Aliança Esquerdismo e Islamismo desde Karl Marx até Obama.

O Esquerdismo representa desprezo por religião, feminismo, casamento gay, sexo livre. Enquanto o Islã exige plena subordinação à religião, despreza as mulheres, mata gays e libera sexo livre só para homens.

O Esquerdismo é bem velho, para mim, está nas palavras da serpente do paraíso que disse ao homem que ele podia ser como Deus. O Islã, veio bem depois.

Mas esquerdismo e Islã têm uma aliança antiga. O Islã aprendeu com o esquerdismo como deturpar tudo que seja ocidental, especialmente o cristianismo e o capitalismo. O esquerdismo apoiou o Islã para atacar seus inimigos imperialistas.

Esta aliança é assunto de um ótimo artigo de Stephen Schwartz do site First Things. Schwatz já mostra como a lógica do "qualquer coisa contra tudo que representa a cultura ocidental" já estava presente em Karl Marx e Lenin. 

O discurso dos comunistas é que os muçulmanos são vítimas do imperialismo do ocidente, por isso estão liberados para matar, estuprar, crucificar, etc.

O que disse hoje Maria Harf do Departmento do Estado do Governo Obama, ilustra bem isso:

We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs 

Ela diz que o Obama está atacando os terroristas, mas que a causa do terrorismo é a falta de oportunidade, de trabalho dos muçulmanos. Em outras palavras, a culpa é do capitalismo.

O que Lula, Chavez, Fidel Castro falam de terrorismo é no mesmo sentido que expressou Harf. 

Enquanto os terroristas só falam no Alcorão.

Vejam aqui parte do texto de Schwartz, leiam o resto no site.

FAMOUS COMMUNISTS AND ISLAM

by Stephen Schwartz
2 . 11 . 15

For some time, an argument has been made that the liberal left, in refusing to examine the problems of Islam, has betrayed its Enlightenment roots. That is, while secular, feminist, and protective of free speech in dealing with its Western peers, the liberal left has been accused of abandoning its heritage in its quest for political correctness regarding Muslims.

In truth, however, the left has a distinguished background of courting Islam as a weapon against Western capitalism. Its most representative figures from the past did so frankly, as the following rehearsal of their statements demonstrates.

Karl Marx supported the Ottoman empire, then accused of atrocities against Christians and non-Turkish Muslims. In 1853, as the Crimean War pitting Russia against Turkey began, Marx wrote, 

 It is not to be denied that Turkey, the weak state, has shown more true courage, as well as more wise statesmanship, than either of her powerful allies [Britain and France] . . . we may justly attribute the delays and hesitation shown in the manoeuvres of Omer Pasha [Latas] to the paralyzing and temporizing influence of Lord Redcliffe and M. [Edmond] de la Cour, [British and French ambassadors to Turkey] over the Divan [the Ottoman court]. At the moment when [Omer Pasha Latas] was opening the campaign, they procured orders to be sent to him to delay the beginning of hostilities. . . . If there be a general war, it will not be the fault of Turkey, but next to Russia, of France and England. They might have prevented it infallibly, but they did not.

Omer Pasha Latas was a brutal and corrupt Ottoman functionary hated especially by Balkan Muslims.

Thus was a pattern established: defend Muslim autocrats, blame the West.

Lenin was so excited by the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1904, the failed Russian revolution of 1905, the 1906 constitutional revolution in Persia, and the 1908 Young Turk revolution in the Ottoman empire, that he wrote, 

in Persia Russian counter revolution played and continues to play what amounts to a decisive role, while in Turkey the revolution was at once confronted with a counter-revolutionary coalition of the powers, Russia at their head. True, the general tone of the European press and of the diplomatic statements would appear to contradict this. If we are to believe these statements and the semi-official press, there is universal “sympathy” with regenerated Turkey, a universal desire to see her constitutional regime strengthened and developed, general praise for the “moderation” of the bourgeois Young Turks. All these fine words, however, are typical of the base bourgeois hypocrisy of Europe’s “present-day” reactionary governments and present-day reactionary bourgeoisie.

