It’s difficult today to say anything in favour of the intact, married family without putting somebody’s nose out of joint. Last week it was a blogger at the LBGT site ThinkProgress who took umbrage at a comment by Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton. I’ll let Mr Stanton tell you how from his post on NRO’s Home Front blog: Read more…
First of all this week, there was a big (about 5,000 observations) sophisticated (University of Chicago Business School) study of bad behavior in little boys. Conclusion: little boys benefit substantially from living with both their biological parents. The second study was a little (78 observations) simplistic (unrepresentative sample, ideologically motivated researchers) of the Quality of Life of the children of lesbian couples. Conclusion: the children of lesbian couples are just as happy and well-adjusted as their peers. Read more…
By Michael Worley, First year law student at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, and a 2011 graduate of the Ruth Institute It Takes a Family to Raise a Village program.
It is common knowledge that TV reports don’t tell the whole story. Frequently a group of 75 undecided voters gather to share their responses immediately after a debate. Such people provide instant commentary that the theorists of network TV may not be able to perceive. However, these groups tend not to be predictive of overall election results. Random polling via phone calls shows us much clearer results. Read more…
Special note: Prof. Brad Wilcox will be a speaker at this summer’s “It Takes a Family” Conference sponsored by the Ruth Institute.
In the realm of parenthood today nothing can be taken for granted — not even that a mother and father are the best thing for children, at least according to certain elites. Read more…
I haven’t seen many details on the Delaware case I posted the other day. But one fact is clear: the non-mother in same sex couple did not do a second party adoption. If she had done an adoption, she would have the same parental rights as the woman who went to Kazakhstan to adopt the child in the first place. With a second party adoption, there would be no case here at all. According to the story, “Delaware does allow such adoptions, and Guest intended to file those papers later.”
She “intended” to file for adoption, but never did. We can only speculate as to why.
1. Maybe she just didn’t get around to it, and there was no other reason.
2. Maybe she didn’t really want to. Maybe she only wanted to after the sexual relationship broke up, and she wanted to be vindictive. Dissolving sexual relationships can bring out the worst in people.
3. Maybe the adoptive mother decided, all things considered, that she didn’t want to allow her child to be adopted by someone else.
To those of you who are defending this Delaware law, I have a couple of questions.
1. Does it make any difference to you, which of these reasons accounts for Guest’s failure to file the adoption papers?
2. Does it make any difference to you, whether Guest had a sexual relationship with Smith or not? And if it does, explain why Guest’s sexual involvement with an adoptive mother should make her automatically a priveleged candidate for adopting her child?
by Walter R Schumm
Research showing the risks of lesbian and gay parenting is ignored in the race to make a political case.
There is an inherent risk that anyone who has anything to say about gay male or lesbian parenting, no matter how cautious, will be misunderstood at best and vilified at worst. Nevertheless, the mission of a university professor includes seeking new ways to look at old issues, to resist all forms of intimidation, and to ensure that multiple sides of controversial issues are considered. Since there are more voices promoting the virtues of parenting by people defining themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT), I will present here an alternative, possibly minority, view that focuses on some of the possible risks associated with gay and lesbian parenting. Read more…
You’ve all seen the headlines by now: “Children of lesbian parents do well.” These headlines are based on a new study published in the journal Pediatrics. I actually read the study, which is my custom before commenting. I also read the letters to the editor on this study.
Here are 8 reasons why this study does not prove anything about the functioning of the children of lesbians.
1. The sample is extremely small: 78 children of lesbian mothers and 93 children in the control group.
2. The sample of lesbian mothers is unlikely to be representative of the general population of lesbians. This is a sample of people who volunteered for the study, not a random sample. The most motivated and high-functioning people are the most likely to volunteer for a politically charged study.
3. The “results” are intrinsically unreliable. The results are nothing but the mothers’ reports of their childrens’ behavior and functioning. There is no cross-checking with objective outcomes, Read more…
Loading ...
