Campbell Soup Company promotes Gay Agenda
While Campbell Soup Company is successfully advertising to their intended audience, as a consumer, I am concerned. The women featured in the ad are lovely women. They are doing good things. They are successful. However, the best place for children is in a family with a mom and a dad. Two moms do not equal a mom and a dad. Swenson broth does not equal a mom and a dad.This holiday season, serve a special meal no matter the size and structure of your family. The secret is Swanson.
from the The Campbell Soup Company 2008 Coorporate Social Responsibility Report:
Our mission:The best, most "nourishing" families across the board are the in-tact, traditional married unit. It seems to me that an "extraordinary" company would try to advertise the healthiest situation for the community it serves.
Together we will build the world's most extraordinary food company by nourishing people's lives everywhere, every day.
Consumers around the world are recognizing the importance of sound nutrition to their health and well-being, and those of their families and communities.
from Campbell's Global Guidelines for Responsible Advertising:
We use very special care and consideration when advertising to children.
Campbell Soup Advertising Messages:
If Campbell Soup is concerned for the welfare of children, then they should not be contributing to the normalization of same-gender couples with kids. The company has a social responsbility that extends beyond pleasing one group of potential customers. The ad profits from (and blatantly promotes) the gay agenda at the cost of the social/emotional/psychological health of society and its children.Show children in safe physical and social environments
View ad here
Email the president of the Campbell Soup Company here
Call the company to express your concern: 1-800-257-8443 & 1-800-442-7684 (Swenson Division)
Good one Kingfisher
ReplyDeleteI like this part
"However, the best place for children is in a family with a mom and a dad. Two moms do not equal a mom and a dad."
New research has found that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents. Not two mums or two dads but mum and dad.
When I first saw the ad, I thought it was a grandmother, mother, and child. I couldn't see what the big deal was. Then I started reading the story. Things aren't always quite what they seem to be, are they?
ReplyDeleteThis is the part that I still can't get over.
ReplyDeleteIt exposes the blatant promotion of a same-gender "marriage":
This holiday season, serve a special meal no matter the size and structure of your family. The secret is Swanson.
"structure" of family? since when do we use the word "structure" when discussing family christmas traditions?
thanks guys.
Congratulations on noticing that two mothers does not equal a mother and a father. Biologically, this family is different. Does this mean the family is worse? Really? Are you suggesting that every gay family is worse than every "intact" heterosexual family?
ReplyDeleteAs you said, these women are successful. Their son is healthy, happy, and supported by both parents. This is the message that Campbell is spreading. Not that gay families are better, but that families where people are happy, healthy, and enjoy eating together are better. To be honest, I can't think of why anyone would disagree with that.
On top of that, this is a gay magazine, yes? Campbell are not "advertising" gay families, they are directing their advertising at their market. Should they put a straight family in there, it wouldn't make sense to the readers, and would not make sound economic sense. Even if this was in a magazine not directed at gay readers, do you honestly believe that people would read the advert and think, "Ah yes, now a soup company are supporting gay families I must go out and make one myself! I now entirely accept the gay way of life!". If anything, this kind of magazine makes life easier for the children of lesbian and gay relationships, showing them that they are not alone in their different family make up.
One last thing- the writer of this article appears to misunderstand the word "extraordinary". By definition, this word means "out of the ordinary". Surely companies which embrace every type of family are indeed living up to being "out of the ordinary"? And in the best way possible.
Children should be healthy, happy, successful and above all loved. That's what Campbell thinks, and I would hope you do too.
Anonymous, The idea that is being put forth by Campbell's Soup about families being any random sex and count of people who proclaim love---is one that is not accepted by society at large, as is evidenced by the proposition 8 win in California recently. Random numbers and sexes of adults are not the accepted definition of marriage. One man, one woman is.
ReplyDeleteIf the majority of citizens sits back and allows this kind of redefinition to take place in the corporate world unimpeded, the perceived normal for society will change, and laws with it. That is what we're working against for the precise reason that families with a mom and a dad are the ideal situation for raising children---and no other.
Well said Beetlebabee,
ReplyDeleteThis particular "family" may be doing it ok but we need to consider the whole of society. The research says that children who live with both biological parents fare better. Two women is not the ideal situation.
If these two women are pretending to be "married" or in relationship then there must be homosexual activity going on. Homosexual acts are disordered and must not be encouraged.
