Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents

The academic journal article below by Donald Paul Sullins comes to conclusions that are hardly surprising -- that homosexual families are bad for the kids -- but homosexuals deny them anyway.  It is true that, as a correlational study, the findings are not conclusive.  There could be other factors at work.  One that should be considered is the role of adoption.  The children of male homosexuals will all be adopted and adopted children generally probably have more problems.  It would be interesting if the data were re-analysed to examine lesbians and their natural children only


Aims: To test whether small non-random sample findings that children with same-sex parents suffer no disadvantage in emotional well-being can be replicated in a large population sample; and examine the correlates of any differences discovered.

Methodology: Using a representative sample of 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey, prevalence in the two groups was compared for twelve measures of emotional problems, developmental problems, and affiliated service and treatment usage, with controls for age, sex, and race of child and parent education and income. Instruments included the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Kessler Scale of Psychological Distress (SPD). Bivariate logistic regression models tested the effect of parent psychological distress, family instability, child peer stigmatization and biological parentage, both overall and by opposite-sex family structure.

Results: Emotional problems were over twice as prevalent (minimum risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-3.0) for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents. Risk was elevated in the presence of parent psychological distress (RR 2.7, CI 1.8-4.3, p (t) < .001), moderated by family instability (RR 1.3, CI 1.2-1.4) and unaffected by stigmatization (RR 2.4, CI 1.4-4.2), though these all had significant direct effects on emotional problems. However, biological parentage nullified risk alone and in combination with any iteration of factors. Joint biological parents are associated with the lowest rate of child emotional problems by a factor of 4 relative to same-sex parents, accounting for the bulk of the overall same-sex/opposite-sex difference.

Conclusion: Joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite. However, further work is needed to determine the mechanisms involved.


SPLC Nurses a Grudge against Popular Doc

Under a phony “civil rights” banner, the SPLC has gotten away with murder in its hate labeling. But this time, the Southern Poverty Law Center may have finally bitten off more than it can chew. As if attacking everyday Christians, small towns, and national organizations like FRC weren’t enough, the group has apparently grown over confident under the Obama administration as they attempt to smear the hugely popular surgeon and neonatal pioneer, Dr. Ben Carson.

As a black man, who was raised in poverty by a single mother, Dr. Carson should be a poster child for the minority success the SPLC pretends to advocate. Instead, the organization, which has morphed into nothing but a multi-million dollar homosexual advocacy group, has made the conservative doctor a target for his mainstream marriage views. Why? Because he rose from poverty as a minority without the aid of big government? Because of a benevolent mother with moral convictions? Or is it because Dr. Carson is a viable candidate with a massive following who refuses to be choked back by political correctness? All of the above?

The absurdity of their hate “watch list” would be comical, if it weren’t dangerous – as FRC’s shooting and the developing story from UNC Chapel Hill prove all too well. Of course, the irony is that rather than expose extremists, SPLC only succeeds in exposing themselves as the rabid, anti-Christian radicals they are. This is a group that cares not about helping impoverished minorities but instead helping elite homosexual activists impose their views on the country.

Dr. Ben Carson may not fit their false civil rights narrative, but he is a man of character and decency, whose only crime is sharing Americans' Bible-based objections to same-sex “marriage.” “When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” Dr. Carson fired back. It’s a shame that SPLC’s vicious political agenda makes it impossible to practice the “tolerance” they claim to seek, especially when it comes to a man who rose above the circumstances SPLC claims to fight. If you’d like to stand with Dr. Carson, sign FRC’s petition and then forward it to your family and friends.


Are the British police at war on terror or with free speech?

National anti-terror unit handed list of Charlie Hebdo stockists to local forces who then went round demanding to know who bought copies

Anti-terror units handed local police officers the names of British newsagents who stocked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the Paris attacks.

But the decision by some forces to then visit the outlets and quiz shopkeepers about who bought the publication was 'overzealous and unnecessary', Britain's anti-terror police chief has said.

Sir Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and national police lead for preventing extremism, said he was now urgently clarifying guidance to all UK forces.

It comes after police were caught asking British newsagents which sold copies of the satirical magazine for details of the customers who bought it.

Shopkeepers in Wales, Wiltshire and Cheshire reported that police approached them and demanded personal information on readers of the magazine.

In a letter to the Guardian, Sir Peter said that the move to provide details of newsagents to local police was intended to 'provide community reassurance'.

But he admitted that officers who then asked for details of individuals who bought the magazine had appeared 'over-zealous and unnecessary'.

He said: 'Following the attacks in Paris, there has been an increase in incidents of antisemitism and Islamaphobia.

'Forces were aware of the potential for heightened tension with the release of Charlie Hebdo and many neighbourhood police officers, who are well known in their communities, may have opted to visit sellers to establish any concerns and provide reassurance.

'However, it is important that we do not erode the very freedoms that we are trying to protect. I understand why asking for the names of those who might have bought this magazine will appear over-zealous and unnecessary. There was no national guidance to this effect and it is not to be supported unless there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed.'

Wiltshire police have since apologised, while the other forces have denied their officers asked for names.

The MailOnline revealed yesterday that The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) was handed a list of Charlie Hebdo's UK stockists by John Menzies, one of the magazine's UK distributors, via the National Counter-Terrorism Policing unit.

