Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 23, 2021

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on:

In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed.
“It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that they influence what we do as adults,” says Tallie Z. Baram, a child neurologist and developmental neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine, who wasn’t involved with the study.
Asher Jones, “Early-Life Stress Exerts Long-Lasting Effects Via Epigenome” at The Scientist

All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics.

The paper is open access.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments

Viola, >EDTA, what do you think the fundamentals are, if not such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, liberty and justice for all, all men are created equal, etc.? Those are fundamental rights, which the founders argued were God-given, and which are ebbing away to one degree or another. (Note that the "pursuit of happiness" originally meant self-determination, not the pursuit of pleasure or the emotion of happiness--although self-determination can lead to happiness. The pursuit of pleasure is one thing we don't see decreasing...) The true fundamentals include such things as moral unity. Human beings will never be 100% in moral agreement with each other; one instead has to speak of which way we are trending, and I think it's clear this one is trending down. We disagree today over extremely fundamental aspects of life, such as sexuality and abortion. Cultural unity brings people together to celebrate/enjoy/relate-to the same things. In this area, diversity is on the rise, which means people have less to relate to in others. Sociologists have determined that it is innate with people that trust declines where cultural diversity increases, because we need similar culture in order to form trust. They have also measured that trust is in decline, which is also a decline in moral unity. Closely related to this is political unity, or unity in matters of how government is to be run, its extent, its purpose, and so on. I don't expect much disagreement that political unity is in decline--possibly at the lowest level since the Civil War. (Not that we'll be having another one soon. Too many things prevent it today.) Another fundamental is whether we share any common vision for our own future. This has died along with political unity, and along the same lines. Groups now want the nation to go in very different directions, and they cannot be reconciled. Another fundamental is social capital. This is the amount of investment we have in each other. It's what holds us together in times of trouble, and keeps us together, defending each other and so on. This is dying too. It's built up by strong marriages, where all the members come immediately to each other's aid. It's built up by institutions that unify us and encourage us to pull in the same direction to reach higher goals than we could separately. It's destroyed by divorce, abortion, quick sex that only focuses on the dopamine rush each party obtains, pleasure-seeking as its own goal, isolation at home with our televisions and smart phones, and so on. (Yes, we volunteer still, just not at the same rates as we once did.) Today, our culture can change more rapidly than at any time in human history. Things unthinkable 100 years ago can now happen in less than a generation. Rapid cultural change means nobody is thinking about it before it happens. The ability of things to change so rapidly represents instability. I realize stability in a bad area of our culture would be a bad thing. But instability is risky merely because it means uncontrolled change is more possible. The decline in these things means we are heading towards disintegration, i.e., no longer being a strong, integral whole, compared with, say, 100 years ago. (No I don't want to go back in time; there were other problems then. But instability and division weren't among them.) The above things can cause a nation to collapse, and allow the worst elements to take over. Instability looks like opportunity to psychopathic leaders; they welcome it, because they can promise to restore order, and we know what happens next. And women's rights and all the other gains you've made over the last 50 years, etc., etc., can disappear overnight as the strongest and most brutal take over. This is why ignoring the real fundamentals means everything else is on shaky ground. I mentioned that these are rather abstract and intertwined. I hope I've articulated them well enough to get the idea across. May I encourage you all to focus on these things too, and help slow the decline?EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Materialism, post-modernism, socialism, wokes, nazism, communism, racism, lbgtqp. Supposedly it's all the same error of fact obsessed people who are clueless about subjectivity, on the intellectual level. It's a simple problem, with a simple solution. The solution being to teach creationism. Because the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / fact Category 1 is the subjective category, category 2 is the objective category. There is no doubt about it that amendment 1 of the US constitution has a big role in the success of the USA. If freedom of opinion is so important, than so too must the concept of opinion be very important for success. And the concept of opinion, is an inherently creationist concept. The nazi's asserted that personal character is a matter of biological fact. But creationism says personal character belongs in the subjective category, because choices are made out of personal character. It is just very obvious. When people are clueless about subjectivity, then they don't pay dedicated attention to subjective issues. Then their emotions turn to shit, and people become hysterical 24/7. They make bad personal opinions, from their bad emotions. Then they make politics from their bad personal opinions.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @86, I would also like to know what EDTA is referring to when he is talking about the fundamentals. I would think that any society that confirms to the goals that you and I have listed could not be authoritarian.Steve Alten2_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

