Archive for March 2012
Response: Do Kids Need Moms and Dads?
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
Do Kids Need Moms and Dads?
by Joseph Backholm | March 29, 2012
According to the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers held certain truths to be self-evident. By my understanding, that means that there were some things we could agree were true even if millions of dollars had not been spent studying the subject.
For many of us, that list would include the idea that drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad.
Curiously, what used to be self-evident is apparently quite controversial. A couple days ago I was in a forum (which will air in the Seattle TV market on KCTS Channel 9 on April 17th) during which, I was accused of bearing false witness for saying it is preferable for kids to have a mom and a dad.
While on one hand it concerns me that otherwise intelligent adults would argue that it isn't at least desirable for kids to be connected to their mother and father, as someone interested in winning a public debate on the marriage issue it encourages me when our opponents are forced to defend the absurd.
The rebuttal to the idea that kids should have both a mom and dad is to point out that some moms and dads are bad parents. While unfortunately true, this response misses the point. The point is not that every man and woman are great parents, but that it is ideal if the great parents we hope every child has is that child's mom and dad. If that is impossible, a mom and dad are the preferred alternative. Historically this has not been an outrageous thing to say.
Many people in Washington State don't feel passionately about the same-sex "marriage" issue. They may be sympathetic to the so-called gay rights movement because they think everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Of course that is true. And in Washington State, that is the status quo by any reasonable measure. Domestic partnerships have all the rights and benefits of marriage. Fairness cannot be defined as the right to marry whomever you want because not even those pushing to redefine marriage believe there should be no restrictions on who can get married.
In their pursuit of fairness I don't think the average voter is willing to abandon the idea that it is preferable for kids to have a mom and a dad. So, every time our opponents make that argument, we win.
Unfortunately for them, they must make that argument. In order to argue that marriage should be redefined, they argue that homosexual relationships are in every way the equivalent of heterosexual relationships. In order to believe that, you must conclude that it is unimportant for children to have a mother and father, otherwise the presence or absence of both a mom and a dad would represent a relevant difference between the relationships.
But because their position requires them to deny any meaningful difference, they are forced into arguing that moms and dads, men and women, are interchangeable and independently insignificant.
Logic suggests that when one conclusion requires you to believe something else that is obviously untrue that you should reconsider your conclusion. But for those who disagree with us on the marriage issue, they don't have that option. Their view of the rest of the universe is built upon their belief that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But for the casual observer of the debate, I still believe logic can prevail.
So stick with what works. Moms and dads are preferable. Most people recognize that. And once people come to terms with the fact that the redefinition of marriage requires people to also conclude that moms and dads are simply one of many acceptable options, I think we win. After all, most people still understand that some truths really are self-evident.
What do you think of this article? Agree? Disagree?
USDA allows schools an alternative to “Pink Slime” after public outcry
The USDA has made the decision to offer public schools an alternative to buying beef that’s made with “pink slime,” the chemically-treated beef additive that has been in national headlines recently. Fast food giants like McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King stopped using it in their beef after it received national attention a year ago, and many people were outraged to find out that it was still being served in schools.
If you haven’t seen any of the news stories about it, “Pink slime” is a ground beef additive made from the muscle and connective tissue of the cow. According to The Washington Post, the process involves taking USDA-approved beef trimmings, separating the fat and meat with centrifuges, then squeezing the lean beef through a tube the size of a pencil, during which time it is exposed to ammonia gas. The combination of the gas with water in the meat results in a reaction that increases the pH (lowering acidity) and killing any pathogens such as E. coli. The industry calls this “lean finely textured beef.” It is used to salvage more animal protein from the carcass, resulting in larger weights and volumes added to the ground beef; and thus more money for the meat packing companies. However, the use of pink slime has recently come under fire for safety concerns with ammonium hydroxide; the public is also concerned that they are getting up to 15 percent of processed “filler” in the meat they’re buying.
The initial public outcry stemmed from the discovery of the trimmings containing pathogens; namely E Coli and Salmonella. To combat this, meat producers use ammonium hydroxide, a gas that kills the pathogens and additional bacteria that are likely present in the meat. But experts are claiming that eliminating the pathogen problem with chemicals only creates another; the new safety concerns with the use of ammonium hydroxide in meat processing. However the American Meat Institute insists that the gas used in pink slime is not your average, household cleaning ammonia. They claim it is a different compound that has been tested extensively for safety and has a long history of success.
The Huffington Post stated that “advocates for wholesome food have denounced the process as a potentially unsafe and unappetizing example of industrialized food production.” Parents across the country are concerned that a product that was forgone by even McDonalds and Burger King are still being served in school lunchrooms. The way it has been portrayed in the media has caused many to deem it simply “disgusting.” The images shown online and the nickname “pink slime” aren’t helping the matter either.
Studies have found that as much as 70 percent of the ground beef we are buying in the supermarkets includes pink slime, and that no more than 15 percent of the meat can be comprised of it. What’s more, because the USDA does not require companies to list it on the ingredients label, it is impossible to know if the meat you’re buying contains it.
Although the USDA has given schools the choice on whether or not to offer it, they are standing by the safety of the product. On March 15, they released a statement, saying that the product is "safe, nutritious and affordable" but that they would offer an alternative for schools if they chose not to use it. In 2009, The New York Times wrote an expose on the use of the product, revealing that federal testing between 2005 and 2009 found that ground beef containing “boneless lean beef trimmings” was four times more likely to contain salmonella than regular ground meat.