Advertising in a homosexual magazine and reinforcing their beliefs that homosexuality is ok and can raise children, is not what they should be told. People with same sex attraction have a disorder and need our help. Encouraging them in this disorder is the last thing they need.
anon,
ReplyDeletechildren should be loved. love is always a good thing. i agree with you.
however, if a lesbian couple says, we are really good at providing male role models, it exposes the lack of something in the relationship (necessary for the child). Which means by definition they are inferior to a heterosexual couple. They are lacking a male parent. That's just the truth. Maybe this couple doesn't provide male role models...but social sciences prove that children need one. that's why its so important to keep the definition of marriage exclusive. to encourage children having a mom and a dad.
campbell soup company is definitely "extraordinary" according to the definition of the word (as you point out). however, many people believe that their "extraordinary" ad contributes to normalization of a family structure which is not the best for children.
this is not the kind of "extraordinary" that is necessarily praiseworthy by millions of their consumers who are concerned about the path of our society.
the article points out that campbell's soup is successfully identifying with its audience. the ad's audience is not important to concerned consumers like me who do not think swanson's broth makes up for a having a mom and a dad.
I just don't understand how you can presume to comment on the worthiness and effectiveness of families you have never been part of! What gives you the right to say that two mothers will nnot raise a child as well as a mother and a father? What gives you the right to call these real, honest families, united by love, "families", as though they do not deserve that title? Is the term family reserved for those who fit into the narrow shape of a mum, a dad and a few kids? No! Do not own the term family. It belongs to everyone. And how can you tell children that their parents are "pretending" to have a relationship? Gay relationships are as real as any between a man and woman. They do the washing up together. They share the housework. If there are kids, they might put them to bed together. And yes, they sleep in the same bed. How dare you say that becasue of one chromosome of difference these people are not part of real families?
ReplyDeleteYou claim that you worry about the "path of our society". Well, how do you know what's best? How much research have YOU done into the subject? You have probably never been a member of a gay family. You don't know how it feels. The information one can read on the internet is broad ranging, and often convincing, but it is often intended to win over audiences to the writer's opinion facts are far from what you read.
I can't say any more than that. Please though, do not judge families you do not know. And if you truly wat what is best for all children, do not spread the message that gay families are pretend. Hearing that their family is fake will hurt children far more than the absence of a constant man in their life ever could.
"Hearing that their family is fake will hurt children far more than the absence of a constant man in their life ever could."
ReplyDeleteHearing the truth about same sex "marriages" is more merciful than telling them that everything is ok when it is not.
There is no evidence that the same-gender family structure is as good as the traditional in-tact family.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is right to encourage a structure which has no known outcome. I do not want to be responsible for stripping a child of a parent--and the damage or regret that can/will occur.
Gender matters in parenting.
why is it for you to say whether these children's families are "ok"? maybe for the children they are ok. maybe the children are happy, and obviously by telling the children that their families are inferior, you will make them unhappy, and this is going to affect them negatively.
ReplyDelete"I do not want to be responsible for stripping a child of a parent--and the damage or regret that can/will occur"- NEWSFLASH- you aren't responsible! it isn't your choice. you have no right to decide what is right for these families, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to impress them upon children who love their parents.
Marriage is a public institution. As a citizen, it matters to me.
ReplyDeleteIt is my responsibility to do everything I can as a citizen to influence society for good. Women, or men, who for selfish reason bring a child into this world just because they want one (without providing them with a married mom and dad), do so at the peril of the child.
Every study, ever conducted shows that children do better with a married mom and dad.
I'm not going to sit back and let people tell me that it is okay to encourage other family "Structures" which are not as beneficial to children.
I'm not telling children that their family is inferior. I'm encouraging the best kind of family.
Stop using childrens' emotions as a reason to hide the truth. It's not logical.
But if you want to get emotional:
every child should have a chance to have a dad who adores them, protects them, and provides for them--every child should have the experience of having their dad hold their hand when they are scared. Or the delight of having their dad play hide-and-seek with them.
Every child should have a chance to have a mom who adores them, protects them, and provides for them--every child should have the experience of having their mom hold their hand when they are scared. or the delight of having their mom play hide-and-seek with them.