For what it's worth, as a Trekkie, I start from the Vulcan premise of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations". Applying Vulcan logic, in the case of a Creator of infinite knowledge and infinite power, nothing would exist but by its will since it would always have the power to change that which displeased it. It would also know exactly how one of its creations would behave and, being omnipresent, would also know its future with the same certainty. Thus it would be illogical for this Creator to penalize one of its creatures for behaving in ways it was designed to behave and allowed to behave. The Creator would have the power to modify the creature so it behaved differently or, at the very least, try to reason with the creature and explain the reasoning behind the Creator's displeasure. Harming or killing creatures for being as they were created to be and their Creator knew they would be appears to be both irrational and malevolent. I am as startled instinctively as others here when I see two men kissing but, like others here, I believe the problem is in me. I am just human, not a god nor even a Vulcan. Clearly, others feel the same so one of the awkward questions it raises is why holy texts such as the Bible would include prohibitions against something like homosexuality. The Christian God is presumed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving and present at all times and in all places, He is presumed to have created this entire unimaginably vast Universe and everything within it so why should such a being be bothered by what two consenting human adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom? If He doesn't like it He shouldn't be looking. The more fundamental question is why would such a deity create beings that were able to behave in ways that would displease it? The free will defense simply does not work in the case of an omniscient Creator because, as the story of Peter's triple denial of knowing Jesus illustrates, there can be no free will in the case of such a Creator. He was warned specifically in advance what he would do yet that is what happened. He could do nothing about it. In fact, it makes no sense at all for such a Creator to object to homosexual behavior. What makes more sense is that whoever wrote those passages in the Bible was giving their expression to the sadly all-too-human prejudice and bigotry that we can assume existed then as now. It has been argued here that atheists cannot build and live by a coherent "worldview". Leaving aside whether such a concept has any useful meaning, the reality is that we are all ignorant in most areas and to varying degrees, so any views we take are liable to be ill-founded, inconsistent and even contradictory. We should be humbled by that ignorance but all too often we are not. This is as true for Christians as anyone else. The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions. For example, why would an all-loving God command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of Abraham's faith when He would have known exactly what was in the man's heart? That smacks of cruelty not compassion. It also makes the Bible sound like what you would expect of something authored by fallible human beings. In practice a Christian can only build a coherent "worldview" based on the Bible's teachings by ignoring a lot of it. This is not to say there are not many genuinely good Christians in the sense that they try to actually live according to Christ's example rather than just pay lip-service to it. There are. They exercise their own judgement concerning Biblical - especially Old Testament - proscriptions rather than slavishly following some supposedly literalist interpretation of the texts. They note the contradiction between the death penalty that is supposed to be meted out to homosexuals or adulterers or even disrespectful children and Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
They may even recognize the contradiction between Romans 12:19 and the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent Creator. Being atheist is actually a lot easier since you don't get sucked into a swamp of apologetics.Seversky_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

EDTA, what do you think the fundamentals are, if not such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, liberty and justice for all, all men are created equal, etc.?Viola Lee_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

SA2, >But isn’t it possible to do both? I can fight for homosexual rights at the same time I fight against racial discrimination. Perhaps we're disagreeing on what the fundamentals are, but it looks to me as if we are neglecting some of the fundamentals while we focus on high-level issues. >Equality of opportunity, respect for others, pursuit of happiness, etc. Yes, we definitely have different ideas of what fundamentals are. Those are noble next goals of a society that has the fundamentals well under control. Good goals, but not fundamental enough to keep us from falling into an authoritarian/totalitarian state. The fundamentals are more abstract than these things, and so the media never talks about them; people's eyes would glaze over and they would flip to some more entertaining show instead. >There are some irrefutable facts. 1) Homosexuality has been with us for all recorded history and there is no indication that this will change. Just like there is no indication that sexual harassment will ever go away, or even diminish more than a little--and that when under extreme societal pressure. I predict that homophobia won't go away either. (Hey, all three are natural, instinctual things, right? We can't welcome people to the sexual revolution in all its glory, and then tell them to overcome some things that come naturally, but not others. The sexual revolution is all about letting the instincts loose.) > 2) Same sex attraction manifests itself at a very early age. That's one I can't personally confirm, as I know people who went gay who gave no indication of it at an early age. But I also can't disagree, as my sample size is too small. > 3) This is not something a person can simply flip a switch and change it. Same for my maladaptive trait. No chance of ever fixing it permanently. But I am still obligated to fight it, which I do. We can either give in to our personal challenges, or fight them. Right now, our society is in a state where it says to everyone, "You were born that way, so go with it. Be who you are. And everyone else is wrong if they make you feel bad for it, so get your blame game on!"EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

