Study Shows Apa Stance On Same-Sex Families "Does Not Stand Up To Scrutiny"

[mfbukowski]

Of course, any scientific finding or conclusions will be left in the dust by our constant need to be politically correct in the social field.

The studies will not even be made. Who will pay for them?

[ERayR]

Undoubtedly, the value of marriage in this society has been decreasing since at least the 70s. But to some people, both gay and straight, marriage is still an important institution, and I think that overall, marriage leads to the stability of society. There is something about making an actual commitment to someone that is recognized by law or some other authority as binding, that cannot be replaced with mere "living together." So studies like these should take that into account.

No argument here but that isn't what you said before. You said children brought stability to a marriage. I say that if a marriage is not stable before children come it is not going to be stable because children are added. In fact if the stresses of child rearing are added to an already unstable marriage the marriage becomes more unstable.

The value of marriage as not decreased it is only that fewer people are entering into it with a commitment to the marriage.

[Pahoran]

Just to be clear about the sources, this is your personal opinion?

I'd call it an observation, rather than an opinion. This is based, of course, on stories that have been in the news down here over a period of years. There has been some worried mumblings, among the chattering classes, about whether it is PC to notice that this appears to be a problem of a particular ethnic group. Actually, I suspect (and yes, this is just an opinion) that they are even more scared to make the even less PC observations I have made. Because not one of the children in those news stories was living with both of his or her married parents.

Based on the pattern I have noticed, I have been willing to predict, in the three or four more recent cases, that the families would follow that pattern, and I have been right every time.

I'll tell you something that is just my opinion: I think the fact that (all else being equal) children are better off with their own, married, biological parents is so self-evidently true, that those who deny it are actually trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

children are better off with their own, married, biological parents is so self-evidently true

I see. So, by your logic, children adopted into stable homes (either with a mother & father or two SS partners) are actually better off with the teenage single parent or the drug addicted biological parents, rather than the stable homes they were adopted into?

[WalkerW]

For evidence on the benefit of marriage for both those married and their biological children (as well as the opposite for broken families or non-married couples), see:

James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (HarperCollins, 2002).

Mitch Pearlstein, From Family Collapse to America's Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation (Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2011).

Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000).

Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (Crown Forum, 2012).

Kay S. Hymowitz, "American Caste," City Journal 22:2 (2012).

The Future of Children - Marriage & Child Well-Being 15:2 (2005).

Brookings Institution researcher Isabel Sawhill has a recent op-ed discussing family breakdown.

[WalkerW]

I see. So, by your logic, children adopted into stable homes (either with a mother & father or two SS partners) are actually better off with the teenage single parent or the drug addicted biological parents, rather than the stable homes they were adopted into?

They did say "married" parents. That children generally flourish the most when raised by their two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage is pretty well established in social science research.

[Cobalt-70]

And of course because every state in the union has legalized gay marriage many years ago, clearly all that data about the long term effects of gay marriage on grown children should be reliable and easily available.

No, but if you are doing comparisons, compare unmarried gay families with unmarried straight families.

[Cobalt-70]

No argument here but that isn't what you said before. You said children brought stability to a marriage. I say that if a marriage is not stable before children come it is not going to be stable because children are added. In fact if the stresses of child rearing are added to an already unstable marriage the marriage becomes more unstable.

I don't think I said that--at least I did not mean that, and I don't really believe that. I believe I said that that adoption of children brings stability to the family, as does marriage.

The value of marriage as not decreased it is only that fewer people are entering into it with a commitment to the marriage.

Marriage only has value if people value it. So if people don't think it is important, or they think that "living together," promiscuity, or celibacy are just as valuable as marriage or more so, then the value of marriage decreases in our society.

[DBMormon]

I don't think much of the church's policy needs to change, but the I do think much of the rhetoric and members phobia and nonacceptance of LGBT as people needs to. Still way to much prejudice out there and like Elder Holland talking about the race issue said

"One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ..."

I think this also applies to much of what leaders have said about homosexuality as well. And in the long run it has hurt the church's relationship with that community some of which are members of the church.

So i am not misquoted - Policy doesn't have to change but shape we give to it must

Edited June 13, 2012 by reelmormon

[WalkerW]

Some of the more nuanced views on the study have commented that it confirms pretty much what we already know: that two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are the best environment for children. This scenario is true when compared to single parents, divorced parents, stepparents, and even (to some extent) adopted parents. I do not see why same-sex parents would not fall into this same category given that they are not the biological parents.

