Children Fare Better In Traditional Families Than Gay Families

[Zeta-Flux]

Did you not say this; "For the sample size to be valid (for some measures), we need more than 300 people. That corresponds to about 1/1000 of the total sample size in America. To do a random study, you would have to interview 300,000 people. And this number is based on over-estimates, and the current ability for people to enter SSM".

There is no arbitrary percentage needed for a valid measure. ALL survey's have a plus/minus factor. In theory it is possible to determine the average characteristics of a population by observing just one individual, however fraught with potential errors it may be.

You seem to read to much into my 1/1000. The number 300 came from my reading of Marks (which I cited above, and which claims that statistically you need an even larger sample size of 393 in certain cases). The 1/1000 just came from looking at the what percentage of the total sample would be needed to reach that statistically necessary number. The "arbitrary percentage" had nothing to do with anything except measure how much of the population we would have to measure to reach the statistical threshhold of 393, given in the Marks study.

Do you dispute that this number is statistically significant? Do you think I misinterpreted Marks? If so, can you please back up your assertion?

In any case, the percentage had nothing to do with what I was saying. Yes 1/1000 is an arbitrary percentage. In this specific case it comes close to getting the right size of the group (around 300) which is significant when determining minor statistical differences.

The average person is not hermaphroditic. That is like saying the average couple has 2.4 children. No one has .4 children.

You are right, because there is no "average person" in that sense. Unlike numbers, you cannot just add up all people and divide by the common denominator.

There is a "modal" group of characteristics (I think there are slightly more females than males, for example). However, studying the modal person is not a good way to form a study.

Thus, as I said earlier, one should not study an "average" (or more properly, modal) person. Instead, one should study large groups of people, where the groups are "average" (i.e. random and large enough that statistically they are nearly indistinguishable from the general population).

With the exception of one hotly contested study there is no other study that concludes that the children of SS couples are measurably less well adapted than the children of different sex couples. It just isn't there as far as we can find. That doesn't necessarily mean that there IS no difference. Just that we have not been able to tease out what, if any difference there is so far. I personally suspect there is. But I have done no clinical studies on the subject to say definitively either way.

Has anyone argued with this point? I certainly haven't.

I've only pointed out that the studies which claim there is no difference are riddled with errors. In the specific examples you cited, they were overly politicized too. You have yet to provide any evidence otherwise.

[Zeta-Flux]

selek,

Thank you for saying many of the things I wanted to say, in slightly different ways (using representative sample). I really don't understand why we are not all coming to agreements on this.

[Pahoran]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us, with a straight face, that they genuinely expect children to do just as well (or better, as some have claimed) when raised by two "gay" men as when raised by their own, married, biological parents.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us, with a straight face, that they genuinely expect children to do just as well (or better, as some have claimed) when raised by two "gay" men as when raised by their own, married, biological parents.

Occasionally, I think that will be true, but on average of course being raised by your biological parents will be optimal.

That said, I don't know that those gay couples who have the means and desire to adopt would be any worse adoptees than straight couples. We will need to see some accurate studies for me to make up my mind there.

That said, I'm very disturbed by how easy it is in our country now to create babies to be raised in homes absent one or both the genetic donors. I think we seriously need to look at our policies there (think the octomom, for example).

[Jaybear]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us, with a straight face, that they genuinely expect children to do just as well (or better, as some have claimed) when raised by two "gay" men as when raised by their own, married, biological parents.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not me. I would expect them to do a better job than the average heterosexual couple.

Two obvious reason.

Money. Men, on average make more money than women. I would therefore expect the average male gay married couple to have higher household income than average heterosexual couple. I would expect to see a clear correlation between income and child development.

Desire. A gay couple can't procreate on accident. They are therefore more likely to be better prepared to raise a child.

Of course the biggest obstacles they might face are bigoted self righteous judgmental neighbors who look down their noses at homosexuals and their children.

That said, I'm very disturbed by how easy it is in our country now to create babies to be raised in homes absent one or both the genetic donors. I think we seriously need to look at our policies there (think the octomom, for example).

Good point. I can't imagine a society that would be any worse, except for one where the government decides who can "create" children.

[Zeta-Flux]

Good point. I can't imagine a society that would be any worse, except for one where the government decides who can "create" children.

You forgot to add to the end of your sentence "...through novel scientific means."