Once again: Muslims as manipulated victims, the West at fault, and, repudiation of Western sympathy for modernization of Muslim societies.

(Agradeço Harf ao site Weasel Zippers e o texto de Schwartz ao site Big Pulpit)

Vídeo: Judeu Caminhando nas Ruas de Paris.

Acho que já contei isso aqui no blog, mas aqui vai de novo. No dia que um muçulmano decapitou um soldado inglês em plena rua de Londres, eu estava em Londres e caminhei o dia inteiro pelas ruas com uma camisa que tinha a palavra Catholic em letras grandes. Minha esposa obviamente me disse que nunca mais usasse minha linda camisa na Europa.

Pois não é que um homem resolveu colocar um Kipá (pequeno chape usado pelos judeus, semelhante ao solidéu usado pelos papas), e caminhar pelas ruas de Paris. A França, por incrível que pareça, para quem lembra da Segunda Guerra Mundial, é o país mais anti-semita da Europa. Talvez porque seja também o país de maior população muçulmana da  Europa. Sem falar no esquerdismo que domina a França, terra de Simone de Beauvoir, de Sartre e da Revolução Francesa.

Ontem, eu falei aqui que centenas de túmulos de judeus foram profanados recentemente na França.

Vejam, o vídeo do homem arriscando a vida em Paris apenas por ser judeu.






A Europa definha desde que abandonou o cristianismo. E se entrega ao medo e destruição de sua cultura. Lembro sempre de Hilaire Belloc que previu tudo isso, inclusive a ascensão do Islã dentro da Europa.

Hoje, eu li que a ministra da saúde da Itália disse o país está morrendo pois estão nascendo poucas crianças. O que esperar de um povo que valoriza a morte, como sexo livre, contracepção, destruição do casamento e aborto?

Eu amo demais a Europa. Adoro visitar sua história e seu cristianismo. E digo para mim mesmo: tente visitar sempre que puder pois o ponto turístico está sob risco de destruição com todo o ódio dos que moram lá.

O anti-semitismo tem uma longuíssima história na Europa, muitos países já expulsaram os judeus de suas terras, começando com a Inglaterra no século 13 até a Espanha no final do século 15.

Rezemos pelos judeus, nossos irmãos mais velhos na doutrina cristã. Afinal, Cristo, Nossa Senhora, São José, São Paulo, São Pedro, São João...eram judeus. Sem falar que Cristo honrou Moisés, Abraão, Elias, Isaías, Jonas, Daniel, Davi e todos os outros profetas judeus com suas palavras.


(Agradeço o vídeo ao Weasel Zippers e a informação sobre a Itália ao site Creative Minority Report)

Estado Islâmico: Decapitação de Cristãos Coptas, Promessa de Mar de Sangue contra Roma...e mais.

Leiam o que vai escrito na imagem acima e nas que vão abaixo, que fazem parte de um novo vídeo de terror do Estado Islâmico, que foi divulgado hoje:

Tem também os ataques terroristas na Dinamarca.

E também ataque na França contra centenas túmulos de judeus.

Ontem, eu li que um clérigo muçulmano matou uma criança cristã com os pés. Um negócio muito terrível, mas eu não posto no blog pois a foto pode ser montagem. Mas com estes muçulmanos é possível, eles já decapitaram crianças.

---

E aí, o que os líderes do mundo cristão farão? E a ONU?

E a Itália e o Vaticano se prepararão contra um ataque terrorista? E se eles atacarem o Coliseu? E se eles atacarem a Capela Sistina?

No século IX, os muçulmanos invadiram Roma e profanaram os túmulos de São Pedro e São Paulo, por que não fariam de novo?

E o Papa Francisco? Sairá outra coisa da cabeça dele sobre terrorismo que não seja "vamos dialogar"?

Rezemos pelos cristãos coptas brutalmente assassinados.


