Research On Kids Of Same Sex Couples

[wenglund]

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.

 

I submit the public school system as exhibit #1 that flies in the face of your baseless claim that state has no desire to raise children. Whether it has the ability or not is open to considerable question.

 

And, while I appreciate your anecdotal experience with your grandnephews, the foster care system, even with all its good intents, though also with no small troubles, ought to provide at least some indication whether biological connections are of value or not. The lack thereof may not be a deal breaker, but to me its presence is meaningful and of value.

 

Many family courts seem to agree when deciding what is in the best interest of the child.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 9, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

 

You should have focused less on trying to affix a label to me, and more on attempting to understand and then address my comments, since you failed miserably at each.

 

But, you did scored very high on vacuous verbal hand-wringing [thumbs up], which is vital to faring well in popular culture--i.e. some people's god..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

You should have focused less on trying to affix a label to me, and more on attempting to understand and then address my comments, since you failed miserably at each.

 

But, you did scored very high on vacuous verbal hand-wringing [thumbs up], which is vital to faring well in popular culture--i.e. some people's god..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I didn't label you. I spoke of a mindset and the possibility of dubious claims of "conservativism" likely parading incessantly as fundamentalism.

 

As you appear neither to be conservative nor fundamentalist neither label can be appropriately applied to you as, in my my experience with you over the years, you are neither. I don't know what you are.

 

Once again, you fail to comprehend the full magnitude of human relationships that cannot be so uneducatedly placed into a normative box. Until you can overcome such a deficiency, you'll never grasp, even remotely, the concepts of aloneness and togetherness.

[wenglund]

Once again, you fail to comprehend the full magnitude of human relationships that cannot be so uneducatedly placed into a normative box. Until you can overcome such a deficiency, you'll never grasp, even remotely, the concepts of aloneness and togetherness.

 

My primary interest isn't in feelings like "aloneness or togehterness" but in beliefs and deeds that draw me closer to Christ and help progress the human family.

 

Fully understanding togetherness is of little comfort if we all are heading to hell in a hand basket.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

My primary interest isn't in feelings like "aloneness or togehterness" but in beliefs and deeds that draw me closer to Christ and help progress the human family.

 

Fully understanding togetherness is of little comfort if we all are heading to hell in a hand basket.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

But part of our drawing closer to Christ is through human relationship as we are all God's creation. The creation narrative of Adam and Eve cannot be oversimplified in procreative and gender defining terms. That does a huge disservice to God's honor and glory.

 

The hand basket was created and commandeered by those who choose to reject the authority of Christ's love and message as it is clearly stated in the Gospels. These persons being the regressive "moral majority". Only Christ can redeem humanity. Who do you think he's going to address first? Those who believe in evolutionary sociology? Or those who fought liberty in His name?

[BlueDreams]

Well since I haven't seen it yet, here's the full article for you guys to peruse: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf

 

Personally, I'm skeptical about any news reports that are given about research because of the problems of oversimplifying the research and ignoring both limitations and strengths to a study for their own sets of biases (ie. a story that sells). But I don't think people should be all that judgmental about parents of same-sex couples, regardless if one believes that the best familial structure entails a male-female stable pair. I personally believe it, but I also believe that kids are ridiculously resilient and sturdy....having another structure (that's also relatively stable, especially) will generally create a perfectly health happy kid. And assuming the worse is generally unwarranted and unhelpful.

 

 

That said, so far from what I can tell, it's a larger study. Which is cool. But it has a number of similar sampling/demographic problems: 

 

-          They used convenience sampling techniques

-          High educational attainment (majority)

-          Most households made above 60K

o   (sub pops may have a larger margin of error because of this

-          Most children came during their current relationship, 14% came from either their or their partner’s previous heterosexual relationships

-          Most were currently in a relationship and most had their children full time

-          Of those who were conceive (by one or the other), 83% came through means other than heterosexual intercourse

 

 

This would make the robustness of the study limited for the fact that the number of children in families outside of these brackets were largely small, would have a larger margin of error, and the skew already leans towards that which would be more stable households (high education, high access/resources household with highly intentional creations of children into an already fairly stable couples relationship).