EDTA “ It might be argued that we have intellectualized our gut feelings, but that argument would cut the other way too.“ I’m not sure that this is the case, at least not for me. If I were to intellectualize my gut feeling with respect to male homosexuality I would probably find a way to justify opposing it. But, there may be other issues where I very well might be intellectualize for my gut feeling. “ Just having an internal conflict is not a sure sign that it is caused by people outside.“ Agreed. I’m sure we all know people who blame government or big business for all of their failings. “ But one can also have internal conflicts just because something is wrong internally.“ I agree with this as well. But we are talking about homosexuality. There are some irrefutable facts. 1) Homosexuality has been with us for all recorded history and there is no indication that this will change. 2) Same sex attraction manifests itself at a very early age. 3) This is not something a person can simply flip a switch and change it. We don’t know if homosexuality is something that some are “born” with, or if it arises early in development, but given the stigma associated with it over the centuries we can be fairly certain that it is not something that someone chooses for themselves. So, the way I see it society has two choices. 1) Continue to marginalized homosexuals and not allow them to be full members of society or 2) Accept them as they are and welcome them into society, extending them the same benefits that the rest of us enjoy. I choose the latter. But let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s assume that homosexuality is due epigenetic effects during fetal development. If this were proven the case, should society invest in research to develop prenatal treatments to short-circuit these epigenetic effects?Steve Alten2_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

EDTA “ But I think our priorities are wrong at times. Someone in Germany in the early ’30s might have been fighting for women’s rights too (or some other high-level cause), but they should have been fighting for civilization itself.” But isn’t it possible to do both? I can fight for homosexual rights at the same time I fight against racial discrimination. ” You may be underestimating how thin the veneer of civilization really is, and how we can be back to the laws of the jungle overnight if we are not careful for the fundamentals on which civilization rests _first_ and foremost.” It is what these fundamentals are that is being fought for. Accepting homosexuals as welcome and productive members of society, enjoying all of the benefits and subject to the same obligations as the rest of us, conforms to these fundamentals. Equality of opportunity, respect for others, pursuit of happiness, etc.Steve Alten2_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

SA2 @ 74 + Viola, > It is at the more intellectual level that people are generally accepting of homosexuality. I have to question that, because people here are disagreeing with it, and asserting its immorality, for intellectual reasons. (It might be argued that we have intellectualized our gut feelings, but that argument would cut the other way too.) > And I echo Viola Lee’s comment that homosexuals have internal conflicts because of the negative judgment of others. Just having an internal conflict is not a sure sign that it is caused by people outside. It may feel that way, and is sure is convenient to blame those outside, particularly in an age when everything is "society's fault". (Yet another example of societal breakdown, btw.) Yes, the APA and experts everywhere say that it's everyone else's fault, too, because that's what's in vogue right now. But one can also have internal conflicts just because something is wrong internally. I also carry at least one maladaptive trait (an evolution term everyone here should be familiar with). But I don't blame society for the problems it causes me nor do I seek to make an institution around it--despite the fact that society could (if it wanted to) bend to accommodate me.EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

I have engaged KF point by point a number of times, on a number of issues. He doesn't engage back: he repeats and repeats, and dismisses any ideas not consistent with his as "evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers", and making sweeping generalizations about how therefore civilization is going to hell in a handbasket, rather than addressing the specific points that people have made in reply to him. That's the way it looks to me.Viola Lee_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

mohammadnursyamsu @ 71, >Their personal opinions lack guidance from the intellectual level. Meaning their personal opinions are much more decided at a lower, instinctive level. I have had similar concerns. Detractors seem to reject the words of folks like KF without actually engaging him at his level, point-by-point. Rather, they reject the ideas in sweeping generalities that never get down to details and points. Glad you brought that out.EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

