The Washington Times reports on two new studies we are going to be hearing much more about in the coming days and weeks.
The first is by Prof. Mark Regnerus:
Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married, mother-father parents.
“The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said in his study in Social Science Research.
Using a new, “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.
He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.
Findings such as these do not support claims that there are “no differences” between gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents, said Mr. Regnerus, who helped develop the New Family Structures Study at the university.
And a second study by Prof. Loren Marks:
The second study, also in Social Science Research, takes a critical look at the basis of an oft-cited American Psychological Association (APA) report on gay parenting.
The APA brief says, “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,” said Loren Marks, associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University.
However, after looking at the 59 studies that undergird this assertion, “the jury is still out,” Mr. Marks said. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”
Problems with the APA-cited studies were their tiny size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and a failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identity.
51 Comments
Yay! This is getting so much press!
Let's put the myths of the "family diversity" advocates to rest. And let's continue with more and more rigorous research.
Im.glad the research ia getting updated. Time for the truth to stop being hidden
A victory for the innocents and quite possibly the last dying gasp for the homosexual agenda.
It's great to see these actual studies being released and getting attention. Previous "studies" by Charlotte Patterson (a lesbian) and others are in fact little more than pro-gay propaganda. These previous "studies" are strong evidence that the APA is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Shocking results from the research of a sel-described "Christian professor".
Quote 1: ""As Christians, our lives should reflect our relationship with God and our desire to glorify Him," Regnerus says. "I've noticed that some Christian professors see a disconnect between their faith and their profession. I believe that if your faith matters, it should inform what you teach and what you research." ...and evidently, the findings of that research.
His "research" was funded by the Witherspoon Institute which opposes marriage equality and advocates for same-sex marriage bans. Nope, no bias here.
Robert George, NOM's co-founder, is a Senior Fellow at The Witherspoon Institute which funded this study.
Wait. A gay judge in California has already decreed the facts are otherwise. No further studies can be accepted. and no criticism of the old studies can be valid according to his findings of fact.
A gay judge's self interest can't possibly inform his findings, right?
Well, 14th, I think we should have a look at the research parameters, such as size of the studies, subject populations, and other sources of potential bias before you start screaming bias based on funding. The bias of the studies conducted by the pro-ss"m" "researchers" was clear. The smartest thing the researchers in the present study could do is conduct a squeaky clean study to rule out all bias; after all, we have thousands of years of marriage and the resulting advancement of civilization to be confirmed. Same-sex couples raising strangers' kids is social experimentation with the children serving as guinea pigs.
"Raising strangers kids...guinea pigs". Shouldn't you be strapped to a chair someplace receiving electro shock while images of naked athletic men flash on a screen Overcame?
14th - What do naked athletic men have to do with anything? I'm talking about same-sex couples, sexual orientation is irrelevant. I'm equally against straight same-sex couples getting married and buying, er, adopting, kids as I am against homosexual same-sex couples from doing so.
Agreed, Overcame. Critique the study on its merits. Trying to discredit the researcher only shows that the study *can't* be shown as invalid.
But if we're going to focus on the researchers themselves, funny that the work of Charlotte Patterson and Nanette Gartrell, both lesbian mothers, is beyond dispute, although their work lacks the methodological strengths of this study by Regnerus.
Not to mention that Gartrell's study, though published in Pediatrics, was funded by The Gill Foundation and several other LGBT advocacy groups.
Sorry folks, it's an anti-gay researcher doing a study funded by an anti-gay organization. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.
A good initial analysis on the study's flaws and obvious bias: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/45512
So nice to see the ss"m"-ers having to defend against research showing the truth. Much better than hearing about the so-called "research" from their biased "researchers."
From 14th link:
"there is one significant strength to this study which makes it stand out. Unlike prior studies, the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is based on a national probability sampled population. This is the gold standard for all social science studies, and it’s extremely rare for a study to achieve that mark. As far as I am aware, all of the studies to date of gay and lesbian parenting use non-representative convenience samples."
Ummm, 14th, it appears your link admits the study to be far superior to earlier studies.
But thanks for linking.