Of course, this is not to say that there are not multiple exceptions with multiple factors coming into account. However, in general (which is the case in most social science), children are better off with their married biological parents.

Edited June 13, 2012 by WalkerW

[mfbukowski]

No, but if you are doing comparisons, compare unmarried gay families with unmarried straight families.

Not comparable. Duh.

Why do you think gays want marriage? They do not think it is comparable, why should you?

[mfbukowski]

I don't think I said that--at least I did not mean that, and I don't really believe that. I believe I said that that adoption of children brings stability to the family, as does marriage.

Marriage only has value if people value it. So if people don't think it is important, or they think that "living together," promiscuity, or celibacy are just as valuable as marriage or more so, then the value of marriage decreases in our society.

See above. You did it again.

[Libs]

They did say "married" parents. That children generally flourish the most when raised by their two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage is pretty well established in social science research.

I would question that assertion. It doesn't fit any "real" research I have ever seen. Children certainly do best in a home with parents who love and care for them. I believe that, plus economic status, are the two factors that most influence how a child will do.

[Libs]

Btw, many same sex couples do have biological children, either from previous hetero relationships or through other scientifc means.

[Buzzard]

I would question that assertion. It doesn't fit any "real" research I have ever seen. Children certainly do best in a home with parents who love and care for them. I believe that, plus economic status, are the two factors that most influence how a child will do.

Ah, but many studies have shown that one of the key indicators of economic stability-or status, if you will-for a family is two married parents. So it becomes kind of a chicken/egg situation.

[Buzzard]

Btw, many same sex couples do have biological children, either from previous hetero relationships or through other scientifc means.

But, but, but, that's impossible. Everyone knows that gays are that way from birth and that they can't have hetero relationships. Oops.

[Ron Beron]

The studies will not even be made. Who will pay for them?

Why the stimulus, of course!

[Libs]

Ah, but many studies have shown that one of the key indicators of economic stability-or status, if you will-for a family is two married parents. So it becomes kind of a chicken/egg situation.

Well, there are more and more gay marriages everyday....and by all appearances, since public opinion is changing very quickly on this issue, there will be many more to come.

[Libs]

But, but, but, that's impossible. Everyone knows that gays are that way from birth and that they can't have hetero relationships. Oops.

Who has ever said that? Many have tried hetero relationships. They don't, generally, work out.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Libs

[WalkerW]

I would question that assertion. It doesn't fit any "real" research I have ever seen. Children certainly do best in a home with parents who love and care for them. I believe that, plus economic status, are the two factors that most influence how a child will do.

It isn't an assertion. I provided a number of resources prior to that post.

Here it is again:

For evidence on the benefit of marriage for both those married and their biological children (as well as the opposite for broken families or non-married couples), see:

James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (HarperCollins, 2002).

Mitch Pearlstein, From Family Collapse to America's Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation (Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2011).

Linda J. Waite, Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000).

Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (Crown Forum, 2012).

Kay S. Hymowitz, "American Caste," City Journal 22:2 (2012).

The Future of Children - Marriage & Child Well-Being 15:2 (2005).

Brookings Institution researcher Isabel Sawhill has a recent op-ed discussing family breakdown.

Hymowitz has a whole book dedicated to the subject that I have yet to read: Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age (Ivan R. Dee, 2006). But I do not like citing things I haven't read or am not currently reading.

Edited June 13, 2012 by WalkerW

[WalkerW]

Btw, many same sex couples do have biological children, either from previous hetero relationships or through other scientifc means.

Why do you think I said both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage? You are arguing against things before reading carefully.

Edited June 13, 2012 by WalkerW

[WalkerW]

This is a slightly older version of Why Marriage Matters. The third edition was recently put out by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. I have it on my Kindle. It goes up to thirty conclusions.

Edited June 13, 2012 by WalkerW

[Libs]

It isn't an assertion. I provided a number of resources prior to that post.

Here it is again:

Hymowitz has a whole book dedicated to the subject that I have yet to read: Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age (Ivan R. Dee, 2006). But I do not like citing things I haven't read or am not currently reading.

I'm talking about 'real' research, Walker. Not a bunch of politically motivated opinions. And, much of what you have posted there has to do with single parenting, which is more and more, being discovered, has a LOT to do with finances and economic status, rather than single parenting, per se. This was discovered when a lot of the problems disappear, when the single parent is economically stable. The 'research' that started this whole firestorm was anything but fair to gay parenting. They took samples from marriages that had one gay parent and one straight, mostly families that had broken up...well, of course, they're going to find more problems with kids from broken homes (gay OR straight!).

Anyway, GOOD research has shown that kids from SS marriages/couplings do just as well, on average, as kids from hetero marriages. All of the things that affect kids from SS marriages are the same things that affect kids from hetero marriages...mainly economics and stability of the marriage relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/gay-parents-study-kids-social-scientists_n_1589177.html

Researchers are increasingly studying these parents, Stacey said, and research both in the U.S. and abroad consistently shows that the kids are just fine.

"We know that when we compare same-sex couples who are parenting by choice with heterosexual couples who are biological parents, the

lesbian couples do really, really well," Stacey said. (Fewer studies have been done on gay men who become parents.)

Many of the studies on gay parenting have limitations, such as focusing more on moms than dads, Gates said. But the fact that they overwhelmingly conclude that kids of gay parents turn out fine on the whole is "persuasive," he said.

In a commentary published alongside Regnerus' paper, Pennsylvania State University sociologist Paul Amato put it another way.

"If growing up with gay or lesbian parents were catastrophic for children, even studies based on small convenience samples would have shown this by now," Amato said.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

Save your breath, Walker.

The only "good" research is that which reinforces Lib's preconceptions and conceits. Anything which contradicts her opinions is automagically suspect.

Nor is this the first time we've noted this behavior from this poster.

"Good science"- in her worldview, is accomplished by answering scholarly treatise with rants from the politicial site Puffington Host.

(Does anyone else remember when Libs was ranting that she didn't want "a bunch of politically motivated opinions"? As in the exact same post in which she supplied the link)

Faced with that kind of dogmatism and one-rule-for-me-another-for-thee hypocrisy, any attempt at a serious discussion is simply an exercise in throwing pearls before swine.

A notarized letter from God himself would be insufficient to dissuade her from her political orthodoxy.

Edited June 13, 2012 by selek1

[WalkerW]

I'm talking about 'real' research, Walker. Not a bunch of politically motivated opinions.

The books I referenced comb through a variety of 'real' research. Hence, they are books instead of single articles. The late James Wilson's book is particuarly enlightening. Also, I'm not sure why the Future of Children (Princeton and Brookings Institution) and the National Marriage Project (University of Virginia) do not fall in the 'real' category, but end up labeled as "politically motivated opinions."

A sidenote: the rhetorical nonsense of emphasizing 'real' or capitalizing GOOD means very little to me. If you have resources, provide them. I'm just floored that I provided a list of books and journal articles, while you simply link a Huffington Post piece and think you have any right to complain.

And, much of what you have posted there has to do with single parenting

Very good. I said it had to do with marriage and children well-being, not specifically same-sex marriage.

has a LOT to do with finances and economic status, rather than single parenting, per se. This was discovered when a lot of the problems disappear, when the single parent is economically stable.

Of course problems will begin to disappear or diminish. However, multiple disadvantages still persist. For example, children raised by divorced or single parents have a higher possibility of divorcing or never marrying later in life. Considering that marriage is linked to better health, greater economic status, and increased happiness, this is certainly a disadvantage. Divorce and non-marriage also have long-term negative effects on children's health and schooling.

The 'research' that started this whole firestorm was anything but fair to gay parenting.

You are being a bit overdramatic, like many of the reactions to it.

They took samples from marriages that had one gay parent and one straight, mostly families that had broken up...well, of course, they're going to find more problems with kids from broken homes (gay OR straight!).

Which is why I mentioned some of the commentaries that stated it tells us what we already know about married biological parents vs. divorced, single parent, cohabitation, etc.

Anyway, GOOD research has shown that kids from SS marriages/couplings do just as well, on average, as kids from hetero marriages.

GOOD research that was criticized in the same journal issue by a different sociologist. This article has almost been completely ignored in every commentary and criticism of Regnerus' study I have read.

Regnerus' study is certainly limited, which he fully admits. It still provides valuable, up-to-date data on family structures and stability: a factor you've noted as important. The study could be and has been used to argue for either side of the same-sex marriage debate.

To stress once again: to me, the study just tells us what we already know about unstable family structures. Without further data, we cannot fully determine that married same-sex couples do worse than the married biological parents. However, based on studies that compare the married biological parents to other alternatives, one could make a logical argument that same-sex couples would compare similarly.

Edited June 13, 2012 by WalkerW