These experiences are uniquely different when each gender expresses them. i'm not just talking about how a child performs in school, or what their job will be, or if they make money when they are grown up--i'm talking about quality of life, memories, the substance of life.
I'm not going to sit back and let people say that children do "okay" or "fine" with two moms or two dads.
gender matters. "okay" and "fine" is not good enough for any child.
"why is it for you to say whether these children's families are "ok"?"
ReplyDeleteBecause the research says that these families are not ok.
New research has found that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents.Link
Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. Link
The homosexual lifestyle is strongly Linked to depression and suicide. People with psychological problems like this should not be able to adopt children. Link
Secular Heretic,
ReplyDeleteYou are not being truthful. What research says that about lgbt families? I noticed one of your links cite the work of Paul Cameron who has been highly criticized for his bad research techniques. And its not a "liberal conspiracy to silence Cameron" either. Conservative William Bennett, Exodus International and the Traditional Values Coalition (Lou Sheldon's group in California) have also come out against Cameron.
Cameron has also been censured by many credible research groups for his bad research techniques. And I also noticed you said this - "New research has found that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents."
Wouldn't that mean THEIR biological parents? That would make your claims irrelevant because as you know sometimes children are not with their biological parents - that is why foster homes and adoption was invented.
And also, lgbts have children through surrogates and the like so in that case we are talking about "biological parents." Wouldn't that also negate your claim about gay parenting?
And for everyone else, those studies you allude to that say "children do better with a mother and father" are irrelevant because none of them looked at same sex households in comparison to heterosexual households. The studies looked at two-parent heterosexual households as opposed to single parent heterosexual households.
"What research says that about lgbt families?"
ReplyDeleteIn her book Children as Trophies? European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 published studies on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behaviour, confused gender roles, and increased likelihood of serious psychological problems later in life. Link
In some studies, children raised by homosexual partners seem to suffer from sex-role confusion
R. Green et al., "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison With Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children," Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167-83; P. A. Belcastro et al., "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105-22; B. Hoeffer, "Lesbian and Heterosexual Single Mothers: Influence of Their Child's Acquisition of Sex-Role Traits and Behavior," (dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979; D. L. Puryear, "Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers," (Dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983; J. D. Kunin, "Predictors of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adjustment of Children: A Study Comparing Children Raised by Lesbian Parents to Children Raised by Heterosexual Parents," Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (1998): (6-B), 3094; G. A. Javaid, "The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers," Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23 (1993): 235-48; K. Lewis, "The Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View," Social Work 23 (1980): 198-203 Link
New Study Find Children Who Live with Biological Parents and go to Church Fare Best Developmentally Link
Families were classified as having in the household: 1) both biological
parents of the child, or two adopted parents; 2) a biological parent and a
stepparent; 3) the biological mother only; or 4) other parent figures, including the
biological father only, grandparent(s) or other relatives, or foster parent(s), who
could be biologically related or unrelated to the child.4 (The NSCH questionnaire
did not inquire as to the current marital status of the parent figures in the
household.)
All the study is saying is that biological parents are the best situation.
People who take part in homosexual activity are not fit to be parents. Look at the problems they are more likely to experience
Homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com Link
Suicidation, molestation, and violence were other factors found to be disproportionately higher in the homosexual subgroup. Hughes, John R. (2006). A general review of recent reports on homosexuality and lesbianism. Sexuality and Disability, 24, 195-205. Link
...this study linked the homosexual lifestyle to increased risk of both physical and mental disease...published by Statistics Canada Link
I realise that biological parents experience these problems too but not to the extent that people who take part in homosexual acts do.
By allowing same sex partners to adopt a child, puts the child at a greater risk of abuse.
Opine editorials have had some interesting conversations on this topic.
ReplyDeleteThis post talks about the studies, it has the reference and the link:
Same gender parenting v opposite gender parenting
"Leading, qualified proponents of genderless marriage have acknowledged the validity of the good-science requirements, and also the validity of conclusion’s regarding the failure of the “no differences” studies.
William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005) (“We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”)
Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 AM. SOC. REV. 159, 166 (2001)."
Findings from studies across the UK (Tasker and Golombok 1997), Europe (Englert, 1994) and the US (Patterson, 1995) almost uniformly conclude that children growing up with lesbian parents are not negatively affected by the sexual orientation of their parents (Weeks, Donovan and Heaphy, 1996). These conclusions appear to apply to both children who were born before their mothers identified as lesbian and those born to 'out' lesbians.
