Posted on 06/15/2012 6:39:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
As the nation debates whether to institutionalize same-sex marriage, social scientists have been weighing in -- often with a heavy hand. As Mark Regnerus, author of a new study examining outcomes for children in a variety of home environments, notes social science regarding gay and lesbian parenting has swung from "presents challenges," to "no difference" to "superior" in the space of one decade. The American Psychological Association declared flatly in 2005 that, "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." That prompted skepticism from Regnerus and agreement to undertake a large study, funded by conservative-leaning foundations, to examine the evidence.
Regnerus's results, published in the journal Social Science Research, cast doubt on the "no difference" claim and have subjected Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas, to personal vilification. His results have been denounced as "junk science" and "pseudo-scientific misinformation" by the leading gay advocacy groups, prompting even Will Saletan, a liberal writer for Slate, which published an explanatory piece by Regnerus about his results, to caution " ... before we all go get our stones, pitchforks, and kerosene ... trust science ... Yes, Regnerus is socially conservative. But he's reflective, open-minded, and reality-based."
The studies on children raised by homosexual parents that predated Regnerus's work suffered from a number of flaws. They tended to be examinations of "mostly white, well-educated, lesbian parents" living in metropolitan areas. They were often based on parental reports of childhood outcomes and were comprised of people who had been recruited at lesbian bookstores and other contact points -- skewing the sample in favor of those eager to make a point. Not all of the studies were marred by such flaws, but nearly all were small and thus lacked, in Regnerus's words, "enough statistical power to detect meaningful differences should they exist."
Regnerus's study, the New Family Structures Study, interviewed 15,000 adults aged 18-39 and asked dozens of questions about their lives, including whether their mother or father had ever been involved in a same-sex relationship. Among those whose parents had been involved in same-sex relationships, the outcomes were significantly worse than for children raised by married mothers and fathers. Even after controlling for factors such as age, race, gender or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they lived, those raised in homes with one (or more) gay parents reported that they experienced more depression, ill health, unemployment, infidelity, drug use, trouble with the law, sexual partners, sexual victimization, and unhappy childhood memories.
Critics protest that the NFSS is comparing the gold standard -- intact married-parent homes -- with families that have experienced many levels of instability. That's true. Only a tiny percentage of the adults in the NFSS study spent their entire childhoods with their gay parent and a committed partner. The rest had seen their parents' marriages dissolve, either because of sexual orientation issues or for other reasons or they never formed and they lived in a variety of household configurations during their formative years. Regnerus does not deny this saying, "One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents ... is household instability, and plenty of it. ... While we know that good things tend to happen ... when people provide households that last, parents in the (study) who had same-sex relationships were the least likely to exhibit such stability."
Same-sex marriage advocates argue that once gay marriage is universalized, GLBT couples will be able to offer the same kind of stability that married heterosexual couples do. That may turn out to be true. But a) it may not, and b) it doesn't disprove the evidence NFSS has compiled that earlier "no difference" studies were excessively cheery.
Regnerus declines to advise about whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not. But he does make a point that his critics have entirely missed: gay marriages, even if they achieve stability and durability, will continue to lack the "kin altruism" that marks biological parents. Though it isn't essential -- many adoptive couples succeed wonderfully without it -- the evidence suggests that the biological tie between parent and child is important in securing the very stability so necessary for children to thrive. Far, far too many heterosexual married couples divorce or fail to marry at all these days. And yet the stability of married, male/female parents outstrips that of adoptive, stepparent or co-habiting parents. If same-sex parents achieve a comparable level of stability, they will achieve what adoptive, stepparent and co-habiting couples have not.
True.
And yet the stability of married, male/female parents outstrips that of adoptive, stepparent or co-habiting parents.
A lasting marriage is a lasting marriage. No other association is a lasting marriage. This ought to go without saying!
If same-sex parents achieve a comparable level of stability, they will achieve what adoptive, stepparent and co-habiting couples have not.
But even if they did, children living with a same-sex couple, even children who are the biological children of one of the partners, are not being reared by their own mother and father, or even by A mother and father at all.
If your a kid, how do you explain it when your mom walks into your school and has a moustache and a beard?¿?
Homosexuals are mentally ill. While it is true that some mentally ill people raise children, and raise them successfully, this is yet another strike against the notion that same sex couples are just as good as normal parents.
If we could just figure out how to make (not by government force) women who can afford to have babies have a lot of babies and make (not by government force or abortion) women who cannot afford babies not have babies, this discussion wouldn’t be necessary as there would be no need or market for gay parents. The problem in our culture since the feminist move ment is the wrong women are having too many babies and the right women are not having enough babies. I am 33 years old with a 3 year old boy and I feel like a teen parent taking him to things involving other kids because most middle and upper-middle class women wait until they are in their 40s to have kids these days, and by then, it is usually too late and there is also a good chance, if they do conceive, the baby won’t be healthy.
I'm tired of words that seem to be designed to foment conversation, but subliminally are meant to direct a conversation in a desired way.
So I guess this thread will tear down hetero and queers equally and in the end (no pun intended), the article caused a lot of thought where perhaps there was none.
Anyone familiar with my posts will remember my remembrance of a scene in Ben Hur ...
How do you fight an idea?
With another idea.
Yes...next question.
This brings to mind the lesbian bookstore owners in the satiric sketch comedy show, Portlandia. The show is available on Netflix. Hilarious!
FOX News: Study Finds Host of Challenges for Kids of Gay Parents
There is no NEED for "gay" parents now. There is a demand BY homosexuals to have children. Lesbians can give birth to their own, either through artificial reproduction or by having sex with a man. Homosexual men can provide sperm, buy an egg, and rent a uterus.
Homosexuals are not needed to provide adoptive homes: they are deliberately prioritized over stable married couples for ideological reasons. And even if there were no children in the whole United States available for adoption, homosexuals could pay for children from other countries, just as they are doing at present.
Yes.
They have no right to co-opt what they, by their own choice, have denied. They are kidnapping the child and stealing the status and dignity of human sexuality. The Torah forbids both crimes.
They have no right to co-opt what they, by their own choice, have denied. They are kidnapping the child and stealing the status and dignity of human sexuality. The Torah forbids both crimes.
They have no right to co-opt what they, by their own choice, have denied. They are kidnapping the child and stealing the status and dignity of human sexuality. The Torah forbids both crimes.
http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Californian-Lesbian-Couple-Say-Son-Wants-To-Be-A-Girl.aspx
http://www.nomblog.com/18327/
it is scientifically impossible for two women to raise a child alone and offer the child a father.
it is scientifically impossible for two men to raise a child alone and offer the child a mother.
period. the end.
passing a law is just symbolism over substance.
this is the “all we want is...” lie that homosexuals always use.
“Gay parents” is really an oxymoron. The word parent implies a man and a woman for without one of each there could be no child. It it never a good idea to mess with the way God ordered things.
you do not need any religious reference to know the science behind the fact. A abnormal environment will have a tendency to produce an abnormal result.
there are multiple examples of learned behavior which cause humans to deviate from the norm. Humans are by design a male and female and baby makes three.
two of the same gender produce ZERO.
simple science that can not be changed any more than a law can proclaim the earth flat, or the sun circles the earth.
Silly question, but YES! Those kids will be messed up.
It supposedly links the Regnerus' study and another one, plus references. I haven't tried the links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.