SA2, >But the “right things” can also require fighting for change. Yes, and there are many changes that need to be fought for. But I think our priorities are wrong at times. Someone in Germany in the early '30s might have been fighting for women's rights too (or some other high-level cause), but they should have been fighting for civilization itself. We are fighting for rights for various groups today. But if we collapse, as I think we could, all the gains of minorities, feminists, etc., could disappear overnight. You may be underestimating how thin the veneer of civilization really is, and how we can be back to the laws of the jungle overnight if we are not careful for the fundamentals on which civilization rests _first_ and foremost.EDTA_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

That doesn't make sense, MN, and I don't know why you think you understand what I mean, but I'm not going to try to pursue it, I don't think.Viola Lee_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Yeah, choice as being some kind of cultural fantasy, not as a reality of physics.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

MN, I am not a materialist. I believe strongly that choice is a primary aspect of our nature.Viola Lee_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

At the basic instinct level sexuality can go in any direction, including animals, minors, family members, inanimate objects. Only the ideas of creationists about it are of interest. Materialists only understand about things that are forced, not decisionmaking processes.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

MN “ At the more intellectual level, people generally dislike homosexuality, including homosexuals themselves. They commonly have internal conflicts.” I think you might have it backwards. It is at the more intellectual level that people are generally accepting of homosexuality. And I echo Viola Lee’s comment that homosexuals have internal conflicts because of the negative judgment of others. This is supported by the fact that homosexual teen suicide rates have significantly declined at the same time that acceptance of homosexuality has increased.Steve Alten2_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

VL Your ideas about it is of no interest to me, because you use a different and wrong understanding of what a personal opinion is.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

MN writes, "At the more intellectual level, people generally dislike homosexuality, including homosexuals themselves. They commonly have internal conflicts." False, I believe. Do you have a source for that claim? What is true is that homosexuals have "internal conflicts" because of the negative judgments of those around them: they are taught to feel shame, and that they are abnormal, as demonstrated clearly by, for instance, people like KF and others here.Viola Lee_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

The personal opinions of people who do not comprehend intellectually what a personal opinion is, are bad. Their personal opinions lack guidance from the intellectual level. Meaning their personal opinions are much more decided at a lower, instinctive level. At the more intellectual level, people generally dislike homosexuality, including homosexuals themselves. They commonly have internal conflicts. First teach people what a personal opinion is, meaning to teach creationism, and have people pay dedicated attention to subjective issues, as in religion, then we'll see what homosexuality is left after that. Like Evelyn Waugh Brideshead Revisited. Where homosexuality ended up as secondary fun to heterosexual serious love.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

This is not merely about distaste, but that the pattern of tangents into toxic distractors [with seriously misinformed commentry, as I long since linked] is manifestly counter productive. I suggest that there be a general refraining from such distractions.kairosfocus_{March 27, 2021
March
03
Mar
27
27
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

EDTA ” It’s not things I disagree with, it’s things that tend to precede downfalls*, and the cause/effect relationships among them. ” My apologies if you thought my comment was referring to you. It was aimed at Kairosfocus who tends to see everything that does not conform to his personal world view as leading, inevitably, to disaster. This in spite of all evidence to the contrary. “ But the price of all the good things is eternal vigilance, and I’m thankful for those who are vigilant–and wise enough to be vigilant about the right things.“ I agree. But the “right things” can also require fighting for change. Back in the 60s men were jailed for simply being homosexual. Thankfully that is no longer the case. When I was in high school there were kids that openly bragged about “gay bashing”. That is no longer the case. A small percentage of the population, for reasons beyond their control, are sexually attracted to others of the same sex. This has been the case throughout all of recorded history. I just haven’t seen any legitimate justification for denying them the opportunities that the rest of us enjoy. Be open about their relationships. Get married. Raise children.Steve Alten2_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