(Agradeço a informação sobre os cristãos coptas e a dos cemitérios na França ao site Weasel Zippers)

Filme: A Caixa da Vida do Pastor Lee Jong-rak

O Pastor Lee Jong-rak é da Igreja cristã Jusarang (acho que do ramo presbiteriano) da Coreia do Sul. Ele criou uma caixa enorme em que mães que não desejam seus filhos por qualquer causa podem abandonar seus filhos nelas anonimamente que o pastor cuida das crianças e depois de um certo tempo tenta entregar para adoção. O governo da Coreia do Sul, até onde eu li, apoia o que o pastor faz (graças a Deus).

Vai ser lançado um filme chamado Drop Box, que conta a história deste pastor.

Rezemos por ele, para que ele continue na sua luta em defesa da vida, pois ele tem inimigos (todos aqueles que dizem defender as crianças querendo no fundo estimular o aborto).

Para nós, católicos, a vida é o maior dom de Deus, e ninguém tem o direito de tirá-la, nem nós mesmos, por meio do suicídio, pois é afronta a Deus. E todos que defendem a vida estão do lado de Deus, seja católico, protestante ou pagão.

Vejam o trailer do filme abaixo:

Escritor Católico Argentino: "Papa não tem Amigos, nem Ideologia.Sempre foi Carrerista"

Jack Tollers é filho de argentino com inglesa. É promotor criminal e autor de muitos livros católicos. Ele conhece a atuação do Papa Francisco há bastante tempo e não tem uma opinião muito boa sobre o Papa.

Não dá para saber muito bem se ele confiável, mas não me parece muito longe da realidade o que ele diz, talvez exagerado. Mas devemos saber sim o que ele argumenta.

Tollers deu entrevista para o site From Rome.

Não vou traduzir para não prejudicar os termos usados.

Here is the text of our unedited interview, which we conduced by email:

____________

Q.1 Can you tell the readers of the From Rome Blog something about yourself, where you are from, what’s your education and professional background?

I’m a middle aged Argentine with an English mother and an Argentine father, born in Buenos Aires, partially educated in England and France. A criminal prosecutor, I have been married for the better part of nearly 40 years, with one of those “bunny-like” families Bergoglio seems to hate so much (fifteen grandchildren and counting).

Q.2 What parts of Argentine have you lived in?

I have lived most of my life in Buenos Aires’ outskirts.

Q.3 When did you first hear the name Jorge Mario Bergolio?

I think that that was in the early eighties when he became the Rector of the “Colegio Máximo”, the Argentine Jesuit’s main college, not far from where I live. In those days a group of us youngsters were very good friends with a local Jesuit priest very much known for his anti-progressive stance. In those days, most Catholics in this country leaned one way or the other. But I remember quite distinctly how this Jesuit told us that this Bergoglio fellow played quite another game, playing the progressive music most of the time, but now and again switching sides to the more conservative band if need be. This was when John Paul II had been recently elected and of course there was quite a lot of “band switching” going on in those days. But Bergoglio did it in a somehow blatant manner that was the talk of those days, all of it underscored by a surprisingly successful career.

Q.4. What did the newspapers say of him when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires?

Bergoglio was very wary of the Press in general, and had few friends among journalists in general. However he was always very much highly touted by “La Nación”, the country’s “serious” newspaper (if you know what I mean), and always openly praised by it’s  foreign correspondent in Rome, one Elisabetta Piqué, who’s 2001 interview of the recently appointed Archbishop was something of a scoop. By 2005 she wrote that Bergoglio had very good chances of being elected Pope, and when Benedict was finally chosen, said that Bergoglio had been the Cardinal’s second favorite. Of course, none of us believed it, not for one second. Now we take her more seriously. But going back to your question, I don’t remember any Argentine newspaper (except “Página 12”, and that for political reasons only) criticizing Bergoglio, ever, on any count (even when same-sex marriage was legally approved in the country: despite the general brouhaha that preceded and ensued, Bergoglio kept to himself in a very who-am-I-to-judge fashion).

Q.5. Do you know any of his family or friends personally?

