Gay Risk Factors (New Nfss Study): Children From Intact, Biological Families Outperform Those Raised In Same-Sex Relationships

[california boy]

I am doing nothing of the kind. I, personally, would teach men and women that homosexual relations are sinful, and that they should repent.

But we aren't talking about what I'm asking people to do. We are talking about what is the best public policy.

If it turns out that the best public policy for children is that same-sex couples should not be included in the umbrella of marriage, then my comment is still not hypocritical at all. I'm asking those who choose to participate in homosexual relations to not ask that the institution of marriage be changed to suit their needs, when doing so would harm the needs of children.

No, I don't. And in their case, where even casual sex can result in the creation of a child, it makes sense to promote marriage.

And, by the way, I do not dispute that promoting marriage in the case of same-sex couples would increase the stability of said relationships. I cannot remember the exact percentages, but studies in other countries (I believe it was focused in Denmark) showed that those same-sex couples who had a marriage rather than a civil arrangement showed a marked increase in stability.

The problem is that marriage was not merely designed the increase the stability of relationships (although that is a key component). While those same-sex couples who were married had higher stability than without marriage, they still showed a larger instability than those opposite-gendered couples who were married. Thus, opening marriage to them actually diminishes the overall stability of marriage as a whole, doing further damage to the institution. But that is only one of many other reasons for not opening up marriage, most of which have to do with the rights and protections afforded to children.

To answer your first question, I think it would do damage to the culture of child-bearing and child-rearing. It would also do damage to the culture of finding companions.

Again, I agree with you that by not opening up marriage to same-sex couples such relationships will suffer. Their relationships will be less stable. The culture will not encourage stability to the degree it would otherwise. On that we are in agreement.

But, as I said above, I personally view such relationships as sinful and not in need of encouragement. On the level of society and law, I see many troubling signs in terms of the outcomes of children when the institution of marriage is opened up to such relations. I'm more than willing to wait to see what happens in countries where gay marriages are allowed. So far, the signs have not been positive.

Sure. I simply googled "no fault divorce and effect on marriage" and a large number of articles appeared. The fourth article in the list seemed interesting. But they all agree that the research proves no-fault divorce has had a negative effect on divorce rates, has increased out-of-wedlock births, and so forth and so on. Perhaps one of the strangest consequences is that marital happiness actually decreased.

Even with all these negatives, in July 2010 the 50th state (New York) jumped on the bandwagon and passed a no-fault divorce law.

No-fault divorce has been a hugely negative evil in our society. But we won't get rid of it because people think about their rights above the effects such things have on children and society.

I don't want something similarly negative to happen when we open up marriage to same-sex couples before we know the consequences of such an action. (And, from what studies are now showing, there are many potential negatives.)

Well I am just going to disagree with your position. Everything points to benefits both for society and for children in same sex couples to marry. I am not sure why you slipped into no fault divorce in answer to my cfr. Check again. What I asked afor a CFR on is this statement which has nothing to do with no fault divorce.

You could similarly conclude that gay relationships are inherently worse off for children, even with the added benefit of marriage for those few of them who choose to take advantage of it.

[Zeta-Flux]

Second thing first:

I am not sure why you slipped into no fault divorce in answer to my cfr. Check again. What I asked afor a CFR on is this statement which has nothing to do with no fault divorce.

If you look at your previous post, there are three quotations you included from me. I thought your CFR was with respect to the second quotation.

Now, first thing second:

Well I am just going to disagree with your position. Everything points to benefits both for society and for children in same sex couples to marry.

I suppose by answering your CFR I will also address this point.

The NFSS study shows that children raised by parents who participate in homosexual behaviors reported that they participated at a higher rate in homosexual behaviors. This is just one of many other higher risk factors.

This other article about same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden reveals that (unlike many studies which relied on the immediate behavior of such couples after the laws were initially passed, and which also relied on small sample sizes) gay-couples have significantly higher divorce rates, etc...

[california boy]

Second thing first:

If you look at your previous post, there are three quotations you included from me. I thought your CFR was with respect to the second quotation.

Now, first thing second:

I suppose by answering your CFR I will also address this point.

The NFSS study shows that children raised by parents who participate in homosexual behaviors reported that they participated at a higher rate in homosexual behaviors. This is just one of many other higher risk factors.

This other article about same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden reveals that (unlike many studies which relied on the immediate behavior of such couples after the laws were initially passed, and which also relied on small sample sizes) gay-couples have significantly higher divorce rates, etc...

You made the statement.

You could similarly conclude that gay relationships are inherently worse off for children, even with the added benefit of marriage for those few of them who choose to take advantage of it.

And then in answer to support your statement, you show a study that is suppose to show that gay people divorce more than straight people? So your solution to help the children in such relationships is to not allow any of them to marry so that their divorce rate will be lower? Is this really making any sense to you?

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes, yes it does make sense to me.