[Pahoran]

Not me. I would expect them to do a better job than the average heterosexual couple.

Two obvious reason.

Money. Men, on average make more money than women. I would therefore expect the average male gay married couple to have higher household income than average heterosexual couple. I would expect to see a clear correlation between income and child development.

Unless, of course, they are spending large proportions of their superior income buying "Jaybear's Videos," right?

But apart from that, your argument seems to come down to the proposition that kids raised by two "gay" men will have more nice things. How exactly does that equate to better parenting?

Desire. A gay couple can't procreate on accident.

Actually, a "gay couple" cannot procreate at all. Let's be clear on that point.

They are therefore more likely to be better prepared to raise a child.

How, exactly? You do know what a non sequitur is, don't you?

Make no mistake: the desire to "raise a child" is -- when it naturally occurs -- primarily biological. Since there is something out of whack in "gay" people that makes them desire a style of life that is non-procreative, it follows that the desire to "raise a child" comes from other motivations. Political ones, perhaps?

Of course the biggest obstacles they might face are bigoted self righteous judgmental neighbors who look down their noses at homosexuals and their children.

Or maybe it is neighbours who don't just uncritically swallow the propaganda.

Years and years ago, I was a prospective missionary boarding in the family of the Elders' Quorum President. There was a "gay" man in our ward. To help him deal with his proclivities, the EQP confiscated the guy's "gay" porn. Unfortunately he didn't destroy it quickly enough, and I saw this magazine lying around. I picked it up and glanced at it, and felt sick.

It was full of nude pictures of under-age boys.

Well, what should I have expected? The guy was "gay." Of course they were under-age. That's what "gay" men like. It's what they've always liked.

So when "gay" propagandists insist that homosexuals are just like everyone else except that they are attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, I know that I'm being lied to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hestia]

Pahoran and Jaybear can take a break from this thread.

[Daniel2]

While I recognize Hestia's peace-keeping actions and appreciate them as such, and it appears that Pahoran is no longer posting in this thread, the reality and joy of my own experience as a father, as well as my own conscience, would weigh heavily unless I bore my testimony, in all seriousness and in all sincerity, that:

• I know, from my own experience, that many children to do just as well (or better, as the case may be) when raised by two gay men as when raised by their biological parents. Paternal biology, sexual orientation, or gender offer NO guarantees of parental affection and effectiveness.
  
• I know and can testify to the benefits of marriage, and I submit that all children are likely to do better when their parents form the social, spiritual, and public commitment of marriage—regardless of whether such parents are of the same gender or of opposite genders.
  
• I think it’s hard to argue that both financial stability and a desire to be a parent are both likely to contribute to parental effectiveness, and I don’t think anyone in this thread was suggesting that those two reasons are the only factors that contribute to being a good parent.
  
• I have never seen anything to suggest that “the desire to raise a child” is “primary biological,” and submit that many adoptive and step-parents have entirely “natural,” worthy, and "of-good-report" parental desires to love, care for, and successfully raise their children.
  
• I am stunned that anyone would presume to suggest that the only reason that gay fathers and lesbian mothers would want to raise their own children would be for “political” reasons. Such a presumption, I believe, displays a reckless inflation of ego; my commitment as a father, and the committments of the many other gay fathers I know and have witnessed, are not motivated by a desire to win over anyone’s political approval. Life is too brief--and parenthood too dear, taxing, expensive, and rewarding--to seriously suggest that anyone would want to raise a child just because of politics.
  
• Anyone who makes the mistake of overgeneralizing and suggesting or implying “of course gay men must like under-age boys” is clearly is guilty of committing some very obvious logical fallacies, at best—regardless of one's personal trauma of having stumbled across some (understandably) sickening child pornography.
  
• Men who are attracted to members of their own gender are not pedophiles, by default. In fact, many of the masculine traits (i.e. the "secondary sex characteristics") that those of us who are gay are innately attracted to do not begin until the onslaught of manhood (body hair, deep voices, muscle development, etc). Being attracted to male attributes is often a defining characteristic of most gay men I know. It seems self-evident, but in light of this thread, it bears saying: under-age boys display traits of females (high voices, slight frames, hairless bodies)--not masculine traits.
  