His family is very small and from quite humble origins (the class question cannot be discarded here, it is quite obvious that Bergoglio resents any mention of his parents or sister). So nobody that I know of has ever known or met anyone of his family. As to friends, he never had them, not old friends, that is to say, friends who have nothing to do with his personal ambitions, his power games, his downright careerism. Not a single Jesuit, not a single priest, not a single friend from old times, shall we say. A quite different story you will hear if you refer to people like Rabbi Abraham Skorka who happens to live with him in Santa Marta, believe it or not.*

Q.6. Do the Jesuits in Argentine have or did they at one time have, a reputation for fidelity to the Catholic Faith?

Yes, I suppose so, before Vatican II, Jesuits were generally seen as conservative in a conventional, freezed, deadpan way, I suppose so. Fr Castellani was their enemy and he got into hot water when he decided to confront them in the Forties, long before the Council. He was expelled by these conservative Jesuits who later were to play the liberation-theology game, among other things. But of course, as Louis Bouyer has so frequently pointed out: yesterday’s conservatives are today’s progressives, because they are in the same league, a league in which truth, fidelity and so on are… how shall I put it?, subject to change. But all this is irrelevant: Bergoglio is way over these sort of distinctions, he doesn’t give a fig, he belongs to altogether another cabal.

Q.7 Did he have a reputation for fidelity to Catholic Doctrine, when he was in Argentina?

He certainly did not.

Q.8. There is a very disturbing report by Sandro Magister, “Francis’ Patient Revolution”, Expresso Online Oct. 24, 2014, at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910?eng=y . In this report, it says that as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio actively promoted the reception of communion by those who were not living in accord with Church rules.  Is that true, are the sources reliable? Do you have any personal knowledge that this was the case?

Everyone in this country knows of Bergoglio’s typical dealings as those depicted by McGavin (see Magister’s article). By the way, Magister’s take on Bergoglio is, in general, spot on.

Q.9. In all his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, can you cite anything which he said or taught which was contrary to the Catholic Faith?

Nope. That wouldn’t be Bergoglio. He just isn’t like that. One must never forget that, before anything else, he’s a Jesuit (and if St Ignatius didn’t want his offspring to take up high positions in the Church, then he had very good reasons to forbid them doing so. Not that they would ever obey him here, ha, ha).

Q.10  Some Catholics, confused by Bergoglio’s speaking style, consider it very likely that he is a sociopath, namely, that for him, there is only the right and wrong which his conscience agrees with, and that this right and wrong is not based on Christ’s teaching, but on his own personal whims.  Do you think that is an accurate description of the man?

Yes, I agree. But a “sociopath”? That was Kolvenbach’s take on him when he quite publicly opposed Bergoglio being appointed Archbishop of Buenos Aires. And yes, lots of people think he’s in some way or another a deranged person. But I’m not so sure. For instance, what we take to be a “confused” manner of speaking is no such thing for him. In Bergoglio it’s deliberate, it’s a way of going forward, it’s an agenda. No “whims” here. His “confused” speak responds to a “confused” faith, which in turn only echoes a very, very, confused character whose name I will not mention here. But who is out to confuse us all. If that maddens us, it doesn’t mean that they (pace C.S. Lewis) Screwtape, his nephew, et al, are entirely mad, in the sense that they think and act meaninglessly, without a purpose.

Q.11. Was Cardinal Bergoglio ever friendly with the Freemasons in Argentina?

As I’ve said, he has no friends. But, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised. In this country now and again they express praise for the man and celebrated his election in quite a public manner.

Q.12 Is it possible that Pope Francis is consciously and deliberating trying to transform the Church into something more compliant with the New World Order?

Of course. If not something worse (but that defies description).

+ + +

For more background, read Jack Tollers essay about Bergoglio, onlineat the Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog.

_________________

* Editor’s Note:  Here, Mr. Tollers, who responded to my question in English, has used an English construction which is inexact: for it is one thing to say that, on occasion, when the Rabbi visits the Holy Father, that he stays at Santa Marta, another to say that he lives there as a resident.  Mr. Tollers’ use of “happens”, should therefore be understood as “happens-now-and-then”, which is the sense I, the Editor, have understood the phrase from the start. Yet, I leave Mr. Tollers’ original words, for sake of the record.

---
Rezemos pelo Papa Francisco. Nós precisamos muito dele. Precisamos que ele honre o papado com amor e fé.