Divorce is one of the most negative things that can happen to a child. Lowering the divorce rate has a hugely positive benefit for children, and the cultural perception of marriage. Part of the push for same-sex couples to have marriage is so they can adopt children. If their divorce rates are significantly higher (and they are), then this has a negative affect on children.

Further, even though not allowing "marriages" for same-sex couples has a few negative affect on those few same-sex couples who want to marry, it has a net positive effect on the institution of marriage itself by keeping the divorce rate lower, people's views of what the institution's purpose is focused outside themselves, and people's views of its relative success rate higher. These are only a few of the many other net positives I mentioned. Others include those mentioned in the NFSS study: less children experimenting with a homosexual relationship. Less drug use. Higher happiness in relationships and more stability. etc...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks for the study.

I'm still waiting on a study by the Anna Braun, a German neuroscientist, who's testing same-sex parentage on rhodents. She already found that single motherhood results in children connecting 30% fewer synapses.

Please tell me you are talking of the "Anna (Eva) Braun"?

[california boy]

Yes, yes it does make sense to me.

Divorce is one of the most negative things that can happen to a child. Lowering the divorce rate has a hugely positive benefit for children, and the cultural perception of marriage. Part of the push for same-sex couples to have marriage is so they can adopt children. If their divorce rates are significantly higher (and they are), then this has a negative affect on children.

Further, even though not allowing "marriages" for same-sex couples has a few negative affect on those few same-sex couples who want to marry, it has a net positive effect on the institution of marriage itself by keeping the divorce rate lower, people's views of what the institution's purpose is focused outside themselves, and people's views of its relative success rate higher. These are only a few of the many other net positives I mentioned. Others include those mentioned in the NFSS study: less children experimenting with a homosexual relationship. Less drug use. Higher happiness in relationships and more stability. etc...

Studies indicate that people who divorce once also have higher percentage of divorcing again. Are you also advocating that if a person divorces, they should never be allowed to marry again? Or is it just gays that you want to prevent from marrying?

[Zeta-Flux]

Studies indicate that people who divorce once also have higher percentage of divorcing again. Are you also advocating that if a person divorces, they should never be allowed to marry again?

I am advocating that changes should be made to marriage laws if they improves the net situation of children, and they should not be made if they harm the overall situation of children. Divorce rates are one measure of harm, but there are many others.

But let me answer your specific question. Yes, if you could show that creating laws which allowed people to marry once and only once led to a net improvement in the situation of children then I would indeed be for such a change in the law.

In the case of heterosexual couples, who have often already had children, it is hard to measure the effects such a change might bring. Also unlike the gay marriage situation, where there are other countries and states where the experiment is being performed, I don't know of any modern experiment in "one-strike you're out" marriage laws. I can imagine that in fact such a change could be a positive one, but I don't have a lot of data to back up my hunch.

[The Nehor]

Why do we bother to do studies when the results are going to be turned into propaganda unsupported by the results?

[BlueDreams]

Why do we bother to do studies when the results are going to be turned into propaganda unsupported by the results?

I thought that was the point of statistics in the first place . Both sides of arguments usually use some amount of studies to bolster their claims. In fact, depending on one's personal worldview/bias, the same data set can also be used in differing way to explain a phenomenon. I was reading about a study that was used by one person to indicate that therapy was ineffective while another therapist used the same data with different measure to show that therapy was effective. Darned liars and stats.

Seriously though, I've kinda been arguing both sides in my head about the data and how it could be interpreted. A good article I read about it was on slate (it’s not the initial interview, but a look into methodology and what it possibly showed. (article found here: http://www.slate.com...on_science.html )

Overall, throwing out the study simply because of methodological faults seems silly to me. Most studies have methodological faults, very much including those that note there’s no difference between gay and straight families….some major ones that I agree with the research article as being problematic at getting an accurate picture of possible differences between gay and straight families (generally dealing with difference of racial, SES demographics, extremely narrow sampling, and who was actually interviewed). At the same time the inferences about social impact is also premature. To really answer that question would mean having to answer why there were so few stable same-sex relationships (that is what I personally found most interesting about the study) and whether increased stability in these relationships would alter the results (which the study itself, if you measured the extremely, statistically nonviable cohort of same-sex parents that were together for 13-18 yrs, shows some preliminary support for that idea that it would).

At that point it becomes a question of social perspective. One could argue that the reason for lack of stability is the lack of social support and discrimination faced by LGBT. Another would suggest that the instability may be more intrinsic to LGBT relationships. I personally am a strong believer of answers somewhere in the middle. Simply put, we just don't know and much of it can't easily be assessed but inferred. People will benerally infer based on studies and stats that bolster their own claims.

The one thing that this discussion does have for me, is an appreciation for Elder Oaks statement about social experiments.

With luv,

BD

[Zeta-Flux]

Apart from the studies, there are interesting philosophical works like that advertised here. (I liked the article the book is based upon. I haven't read the book yet.)