• Anyone who insists that he is “being lied to” when gay men testify to any and all of the above is in need of great compassion; in my experience, when someone is unable to trust, it suggests some deeper scar that says more about the individual himself, rather than those he refuses to trust or believe.
  

Pahoran, my heart goes out to you. I hope that you are able to meet and take the time to converse with some gay and lesbian parents, move past the seemingly bitter overgeneralizations, and set down the past burdens that prevent you from believing the best of others.

Best,

Daniel2

The personal insults are especially inappropriate when the other guy is prevented from responding. You are out of the thread too.

[Calm]

Anyone who insists that he is “being lied to” when gay men testify to any and all of the above is in need of great compassion; in my experience, when someone is unable to trust, it suggests some deeper scar that says more about the individual himself, rather than those he refuses to trust or believe.

Psychoanalyzing someone from a limited encounter over the internet is just silly.

[selek1]

Here is a link directly to the Mark's study- which highlights the fatal flaws which undermine the APA's 2005 statement.

I have no faith whatever that those attacking the Regnerus study will trouble to read it (they've ignored everything else which challenges their head-in-the-sand dogmatism).

But those who are truly interested in the facts can find them there.

Likewise, here is a link to the Regnerus study.

Anybody want to take bets on how many of Regnerus' critics trouble themselves to read what he actually had to say?

[Zeta-Flux]

A social scientific response to the Regnerus controversy

[california boy]

I read the responses. They bring up many of the agruments we have heard on this board. I am still under the belief that the study has the variable of economic and family stabiliity in it's comparisons. When you have that kind of variable in the study, a conclusion can be drawn that the economic and stability issues may very well be a bigger issue than whether a gay parent is the reason. Since past studies consistently show that strong economic and stable familes are better for children, the gay factor does not seem to be the etermining issue. There is no way to seperate the two issues from the study. And there in lies the problem.

IWhat we all should be in agreement on is that encouraging gay families to be more stable by providing the same building blocks as straight families would be better for the children involved and society in general. But for religious reasons, many are against that idea. So there in lies the problem.

In short, I agree with this conclusion of the study that Zeta posted.

To be clear: We do not think that these new studies settle the nation’s ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children.

[Zeta-Flux]

What we all should be in agreement on is that encouraging gay families to be more stable by providing the same building blocks as straight families would be better for the children involved and society in general. But for religious reasons, many are against that idea. So there in lies the problem.

On the other hand, I believe that one of those building blocks is biological connection to children. But for cultural reasons, many are against the idea of encouraging those drawn towards homosexual behavior to choose differently in order to raise a family. (And there are reasons to suppose this might be a bad thing.)

When you have that kind of variable in the study, a conclusion can be drawn that the economic and stability issues may very well be a bigger issue than whether a gay parent is the reason. Since past studies consistently show that strong economic and stable familes are better for children, the gay factor does not seem to be the etermining issue.

That doesn't seem to be what the study shows. Even correcting for finances, homes with parents who participated in same-sex relations were less stable.

I imagine future studies will attempt to study this connection more in depth, focusing on the wealthy. (I haven't delved to much into the Regnerus study. I should go look and see what it says about the wealthy...)

[california boy]

On the other hand, I believe that one of those building blocks is biological connection to children. But for cultural reasons, many are against the idea of encouraging those drawn towards homosexual behavior to choose differently in order to raise a family. (And there are reasons to suppose this might be a bad thing.)

I also believe that buillding blocks for society are biological connected childre. I also beleive that building blocks include both heterosexual and homosexual families when unable to have biological children adopt unwanted children. That too strengthens society. Certainly it is better for children to be adopted into a family. Or do you disagree and feel it is better for unwanted children to be raised within the government system and not in a family environment?

You state "many are against the idea of encouraging those drawn towards homosexual behavior to choose differently in order to raise a family." What other choiced do you feel homosexuals have that want to raise a family?

[Zeta-Flux]

Every child who is adopted is adopted into a family. Whether that family consists of a single parent, two parents, two parents with lots of other kids, or even more than two parents, it is a family.

I can certainly think of some situations where, if say my own kids were up for adoption, I would prefer they not be adopted. I am for adoption agencies having (minimal) qualifications on adoptees. But yes, I think children fare better being raised in families. I think they fare even better when those families consist of at least a mother and father. And even better when those parents are the biological father and mother of the children.

