...
首页> 外文期刊>Depression research and treatment >Letter to the Editor: Comment on 'Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents'
【24h】

Letter to the Editor: Comment on 'Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents'

机译:致编辑的信:评论“隐形受害者:同性父母的成年人延迟发病抑郁”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

I was appalled, if not surprised, to see the publication of Donald Sullins' study, "Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents" in Depression Research and Treatment (2016) [1]. Sullins claims that having same-sex parents increases the likelihood of suffering from depression, abuse, parental distance, and obesity and concludes that households with gay or lesbian parents "may be problematic or dangerous" for the "dignity and security" of their offspring. Yet to support these conclusions, Sullins would have needed to compare same-sex- and different-sex-headed households in which it is known that no family disruptions occurred (or that the same level of such disruptions occurred in each group). Instead, he draws sweeping, outlier conclusions (74 studies collected by my research team at Columbia Law School's What We Know Project [2], which aggregates scholarship with public policy implications, have found that parent sexual orientation does not affect the wellbeing of children) that can only be reached by fudging the way gay- or lesbian-headed households are discussed and compared to households headed by heterosexuals. Sullins achieves this through a crucial elision between households in which a child spent some time in a home headed by a same-sex couple and families in which a child was actually raised, from birth, by a stable same-sex couple, a situation more auspicious for healthy child development. This conflation of household stability with parent gender fatally mars his conclusions, which are much more damning of gay and lesbian parenting than are warranted by his data. Sullins claims that his study examines "children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood." But in fact, he has zero basis to draw this conclusion, as he is applying a wholly untenable definition of "raised by." All he knows about his dataset is that his subjects, who ranged in age from 12 to 18, spent some of their teenage years with a parent who at some point had a same-sex partner. Since we do not know if that partner was ever actually a parent, legally or otherwise, it is inaccurate to characterize such households as "same-sex parented" as Sullins does eleven times. It is even more inaccurate to claim that those living in these households were "raised by" same-sex parents, since we know nothing about the youths' parentage before their teenage years. Not only is there no basis to conclude that these subjects were raised by same-sex parents, but also there is every reason to believe they likely were not. This is made clear by comparing the number of same-sex couples with children to the number of gay or lesbian parents overall. Census and scholarly data show that about a quarter million Americans are currently parenting as part of a same-sex couple [3]. Around 139 million Americans are aged 18-50 [4], of whom 3.5% are LGB [5] and 35% are raising a child [3]. An estimated 1.7 million gay or lesbian Americans are currently parents; that is, they are parenting but not as part of a same-sex couple. That means that only about 15 percent of households with at least one gay parent are ones in which a same-sex couple is parenting, let alone has raised a child from birth, a higher bar that only applies to households in which the parents have stayed together over time and are known to both be parents to the child(ren).
机译:如果没有惊讶,我被吓坏了,看了唐纳德苏林斯的研究,“隐形受害者:在抑郁研究和治疗(2016年)[1]中的同性父母的成年人延迟抑郁症延迟了抑郁症。[1]。 Sullins声称具有同性父母增加了患有抑郁症,虐待,父母距离和肥胖症的可能性,并得出结论认为,对于他们后代的“尊严和安全”,与同性恋父母“可能是有问题的或危险”的家庭。然而,为了支持这些结论,苏林斯需要比较同性和不同性爱的家庭,其中众所周知,没有发生家庭中断(或者每组发生同等水平的这种破坏)。相反,他利用了席卷,异常的结论(我的研究团队收集了哥伦比亚法学院的74项关于我们所知道的项目[2],从而与公共政策影响汇总奖学金,发现父母性取向不会影响儿童的福祉)只有通过讨论的同性恋,并与异性恋者为首的家庭讨论的方式才能达成这一点。 Sullins通过家庭之间的一个关键挑战来实现这一目标,其中一个孩子在一个被同性夫妇和一个孩子实际上被提出的家庭从出生中举起了一个稳定的同性夫妇,更多的情况健康儿童发展的吉祥。这种家庭稳定性与父母性别致命的混合致命,他的结论是同性恋和女同性恋的育儿比他的数据所需的更大。 Sullins声称他的研究审查了“由同性父母提出的儿童进入成年早期。”但实际上,他有零的依据来吸引这一结论,因为他正在申请完全无法维持的“提出的”。他所知道的只是他的数据集,他的主题从12到18岁到18岁,他们的一些少年与父母一起度过了一些在某些人的父母有同性伴侣。由于我们不知道该合作伙伴实际上是父母,法律还是其他,因为苏林斯这样一个家庭,这种家庭将这些家庭称为“同性恋”。宣称,索赔这些家庭的人“被”被“被”同性父母所抚养的人“更为不准确,因为我们在青少年之前对青年的父母一无所知。不仅有没有基础来得出结论,这些科目是由同性父母提出的,而且还有每个理由相信他们可能不是。通过将与儿童的人数与总体上的同性恋或女同性恋父母的数量进行比较,可以清楚地明确。人口普查和学术数据显示,大约四分之一的美国人目前是育儿作为同性夫妇的一部分[3]。大约13900万美国人年龄在18-50岁[4],其中3.5%是LGB [5],35%正在提高一个孩子[3]。估计有170万个同性恋或女同性恋美国人目前是父母;也就是说,他们是育儿,但不是同性恋夫妇的一部分。这意味着只有大约15%的家庭,至少有一个同性恋父母的家庭是其中的同性夫妇是育儿,更不用说从出生中提出了一个孩子,一个更高的酒吧,只适用于父母所留下的家庭随着时间的推移,众所周知,都是父母给孩子(仁)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号