the study found no similar male-male households). This is not a sampling error, this is because the fact of the matter is that consistent same-sex parenting is just incredibly rare — less than half of one percent of children are being raised in a same-sex household, from the statistics I’ve seen.
How unstable is unstable? Adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 out of 40 measured categories. Adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 out of the same 40 measured categories. Some of these outcomes are drastically more negative (the Washington Times previews some of them here, for the rest of the statistically-significant differences, see the full study here), and exceptionally harmful, including the incidence of being abused by a parent or caretaker, or experiencing suicidal thoughts, etc.
So here are my 5 quick reasons why the new Regnerus study means its time for gay marriage supporters to revisit some of their core assumptions about the reality of gay parenting and how this reflects on the wider debate about marriage:
1. The Regnerus study is more comprehensive, larger and more illustrative than any previous study of gay parenting outcomes, and its methodology is sound.
The central question that gay marriage activists must answer is why previous studies, with far fewer participants and conducted in far less rigorous manners, should be taken as more reliable than the Regnerus study? Gay activists who are now criticizing the methodology of the Regnerus study (unsuccessfully, I believe) are the same voices who were perfectly happy to ignore methodological problems with the previous studies. Double-standard, much?
2. The Regnerus study notes that, for the vast majority of kids, being raised by a same-sex parent is an unstable experience which results in poor outcomes.
Why, if we are so concerned with child well-being (as we should be) should we regularize and equate with marriage these types of relationships and lifestyles that we now know to be far more unstable than a married husband and wife? How can gay marriage proponents continue to make the absurd argument that gay people will “save” marriage when they exhibit far less stability than the average married husband and wife?
3. The Regnerus study proves that thorough social science research simply hasn’t been done on same-sex parenting and child outcomes up until this point.
Why are gay marriage activists attempting to rush the rest of us to judgement before all the facts are in? Why not spend more time actually looking into the effects of same-sex parenting on the next generation before radically altering the nature of the institution which countless generations have found to be the optimal environment to raise children? Will gay marriage proponents cease attacking people who believe, in agreement with the best social science we now have available, that kids do best when raised by their married mother and father?
4. If gay people are “born that way” and this means they have a “right” to marry (which doesn’t follow) why does the Regnerus study find significant differences in sexual orientation based on family of origin?
If orientation is simply genetic (and not also based on environment, etc) why do children, for instance, raised by lesbians display such a higher likelihood of identifying as gay themselves? Shouldn’t the household they were raised in make absolutely no difference, if children are simply “born gay”, like we are constantly told?
5. If gay marriage is about being honest and open we need a lot more conversation about and research into the actual outcomes of kids raised in same-sex households.
Almost every cable news network and print publication in America, I would bet, has published news items and stories about the previous flawed research on same-sex parenting. Now they must carry out their equal responsibility and report on this study, or risk willfully withholding the truth from the American people, in a critical year when four states will vote on marriage and the issue could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So far the study is gaining traction, but it deserves more attention.
In the meantime, the burden is on us to get the news out far and wide.
Here is the link to the Regnerus study.
And here are some useful links on this topic:
Patheos.com: Q&A with Mark Regnerus about the background of his new study
Washington Times: Study suggests risks from same-sex parenting
Deseret News: Studies challenge widely held assumptions about same-sex parenting
Dr. Keith Ablow: Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents
The Corner: Kathryn Lopez interviews Regnerus on the reaction to his research
What do you think? Does this research make you re-think your support of same-sex marriage? Does it solidify your support for traditional marriage?
There are treasures stored up in heaven for souls such as these… Please consider supporting these little ones.
NHA TRANG, Vietnam: Sitting cross-legged on a straw mat in the middle of the living room, Tong Phuoc Phuc sings a soothing Vietnamese lullaby. For a moment, his deep voice works magic, and the tiny room crammed with 13 babies is still.Phuc giggles like a proud papa. He’s not related to any of them, but without him, many of these children likely would have been aborted. And to Phuc, abortion is unimaginable.
The 41-year-old Catholic from the coastal town of Nha Trang has opened his door to unwed expectant mothers in a country that logs one of the world’s highest abortion rates. In 2006, there were more than 114,000 abortions at state hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City outnumbering births. Most pregnant, unmarried Vietnamese women have few options. Abortion is a welcome choice for many who simply cannot afford to care for a baby or are unwilling to risk…
View original post 1,838 more words
If the following facts about Obamacare are accurate, how can the Obama administration be construed any other way other than being that of a force hostile to the basic cell of every society, the family?
Here’s the ObamaCare and its Mandates fact sheet
This site encourages you to support the Alliance Defense Fund with your generous donation.
END OF POST
Portland police are warning May Day demonstrators that violations of the law will not be tolerated, and now we know why. This from an Occupy Portland Tweet:
Their faces may be hidden, but they have their own propaganda machine, or as the young rads would have us call it today, an “Information Warfare Spoke” from which the following video originates.
–notice how it begins by commemorating the history of the first May Day in America (1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago) when a dynamite bomb was thrown at police. Yep, dynamite bomb. And according to these useful idiots that same world returns to America on May 1st, 2012…
The cohorts responsible for the above propaganda call themselves The Portland Liberation Organizing Council (PLOC). They believe in [quote], “collective control of community resources, including land, housing and space to organize.”
For the uninitiated or uneducated, this is called Communism. A failing philosophy and political system that was and remains ultimately responsible before God and man for the deaths of millions of real living innocent persons.
PLOC is coordinated through a spokes council comprised of working clusters (see diagram). Each cluster is comprised of groups or members within groups from the radical community that are focused on a specific area of work.
So, Portland police aside, guess if they have their own way about it the specific focus of work on May 1st this year will be that “nobody, and nothing works” and anarchy alone prevails in the streets of Portland until Capitalism is done away with.
Okay, we get it.
Radicalism and anarchy is widely associated with the Occupy Movement and May Day is its big rally and cry-in, not to be confused with love-in, peace-out, or even justice. But for Catholics that’s not what May 1st, or for that matter, the entire month of May represents–and no Catholic or parish should ever support this rubbish. That’s why faithful Catholics in Western Oregon should start asking the Archpdx chancery why the spokes council meets every Thursday at a Catholic Church? Again, from the source:
This is a day when those heavily involved in working groups within Occupy Portland have an opportunity to exchange announcements, connect, and decide proposals affecting the inner workings of Occupy Portland. Anyone not associated with a group is welcome to attend and participate by sitting in the open caucus. Currently held in the Cafeteria at St. Francis.
Here’s a question I would like answered: Why does the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, permit St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church to house, promote, and support Occupy Portland, when it’s obvious that in pursuing its goals OP plans, promotes, and enables lawlessness and violence, in effect endangering society?
I can’t believe the Sacred Heart is pleased with His body contributing to the scandal of police and thieves slugging it out in the streets on May 1st, the feast of St. Joseph the Worker. I do believe, however, that the following suggestion would be more merciful and in accord with the mind of Christ: May 1 is celebrated in Communist countries as the Day of the International Solidarity of Workers. Today would be a good day to pray for atheistic Communism’s influence to cease and a proper application of the principles explained by Leo XIII in Rerum novarum and John Paul II in Centesimus annus to be the guide used by nations–including our own.
To voice your charitable objections…
ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND – WESTERN OREGON
838 E. Burnside St.Portland, OR 97214-1895
Most Reverend John G. Vlazny
firstname.lastname@example.org (AB secretary)
Mary Jo Tully – Chancellor
503-234-5334 Fax 503-234-2545
The Archdiocesan Pastoral Council (western Oregon)
END OF POST