But I think your real question is whether it is good for society to allow same-sex couples to adopt, and if so would it not be better to allow them to have SSM to strengthen the family unit. My answer to the second half is that while the minimal benefits from allowing SSM might strengthen those (very few) families in that situation, I believe that there are other societal costs that outweigh those benefits. One cost, in particular, is fundamentally changing the purpose of marriage. People would not view the passage of SSM as a way of strengthening gay couples who want to adopt. Rather, they would view it as a statement that marriage is mostly about the desires of the couple (an issue only peripherally related to raising adopted children).

In fact, I think this is the fundamental issue in the current debate. Some people view marriage not as a social institution but as the specific individual commitment they have made to their partner. Marriage, in their eyes, is what they did when they tied the knot. They fell in love and decided to start a family (for reasons probably not directly to do with children). On the other hand, some people view marriage as a societal institution, which while people have their personal reasons for entering into it, has a separate societal role that is intimately and directly tied to child-bearing and child-rearing.

You state "many are against the idea of encouraging those drawn towards homosexual behavior to choose differently in order to raise a family." What other choiced do you feel homosexuals have that want to raise a family?

I talked to one of my gay friends about this very question. The issue is "Do I want to raise my own biological children? Do I want to do it with the other biological parent?" If the answers are yes, the choice is obvious, if not at all easy (depending on how unattracted one is to the opposite sex, how in control one is of desires, etc...). It can lead to heart-ache and pain if the commitment is not there. On the other hand, it can lead to a beautiful thing if the commitment is there.

[california boy]

Every child who is adopted is adopted into a family. Whether that family consists of a single parent, two parents, two parents with lots of other kids, or even more than two parents, it is a family.

I can certainly think of some situations where, if say my own kids were up for adoption, I would prefer they not be adopted. I am for adoption agencies having (minimal) qualifications on adoptees. But yes, I think children fare better being raised in families. I think they fare even better when those families consist of at least a mother and father. And even better when those parents are the biological father and mother of the children.

But I think your real question is whether it is good for society to allow same-sex couples to adopt, and if so would it not be better to allow them to have SSM to strengthen the family unit. My answer to the second half is that while the minimal benefits from allowing SSM might strengthen those (very few) families in that situation, I believe that there are other societal costs that outweigh those benefits. One cost, in particular, is fundamentally changing the purpose of marriage. People would not view the passage of SSM as a way of strengthening gay couples who want to adopt. Rather, they would view it as a statement that marriage is mostly about the desires of the couple (an issue only peripherally related to raising adopted children).

In fact, I think this is the fundamental issue in the current debate. Some people view marriage not as a social institution but as the specific individual commitment they have made to their partner. Marriage, in their eyes, is what they did when they tied the knot. They fell in love and decided to start a family (for reasons probably not directly to do with children). On the other hand, some people view marriage as a societal institution, which while people have their personal reasons for entering into it, has a separate societal role that is intimately and directly tied to child-bearing and child-rearing. [/fquote]

I talked to one of my gay friends about this very question. The issue is "Do I want to raise my own biological children? Do I want to do it with the other biological parent?" If the answers are yes, the choice is obvious, if not at all easy (depending on how unattracted one is to the opposite sex, how in control one is of desires, etc...). It can lead to heart-ache and pain if the commitment is not there. On the other hand, it can lead to a beautiful thing if the commitment is there.

Zeta, I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Probably most significantly is that people view marriage differently. I guess I am uncomfortable with the idea that everyone's marriage should conform to a certain view of what a minority think marriage should be.

Personally I think that this constant reinforcement that marriage is a religious ceremony ordained by God is having a very real negative effect on the views people have about mariage that are not religious. It sends a message to them that marriage is not important for them if they are not religious. I have talked to younger people who have stated to me that even though they are in a relationship and in some cases have children, they are not religious so see no need to make some kind of religious commitment that they don't believe in. "If my partner doesn't love me any more, a religious ceremony is not going to keep him in the relationship"

I think this is a dangerous shift on societies views on marriage. We have to be careful when we narrowly define as a society what mariage is. Any thoughts?

I talked to one of my gay friends about this very question. The issue is "Do I want to raise my own biological children? Do I want to do it with the other biological parent?" If the answers are yes, the choice is obvious, if not at all easy (depending on how unattracted one is to the opposite sex, how in control one is of desires, etc...). It can lead to heart-ache and pain if the commitment is not there. On the other hand, it can lead to a beautiful thing if the commitment is there.