(Agradeço a entrevista de Tollers ao site The American Catholic)

Critério Mortes: Que tal Medir Cristianismo, Islã e Ateísmo?

Geralmente os cristãos não gostam do critério número de mortes para medir ideologias, pelo simples motivo que o valor de apenas uma vida é incomensurável. Mas que tal saber que em 6 séculos a Inquisição da Igreja Católica matou muito menos do que os mortos dos ataques de 11 de setembro?

Isto mesmo. Os especialistas apontam que a Inquisição matou entre 1 mil e 3 mil pessoas em 6 séculos (!), o que significa entre 2 pessoas ou 5 pessoas por ano. Apenas os ataques de um único dia, em 11 de setembro de 2001 nos Estados Unidos, mataram 2.996 pessoas. Ou podemos ver do ponto de vista que só em 2014 os muçulmanos mataram mais de 4.300 cristãos, isto deve ser mais do que o dobro de mortes da Inquisição em 600 anos.

É este tipo de comparação que fez David Barton, que nem católico é. Comparou as mortes do cristianismo, como as do ateísmo (comunismo e nazismo) e do islamismo.

Ontem, o caríssimo leitor do blog Jonas lembrou que alguns posts do blog eram bons para defender a Igreja, acho que este se enquadra muito bem neste critério.

O texto de Barton é espetacular. Steve Skojec considerou este texto a melhor resposta para Obama que viu semelhança entre Inquisição e as matanças do Estado Islâmico.

Vejamos parte do que David Barton escreveu:

Significantly, if one tabulates the loss of lives occasioned by so-called Christian governments over the 2,000 year history of Christianity (such as the Inquisition, and even the Crusades – which were largely Christian attempts to repel militant Muslim jihadist invasions made into Judeo-Christian regions), a very generous count of the total deaths that may be laid at the doorstep of Christianity is about five million. But the number of lives lost at the hands of secular, non-, and anti-Christian leaders and governments in just the 20th century alone is well over 100 million.

That includes the 1.5 million Christian Armenians massacred by Muslim Turks on just one occasion beginning in 1915; the 62 million killed by the secular Soviet Communists; the 35 million by the secular Chinese Communists; the 1.7 million by the secular Vietnamese Communists; the 1 million in the Polish Ethnic Cleansing; the 1 million in Yugoslavia; the 1.7 million in North Korea, and other non- or anti-Christian regimes.

And the number of deaths perpetrated by such leaders is enormous, including the murder of 42.7 million by Joseph Stalin; Mao Tse-tung, 37.8 million; Adolf Hitler, 20.9 million; Vladimir Lenin, 4 million; Tojo Hideki, 4 million; Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge, 1 million; Yahya Khan, 1.5 million; and so forth. Thus the number of lives lost at the hands of anti-Christians in just the past century is more than 20 times greater than those lost at the hands of Christians in the entire previous twenty centuries.

And since the president mentioned the Inquisition, over its six century span, between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals were put to death, which averages from two to five deaths a year across that span. But last year alone (2014), Muslims executed 4,344 Christians thus killing more in one year than Christians did in six full centuries! Additionally, when including just the publicized incidents, Muslims have killed some 11,334 innocents in terrorist attacks since 1980, with thousands if not tens-of-thousands more dead as a result of the non-reported killings in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries as groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic State have attempted to take control in recent years.

And regarding the president’s specific allusion to Christianity and slavery, Jewish writer and national news editor Ben Shapiro correctly noted:

Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under Sharia law.

By the way, if the president’s defenders wish to invoke the American witch trials of 1692-1693 (which the president did not mention, but which American academics often do), then you can include 27 lost lives at the hands of Christians over that two-year span (but you must also note that it was Christian ministers who took the lead in bringing those trials to a close). Yet 27 American lives lost over two years is hardly an equivalent comparison to the 3,000 American lives lost on just one day in September 2001 at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

Sorry, Mr. President, but there is absolutely no moral equivalency with your comparison. You have failed to recognize the reality of history and its consistent lesson that the application and practice of the Bible and its teachings elevates a society and civilizes its institutions. By comparing modern Muslim terrorists with medieval Christians you have, once again, totally missed the mark.

