Powerful evidence shows why homosexual couples should be denied access to adoption and fertility treatment

The New Scientist reports on the biochemical evidence that shows how valuable both a father and mother are to the upbringing of a child.

Oxytocin – the “cuddle chemical” – is normally released during social interactions and the child feels the benefit from mum and dad in different, important ways.

Some studies have shown that:

Girls reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father was absent when they were young.

The sons of absent fathers display lower intimacy and self-esteem.

When men become fathers they undergo biochemical changes that affect their behaviour and oxytocin levels in both parents have different effects.

Fathers may be “biologically programmed” to help raise children.

So when I read about a lesbian couple getting the go ahead to receive NHS fertility treatment, it alarms me because it clearly goes against what is right, natural and beneficial for the child’s welfare.

From October, clinics will no longer be able to block lesbians by referring to a child’s “need for a father”.

The selfish social engineers, whose only desire is to destroy a healthy society, are again using ‘equality’ as a weapon against children.

If children are due any rights, then, barring unforeseen or tragic circumstances, entitlement to a mother and father come pretty much top of the list.

That’s the picture in Real Street, but what’s going on is that the real, logical, sensible and moral right of the child is completely ignored in favour of the perceived right of the lesbians to be treated equally (i.e. with heterosexual couples) even though their situation is not equal to a man and wife.

This whole shambles needs to be sorted out because what we have is a situation that is immoral, illogical, wastes NHS resources and most importantly, deprives children of what they really need: a father.

Deep shame upon all those who rate advancing a political cause above the welfare of children.

This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Social Engineering and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Powerful evidence shows why homosexual couples should be denied access to adoption and fertility treatment

  1. You have said what many of us are thinking. If lesbians and gays want to be gay that is a sexual lifestyle choice. I have no problem with them being gay. Many of my friends are gay.

    But I have seen the results of children brought up in a gay home. They are not happy….not one of them. They all have issues. One little boy of 8 has lived with his father and gay lover. The boy is surly, rude to everyone, insecure…the list goes on.

    Putting one’s political agenda or selfish needs ahead of the child’s needs is unconscionable. Our society is messed up enough with all this breaking down of the natural order. Let’s not create whole generations of lost children who don’t know who or what they are.

  2. Andrew says:

    Thanks for the info.

  3. Jonathan says:

    “Girls reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father was absent when they were young.

    The sons of absent fathers display lower intimacy and self-esteem.

    When men become fathers they undergo biochemical changes that affect their behaviour and oxytocin levels in both parents have different effects.

    Fathers may be “biologically programmed” to help raise children.”

    The first two sentences could just as easily mean single parent families when referring to “absent fathers”. I can’t access the linked study at the moment (my NS subscription has just been renewed and won’t take effect for a few days), perhaps you could provide more information about that?

    I notice your third sentence is actually a pasting-together of two separate sentences. Here are the actual sentences:

    “There is, however, evidence that when men become fathers they undergo biochemical changes that affect their behaviour.”

    And, a full paragraph later:

    “Oxytocin levels in the parents also had different effects in each sex. Mothers with highest levels of the hormone engaged in more gazing at the infant, affectionate touching and speaking in a sing-song voice. Fathers with higher oxytocin played more with their child, who displayed more attachment to them than did kids whose fathers had lower oxytocin”

    Interesting that the oxytocin comment related to the effect on parents, and not on the children. Perhaps you could quote accurately in future, as your quote seems to give a misleading impression.

    And here is an important point from the article that you seem to have missed out, just an oversight I’m sure:

    “Whether there are also biochemical differences between the brains of human children with present and absent fathers is not known. Michael Meaney, who studies the effects of maternal care at McGill, advises caution when applying the mouse results to people. In California mice it is the father that licks the pups most, he says. Since grooming affects pup development, it could be a lack of this, rather than anything else specific to the father, causing the brain changes.”

    Kind of puts a different spin on the article, doesn’t it.

    Foster Foskin-

    “If lesbians and gays want to be gay that is a sexual lifestyle choice. I have no problem with them being gay. Many of my friends are gay.”

    Oh really? I would be absolutely fascinated to learn what your “many gay friends” said in response when you told them that being gay was simply a lifestyle choice, and just a matter of them “wanting” to be gay. Please do tell.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jonathan – I’ve noticed that there are a few things we disagree about!

    The first two sentences could just as easily mean single parent families when referring to “absent fathers”.

    Yes, they could. That’s why families are so important.

    “Perhaps you could quote accurately in future, as your quote seems to give a misleading impression.”

    I didn’t mean to mislead. It’s clear that the child is benefiting from the different aspects that the mum and dad bring. You don’t even need to bring the oxytocin into the equation. It’s age-old obvious.

    Re. the mice experiments – I deliberately didn’t base my argument on that particular study because of the point about grooming the pups.

    Re. you comment to Foster Foskin – is your attitude not more likely to cause friction than just allowing people to express their honest opinion?

    I wonder…

  5. Jonathan says:

    Stewart-

    Are you aware of any studies showing that children have beeen harmed by being raised in a family with two mothers or two fathers, as opposed to a mother/father or single-parent family?

    “Re. you comment to Foster Foskin – is your attitude not more likely to cause friction than just allowing people to express their honest opinion?”

    It is Foster making the assertion that gay people choose to be gay, that it is simply a sexual lifestyle choice. I’m just interested to know what his “many gay friends” think of these opinions.