The validity of these concerns is still up in the air, as meat producing companies insist that the public is focusing on the aesthetics of the product and not looking at the facts. Beef Product Inc., for example, insists that its product is 100 percent lean beef, and is approved by a series of industry experts, while the National Meat Association refuted the claims that the product is made from scraps meant for pet food. They also said that ammonium hydroxide is used in baked goods, puddings and other processed foods, and has been for several years with no public attention or concern over its safety. With so much national attention, it’s easy to see how people can take an image that they see online, or a claim made in a network television show and believe it without first looking into the facts and details of this product.
As a nation that is ever encouraging its citizens to forgo processed foods for more natural alternatives, it’s understandable that parents would not want this “pink slime” in the lunches at their children’s school. Unfortunately, the schools that have banned the product may not have a choice anyway; many schools are having a difficult time finding processors that offer certified ammonium-free meat, so it could continue to be used until more meat processing plants offer beef without it. As a consumer, the only way to guarantee that your meat doesn’t have “lean finely textured beef” is to grind your beef yourself, or ask your local butcher to grind it for you.
A petition stated on Change.org urging the USDA to ban the use of pink slime in public schools has already received 239,000 signatures. As the safety and health of this product is debated nationally, it is important to remember to get the facts about these claims before making a decision that could affect your family.
Well, what do you think parents? How do you feel about the pink slime debate? OMG or NBD?
WELCOME to Humanist Mom - a blog for the modern day parenting enthusiast
I am really excited to start this blog! Hoping it helps me figure out more about parenting, (effective and ineffective methods) as well as communicate my own personal experiences, with a lot of articles from Google to back up my theories.
Parenting was brought upon me unexpectedly at a young age, and while pregnant I really worried about how well I would do raising a child. Long story short, somehow some sort of "instincts" kicked in (who knew?) and I actually did a pretty damn good job, if I do say so myself. I realized that there was a hole in my life, something I was missing, and having children filled that void entirely. I have never been more committed or enamored with anything in my entire life, and I love every second of it.
After starting to try for my second, I realized that I spent a lot of time reading, researching, scouring articles and message boards and asking questions of other moms about different parenting styles and techniques. It became sort of an obsession. I have to say, I am really glad I did, because being knowledgeable about this stuff has really helped me grow, not just as a parent, but as a human. I have learned so much about patience, understanding, empathy and forgiveness. Things I knew nothing about before becoming a mother.
One day my husband and I were going on about one thing or another, and he made a point about me being the parenting "expert." I was confused, what did he mean, expert? Can anyone be an expert parent? Not really. I just enjoyed all the learning and the results I saw in my son. I asked him to explain, and he said, "You spend all your time learning how to be a better parent and interacting, teaching, playing with and celebrating our children. It is your life, your passion. If I ever have a parenting question, I look to you, because you've done the research and put in the work."
Wow. I was really blown away by that. I had never thought of it that way before. And it made me feel really good. Yes, I do spend most of my time trying to be the best parent with the happiest kids. But that's not the goal. To use an old cliche, its about the journey, not the destination. It's impossible to be perfect. We just learn from mistakes and take it day by day. Yes, I am hip to a lot of the yuppie things that we do for our children nowadays, but in 20 or 30 years, when my children have kids of their own, it will probably all be useless and dated. But isn't that the beauty of parenting, that there is no prize at the end we are all striving for? The idea and theory of parenting is constantly evolving, and there will always be things we don't know, things we should or shouldn't be doing, that we learn about later?? That's what makes it so interesting, I think.
Anyway, this is the start to my blog. I'm going to talk about many common parenting subjects....vaccines, "mom guilt" , discipline, communication, learning, play time and whatever else you could possibly think of. I welcome comments and responses from any and everyone!
Parenting was brought upon me unexpectedly at a young age, and while pregnant I really worried about how well I would do raising a child. Long story short, somehow some sort of "instincts" kicked in (who knew?) and I actually did a pretty damn good job, if I do say so myself. I realized that there was a hole in my life, something I was missing, and having children filled that void entirely. I have never been more committed or enamored with anything in my entire life, and I love every second of it.
After starting to try for my second, I realized that I spent a lot of time reading, researching, scouring articles and message boards and asking questions of other moms about different parenting styles and techniques. It became sort of an obsession. I have to say, I am really glad I did, because being knowledgeable about this stuff has really helped me grow, not just as a parent, but as a human. I have learned so much about patience, understanding, empathy and forgiveness. Things I knew nothing about before becoming a mother.
One day my husband and I were going on about one thing or another, and he made a point about me being the parenting "expert." I was confused, what did he mean, expert? Can anyone be an expert parent? Not really. I just enjoyed all the learning and the results I saw in my son. I asked him to explain, and he said, "You spend all your time learning how to be a better parent and interacting, teaching, playing with and celebrating our children. It is your life, your passion. If I ever have a parenting question, I look to you, because you've done the research and put in the work."
Wow. I was really blown away by that. I had never thought of it that way before. And it made me feel really good. Yes, I do spend most of my time trying to be the best parent with the happiest kids. But that's not the goal. To use an old cliche, its about the journey, not the destination. It's impossible to be perfect. We just learn from mistakes and take it day by day. Yes, I am hip to a lot of the yuppie things that we do for our children nowadays, but in 20 or 30 years, when my children have kids of their own, it will probably all be useless and dated. But isn't that the beauty of parenting, that there is no prize at the end we are all striving for? The idea and theory of parenting is constantly evolving, and there will always be things we don't know, things we should or shouldn't be doing, that we learn about later?? That's what makes it so interesting, I think.
Anyway, this is the start to my blog. I'm going to talk about many common parenting subjects....vaccines, "mom guilt" , discipline, communication, learning, play time and whatever else you could possibly think of. I welcome comments and responses from any and everyone!