[california boy]

I thought that was the point of statistics in the first place . Both sides of arguments usually use some amount of studies to bolster their claims. In fact, depending on one's personal worldview/bias, the same data set can also be used in differing way to explain a phenomenon. I was reading about a study that was used by one person to indicate that therapy was ineffective while another therapist used the same data with different measure to show that therapy was effective. Darned liars and stats.

Seriously though, I've kinda been arguing both sides in my head about the data and how it could be interpreted. A good article I read about it was on slate (it’s not the initial interview, but a look into methodology and what it possibly showed. (article found here: http://www.slate.com...on_science.html )

Overall, throwing out the study simply because of methodological faults seems silly to me. Most studies have methodological faults, very much including those that note there’s no difference between gay and straight families….some major ones that I agree with the research article as being problematic at getting an accurate picture of possible differences between gay and straight families (generally dealing with difference of racial, SES demographics, extremely narrow sampling, and who was actually interviewed). At the same time the inferences about social impact is also premature. To really answer that question would mean having to answer why there were so few stable same-sex relationships (that is what I personally found most interesting about the study) and whether increased stability in these relationships would alter the results (which the study itself, if you measured the extremely, statistically nonviable cohort of same-sex parents that were together for 13-18 yrs, shows some preliminary support for that idea that it would).

At that point it becomes a question of social perspective. One could argue that the reason for lack of stability is the lack of social support and discrimination faced by LGBT. Another would suggest that the instability may be more intrinsic to LGBT relationships. I personally am a strong believer of answers somewhere in the middle. Simply put, we just don't know and much of it can't easily be assessed but inferred. People will benerally infer based on studies and stats that bolster their own claims.

The one thing that this discussion does have for me, is an appreciation for Elder Oaks statement about social experiments.

With luv,

BD

I actually agree with a lot of what the article you cited talks about. It is hard to dispute that more stable families is better for children. I find it a bit odd that some churches are doing all they can to not encourage marriage for any couple that wants to have children. But then I have never been able to buy into the argument that if gay people are allowed to marry then it will somehow cause straight people to not value their marriage.

In my opinion, there are several things that are causing people to not value marriage as they once did. First is that marriage is no longer necessary for financial stability. Second is that so many people have had to deal with divorce and broken families growing up that they begin to feel that no marriage lasts anyway. Third is the diminished importance of organized religion by many people. And fourth is the ease of divorce. Many younger people feel that if it is so easy to just dissolve a marriage anyway, why not just stay together as long as it is working and avoid the whole court thing. Often the legal disillusion of marriage only causes bitterness and anger against someone they once loved. A lot of younger people that I have talked to don't want that in their lives. They have often been the pawns in divorce wars.

[Buzzard]

In my opinion, there are several things that are causing people to not value marriage as they once did. First is that marriage is no longer necessary for financial stability. Second is that so many people have had to deal with divorce and broken families growing up that they begin to feel that no marriage lasts anyway. Third is the diminished importance of organized religion by many people. And fourth is the ease of divorce. Many younger people feel that if it is so easy to just dissolve a marriage anyway, why not just stay together as long as it is working and avoid the whole court thing. Often the legal disillusion of marriage only causes bitterness and anger against someone they once loved. A lot of younger people that I have talked to don't want that in their lives. They have often been the pawns in divorce wars.

Actually, the number one risk factor for poverty is no father in the home. Sure, there are divorced moms doing well financially, but one in four single moms live below the poverty line, vs. one in six Americans, and many of those not in poverty are lower middle class, just above the poverty level. Marriage-and by that I mean heterosexual marriage-needs all the help it can get, for the sake of our society who is bearing the burden created by absent fathers, many of whom pay no or intermittent child support. Gay marriage may not mean I value my marriage less, but it reduces the culture of the nuclear family in society. (IMHO)

[california boy]

Actually, the number one risk factor for poverty is no father in the home. Sure, there are divorced moms doing well financially, but one in four single moms live below the poverty line, vs. one in six Americans, and many of those not in poverty are lower middle class, just above the poverty level. Marriage-and by that I mean heterosexual marriage-needs all the help it can get, for the sake of our society who is bearing the burden created by absent fathers, many of whom pay no or intermittent child support. Gay marriage may not mean I value my marriage less, but it reduces the culture of the nuclear family in society. (IMHO)

I can agree with you that no father in thehome is a major problem in this country. But there seems to be a big leap that gay marriage has anything to do with that or that supporting gay marriage reduces the culture of the nuclear family in society. I would actually argue the opposite. By telling any group in society that marriage is not important for them sends a message as well to young people that society doesn't value marriage for everyone. That marriage is just for those that fit a particular expectation. Marriage is only for those that are religious or marriage is only for those planning to have children. It is a dangerous position to take in my opinion and does more to devalue marriage in society than allowing gays to marry. Obviously my opinion on this issue is in the minority on this board, but you have to realize I am not in the minority with the main population of this country.