Research On Kids Of Same Sex Couples

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps the "Focus on the Family" type ilk jump the gun on being so judgmental about children of same-sex couples too much. The article can be read here.

[wenglund]

Perhaps the "Focus on the Family" type ilk jump the gun on being so judgmental about children of same-sex couples too much. The article can be read here.

 

Does the study differentiate between children raised by SS couples that are a product of previous heterosexual marriages/relationships, and those that aren't? 

 

I ask because, from what I recall, most of the children raised by SS couples (at least here in the U.S.) are from divorced heterosexual marriages/relationships, which means that they are from two biological parent homes, though now broken, and tend not to be the sole custody of SS couples. 

 

If I am correct, this may skew the alleged findings [Edit--particularly given that the higher scores came in the area of "general health and family cohesion"].

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

Does the study differentiate between children raised by SS couples that are a product of previous heterosexual marriages/relationships, and those that aren't? 

 

I ask because, from what I recall, most of the children raised by SS couples (at least here in the U.S.) are from divorced heterosexual marriages/relationships, which means that they are from two biological parent homes, though now broken, and tend not to be the sole custody of SS couples. 

 

If I am correct, this may skew the alleged findings [Edit--particularly given that the higher scores came in the area of "general health and family cohesion"].

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Did you read the article and the comments by Dr. Crouch?

 

From the article:

 

 

"Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families," he said.

 

"So what this means is that people take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes, which is mum staying home and looking after the kids and dad going out to earn money.

 

"What this leads to is a more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and wellbeing."

Rodney Chiang-Cruise, a parent raising three boys with his same-sex partner, agreed with the study's findings.

 

"The traditional nurturing role is shared - it's not one parent over another; the traditional breadwinning role is shared," Mr Chiang-Cruise said.

 

"My personal view is that I think it teaches the child that everyone contributes in an equal way and you all have to contribute to the family."

 

Dr Crouch said the study findings had implications for those who argued against marriage equality for the sake of children.

 

"Quite often, people talk about marriage equality in the context of family and that marriage is necessary to raise children in the right environment, and that you need a mother and a father to be able to do that, and therefore marriage should be restricted to male and female couples," Dr Crouch said.

 

"I think what the study suggests in that context is that actually children can be brought up in many different family contexts, and it shouldn't be a barrier to marriage equality."

[wenglund]

Did you read the article and the comments by Dr. Crouch?

 

Yes, though it (including the portion you quoted) didn't address the specific question that I raised here--which is why I asked.

 

It would also be interesting to learn from the study what percentage of the relatively few SS homes with children in the gay community have 1 versus 2 providers.

 

BTW, my interest is in drilling down into the data and critically assessing it on the merits, and not uncritically granting Dr. Crouch's personal interpretation of the data. Both sides of the issue, even within academia--if not perhaps more so  are prone to catering to biases and popular agendas, since often that is where the money and prestige may be found. And, my interest is piqued in this regard when the purported findings seem to me to defy common sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-. 

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, though it (including the portion you quoted) didn't address the specific question that I raised here--which is why I asked.

 

It would also be interesting to learn from the study what percentage of the relatively few SS homes with children in the gay community have 1 versus 2 providers.

 

BTW, my interest is in drilling down into the data and critically assessing it on the merits, and not uncritically granting Dr. Crouch's personal interpretation of the data. Both sides of the issue, even within academia--if not perhaps more so  are prone to catering to biases and popular agendas, since often that is where the money and prestige may be found. And, my interest is piqued in this regard when the purported findings seem to me to defy common sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-. 

 

 

I agree. Preconceived notions on "normative" families is disingenuous at best. Mom, dad, 3 kids, cat, dog is not the standard of what makes a family but is just one example of the different types of families. Gender stereotyping is also a waste of time.

 

Perhaps you could find the more direct research numbers concerning Dr. Crouch's study.

[danielwoods]

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/not_so_fast

[Damien the Leper]

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/not_so_fast

 

I believe Dr. Crouch addressed this afterward. I'll see if I can find it.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/not_so_fast

Beware of media hype over statistical studies -- especially premature hype.

 

Reminds me of the widely reported finding that a single woman over 40 has a greater chance of being shot by a terrorist than getting married.

 

It was later discredited, but not before it had become entrenched in public consciousness.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

Beware of media hype over statistical studie -- especially premature hype.

 

Reminds me of the widely reported finding that a single woman over 40 has a greater chance of being shot by a terrorist than getting married.

 

It was later discredited, but not before it had become entrenched in public consciousness.

 

 

We must beware of the hype on both sides of the argument. These families live very real lives and their functionality varies. The fact that these families do function and raise well adjusted children to mature adults is key.

[Scott Lloyd]

We must beware of the hype on both sides of the argument. These families live very real lives and their functionality varies. The fact that these families do function and raise well adjusted children to mature adults is key.

Apparently, it is too early to draw a conclusion one way or the other from this study, at least.

[Damien the Leper]

Apparently, it is too early to draw a conclusion one way or the other from this study, at least.

 

I can agree with that. However, these families and future families need not be tarnished by the "religious right".

[The Nehor]

Is there anything on the actual methodology of this study?