(Agradeço o texto de Barton ao site Big Pulpit)

Homem matou 3 Jovens Muçulmanos nos EUA. Quem é este Homem? e Por que fez isso?

Um cara chamado Craig Stephen Hicks matou a tiros os três jovens muçulmanos acima na Carolina do Norte nos Estados Unidos.

Quem é Craig Stephen Ricks? Dificil saber, mas pelo menos se sabe que ele é um ateu militante, esquerdista e defensor das causas gays.

Isto está definitivamente claro em sua página no facebook.

Em sua página do facebook, ele se define como ateu militante e os posts relativos ao ateísmo são a maioria. E ele é seguidor de causas gays e de sites esrquerdistas (forward progressives e stop teabaggers)

Abaixo vai uma foto dele e fotos da página dele no facebook.

Por que ele fez isso?

Ele se entregou para a Polícia. Mas a polícia declarou que ainda não sabe exatamente, mas desconfia que seja por conta de vagas para estacionamento.

Mas todos estes fatos não importam para a esquerda. Os esquerdistas já estão dizendo que é culpa do filme American Sniper, mesmo sem nem saber se o cara assistiu ao filme. O filme American Sniper trata de um atirador de elite americano chamado Chris Kyle que atuou no Iraque.

E o que os ateus estão falando? Não ouvi nada, silêncio sepulcral.

E se fosse culpa de um cristão?

Certamente, os esquerdistas, ateus e muçulmanos (incluindo Obama) iriam dizer que os cristãos dos Estados Unidos são semelhantes aos muçulmanos do Estado Islâmico.

Rezemos pelas vítimas, eles eram muçulmanos, mas todos merecem nossas orações para que encontrem o Verdadeiro Deus.


(Agradeço a informação ao site Weasel Zippers)

Pesquisa prova: Criança precisa de Pai (Homem) e Mãe (Mulher).

Tristíssimos tempos estes em que o óbvio mais básico, formador da humanidade, precisa ser provado em pesquisa.

Mas saiu uma pesquisa publicada na journal British Journal for Education, Society and Behavioral Science que mostra os problemas emocionais de crianças de pais homossexuais.

O artigo se chama Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition, é do autor Donald Paul Sullins.

Ele analizou 512 crianças de casais homossexuais. As crianças de casais homossexuais tem duas vezes mais chances de ter problemas emocionais ou de aprendizado. Casais normais com crianças biologicamente deles são os melhores para as crianças. Mas os adotados não são assim tão diferentes dos filhos normais, como são os de casais homossexuais.

Aqui vai o Abstract (Resumo) do artigo:

Abstract:      

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.

Mark Regnerus descreveu detalhadamente a pesquisa:

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (US) National Health Interview Survey(NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

The study’s author, sociologist Paul Sullins, assessed a variety of different hypotheses about the differences, including comparative residential stability, experience of stigma or bullying, parental emotional problems (6.1 percent among same-sex parents vs. 3.4 percent among opposite-sex ones), and biological attachment. Each of these factors predictably aggravated children’s emotional health, but only the last of these—biological parentage—accounted for nearly all of the variation in emotional problems. While adopted children are at higher risk of emotional problems overall, being adopted did not account for the differences between children in same-sex and opposite-sex households. It’s also worth noting that while being bullied clearly aggravates emotional health, there was no difference in self-reported experience of having been bullied between the children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents.

Vocal critics, soon to emerge, will likely home in on the explanatory mechanism—the fact that two mothers or two fathers can’t possibly both enjoy a biological connection to a child—in suggesting the results of the study reveal nothing of value about same-sex households with children. On the contrary, the study reveals a great deal. Namely, there is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer. It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it. Some critics might attribute the emotional health differences to the realities of “adoption by strangers,” but the vast majority of same-sex couples in the NHIS exhibited one parent with a biological relationship with the child.

Mark Regnerus também discute porque este trabalho é melhor do que os outros sobre o assunto. Leiam lá.


(Agradeço o texto ao site Culture War Notes)