By Dr. Rich Swier – Happy Father’s Day 2012.
It appears fathers do make a difference. “Two peer-reviewed research articles in the social sciences, released June 10, 2012, challenge the claim made by same-sex parenting researchers over the last decade that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children. This claim, that there are ‘no differences’ in outcomes between the two kinds of parenting, is undermined by new evidence that these papers present,” reports Ana Samuel.
The first study was done by Professor Loren Marks of the Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology. Professor Marks’ findings are published in Social Science Research, July 2012 edition, Volume 41, Issue 4. Professor Marks reviewed 59 American Psychological Association (APA) studies done in 2005, which found no differences between same sex couples and traditional couples. Professor Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the ‘no differences’ paradigm, rests.” [My emphasis]
Specifically Professor Marks found:
The 2005 APA studies were used in 2012 by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Ninth Circuit Court, in part as the basis to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Yahoo News reported, “The [Ninth] Circuit Court backed up District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in August of 2010 that the state of California has no “rational basis” to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage.” That rational basis may no longer be valid with Professor Mark’s findings.
- 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.
- In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.
- No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.
- Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies. [My emphasis]
The second peer reviewed research article is by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin. The Regnerus New Family Structure Study (NFSS) may be found here. NFSS is, “a comparative project which seeks to understand how young adults (~ages 18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and relational outcomes when compared with young adults raised in homes with their married biological parents, those raised with a step-parent, and those raised in homes with two adoptive parents.”
The children of lesbian mothers (see below chart) are:
Chart courtesy of the Washington Times.
- Four times more likely to have been on welfare when growing up.
- Ten times more likely to have been touched by a parent or other adult.
- Nearly four times more likely to have been “forced to have sex unwilfully”.
- Over three times more likely to be unemployed.
- Twice as likely to be recently or currently in therapy.
- Nearly four times more likely to be on public assistance.
The NFSS is unique among gay parenting research in three ways:
First, it compares the outcomes of children who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship with another woman (LM for short) or a father who had a same-sex relationship with another man (GF for short) with the outcomes of children who reported coming from an intact biological family (IBF for short). Most gay parenting research compares gay and lesbian parenting to single, divorced, and step-parent parenting, or conversely compares a select, and often socio-economically privileged, population of gay parents to a broad, representative sample of the general population.
Second, the NFSS focuses on the responses of young-adult children. Other current studies on gay parenting focus on what is going on inside the households of lesbian and gay parents at present, while the children are still under their parent’s care. Moreover, these studies most typically interview the parents for their point of view about what it is like to be parenting as a gay man or lesbian woman.3 This research does not tell us how the children turn out as adults. Indeed, no study has explored that question until now. The NFSS interviewed the sons and daughters of parents who had a same-sex relationship after they had grown up and matured into young adults (ages 18–39), and most of them had already moved out of their parent’s home. These children spoke for themselves about their experiences at home when they were younger and were able to report on how they are doing now as young adults.
Third, the NFSS drew from a large, random sample of the U.S. population of young adults ages 18–39. This third point is a significant strength of the NFSS because, to date, there is only one other gay parenting study that draws from a large, random sample, that of Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University, who relies upon 2010 U.S. Census data. Every other gay parenting study thus far relies upon small or non-probability samples, which do not allow for generalization and are thus inadequate for drawing conclusions about the population at large.4 For example, the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study used a “convenience” sample, and recruited respondents entirely by self-selection (from announcements posted in lesbian newspapers, women’s bookstores and lesbian events in Boston, Washington, and the San Francisco areas).5 While these types of studies are valuable for gathering information about the specific lesbians who demonstrate those kinds of behaviors (that is, who attend book stores, read newspapers, and are “out” enough to attend lesbian events) they are problematic when the goal is to generalize to the general population of lesbians, some of whom may not have the social, economic, or behavioral patterns of the former group. Any claims about the general population that are based on a group that does not represent it will be defective, because the sample will be less diverse than what a truly representative sample would reveal.