    I’d also be interested to know if he can back his opinion up with facts.

  6. Jim Baxter says:

    The idea that people ‘choose’ to be gay is laughable. It’s genetic, like the size of your feet.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jonathan – I don’t know if any reliable studies exist. They wouldn’t convince me that a child should be deliberately denied either a mother or father.

    Jim – I disagree. Even Peter Tatchell has said it’s more complex than just genetic.

  8. Richard Borrett says:

    The question which has been raised and which is central to these issues is the lack of a comparable study. As Jonathon has said there is no reliable comparator, and, as i highlighted on Mr Helmer’s blog post, this totally eradicates the use of such studies to critique the bringing up of children in a same sex-relationship as opposed to a heterosexual one. There is simply no evidence on this point – the only evidence allows us to compare the difference between a conventional family and one where there is only one parent or no parents (i.e. the care system) and, clearly, there is a negative correlation between the unstable homes and the onward success of the children (in a wide variety of areas).

    However, you cannot cite a reliable study and the most interesting point is this – you are apparently happy to accept the evidence from this NS study. However, you say in respect of the hypothetical study on children raised by homosexual parents, “they wouldn’t convince me that a child should be deliberately denied either a mother or father”. There are two issues here – firstly, you accept scientific evidence where it assists you, but you will not where it might disprove you. This therefore suggests your argument is based purely on (rather than rooted in) moral and religious dogma, as opposed to rational investigation and assessment.

    There is, arguably, nothing wrong with basing an argument purely in religion and morals, though it is misleading to then pretend that it is also informed by scientific evidence when it clearly is not properly informed by such evidence (obviously, if it were, it would currently be wholly inconclusive).

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thank you for your comments. I think people are missing the point with this study. A mum and a dad provide contrasting, complementary attributes, even chemically. Clearly, two mums or two dads will not have the same effect and the child (and society) will be worse off.

    What data would you like to see from children raised by same-sex pairings? Academic results? Prison demographics?

    What data can you think of that would be useful for measuring how not having a mum or dad, but two of the same, affects the emotional side of children?

    My arguments are mainly based on morality. Do you need scientific proof that it’s wrong to kill someone or steal their car?

    Well then! That’s why I call this blog Real Street because there’s no point kidding ourselves.

  10. Brian Kundinger says:

    Interesting, because I’ve read a ton of studies saying theres is NO detriment to having gay parents. Which i whole-heartedly believe.

    The study that said “The sons of absent fathers display lower intimacy and self-esteem.”. Are you sure that actually compared two-parent heterosexual homes with two parent homosexual homes? Because that seems like an outcome of a one-parent home, absent of a father, and nobody else to fill in.

    I vehemently oppose the construction of any and all gender roles, so I find it hard to believe that a man or a women innately brings any special to child rearing that someone of the opposite sex cannot provide. Thus it only seems logical to me that two men or two women can bring up a child successfully

  11. Brian Kundinger says:

    Cowan, I actually was trying to respect your opinions until this “My arguments are mainly based on morality. Do you need scientific proof that it’s wrong to kill someone or steal their car?”

    If you want to argue gay couples are unfit, fine. But dont justify TO ANY EXTENT by pure theological morality. I thought you were a person who I could actually get intelligable argument for views opposite of my own. I guess you are just like the rest of them.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    Sorry if I wasted your time, Brian. Some of us don’t need a scientist to tell us right from wrong. Sometimes the little ‘gods’ of science and philosphy don’t have the answers. As far as I am aware plenty of studies show that children raised by a mum and dad have the best start in life. If the ‘cuddle chemical’ is an extra bit of evidence, then good, but I won’t be starting to accept homosexual adoption because homosexual behaviour is an affront to nature and decent society.

  13. richard Borrett says:

    Although, the OECD study which you quote in your latest blog post indicates that the correlation between ‘broken homes’ and child development and success is much less than expected ‘or even zero’.

  14. Richard Borrett says:

    You dont need a scientist to tell you right from wrong? Unless that scientist seems to be telling you you’re right, of course (as in this post). Its interesting that you accept the validity of scientific method when i proves what you are saying, but not when it doesn’t (i.e. the rest of the science/religion debate).

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard – are you accepting I’m right on this occasion? What else do you have in mind when you say “the rest of the science/religion debate”?

  16. Richard Borrett says:

    Not at all. as previously analysed (and not properly riposted), the ‘evidence’ you used was unreliable (largely due to correlation/cause-and-effect issues) and does not prove what you say it does.

    What i am commenting upon is the method of argument. religious people so often argue against ‘liberal’ opinion and informed scientific opinion (the obvious example being evolution) on the basis that (i paraphrase) ‘the bible has got it right’. Then, as here, where there is what appears to be useful evidence to support a standpoint it is adopted as such.

    It is hypocritical, however, to accept the evidence in one case but not in another, simply because it agrees or disagrees with your worldview. Either scientific methodology is a valid method of investigation (and it is therefore so, essentially, in all circumstances), or it is not. The results of that evidence (where properly carried out), must therefore be accepted: even where we do not like the results or find them easy to accept. This does not (to pre-empt), mean that there will always be an absolute answer agreed upon universally as very few things are so simple.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard, I don’t deny any scientific fact whatsoever, so I am not a hypocrite. The Theory of Evolution, when stripped down, is a lie on top of a misunderstanding, mixed with a little truth and some distortions, then baked at gas mark 6. Why should I believe it; I can think for myself?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>