Thursday, July 21, 2011

Santorum has a Bias

Not that anybody is surprised by this or anything, but Rick Santorum indicated at a campaign stop last week that he believes that the US government should have a bias against anyone choosing to breed or adopt who is not a married straight couple (via Think Progress):
SANTORUM: But what I believe is that government should have a bias, a bias in favor of what is best for society, a bias in favor of what is proven to be best for children, which is the future of society.

From just the standpoint of how do children who are born out of wedlock do with respect to their educational achievement, their professional achievement, with respect to their criminal record, with respect to drug use, with respect to having children out of wedlock themselves, with having broken families themselves — how do they do? In every measure — every measure, overwhelmingly — they do worse.
The video is on Think Progress, if you feel inclined to watch it. Otherwise, please enjoy the following statement from the American Psychological Association:
Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
Once you've enjoyed that, please enjoy this quote from the Journal of Marriage and Family:
Because access to legal same-sex marriage is so new and rare, we do not yet have research that compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples. Even so, scholars have achieved a rare degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005).
And, for good measure, here's one more tidbit from the APA:
Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends—both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.
The Family Research Council does have some studies that say that gays and lesbians are too busy fucking and doing drugs to be good parents, but I'm not actually going to link to them because, well, they're a hate group. I've never found a word they've promoted to be true.

In closing, I'd like to present you with this quote from the State of California in 1948, during the Perez v. Lippold anti-miscegenation case (via equalitygiving.org):
It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.
Just sayin'.

7 comments:

  1. Smegmorum homorum hocum pokum abominum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm proud and pleased to have generated one more hit for your blog, thus burying that other "S" just that much deeper under the "frothy mixture" (goddess--did you HAVE to make it sound like German chocolate cake batter?). What a clever, creative, and successful way of relegating the sort of ideas and values that should have long ago been relegated to the scrap heap to the, well, the electronic scrap heap!

    Bodie P.
    http://www.magicdogpress.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your general audience knows that Focus on the Family is a bigoted, anachronistic PAC, but what of the rare conservative who ventures here? (And how about that endangered species, the openminded conservative?) Publish their "findings," and then destroy them. If you change even one mind, it'll have been worth the extra 200 words.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L45.pdf

    Other than trying to discredit more reputable studies, it mostly says "gay people do drugs and have sex, so their kids are gonna be fucked up." Not particularly scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Also, thanks for having me look that up again, because it turned out to be the Family Research Council, not Focus on the Family. I get them confused for some reason. Can't imagine why.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. hmmm nice one i love to read these types of articles!

    Women Clothing

    ReplyDelete