 

I did find it cool that they noted in factors of perceived stigma into it. Though it doesn't really explain why this correlates (it assumes the reason).

 

Also, valentinus, the article you quoted isn't really a summary of the research but a loosely based assertion of their opinion. I couldn't see any immediate results that would directly correlate with those assumptions (though I could have easily missed it....I don't really enjoy reading research that I'm not paid to read ).

 

EDIT: Another potential concern is the mean age of the children. The average age of the kids is 5 with the median being 4.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 9, 2014 by BlueDreams

[wenglund]

But part of our drawing closer to Christ is through human relationship as we are all God's creation. The creation narrative of Adam and Eve cannot be oversimplified in procreative and gender defining terms. That does a huge disservice to God's honor and glory.

 

One can't really oversimplify by rightly acknowledging man and women, and their sexual relationship, as an essential element of the garden narrative, let alone how it would be a disservice to God to grant that he created male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply for a reason--i.e. to further God's creation after the fall.

 

Clearly, it wouldn't make sense were, as the trite saying goes, the Garden narrative to have been about Adam and Steve rather than Adam and Eve.

 

It also wouldn't make sense were it about friendship w/o benefits between Adam and Eve.

 

And, the procreative relationship between man and women isn't just essential to the Garden narrative, but it is essential to human existence, as God wills it, if not also to exalted eternal existence.

 

Therein is God truly and ultimately honored and glorified (God's creations, and the honor and glory associated therewith, are expanded and exemplified through procreation)--which is why legitimate procreative sexual relations is of such a sacred nature, thus making procreative sexual transgression of serious nature.

 

The same can not be said, if not the opposite, about sex relations between people of the same gender. In no rational sense is God glorified and honored through men putting their generative parts in the fecal reserve of other men. Indeed, I would suggest that such is an abomination before God, though I can accept that you may see it differently.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[carbon dioxide]

i have no problem with the idea that same sex couples can give children love, food, clothing, shelter and a lot of other stuff.  Many good kids can be found in single parent homes.  I am just curious to see how the children grow up in these same sex marriage homes during those critical teenager years. 

[Yirgacheffe]

 

And, while I appreciate your anecdotal experience with your grandnephews, the foster care system, even with all its good intents, though also with no small troubles, ought to provide at least some indication whether biological connections are of value or not. The lack thereof may not be a deal breaker, but to me its presence is meaningful and of value.

 

Many family courts seem to agree when deciding what is in the best interest of the child.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe why the adoptive families I am acquainted with are so dysfunctional.

[blooit]

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

 

From the article:

 

So in other words, the study defines what a better upbringing is (equitable distribution of work, acceptance of different "lifestyles",etc.) and then goes on to find that (surprise surprise) kids raised in same sex families are doing great.  It's amazing how much we have allowed the narrative to be written for us.

[california boy]

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-

You are right it is the constitution that guarantees equal protection for everyone. If the

government decided who got to married based on how they raise children there would be a lot of straight couples that would not be allowed to marry. Anyone who divorces has already shown that don't know how to raise children.

It is the religious right and you in particular that has tried to falsely claim that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because it is. bad for children.

Edited July 9, 2014 by california boy

[Rob Osborn]

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.

Complete BS!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

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. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

There is a narrative about this being circulated in certain portions of the media and that it is a good idea. The kids are really the communities.

[thesometimesaint]

I submit the public school system as exhibit #1 that flies in the face of your baseless claim that state has no desire to raise children. Whether it has the ability or not is open to considerable question.

 

And, while I appreciate your anecdotal experience with your grandnephews, the foster care system, even with all its good intents, though also with no small troubles, ought to provide at least some indication whether biological connections are of value or not. The lack thereof may not be a deal breaker, but to me its presence is meaningful and of value.

 

Many family courts seem to agree when deciding what is in the best interest of the child.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Free public education is the backbone of our country. So the dumber the better? Great way to run a country. NO! The public school system has no desire or ability to raise children. ALL it can do is provide enough education to allow students to make informed consent.

 

Foster care at best is only a third best case necessity.

1. Bio parents

2..Adoptive parents.

3. Foster care.

 

As they should when the bio parents are either unwilling or unable to provide a minimal support and care.

[rpn]

Fact is that there is at present very little truly scientific studies on the issue.   The early research was done by soliciting volunteers (and it sounds like this one too).   Obviously those who have troubled home life aren't likely to be statistically represented in such studies.  

 

At some point there may be a way to really study random same gendered families.   But we likely have a long way to go.   Even if you have a census identified household with two adults of the same sex, that doesn't mean they are a couple and their children a product of same sex parent raising.   Without parents idenfying themselves as such (and those who will are clearly in a different place that could affect the results), how can you talk to a truly random sample.

[thesometimesaint]

Fact is that there is at present very little truly scientific studies on the issue.   The early research was done by soliciting volunteers (and it sounds like this one too).   Obviously those who have troubled home life aren't likely to be statistically represented in such studies.  

 

At some point there may be a way to really study random same gendered families.   But we likely have a long way to go.   Even if you have a census identified household with two adults of the same sex, that doesn't mean they are a couple and their children a product of same sex parent raising.   Without parents idenfying themselves as such (and those who will are clearly in a different place that could affect the results), how can you talk to a truly random sample.

 

While it is technically possible to interview just one couple and get a truly representative sample. In practice such is virtually impossible. So we interview as many as practical, and present the stats within a range of +/-.

Edited July 9, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

It's no longer popular to do research that results in actual facts on this issue for fear of losing one's position or grant. There is a huge body of scientific work that went on for decades and ended about ten years ago showing homosexuallity to be a huge health and mental risk factor for all involved.

[thesometimesaint]

It's no longer popular to do research that results in actual facts on this issue for fear of losing one's position or grant. There is a huge body of scientific work that went on for decades and ended about ten years ago showing homosexuallity to be a huge health and mental risk factor for all involved.

 

Cough Cough. The advocates of the moon landing hoax don't get much funding or position either.

[Rob Osborn]

So in other words, the study defines what a better upbringing is (equitable distribution of work, acceptance of different "lifestyles",etc.) and then goes on to find that (surprise surprise) kids raised in same sex families are doing great.  It's amazing how much we have allowed the narrative to be written for us.

Amen. LDS families must rank at the complete worst on their criteria.

[USU78]

Cough Cough. The advocates of the moon landing hoax don't get much funding or position either.

 

This makes no sense.  Decades of clinical and other research showing homosexuals generally suffer a very high (some would say atrociously high) incidence of other mental and emotional diseases and syndromes as well as physical ailments, and the offspring of such persons suffer a very high (some would say atrociously high) incidence of mental, physical, emotional and social impairments, both of which demonstrating a pretty high (some would say indisputably high) causal link back to homosexuality, but since the results don't fit the politically correct narrative of gay = happy and well adjusted and no danger to anybody especially not children you mock the necessarily resultant lack of funding for further research?

 

Please explain.

[Rob Osborn]

Just wondering...this topic being debated doesnt have anything to do with the pot shortage in Seattle does it?

[DJBrown]

Well since I haven't seen it yet, here's the full article for you guys to peruse: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf

 

Personally, I'm skeptical about any news reports that are given about research because of the problems of oversimplifying the research and ignoring both limitations and strengths to a study for their own sets of biases (ie. a story that sells). But I don't think people should be all that judgmental about parents of same-sex couples, regardless if one believes that the best familial structure entails a male-female stable pair. I personally believe it, but I also believe that kids are ridiculously resilient and sturdy....having another structure (that's also relatively stable, especially) will generally create a perfectly health happy kid. And assuming the worse is generally unwarranted and unhelpful.

 

 

That said, so far from what I can tell, it's a larger study. Which is cool. But it has a number of similar sampling/demographic problems: 

 

-          They used convenience sampling techniques

-          High educational attainment (majority)

-          Most households made above 60K

o   (sub pops may have a larger margin of error because of this

-          Most children came during their current relationship, 14% came from either their or their partner’s previous heterosexual relationships

-          Most were currently in a relationship and most had their children full time

-          Of those who were conceive (by one or the other), 83% came through means other than heterosexual intercourse

 

 

This would make the robustness of the study limited for the fact that the number of children in families outside of these brackets were largely small, would have a larger margin of error, and the skew already leans towards that which would be more stable households (high education, high access/resources household with highly intentional creations of children into an already fairly stable couples relationship).

 

I did find it cool that they noted in factors of perceived stigma into it. Though it doesn't really explain why this correlates (it assumes the reason).

 

Also, valentinus, the article you quoted isn't really a summary of the research but a loosely based assertion of their opinion. I couldn't see any immediate results that would directly correlate with those assumptions (though I could have easily missed it....I don't really enjoy reading research that I'm not paid to read ).

 

EDIT: Another potential concern is the mean age of the children. The average age of the kids is 5 with the median being 4.  

 

With luv,

BD

 

The fact that the results are all based upon self reporting via a survey of same sex parents make this study almost worthless.  The bias in this study cannot be overstated.  

 

People love to criticize the work of Mark Regnerus, but in my opinion, his is the most objective research on the topic.  It is based entirely upon surveys of children that have come from a wide range of family types.  His data suggest that same sex parent homes produce kids with challenges comparable to single mother homes.

 

His paper is found here:

 

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_july_2012_ssr.pdf

Edited July 9, 2014 by DJBrown

[thesometimesaint]

 

This makes no sense.  Decades of clinical and other research showing homosexuals generally suffer a very high (some would say atrociously high) incidence of other mental and emotional diseases and syndromes as well as physical ailments, and the offspring of such persons suffer a very high (some would say atrociously high) incidence of mental, physical, emotional and social impairments, both of which demonstrating a pretty high (some would say indisputably high) causal link back to homosexuality, but since the results don't fit the politically correct narrative of gay = happy and well adjusted and no danger to anybody especially not children you mock the necessarily resultant lack of funding for further research?

 

Please explain.

 

 

Homosexuals experience a higher rate of suicidal ideation, and substance abuse than heterosexuals. When discrimination is factored in the difference largely disappears.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

 

The term gay has been loosely associated with homosexuality for a couple of hundred years now. Though the word association is more common now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

 

The vast majority of childhood sex is with child heterosexuals. Further homosexual rape of children is a small percentage of all rapes of children. Pedophilia is predominately a heterosexual act.

SEE http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

 

It should be easy for the LDS to understand. We took the politically incorrect slur "Mormon" and made it into our nickname.

[DJBrown]

Homosexuals experience a higher rate of suicidal ideation, and substance abuse than heterosexuals. When discrimination is factored in the difference largely disappears.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

 

The term gay has been loosely associated with homosexuality for a couple of hundred years now. Though the word association is more common now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

 

The vast majority of childhood sex is with child heterosexuals. Further homosexual rape of children is a small percentage of all rapes of children. Pedophilia is predominately a heterosexual act.

SEE http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

 

It should be easy for the LDS to understand. We took the politically incorrect slur "Mormon" and made it into our nickname.

 

I beg to differ in these claims about sexual abuse of kids.  Adult male abuse of male kids represents about a third of child molestation cases.  The percentage of adults who consider themselves homosexual is around 3 percent.  About 70 percent of adult males who abuse adolescent males consider themselves heterosexual.  So there is a fair amount of blurring of definitions.  But if you look at the prevalence of male on male child sexual abuse, there is a disproportionate amount of homosexual abuse of adolescent males.  

[BlueDreams]

The fact that the results are all based upon self reporting via a survey of same sex parents make this study almost worthless.  The bias in this study cannot be overstated.  

 

People love to criticize the work of Mark Regnerus, but in my opinion, his is the most objective research on the topic.  It is based entirely upon surveys of children that have come from a wide range of family types.  His data suggest that same sex parent homes produce kids with challenges comparable to single mother homes.

 

His paper is found here:

 

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_july_2012_ssr.pdf

I'm aware of that study. I probably won't look at it again (at least right now). It came to mind to me as well....but not as better research, per se. More as research with a few other distinctive methodology concerns. All research has limitations and research of SSA parenting continues to have the same problem of self-reporting, snowball sampling, and too specific populations within a subsection for study. Or too general to the point that any specific understanding about it is a little wishy washy. I think both research points to a more important factor --> kids do best in stable households with good resources. Neither strongly state what either of the conclusions are (both in the media and in the actual articles).

 

 

  With luv,

BD