ReplyDeleteGood examples? Yes, I think so.
By the way, I am the Anonymous person... it won't let me do that any more.
What is their defintion of "negatively affected"?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, what were the factors the studies were looking at?
And were they studying children who grew up in exclusively lesbian households? Where they only had two moms?
j.slac/anon/free
ReplyDeleteThose studies are kind of old. All the new summaries of studies done recently conclude that there is no conclusion to the question of how children fare in same-gender households.
I don't think it's a good idea to experiment. I wouldn't want anyone trying the experiment on my child.
But I suppose if you don't care about children, and you just want one, because you think you'll be a good enough mom to equal a mom and a dad...then it doesn't matter.
Free
ReplyDeleteDo you have a link to your studies?
I think more studies need to be done to get more conclusive evidence.
For example, what would be the difference between two lesbians living a sexual relationship and raising children as opposed to a single women who has a same sex attraction yet remains celibate?
Does everyone agree that male and female biological parents are the best for raising their children?
Given the mothers are "out" lesbians, I assume they are in sexual relationships. I think that 4 studies are fairly conclusive- and to be honest, I don't see why more studies should be done. In all of the parenting books I have read, none state that a particular type of family is dramatically better for children- only that families with two or more adults to rely on tend to be happier, if not necessarily benefitting massively in the future.
ReplyDeleteAlso, once again- I am not jesurgislac. He/she is still writing under that name. I think he/she writes a bit better than me though, I am almost definitely considerably younger.
"Free,"
ReplyDeleteYour assertions are not supported except by "parenting books [you've] read" and four "fairly conclusive" studies that you have yet to provide titles and links for (only authors). Could you be more specific, please? I hardly think anyone would agree that four studies is conclusive enough to shut the book and declare same-sex marriage equal to heterosexual marriage for the nurture of children; especially not when there are prominent gay rights researchers concurring with pro-traditional family researchers that there is just not enough evidence and there has not been enough time to accumulate enough evidence to conclude such a weighty conclusion (See Ruby's citations). When experts standing on your side of this unfortunate chasm do not agree with you, "Free," that says a lot.
Oh and...nice plug.
I think that 4 studies are fairly conclusive
ReplyDeleteFree, do you have a link to these studies?
I have 6 authors which say that In some studies, children raised by homosexual partners seem to suffer from sex-role confusion. Having your children grow up confused is not exactly the ideal situation.
R. Green et al., "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison With Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children," Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167-83; P. A. Belcastro et al., "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105-22; B. Hoeffer, "Lesbian and Heterosexual Single Mothers: Influence of Their Child's Acquisition of Sex-Role Traits and Behavior," (dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979; D. L. Puryear, "Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers," (Dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983; J. D. Kunin, "Predictors of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adjustment of Children: A Study Comparing Children Raised by Lesbian Parents to Children Raised by Heterosexual Parents," Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (1998): (6-B), 3094; G. A. Javaid, "The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers," Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23 (1993): 235-48; K. Lewis, "The Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View," Social Work 23 (1980): 198-203 Link
In all of the parenting books I have read, none state that a particular type of family is dramatically better for children
Free, this study contradicts your statement Link
Pearl, you are right more research needs to be done to get to the bottom of the issue.
Just to speculate on possible future findings, I think it will be found that same sex parents who remain celibate and out of homosexual relationships will be able to raise children with similar success to a married couple. Same sex attracted people who maintain homosexual relations are the ones who will raise children with problems.
Free,
ReplyDeleteMy main concern is that you don't want any studies done. What are you afraid of? It seems concerned and loving parents would be enthusiastic to find out more information on how they could raise their kids better--
I'm sure there will be more studies. My bet is is that the studies will show that kids raised in a home with their mom and dad have significant advantages over other family "structures."
...in the meantime, i'm not willing to participate in the experimentation phase.
I am perfectly willing for experiments to be done, so long as they are done fairly, and that is hard to judge.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, you have to factor in the socio-economic background of those taking part in the test. In America, LGB people tend to earn less than their heterosexual counterparts. It has been proven that poverty has a direct link with how a child "turns out". To avoid this, you would have to choose families on both sides with the same income etc. This is quite hard to regulate.
For another, (and pardon if this is ever so slightly off topic) we have to take into account bullying. Many say that gay people should not have children, because they will suffer the stigma of having gay parents when at school, and be bullied. But is this gay people's fault? No. It is the fault of the members of the population who instill in their children the idea that gay families are not equal.
- An estimated 160,000 children miss school every day out of fear of attack or intimidation by other students (National Education Association, 1995). Cutting school is automatically going to have an impact upon job prospects in the future, and ultimately the way the child "turns out". To support this, one out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying (Oklahoma Health Department, 2001)
- The children, if bullied, are also more likely to have mental illness as adults. The effects of bullying can be long-lasting. By age 23, children who were bullied in middle school were more depressed and had lower self-esteem than their peers who had not been bullied (Dan Olweus, Univeristy of Bergen, Norway, 1993). If this can be attributed to bullying in schools, these other issues could be too.
Homophobic bullying is wide spread, and it is not the fault of the parents that it happens. It is therefore not the LGB families which ought to change their structure to benefit the children, but the families who encourage prejudiced behaviour in their own offspring.
Bullying in schools is a growing concern in my country. I'm talking about bullying in general not just people with same sex attraction.
ReplyDeleteI expect that you are right that children bullied regularly could develop mental illness, suffer depression etc. I don't approve of bullying for any reason.
I do approve of discussing issues and being able to disagree though. Disagreeing with someone is not bullying.
It is therefore not the LGB families which ought to change their structure to benefit the children, but the families who encourage prejudiced behaviour in their own offspring.
Families should never encourage prejudiced behaviour in their offspring, I agree.
Same sex couples should not raise children. If they are a "couple" you can assume that they are taking part in homosexual activities and relating to each other as though they were male and female husband and wife. This type of behviour is a bad role model for nurturing children. People of the same sex should not relate to each other in this way.
And the children should suffer because of this? I thought the whole idea was that you wanted to protect the children. If they are being hurt by external influences, then do you think that these should continue, simply because the children's parents are having sex in a way which some do not approve of?
ReplyDeleteFree,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Secular Heretic already made it abundantly clear that he does not condone prejudiced behavior. What you have discovered is that truth is discerning and parents are not here on earth to create and accommodate a nice, cushy grey area for children to limbo in and fence-sit in confusion. There are clear cases where one option is good, the other bad. Homosexual acts fall under the bad, and, therefore, children should be taught to be discerning, not accepting. Contrary to your belief, these things can be taught and practiced with respect and love rather than hurt and prejudice. Teaching a child there is a better way than the one they have experienced is not hurtful, but healthy. We should always be striving for perfection. If a child grows up in home with alcoholic parents that spend their marital bliss in a drunken stupor, do we pat them on the head and say, "Your parents' marriage is perfect just the way it is because they love each other?" And in the name of sparing the child's feelings would we allow the behavior to be perpetuated by making excuses in favor of it and condoning it? No. That would be social suicide.
simply because the children's parents are having sex in a way which some do not approve of?
ReplyDeleteIt is more than just having sex which young children are probably unaware of anyway. It's about one women relating to another women as though she were a husband. There are behvious which are exclusive to a spouse. I'm talking about comments made to each other, modes of affection etc.
You made some good comments there pearl. Children should be taught how how to discern good role models from bad not just accepting every model just for the sake if accepting.
"There are clear cases where one option is good, the other bad. Homosexual acts fall under the bad."
ReplyDeleteWhy?
What gives you the right to say that they are bad? Plenty of people (including many heterosexual people) clearly disagree with you- why are you right and they wrong?
Also, children are not being taught, in their homes, to sit on the fence. They are being taught the opposite of what you believe- that you may love who you want to love, and that it is not for other people (for you are a person, Pearl, not some messenger of God)to tell you whom you should love.
Another point- one of the newer posts is about Dawn, who, despite being the child of a gay man, has the same (rahter strong) beliefs about homosexuality. Clearly children make up their own minds as they grow up.
"What gives you the right to say that they are bad?
ReplyDeleteThe same right that you have to say what actions are good or bad. It is human nature to be drawn to things that are good. To do this we must make a judgment about what they are (good or bad) in order to choose the good and avoid the bad.
Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. The purpose and meaning of sexual intercourse is to procreate and unite husband and wife in a unique way. Homosexual acts do neither.