Facing direct opposition from the public, biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow are now making a disturbing attempt to brainwash developing minds into accepting their genetically modified foods using blatant lies and propaganda. In a last ditch effort to potentially sway public opinion, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has launched the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids. With the intent to be used by ‘agriculture and science teachers’, the activity book spreads absurd lies about GMO crops — even going as far as to say that they ‘improve our health’ and ‘help the environment’. The book can be seen on the organization’s website, and makes it extremely apparent that it is full of misinformation and propaganda that completely ignores scientific research surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In fact, let’s examine some claims made by this book that serves as an ‘educational’ tool to be used by teachers. The first claim by the activity book is that genetically modified seeds actually grow more food than traditional seeds, and is followed by even more ridiculous statements. The activity book reads: “Hi Kids! Welcome to the Biotechnology Basics Activity Book. This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology — a really neat topic…. You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health. As you work through the puzzles in this book, you will learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world. Have fun!” Disproving Monsanto’s Propaganda According to 900 scientists, GMO crops actually do not grow more food than traditional farming practices. In fact, they are simply not an effective tool to fight starvation in any capacity, thanks to their excessive costs and immense failure to yield crops. Funded by the World Bank and United Nations, an organization was created known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Made up of 900 scientists and researchers, the group — whose mission was to examine the issue of world hunger — found that genetically modified crops were not a meaningful solution to the problem. Instead, the group found that the genetically modified seeds were outperformed by traditional “agro-ecological” farming practices. Therefore, to say that biotech seeds and crops produce more food than traditional agriculture is not only scientifically incorrect according to these 900 scientists, but it is an outright lie. Do GMOs ‘Improve Our Health’? But what about the claim that GMOs improve our health? It turns out nothing could be farther from the truth. A prominent review of 19 studies examining the safety of GMO crops found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly in the liver and kidneys. Of course the negative effects do not end there. Monsanto’s modified biopesticide, known as Bt, has been found to be killing human kidney cells in conjunction with Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup. That’s right, it exhibits direct toxicity to human cells. Further adding to the long list of negative health consequences that go against the claim that the biotech inventions ‘improve our health’ , Monsanto’s Roundup ready crops have also been linked to mental illness, obesity, infertility, and DNA damage. Peer-reviewed research shows that Monsanto’s products are far from healthy, and to say that they actually improve our health is truly concerning when you consider the fact that children are reading this information as fact. The biotechnology organization also failed to mention how Monsanto has been caught running slave labor rings, forcing ‘employees’ into illegal working conditions in which they were forced to work 14 hours or more per day on the field. What’s more, the laborers were unable to leave the premises if they expected to ever receive their pay. ‘Helping the Environment’ The next claim that needs addressing is perhaps the most ludicrous of them all. Do Monsanto’s products really help the environment as the book claims? Remember, this is given to teachers as scientific information, not just presented as an opinion. Research has shown that Monsanto’s modified Bt pesticide is actually mutating the very genetic coding of insect life on the planet, creating super resistant ‘mutant’ bugs that are wreaking havoc on farms using Monsanto’s harmful concoctions across the globe. At least 8 populations of insects have developed some form of resistance, with 2 populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole. Perhaps most concerning is the mounting root worm resistance as a result of Monsanto’s GMO corn usage. A group of 22 academic corn experts recently petitioned the EPA over the extreme danger presented by the crops, urging the EPA to take long awaited action. The experts sent a letter on March 5th to the agency explaining their worries regarding long-term corn production prospects in light of GMO crops failures. If nothing is done, experts worry that the future of agricultural stability is threatened. Experts are also concerned about the mass amount of ‘super weeds’ currently springing up around the globe as a result of Monsanto’s Roundup. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of super weeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa. The public is not buying the lies regarding Monsanto’s GMO crops, and as a result biotech giants are scrambling to preserve their dwindling role in our society. There is a serious war on for the minds of developing children right now, and it is being waged by government-approved mega corporations who care not for the health of these children but for profits. The claims made within this book are not only scientifically unfounded, but they are seriously dangerous to the health of children and adults alike. This phony book is far from an ‘educational’ resource. Explore More:
- India Slams Monsanto with Unprecedented ‘Biopiracy’ Charges
- GMO Protesters Shut Down California Monsanto Office
- Monsanto Declared Worst Company of 2011
- Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops
- Breaking: Monsanto Forced Out of UK by Activists
- Monsanto Admittedly Influences Colorado GMO Ban, Launches Phony ‘GMO Co-Existence’ Protests
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-biotechnology-book-for-kids-caught-brainwashing-children/#ixzz1pz4HCw1K