Are you encouraging a gay man to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want children? Is that what I am reading into this statement?

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta, I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Probably most significantly is that people view marriage differently. I guess I am uncomfortable with the idea that everyone's marriage should conform to a certain view of what a minority think marriage should be.

Personally I think that this constant reinforcement that marriage is a religious ceremony ordained by God is having a very real negative effect on the views people have about mariage that are not religious. It sends a message to them that marriage is not important for them if they are not religious. I have talked to younger people who have stated to me that even though they are in a relationship and in some cases have children, they are not religious so see no need to make some kind of religious commitment that they don't believe in. "If my partner doesn't love me any more, a religious ceremony is not going to keep him in the relationship"

I think this is a dangerous shift on societies views on marriage. We have to be careful when we narrowly define as a society what mariage is. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure that shift is due to our society too narrowly defining marriage, but may in fact be the result of our society being too broad/liberal (in the non-political sense) on such matters. Especially with regards to divorce laws.

My fix would be to reinstate the negative legal consequences of divorce, remove no-fault divorce, etc...

Are you encouraging a gay man to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want children? Is that what I am reading into this statement?

I'm encouraging a gay man to marry someone of the opposite sex if he wants biological children, wants to raise them with the biological mother, believes he can be reasonably attracted to her, is firm in his commitment to stay faithful to her, etc...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't need a study showing that kids are better off in a traditional family setting. But a study is nice because some people don't know and are persuaded that living the gay life style is just as good as living a hetero life style. I am sorry but this is just not so and this is yet one more study that shows it.

[Tacenda]

I didn't need a study showing that kids are better off in a traditional family setting. But a study is nice because some people don't know and are persuaded that living the gay life style is just as good as living a hetero life style. I am sorry but this is just not so and this is yet one more study that shows it.

I know this isn't exactly a "gay" couple but it is the same gender. In my ward are two sisters raising their own children. One of them is a widow who lost her husband while still both were very young and has 3 children, and the other sister has never been married but adopted two black children. They seem to be happily living together and raising these children. The children are getting alot of influence of the opposite sex through family and friends. So even if they're not gay it is of the same gender mentality.

Hypothetically speaking if I had two father's, it would probably have been just fine, usually one of the other partners might even be a little more effeminate than the other. And if I hadn't known any other family life it probably wouldn't phase me. And in some heterosexual families the dad is never around anyway, usually has a high demanding career or even a church calling that takes him away.

I think the idea out there that a gay man only loves young boys is a preposterous thought process. There are alot of heterosexual men who like young boys and are pedophiles. One example, would be Steven Powell, Josh Powell's dad. Just google it, it'll give the particulars of the story if anyone isn't aware of it since it's a local story in Utah.

[Mark Beesley]

I didn't need a study showing that kids are better off in a traditional family setting. But a study is nice because some people don't know and are persuaded that living the gay life style is just as good as living a hetero life style. I am sorry but this is just not so and this is yet one more study that shows it.

Personally, I do not support efforts to further involve the government in personal relationships by putting its seal of approval on same sex relationships by allowing such marriages. I would support the government rebranding its involvement in all relationships between men and women, men and men, and women and women as civil contracts or civil unions, and leave the term and implication of marriage to the religions, where it belongs.

That being said, the study that was the focus of the opening post is not a good weapon to use to oppose same sex marriage. On its face the only thing it shows is that children who are raised in stable heterosexual homes fare better than children who come from broken homes with the added factor that one parent was gay or lesbian. Duh. The study does not analyze how well children do who are raised in stable same sex households where the partners are married, nor could it, because same sex marriage has not been around long enough for there to adult children who have been raised in such a household. Nor does the study attempt to analyze how well children fare from broken heterosexual homes as opposed to broken homes where one parent was gay or lesbian. In future years, I suspect the most useful studies for either side will examine how well children fare from stable heterosexual homes as opposed to stable homosexual homes, though even such a study is problematic for the obvious reason that the child in the stable homosexual home will never be the biological offspring of the parents.

For me, it doesn't matter. I oppose same sex marriage on strictly religious grounds, and believe that if the voice of the people ever chooses to legitimize same sex marriage . . . well, see Mosiah 29:26-27.