>It has become obvious to me that you believe that anything that you don’t agree with will inevitably lead to the downfall of civilization. It's not things I disagree with, it's things that tend to precede downfalls*, and the cause/effect relationships among them. Most people don't even care where civilization is headed, as long as they have their basic needs met, and plenty of entertainment/fun/pleasure--because that's what they seem to prioritize. Start talking about civilization, and most people's eyes glaze over because it's too abstract. But the price of all the good things is eternal vigilance, and I'm thankful for those who are vigilant--and wise enough to be vigilant about the right things. *For the record, I don't think open homosexuality is a _cause_ of downfalls, but more a symptom of the whole web of causes and effects.EDTA_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

as to "Even Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, one way or the other." Well, there is that bit where He said the day of Judgement would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than Capernaum
Matthew 11:23-24 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” Matthew 10:15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. Luke 10:12 I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sodom-And-Gomorrah
Of related note: Archeology has confirmed the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and that they suffered a fiery destruction and were never rebuilt afterwards, just as the Bible said and predicted.
Q&A: The Bible and Archaeology (Conversation with Joel Kramer) - Sodom and Gomorrah - 11:22 min. mark https://youtu.be/ZqTjpCrsGFE?t=682
bornagain77_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Steve Alten2: I don’t think that anyone would cringe at a women getting off a plane giving a short kiss to a man waiting at the baggage carousel for her. The same may not be true for the exact same situation if the two people were men. Good point. I would never mind social "pecks" between any configuration of genders (or species for that matter.) (The French do it all day long, and they seem okay. :D ) Those aren't sexual kisses. They don't irk me personally. I wonder what a poll would reveal. But I could be wrong.Concealed Citizen_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Concealed Citizen, I think that the cringe-worthyness would depend on the situation and duration of the kiss. For example, I don't think that anyone would cringe at a women getting off a plane giving a short kiss to a man waiting at the baggage carousel for her. The same may not be true for the exact same situation if the two people were men. Then again, is anyone meeting anyone else at baggage carousels these days? Viola Lee "Also, and I think this has been confirmed by studies, people have much less discomfort watching two women kiss than they do two men. I have thoughts about that, but I think I’ll keep those to myself." Personally, I have never understood why anyone would want to kiss a man, or do anything else with a man. I'm just glad that there are some that do. :)Steve Alten2_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

I tend to agree. Sometimes I see people (usually young) passionately kissing in public and my feeling is "get a room". But sometimes I see, for instance, a middle aged couple, not particularly fit and of average looks, and I think about how they have sex, and I think about that's it's just not my business what that looks like or what they do. So sometimes I wonder if people who have a sense of disgust about same-sex sex apply the same criteria to their feeling about similar imaginings of hetero-sex sex. Also, and I think this has been confirmed by studies, people have much less discomfort watching two women kiss than they do two men. I have thoughts about that, but I think I'll keep those to myself.Viola Lee_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

SA2: I understand that seeing two men kiss makes some people uncomfortable. Well, personally (and I'm no prude), I don't care about the genders involved, it's kind of cringy no matter what the sexual configuration, and more reflects a lack of respect for people in public. I don't care what consenting adults do, but keep the sex and other personal bodily things in private. I would guess that 99.997% of people in the world would agree with that. Does it make it "right" or "wrong"? Well, no, not in any objective morality sort of way. But if a person is interested in an efficient, maximally content state of social affairs, I would think he/she/it would understand and act accordingly. I don't piss in the street, even though I want to sometimes. I at least go behind a tree out of view. Respect. But, I would be wrong.Concealed Citizen_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

The last line is crucial, because some many kids, no matter what the sexual orientation of their parents, have unstable families (divorce, single parent (usually moms), blended families, alcohol and other substance abuse problems) and poverty from various causes. Studies which just look at same-sex parent families and don't look at comparable hetero-families don't give us good data.Viola Lee_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee "Not necessarily true. Some societies have accepted homosexual relations in various way rather than castigating them." You are correct. This was my English-western bias showing through. Historically, many Native American cultures were far more accepting of homosexuality and transgendered than their European invaders were. Thank you for the link to that article. It was very informative, although not at all surprising. I think that some have the fear that by accepting homosexuality and transgendered that we will suddenly see a surge in homosexuals and transgendered, and that our civilization will crumble through a lack of reproduction. That is such a ludicrous threat that it wouldn't be worth addressing but for the fact there are people who believe this. I understand that seeing two men kiss makes some people uncomfortable. And, I must admit, that it also makes me feel uncomfortable. But I am smart enough to realize that this is my problem, not theirs. The other fear-mongering often used is that children raised by same sex couples are at a serious disadvantage. Again, the actual data does not support this.
We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6
Steve Alten2_{March 26, 2021
March
03
Mar
26
26
2021
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply