The science is in.
Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.
The study, which tracked data from the 2011-2012 National Survey of Children’s Health, found that 70 percent of children raised by both biological parents had been completely free from traumas, which the researchers called “adverse childhood events.”
Quote:"Children are most likely to thrive, and least likely to face adversity, when they are raised in a married home by their biological parents,” Wilcox told LifeSiteNews. “This new study from the CDC is consistent with the general findings in the research on child well-being.”
Link
Did they really need a new study to figure this out?
How do I get some if this "research" money? They could have just handed me a Benjamin and I would give them the same answer.
A traumas free environment for children is not part of the alt. lifestyles agenda.
All other things being equal, it's amazing that anyone can argue that this isn't the ideal.
I hope they did not spend much to come up with these findings. Nothing really new here...despite what homosexuals would like for us to believe.
(05-10-2014 02:24 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]All other things being equal, it's amazing that anyone can argue that this isn't the ideal.
It simply is the natural way of things.
There are lots of studies to prove the self-evident.
My personal favorite is probably the one that showed that men who help with housework get laid more.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what a battle a poor kid with same gender mother and father goes through. It's tantamount to mental abuse. But like all things with these perverts they only think of themselves.
(05-10-2014 02:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: [ -> ]Did they really need a new study to figure this out?
^^Yes!^^ The Obvious Study strikes again.
Quote:"Children are most likely to thrive, and least likely to face adversity, when they are raised in a married home by their biological parents.”
This was true thousands of years ago and will remain true.
Over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. At least gay couples have someone filling each role. Black youth, particularly males really suffer when there is no father. And our government continues to make it relatively easy for women to have multiple kids by multiple fathers.
of course, even trying to discuss this issue will get you branded some unflattering names.
"At least gay couples have someone filling each role".
Wow, unbelievable.
Stable, loving homes > unstable, abusive ones.
The reality is a two hetero parent house gets that more of the time than any other parental scenario.
(05-10-2014 02:28 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of studies to prove the self-evident.
My personal favorite is probably the one that showed that Girly-men who help with housework get laid more.
FIFY
(05-10-2014 04:04 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2014 02:28 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]There are lots of studies to prove the self-evident.
My personal favorite is probably the one that showed that Girly-men who help with housework get laid more.
FIFY
I'd say they have the right idea.
(05-10-2014 03:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]"At least gay couples have someone filling each role".
Wow, unbelievable.
Of course, two biological parents is the best alternative. And I am no fan of gay marriage, but really do not care enough about what two people do behind closed doors to lose any sleep over it.
The problem with single-parent homes is that there often is modeling of behavior of male and female roles, and the absence of a fatherly role takes away opportunity for the kids to learn about financial responsibility, accountability for one's actions, sticking with something even if the current situation sucks, etc.
If we are really going to continue spending on the so-called war on poverty, I'd rather spend by rewarding decisions made by the generationally-dependent that allow their offspring some chance at a future, vice just throwing money to folks that continue to make poor decisions, and have no economic reason to change that behavior ad infintum. You have to incent behavior in the right direction (and vice versa), even if solely financially, if the moral/religious reasons for owning up to the kids you create are not so compelling to an ever-increasing population.
(05-10-2014 04:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2014 03:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]"At least gay couples have someone filling each role".
Wow, unbelievable.
Of course, two biological parents is the best alternative. And I am no fan of gay marriage, but really do not care enough about what two people do behind closed doors to lose any sleep over it.
The problem with single-parent homes is that there often is modeling of behavior of male and female roles, and the absence of a fatherly role takes away opportunity for the kids to learn about financial responsibility, accountability for one's actions, sticking with something even if the current situation sucks, etc.
If we are really going to continue spending on the so-called war on poverty, I'd rather spend by rewarding decisions made by the generationally-dependent that allow their offspring some chance at a future, vice just throwing money to folks that continue to make poor decisions, and have no economic reason to change that behavior ad infintum. You have to incent behavior in the right direction (and vice versa), even if solely financially, if the moral/religious reasons for owning up to the kids you create are not so compelling to an ever-increasing population.