 

This has been reported before but the studies are always severely flawed. If this is a well-done study this could be interesting.

 

This is more likely what is going on:

 

 

Found some info on the study. There are a few problems I picked out. They may have been necessary evils to perform the study but they would still probably skew the results. How far I don't know.

[thesometimesaint]

Sociologically the sample size isn't very large, so more studies need to be done.

[wenglund]

 

I agree. Preconceived notions on "normative" families is disingenuous at best. Mom, dad, 3 kids, cat, dog is not the standard of what makes a family but is just one example of the different types of families. Gender stereotyping is also a waste of time.

 

Perhaps you could find the more direct research numbers concerning Dr. Crouch's study.

 

This strikes even deeper than the SS couple issue. It suggest that biological connections are of no meaningful significance to rearing of children, and that neither women or men bring any unique value to parenting, thus implying that children can as easily, if not better, be raised by the state than by familial relations. 

 

This seems so counter-intuitive to me as to rightly raise multiple red flags.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 8, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Even if one uncritically grants the findings in the purported study, all it really tells us is that the relatively few SS couples with children (most resulting from breaking up heterosexual homes, and mostly women), are capable of raising well adjusted children.

 

It doesn't tell us whether governments should normalize and promote same-sex relationships, particularly by mangling the definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

 

 

 

This strikes even deeper than the SS couple issue. It suggest that biological connections are of no meaningful significance to rearing of children, and that neither women or men bring any unique value to parenting, thus implying that children can as easily, if not better, be raised by the state than by familial relations. 

 

This seems so counter-intuitive to me as to rightly raise multiple red flags.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Not at all. I'm not dismissing heterosexual relationships and that is not what my post stated. Asserting that was my intent is blatant dishonesty. I'm asserting familial variations and not prioritizing one above the other. To do so, puts ones sanity in question.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

 

This strikes even deeper than the SS couple issue. It suggest that biological connections are of no meaningful significance to rearing of children, and that neither women or men bring any unique value to parenting, thus implying that children can as easily, if not better, be raised by the state than by familial relations. 

 

This seems so counter-intuitive to me as to rightly raise multiple red flags.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Biological connections are of little value when it comes to parenting. IE; My wife and I raised three of our own and unofficially our Grandnephew. The state has neither the ability nor the desire to raise children. Their goal is raise healthy reasonably happy adult citizens. Families do that best most of the time. It is the exceptions that gives us all headaches.

[Damien the Leper]

Even if one uncritically grants the findings in the purported study, all it really tells us is that the relatively few SS couples with children (most resulting from breaking up heterosexual homes, and mostly women), are capable of raising well adjusted children.

 

It doesn't tell us whether governments should normalize and promote same-sex relationships, particularly by mangling the definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The problem with your position is that you hold to an archaic mindset that cannot be dubiously labeled as conservative but more fundamentalist. However, fundamentalism isn't getting back to the original it is reactionary against sociological developments. It is not conducive to the continuing of the human species.

 

The religious definition of marriage is not the standard either. Asserting such would be disingenuous. Marriage is a contract that benefits multiple parties. You can have your religious ceremonies but don't allow religious morality to overflow into the lives of those who do not share those beliefs. The Constitution is also to protect the secular society from religion and not simply to grant religious liberty, IOW, freedom of religion on equal footing as freedom from religion. We do not live in some theocratic abomination. Such would be anathema to God's will.

[The Nehor]

We do not live in some theocratic abomination. Such would be anathema to God's will.

 

Not all theocracies are abominations or are anathema. Admittedly the LDS faith is currently under instructions not to seek to rule the world. Kind of sad.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there anything on the actual methodology of this study?

 

This has been reported before but the studies are always severely flawed. If this is a well-done study this could be interesting.

 

This is more likely what is going on:

 

 

Found some info on the study. There are a few problems I picked out. They may have been necessary evils to perform the study but they would still probably skew the results. How far I don't know.

Love this graphic! So true.

[thesometimesaint]

Not all theocracies are abominations or are anathema. Admittedly the LDS faith is currently under instructions not to seek to rule the world. Kind of sad.

 

While I eagerly await the Return of the King. In the mean time I want a say in how the government I live under works.

[The Nehor]

While I eagerly await the Return of the King. In the mean time I want a say in how the government I live under works.

 

I do too. Know of a country where I can get such a say?

[thesometimesaint]

I do too. Know of a country where I can get such a say?

 

For better or worse my say is but 1/320,000,000th of the final say.

[The Nehor]

For better or worse my say is but 1/320,000,000th of the final say.

 

This is why I encourage other people not to vote. It gives me more of a say.

[wenglund]

Not at all. I'm not dismissing heterosexual relationships and that is not what my post stated. Asserting that was my intent is blatant dishonesty. I'm asserting familial variations and not prioritizing one above the other. To do so, puts ones sanity in question.

 

I never claimed that you have dismissed heterosexual relationships, nor was I referring specifially to what you said in your post. Rather, I drew plausible implications extrapolated from the findings of the study you brought to our attention and commented on, which go beyond same-sex couple. Hence, my explicit mention that "This strikes even deeper than the SS couple issue."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Edited July 9, 2014 by wenglund