"why are you right and they wrong?"
There is an object truth out there to find. Perhaps through these discussions we can get to the truth of it.
"They are being taught the opposite of what you believe- that you may love who you want to love, and that it is not for other people (for you are a person, Pearl, not some messenger of God)to tell you whom you should love."
Love has many different meanings. I love my sister but I also love my wife in a different way. I love other men but it does not mean I have a same sex attraction. We should love everyone. This is different to wanting to have sex with them.
"Free,"
ReplyDelete"What gives you the right to say that they are bad? Plenty of people (including many heterosexual people) clearly disagree with you- why are you right and they wrong?"
And plenty of people clearly agree with me. In the end, though, he who screams the loudest does not necessarily own the truth no matter their friends and allies - though gay rights activists would like to believe that erroneous assumption. I have a right to say that homosexual acts are bad very simply because I have educated myself as to the nature of these acts and their resulting effects on society. I have discerned (for truth is discerning) that homosexual acts, when allowed to permeate the education of our children and the definition of our marriages, will result in more homosexual acts. Normalization gleans permissive experimentation gleans continuation. Science and research knows the destructive potential here. It is a matter of educating the lay people, sharing the science and fact. That is what I am doing (coupled with my religious testimony that many of your like-minded associates claim is invalid) on my blog and with my children. That is what any responsible parent would do - teach the truth.
And you are sorely mistaken about Dawn. She does not have her beliefs about homosexuality "despite" being the child of a gay man. She has her beliefs about homosexuality because she was the child of a gay man. Ponder that for a moment. The implications are astoundingly favorable for the continued defense of traditional marriage and family.
Forgive my intrusion on the discussion here, but it would seem necessary in order to correct an an incorrect assertion postured by Free. It's a minor thing and a bit out of context, but important to note, nonetheless. With regard to quality research on homosexual parenting, Free said, "For one thing, you have to factor in the socio-economic background of those taking part in the test. In America, LGB people tend to earn less than their heterosexual counterparts." However, "statistics from Rivendell Media and Absolut" who "culled their respondents from 75 sources many of which are gay publications" show the exact opposite: that, in fact, gays and lesbians earn far more than the median U.S. household income.
ReplyDeleteSources cited:
Median Income for Gay Identified Households
Gays, Lesbians Earn Far More than Median U.S. Household Income
Not only do they statistically earn more, but they have more disposable income because they have fewer familial responsibilities for their resources to be spent on.
ReplyDeleteKingfisher,
ReplyDeleteThe data that you link to is marketing survey data. According to the source document (located at: http://www.communitymarketinginc.com/documents/ConsIndex_Methodology.pdf), the disclaimer reads:
"The methodology employed polls consumers representing the target audience who can be reached using LGBT print and Internet marketing resources. The findings derive from those who identify openly as gay or lesbian and read LGBT publications and/or websites, and/or belong to email lists. These results should not necessarily be extrapolated to the entire gay and lesbian population; however, these findings do provide guidance regarding the perceptions and opinions of “out” gays and lesbians who can be reached through LGBT websites and publications."
Thank you, MrsWaltz. While the statistics cited may not be conclusive evidence as to the median income of the greater homosexual population, they are, however, evidence of some discrepancy regarding Free's assertions. The intent was to point out that discrepancy, or lack of empirical agreement, if you will. Which point was still achieved whether or not the statistics point to the greater population of "out" homosexuals or lesser population of "in" homosexuals. Your research on the matter is to be commended, in any case.
ReplyDeleteKingfisher,
ReplyDeleteThank you; I do a lot of research, so it's nice for someone to recognize my effort.
However, I have to beg to differ with you regarding the discrepancy. Comparisons of marketing data (which really only describes a target audience who meet some criteria) to census data are invalid because the data collection methodologies are not similar. All this market research data tells us is that the out gay people who read certain magazines and/or websites, AND answered a survey, tend to make more money than the US median levels.
Of course, none of this supports Free's assertion, which still needs empirical support, but it does invalidate the data you provided to counter his claim.
So sorry. Perhaps discrepancy was the wrong word to use. Doubt, would be more appropriate. When Free made a conclusive statement about the income level of homosexuals in the United States, this article, with its contrasting results, came to mind. Regardless of the methodologies employed, one result calls for further scrutiny of the other. As you have said.
ReplyDelete