ACPO then alerted forces who had shops selling Charlie Hebdo in their area, saying that officers should be aware that the magazine was on sale.

But while the alert said police may wish to visit the shops involved, they should only do so if there were signs of rising tensions.

The advice said forces should review the lists for retailers using post codes, and if there are raised community tension indicators, or a large number of copies advertised for sale, then they should consider a site visit.

The ACPO advice did not recommend visiting each shop, and did not mention taking down the details of customers who had bought the publication, according to the spokesman.

Paul Merrett, 57, owner of a newsagent in Presteigne, Wales, said a detective and a police community support officer arrived at his shop and started to question his wife about the people who bought them.  He said: 'They wanted to know where we had got them from, and did we know who we had sold them to. 

'[My wife] said she wasn't prepared to give any names. She thought we were in trouble for selling them originally, but they said we weren't, and they just wanted to know who bought them.  'We didn't give them any details. It was all very strange. There were a couple of customers in here at the time, so it soon got around town.'

A Dyfed-Powys police spokesman denied that customer details were asked for.  She said: 'It was not the intention to gather any personal information of those who purchased the magazine and we can confirm no purchaser details were asked for or recorded. Dyfed Powys Police can confirm the visits were only made to enhance public safety and to provide community reassurance.'

Cheshire police also denied that officers had asked for customers details.  A spokesman said: 'Officers were asked to call into local newsagents in their area to provide visible reassurance around the time of publication and were not asked under any circumstances to make enquiries as to who was purchasing or preordering the Charlie Hebdo magazine. 'Each area endeavored to visit as many newsagents as possible however we cannot provide an exact figure.'

Wiltshire officers asked at least three newsagents for people's details.

The force apologised after admitting that an officer had taken down the names of four people in the town of Corsham who bought the magazine featuring a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on the front.  A spokesman said: 'Wiltshire Police are confident that the police officer’s intention was purely around enhancing public safety and ensuring that the newsagent was advised appropriately.'

Emma Carr, director of Big Brother Watch, said: 'The Charlie Hebdo attack brought millions of people worldwide together to condemn those who seek to silence free speech through threats of intimidation and violence.

'This move by the police is entirely unacceptable. This sort of investigation would be understandable if a crime was being committed, but the fact is that they have requested information about people who have purchased a perfectly legal publication.

'It is far from clear why the police thought it was acceptable to request this information or what it is that they actually intend to do with it. Considering the comments made in the aftermath of the attacks in Paris by world leaders, that free speech should be celebrated and encouraged, the moves by the police in the UK completely undermine that.'

Hundreds of Britons queued for a copy of the £3.50 souvenir edition of the magazine, published following last month's attack by Islamic extremists on its offices which left 12 people dead.

John Menzies said it had handed over a list of newsagents which had ordered the magazine in the interest of safety and security.  A spokesman said: 'Given the sensitive nature of this product, Menzies Distribution's priority was the safety and security of our employees and customers.  'Where appropriate we consulted with the relevant authorities to ensure the these priorities were met at all times.'

Smiths News, another Charlie Hebdo distributor, has also refused to comment. The move has been branded 'entirely unacceptable' by privacy campaigners. 


UK: Labour council bans PORK from primary schools claiming it is too expensive to monitor diets of Islamic and Jewish pupils

A Labour council has banned pork from primary schools in its area claiming it is too expensive to monitor the diets of Islamic and Jewish pupils.

Islington Council, in north London, has been slammed by members of the pork industry for taking chops, sausages and bacon off the menu.

But while the local authority admits pork is no longer on the menu, it denies banning the meat - instead claiming pork is simply not provided under its current catering contract.

The council has removed pork from all primary school lunches despite the fact it is still being served in Islington's secondary schools.

An Islington Council spokesman said today: 'It's not true that pork is banned in our primary schools. 'It is not currently provided in our catering contract, but if any primary school wants to serve pork we will work with them to arrange it.'

Chris Godfrey, a master butcher who runs the 100-year-old Godfrey's butchers in Highbury Park, said: 'I feel quite strongly about this. I don't really feel we should pander too much to other religions.

'It's not a bad thing to show consideration, but that shouldn't restrict the choice of everyone else.  'The kids deserve to have a choice. I don't think this ban helps anyone.'

Dr Zoe Davies, chief executive of the National Pig Association, said: 'This is something we are particularity concerned about. 'It's something we have heard of but we wouldn't say it's common.  'It tends to happen in areas where there are large numbers of children from, for example, a Muslim background who wouldn't eat pork. 'But we would like there to be a choice. Pork is a very affordable and nutritious meat.'

Cllr Joe Caluori, Islington Council's executive member for children and families, said: 'By not having pork on the menus in our schools, we can keep down costs and reduce food waste, maximising the schools meal budget in tough financial circumstances.

'We meet regularly with our catering contractor and stakeholders and the feedback is that schools are very happy with the food offered by the service.'

A council spokesman said: 'Young children, some as young as four, of different religious and ethnic backgrounds may not know which foods contain pork, or may not realise the importance of avoiding it due to their culture or beliefs.  'Monitoring each child, every day ensuring they are avoiding pork, is an unnecessary cost at a time of tight budgets.'



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: