Children Fare Better In Traditional Families Than Gay Families

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Being a decent human being is the first priority. But we are also sexual beings, and take our cues first from our parents, then our greater cultural surroundings.

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta, I think, for now, I am just going to point you back to the OP. Since none of what was, supposedly, found in this one study, correlates with any of the numerous other studies that have been done on SS parenting...and since the methods used by this man seem to be very flawed (samplings from groups that were not even representative of what he is supposedly measuring, if he is trying to do comparable research to what has already been done) all leads me to believe that this 'research' was done purely for political purposes (it was in fact funded by an ultra-conservative group) with the expressed purpose of having something to point to, that is contrary to the many reliable studies already done, in this area.

Libs,

And yet, there is apparently a large amount of disagreement on that very issue. See for example this article by a Canadian researcher: The Regnerus Debate

You made a very specific, very harsh claim. It should be easy to back up. Just give one quotation from the actual study which demonstrates disparagement of gay people.

Now you have made another very specific, very harsh claim. Namely, that this `research' was done purely for political purposes, due to a funding agency. If we grant your point, do you similarly reject the APA reports, and the pro-SSM studies which make political statements or were funded by pro-SSM groups? What in your view differentiates the two?

As Douglas Allen says: "The study published by Professor Mark Regnerus this week certainly has some flaws, and many of the comments made about it have some merit. However, as a matter of intellectual honesty, it needs to be recognized that virtually all the studies of same-sex parenting that have been conducted thus far fall far short of any standard of scientific testing."

Here is a direct quotation from Regnerus: is there a political take-home message? No Much of what else he says seems to directly contradict your claims that he disparages gay people, thinks this study says they are bad parents, etc...

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

I don't know as it is any one specific action or even a constellation of actions. I haven't studied it in that degree of depth. Of course any given specific SS couple may have those traits while any given specific heterosexual couple may not. We're talking trends and tendencies not absolutes.

I appreciate the candor of your answer. It sounds like you're saying something along the lines of, "I don't know... I'm not aware of any specific actions or even a constellations of actions that are/would be necessary/vital/important to be modeled for children that would be present in a home headed by two opposite-sex parents but absent in one same-sex parents." That would be similar to my thoughts, as well.

Being a decent human being is the first priority. But we are also sexual beings, and take our cues first from our parents, then our greater cultural surroundings.

OK... I'm confused again, because it seems like we're back to my question. Are you suggesting that, when "we" are children growing up, and as "sexual beings," we "take" some sort of sexual "cues" from our parents, that opposite-sex couples exemplify, that same-sex couples can't/don't...? What sort of "sexual cues" that children learn from watching their parents are you referring to?

It sounds like you may be implying that children's sexual orientation/identity is a learned function from/or related to some sort of parentally-based romantic modeling.

Is that what you mean to suggest?

Daniel2

[Libs]

Libs,

And yet, there is apparently a large amount of disagreement on that very issue. See for example this article by a Canadian researcher: The Regnerus Debate

Even this person admits that there are serious flaws in the study and that many of the negative comments have merit.

You made a very specific, very harsh claim. It should be easy to back up. Just give one quotation from the actual study which demonstrates disparagement of gay people.

You're not understanding. If the information is inaccurate that, in itself, is disparaging. It's like doing a study that claims blacks are less intelligent than whites (and believe me, there were a bunch of those kinds of studies done, all throughout our history!).

Now you have made another very specific, very harsh claim. Namely, that this `research' was done purely for political purposes, due to a funding agency. If we grant your point, do you similarly reject the APA reports, and the pro-SSM studies which make political statements or were funded by pro-SSM groups? What in your view differentiates the two?

As far as I know, the APA studies have been done within university settings and have been subjected to specific and rigorous standards of research.

[Zeta-Flux]

Even this person admits that there are serious flaws in the study and that many of the negative comments have merit.

And so do I. And so does the author of the study, although he prefers to call them limitations (due to the prohibitive expense to get a larger sample) rather than flaws. The question isn't "Does this study have flaws/limitations?" Every study has flaws and limitations. Follow-up studies try to fix those problems, then those that follow fix the new problems, etc... This study tried to fix the problem of previous studies that most samples were not random. The sample in this study is random, but that necessarily limits the sample size, thus limiting what conclusions we can draw. (The author admits as much. Although, it should also be noted that this random sample is actually LARGER than many of the non-random samples used in other studies.)

But that isn't the question we are discussing. The question is whether the author disparaged gays and made the study solely for political reasons. Having faults in a study does not imply animus or political motivation.

You're not understanding. If the information is inaccurate that, in itself, is disparaging. It's like doing a study that claims blacks are less intelligent than whites (and believe me, there were a bunch of those kinds of studies done, all throughout our history!).

First, as far as I know, the author made no claims about gay people as a group, and in fact is very clear that nothing concrete can be said about them from this study. Second, as far as I know, the information in the study is not inaccurate.

It is true that the sample sizes are small enough that one cannot make many claims about what the data says. But claiming that the data itself is inaccurate...do you have any direct evidence that the author made up evidence, or made any specific claims not in accord with the evidence? This is a call for evidence that the information in the study is inaccurate.

As far as I know, the APA studies have been done within university settings and have been subjected to specific and rigorous standards of research.

This standard does not differentiate the APA studies from the Regnerus study. Both were done within a university setting and both were subjected to specific and rigorous standards of research.

[BCSpace]

It's like doing a study that claims blacks are less intelligent than whites (and believe me, there were a bunch of those kinds of studies done, all throughout our history!).

Apples and oranges. Skin color is genetic. Plus, what if such a study were true, disparaging or not? Should we ignore it because it is uncomfortable or not politically correct? Of course not.

[Libs]

If the study is inaccurate (doesn't measure what it claims to measure) then it most certainly is the same as doing a bogus study that claims blacks are less intelligent.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

I appreciate the candor of your answer. It sounds like you're saying something along the lines of, "I don't know... I'm not aware of any specific actions or even a constellations of actions that are/would be necessary/vital/important to be modeled for children that would be present in a home headed by two opposite-sex parents but absent in one same-sex parents." That would be similar to my thoughts, as well.

OK... I'm confused again, because it seems like we're back to my question. Are you suggesting that, when "we" are children growing up, and as "sexual beings," we "take" some sort of sexual "cues" from our parents, that opposite-sex couples exemplify, that same-sex couples can't/don't...? What sort of "sexual cues" that children learn from watching their parents are you referring to?

It sounds like you may be implying that children's sexual orientation/identity is a learned function from/or related to some sort of parentally-based romantic modeling.

Is that what you mean to suggest?

Daniel2

Thank you. I can agree to that interpretation.

Your avatar is a pretty good representation of what I'm talking about.

Yes we do take our first sexual cues from our parents, what I'm not talking about however is the what body part goes where. Men learn how to interact with other men largely by watching their fathers, and learn how to interact with women by watching the interactions of their fathers with their mothers. The same factors are true for women.

Being a decent person isn't related to romance per say. It is about respecting the dignity of, and having an empathic understanding of the rights of others. While maintaining your own dignity and rights.

[california boy]

It is true that the sample sizes are small enough that one cannot make many claims about what the data says. But claiming that the data itself is inaccurate...do you have any direct evidence that the author made up evidence, or made any specific claims not in accord with the evidence? This is a call for evidence that the information in the study is inaccurate.

I don't think that anyone is accusing thee study of making things up. My problem with the study's criteria as I understand it is that the author is comparing apples to oranges. He compares children from intact homes with both parents there with children with gay parents from broken homes. Past studies have also shown that children do better when two parents are present in the home whether gay or straight. Those studies have shown no appreciable differences.

If a study wants to compare broken homes of gay and straight marriages with each other to see if there were differences, that would be a reasonable study to take seriously. But taking homes with two straight parents present with gay homes that are fragmented does not necessarily show that the difference is because the children are being raised by gay parents. A similar study showing children in two parent gay relationships with children in broken homes would probably show that gay marriages are more healthy for the children. That also would not be comparing apples to apples. Just my opinion of the study from what I have read as the criteria.

[california boy]

The American Medical Association releases a response to flawed study.

I know that many on this board like to dispare the AMA because their studies do not have the results you are looking for, but here is their response to the recent study.

[Calm]

I know that many on this board like to dispare the AMA because their studies do not have the results you are looking for

Isn't this "poisoning the well"? Suggesting that if someone criticizes this that it is simply because it doesn't have the results they want?

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

I think you mean APA.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Not really. The evidence, so far, just isn't there for support that the children of SS couples are measurably worse off than the different sex couples' in the same socioeconomic situation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking, but we need to drop the priories.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Thank you. I can agree to that interpretation.

Your avatar is a pretty good representation of what I'm talking about.

Interesting. The summary I offered was an attempt to understand what you're suggesting--it's not, however, a view I hold or could agree with.

Specifically, I do not believe that evidence shows that sexual orientation/identity is a learned function from/or related to some sort of parentally-based romantic modeling. Do you believe there is evidence, for such?

My experience with gay and lesbian Mormons appears to refute this idea. That is, virtually every gay Mormon I know grew up with heterosexual parents, modeling/exemplifying heterosexual romantic relationships towards their children. Such opposite-sex modeling, however, did NOT result in instilling or altering the sexual orientation of their gay and lesbian children. In fact, speaking of sexual orientation (and not behavior), I'm unaware of any credible data that demonstrates that opposite-sex parents produce less gay and lesbian chidlren than

same-sex couples produce.

According to what I've read from every major medical and psychological organization, sexual orientation is not a function of parental modeling, but a complex interplay of biological factors triggered by environment-based physiological/hormonal factors (i.e. hormones present in the uterine environment during a fetus's development that bathe the brain and effect physiologial development very early in embryonic growth).

While I can certainly agree that family structures provide a wealth of learning opportunities with regards to manners, politeness, romance, cleanliness, fiscal responsiblity, modes of courtship, etc.--I see nothing in those important learning opportunities that is inherently present in opposite-sex couples but isn't in same-sex couples (even if we were to speak in terms of trends vs. individual couples). Romance, love, gentleness, compassion, strength, protection, courage, loyalty, dignity, honor, fidelity, vulnerability, empathy, care-giving, two-way-communication... all of those are attributes that inform a good relationship, but which are definitely not gender-dependant, from my perspective.

Yes we do take our first sexual cues from our parents, what I'm not talking about however is the what body part goes where. Men learn how to interact with other men largely by watching their fathers, and learn how to interact with women by watching the interactions of their fathers with their mothers. The same factors are true for women.

I suppose I just don't see this as the universal truism (or even 'trend') that you see it as--or, perhaps, I don't see it as a vital function of the genders of a parental relationship that you do. Gay children still learn to treat their same-sex spouse by watching how their father treats their mother, and vice versa. When I consider the type of relationship that I strive for with my future husband, I don't say to myself, "Wait... I'm confused about how to treat my husband, because I had a dad that was married to a woman.... I'm uncertain how to treat a man within a romantic relationship!" Zach Wahls, the articulate and intelligent young man gaining prominence for testifying about his love for his same-sex mothers in front of the Iowa Judiciary Committee, would undoubtably say the same about the example his moms provided to him, in learning how to treat the young women he dates, today.

My view,

Daniel2

[Calm]

calmoriah:

Not really. The evidence, so far, just isn't there for support that the children of SS couples are measurably worse off than the different sex couples' in the same socioeconomic situation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking, but we need to drop the priories.

That doesn't address my point.

[Zeta-Flux]

I don't think that anyone is accusing thee study of making things up. My problem with the study's criteria as I understand it is that the author is comparing apples to oranges. He compares children from intact homes with both parents there with children with gay parents from broken homes. Past studies have also shown that children do better when two parents are present in the home whether gay or straight. Those studies have shown no appreciable differences.

If a study wants to compare broken homes of gay and straight marriages with each other to see if there were differences, that would be a reasonable study to take seriously. But taking homes with two straight parents present with gay homes that are fragmented does not necessarily show that the difference is because the children are being raised by gay parents. A similar study showing children in two parent gay relationships with children in broken homes would probably show that gay marriages are more healthy for the children. That also would not be comparing apples to apples. Just my opinion of the study from what I have read as the criteria.

california boy,

From what I've read (and you are free to correct me) this is not technically what Regnerus is doing. Yes, Regnerus does use intact homes as one group measure, but he doesn't use "children with gay parents from broken homes" as another group measure. Rather, his group is anyone from the random sample who had a parent who expressed homosexual behaviors. It turned out that this group was comprised mostly of people from broken homes, but that was not how the group was defined.

Further, the author makes it clear (as do those who reviewed the paper) that one cannot say that the negative effects mentioned are a result of the homosexual behavior, and explicitly say that they might be an affect of the broken homes! (He also says it might be an affect of the fact that those surveyed come from a time before SSM was legal anywhere, etc...)

The main take-away point is that this study of a random sample shows that previous studies of non-random samples should be taken with a grain of salt. That is about it.

Oh, and he does compare broken heterosexual homes with that class of homosexual homes (again, if I read it correctly).

------

libs,

You again have made a specific claim: that the study claims to measure something it doesn't measure. Please give me an explicit quotation from the study about something it claims to measure, but which it does not. This is the third distinct claim you have made which I've asked you to back up.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Humans are incredibly wonderfully complex, but our behaviors are learned. Studies of genetic twins do not indicate a genetic component for homosexual identification.

So what ever the factors are it is not genetic.

[sjdawg]

It is certainly not scientific but my observation has been that positive family outcomes are dependent on effort and work, not sexual orientation of the parents. The two best parents I know are lesbians raising four children. A very close second is one of my best friends and his wife who are also raising four children (devout LDS family). I would put myself somewhere in the middle of the pack.

[Zeta-Flux]

It is certainly not scientific but ...

And that was the point of the study. To finally study a random sample...

[california boy]

california boy,

From what I've read (and you are free to correct me) this is not technically what Regnerus is doing. Yes, Regnerus does use intact homes as one group measure, but he doesn't use "children with gay parents from broken homes" as another group measure. Rather, his group is anyone from the random sample who had a parent who expressed homosexual behaviors. It turned out that this group was comprised mostly of people from broken homes, but that was not how the group was defined.

Further, the author makes it clear (as do those who reviewed the paper) that one cannot say that the negative effects mentioned are a result of the homosexual behavior, and explicitly say that they might be an affect of the broken homes! (He also says it might be an affect of the fact that those surveyed come from a time before SSM was legal anywhere, etc...)

The main take-away point is that this study of a random sample shows that previous studies of non-random samples should be taken with a grain of salt. That is about it.

Oh, and he does compare broken heterosexual homes with that class of homosexual homes (again, if I read it correctly).

I think that is my point. If you take an admited random sampling with absolutely no criteria for comparison, then is all you end up with is a random conclusion. It ends up being meaningless and should not be taken as anything more than a curiosity. It certainly is not a scientific way of approaching the conclusion that is offered.

I would have no problem if people took this study as just a random sampling. But people are drawing conclusions that this random sample says something. It says nothing. It is like taking a handful of beans and throwing them on a map of the United States and then drawing the conclusion that beans like the state of Wisconsin because more happen to land there.

[Libs]

That was my point, as well. It is being used for political purposes (which was probably the intent, to begin with)..

[Zeta-Flux]

I think that is my point. If you take an admited random sampling with absolutely no criteria for comparison, then is all you end up with is a random conclusion. It ends up being meaningless and should not be taken as anything more than a curiosity. It certainly is not a scientific way of approaching the conclusion that is offered.

Oh, there are definitely criteria for comparison. For example, one can compare the outcomes of children who grew up in a home with someone who participated in homosexual behavior to other classes of groups. While the causal implications are limited, the data itself is clear and the group sizes (for the actual groups compared) are sufficiently large for the methodology to be correct. This study will definitely garner further studies in the area, which can focus on more specific questions.

I would have no problem if people took this study as just a random sampling. But people are drawing conclusions that this random sample says something. It says nothing. It is like taking a handful of beans and throwing them on a map of the United States and then drawing the conclusion that beans like the state of Wisconsin because more happen to land there.

Now you are misrepresenting the science. The study does say something. And, believe it or not, when you get a large sample size (which this study did) from a large random group (which this study did, and nearly none of the other studies in the subject have done) you get a fairly accurate picture of what the average household experienced (over the time-frame of the study).

What is strange is that you seem to be claiming that a random sample was a negative aspect of this study. To the contrary, it is what makes this study stand out. True, it means there are limitations on what can be claimed. But the other studies suffer from the lack of a random sample and a lack of proper sample size and methodology.

[if you really think that using a random sample is like throwing beans at a map, you misunderstand how they use statistics to make sure the sizes are large enough, and to correct for other things.]

-----

libs,

But the same can be said of other studies. The same is true of the APA report--it has been used widely for political purposes (and people have, like you, similarly claimed its purpose was political).

If anything, the political purpose of this new study is the study is being put to use to counter the political use of the previous studies, by showing that their conclusions are based on invalid methodology, and the science is still out on the questions. That some will over-step and say the study says gay homes are worse is just how people are; the author of the study and those he links on his website who review his study explicitly reject such interpretations. The same is not true of the APA report.

[sjdawg]

I wonder how many of the negative outcomes in this report can be attributed to the publics lousy treatment of homosexuals and the publics low acceptance of such families?

Maybe the outcomes aren't a result of poor parenting or poor family relationships but are are an outcome of low societal acceptance??

[Zeta-Flux]

Maybe. These studies don't purport to show cause and effect. They just measure connections.

Similarly, the negative outcomes of divorced families and single parent homes could be "the publics lousy treatment of divorcees and single parents." That possibility however is not sufficient to motivated public policy one way or the other.

[Libs]

Zeta, I don't believe the APA studies were done for political purposes, although, I realize, they are used that way, at times.

I think this new study was done for political purposes, because it was funded by a conservative group (was my understanding). The movement for GLBT rights has been making a lot of inroads, lately, and I think this study was an attempt to try and throw a wrench in the works.