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with same gender couples adopting. I think it screws up the child thinking this type of behavior is normal and most likely will adopt it too. JMHO
Look, on moral and religious grounds, I fully understand that opinion. And would agree that kids brought up in that environment will face some additional challenges, as well. However, I personally am much more worried about the level of dependency/lack of accountability of supposedly grown adults in this country (and what it costs us as taxpayers), vice a social issue that really does not affect me much at all.
Quote:Black youth, particularly males really suffer when there is no father. And our government continues to make it relatively easy for women to have multiple kids by multiple fathers.
Quote:The problem with single-parent homes is that there often is modeling of behavior of male and female roles, and the absence of a fatherly role takes away opportunity for the kids to learn about financial responsibility, accountability for one's actions, sticking with something even if the current situation sucks, etc.
I agree wholeheartedly with this ODUsmitty. A caring, loving and involved father or other predominant male role model (older male sibling, male relative, mentor, etc.) can make a huge difference for families and kids. In addition to what you listed, I would add a father can help reduce acts of violence involving males to show that "being a man" is more about how to properly handle conflicts without resorting to fists or worse actions. Fathers can also show their sons how to properly treat females and show daughters how a "true man" treats them which improves their self-esteem/self-image.
From the study:
Quote:The traumas the researchers focused on were divorce or separation, death of a parent . . .
It is shocking, truly shocking, that children that live with both of their biological parents have experienced fewer divorces and deaths of parents than those that don't. Wait a minute . . .
From the study:
Quote:These adverse events and circumstances could have occurred at any time in the child’s life, and may have preceded or even contributed to the child’s current living situation.
You don't say. While I agree the study is largely useless, it has nothing to do with homosexual parenting.
From the study:
Quote:Number of parents in household—Children were categorized as living with both biological parents, living with one biological parent, or living with no biological parents. Children living with step or adoptive parents were excluded.
Because of the exclusion of this cohort, the study does not actually prove what the article says it does (but to be fair to the authors of the article, the study kind of hides the ball on this information). I make no claim about how these living arrangements stack up to the traditional two-biological-parent type, but neither does the study.
The biggest problem is with children in the foster care system. Of course, it usually takes at least one adverse event before a child is tossed into foster care so the results aren't exactly surprising. I think the correlation is probably stronger in the other direction than the one the study seems to suggest. The results seem to be as more a function of the fact that children who experience multiple adverse events end up in the foster care system more often than those who don't. This is probably often true for children living with their grandparents or other relatives as well.
Again, from the study:
Quote:More than one-half of children in foster care had experienced caregiver violence or caregiver incarceration and almost two-thirds had lived with someone with an alcohol or drug problem. Estimates for children in other nonparental care subgroups were lower than for foster care, but still elevated above those of children living with biological parents.
(05-10-2014 04:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2014 04:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2014 03:52 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]"At least gay couples have someone filling each role".
Wow, unbelievable.
Of course, two biological parents is the best alternative. And I am no fan of gay marriage, but really do not care enough about what two people do behind closed doors to lose any sleep over it.
The problem with single-parent homes is that there often is modeling of behavior of male and female roles, and the absence of a fatherly role takes away opportunity for the kids to learn about financial responsibility, accountability for one's actions, sticking with something even if the current situation sucks, etc.
If we are really going to continue spending on the so-called war on poverty, I'd rather spend by rewarding decisions made by the generationally-dependent that allow their offspring some chance at a future, vice just throwing money to folks that continue to make poor decisions, and have no economic reason to change that behavior ad infintum. You have to incent behavior in the right direction (and vice versa), even if solely financially, if the moral/religious reasons for owning up to the kids you create are not so compelling to an ever-increasing population.
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with same gender couples adopting. I think it screws up the child thinking this type of behavior is normal and most likely will adopt it too. JMHO
I agree that it's not ideal, but when the choice is between letting gays adopt or letting the kids rot in the system, which is better?
Less ideal or one of the worst things that could happen?