Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus defended the 2016 Republican Party platform ahead of its convention in a July 17 interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd. While the platform isn’t yet in its final form, many observers have said the document so far lands to the right on social issues. Todd asked Priebus about the platform’s position on same-sex marriage. He referenced one draft that says "the data, the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion that every child deserves a married mom and dad" — based on claims that children raised in a traditional household are healthier and less likely to engage in crime and substance abuse. "It’s implying somehow that children of same-sex couples are more likely to be addicts, to engage in crime," Todd said. "Do you mean to have it imply that?" Priebus replied that it’s possible for children of same-sex parents and single parents to have successful lives, but the best scenario is for children to grow up in a traditional opposite-sex household. "The best scenario for kids is a loving mom and dad," Priebus said. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...air-wrongly-claims-facts-show-children-do-be/
I don't necessarily agree with Priebus, but the fact check article isn't exactly checking the facts based upon his statement. He doesn't say children of same-sex parents don't fare as well. He actually says it's possible the kids do fare as well. The fact checking only looks at the kids "doing quite well." Whatever that means. I'm not sure you can do a study about whether a kid who does "quite well" might have done "better" with a mom and a dad. It seems plausible that a boy having a father figure to grow up around might be a positive thing. The freakkonomics blog talks about how absent fathers affect boys and girls differently, for example. http://freakonomics.com/2011/10/19/fathers-and-delinquency-in-the-american-family/ Past research has shown that a father’s involvement with his children is linked to all kinds of beneficial outcomes, from higher academic achievement, improved social and emotional well-being, to lower incidences of delinquency, risk taking, and other problem behaviors. A new working paper from authors Deborah A. Cobb-Clark and Erdal Tekin examines the relationship between juvenile delinquency and the role of a father in the household, particularly in terms of the different effects an absent father has on boys and girls. They discovered, among other things, that sons benefit far more from a father (or father-figure) than daughters do. From the abstract: …we find that adolescent boys engage in more delinquent behavior if there is no father figure in their lives. However, adolescent girls’ behavior is largely independent of the presence (or absence) of their fathers. (so I call bullshit)
SlyPokerDog, Science Denier. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems
This is a guess. The writer might have inferred this but the statement, "every child deserves a married mom and dad" seems to me to imply what it says. I might append, "whom want the child."
Moar science for SlyPokerDog to deny. http://www.livescience.com/20997-science-fatherhood-fathers-day.html The Science of Fatherhood: Why Dads Matter
And to that end, note almost all the young troubled shooters (non terrorist) the past many years have no dad around, living with mom.
No, I don't build any strawman. I just say the "fact check" article is bullshit. I quote: "The limited pieces of research that appear to support Priebus’ claim have been called into question. " I call bullshit. And you are a science denier. My links from at least 2 science sites.
I think the kids turn out fine in homosexual parent households. The question is whether the "fact checkers" were even close to accurate in their conclusion.
Really dude? Really? This is something that a major political party should be concerned with? So what's the answer? Ban single parents? Ban gay parents? This isn't a debate who is the better parent. This isn't something that government is going to fund. The only thing that could come from this is denying gays the right to be parents. So make all the BS noise you want but for this to be a part of any political party's platform is nothing but hateful.
err, maybe they intend to imply that people getting married is a good way to raise children. It is sort of time tested.
No, they're not implying that. They're flat out saying that straight people getting married is a good way to raise children.