Yes...to date the research on same-sex "parenting" has been flawed on a multitude of levels...and the researchers themselves have admitted these flaws and imited and biased sample size...
This study avoids those biases...opponents can only offer conjecture based on ad-hominum...not actuall proof of biased research.
This is just common sense.
Rick- He was able to achieve a national probability sample because of the large sum of anti-gay dollars funding his research. But how good (i.e. representatibe of the total population his sample may have been is irrelevant. If you'd read on, you'll see why. It's essentially an apples to oranges comparison that renders itself worthless. The fact that it places being in a same-sex relationship in the "negative" category is just one of many indicators of its anti-gay bias.
14th seems to have positioned himself into a corner of his own making. One were no amount of methodological research, peer review, accepted standards of samples, or dependability of outcome can overcome his charge of "bias"..
There is one group of studies that would not be "biased" under this egis....Studies that confirm the no-difference or superiority of same-sex "parenting".
I think it is fair to conclude that no rational person would ever allow their views on marriage, gender, childbearing and childrearing, and the proper orientation of the law concerning these essentials, to be dictated by what all sides admit are early-stage, incomplete, and politically charged studies.
We do not need statistical analysis to fully grasp and implement the simple truth that each child is the product of the union of one man and one woman, and the common good requires us to foster the long term union of parents and children in stable families.
Or, in other words, we do not need statistical analysis to fully grasp and implement the simple truth that marriage absolutely must be defended against the social engineers.
"...we do not need statistical analysis to fully grasp and implement the simple truth that marriage absolutely must be defended against the social engineers."
Actually Rick, you do. You can't insist that your predjudice be enshrined into our laws because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality then say you don't need to prove them. If you didn't need to, these anti-gay activist organizations wouldn't have spent 3/4 of a million dollars to fund this study. All they're trying to do here is create pseudo evidence they think will help them at SCOTUS. Fortunately, the court will be able to see how incredibly biased it is. Again, Robert George's organization funded this.
"You can't insist that your predjudice be enshrined into our laws"
>> Since our laws are well-established, it is sophistry to claim that prejudice is the motive for defending them.
Strike One.
"because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality"
>> Wrong. Pseudo-marriage had never so much as entered the most deranged of fever dreams when the laws concerning marriage were established.
The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times.
Our intention os to make it 37 this November, and then we will have done what our personal repsonsibiliy as citizens demanded.
We then will sit back and watch whether your hypothesis that the SCOTUS will bless a legal conspiracy expressly directed toward disenfranchising the voters in 37 states by explicitly refusing to acknowledge direct Supreme Court precedent will fly.
If I were on your side of this I would certainly have a full crash team standing by.
because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality then say you don't need to prove them.
"You can't insist that your predjudice be enshrined into our laws"
>> Since our laws are well-established, it is sophistry to claim that prejudice is the motive for defending them.
Strike One.
"because of claimed negative consequences of marriage equality"
>> Wrong. Pseudo-marriage had never so much as entered the most deranged of fever dreams when the laws concerning marriage were established.
The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times.
As for the rest see #23 above.
Rick,
You're not making any sense.
The "well established" laws you speak of - you know, those 32 marriage amendments, are less than a decade old and most certainly are motivated by predjudice against gays and lesbians.
I'm trying to find the point in the rest of what you wrote. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the fact that same-sex-marriage wasn't an issue when the country was founded proves your claims about the negative consequences of marriage equality? Huh????
Then you write "The burden of proof is therefore on *you*, and you have failed to meet it 33 consecutive times." Again, huh? The fact that discriminatory amendments have won at the ballot box proves that same-sex marriage has negative consequences??? I don't think so. The burden of proof is actually on *you*. When you advocate for discrimination in the law, you need to have a damn good reason for doing so. You don't have that level of scrutiny at the ballot box but you do have it in the courtroom. And that's why you have and will continue to lose there time and time again.
14th
you are misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2
2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
Again, 14th.
You assert that a right exists, which the Supreme Court has already established it doesn't.
You then set about to overturn this established law.
One of the important aspects in doing so, is to demonstrate that your fellow citizens agree with your wishes in this regard.
In this you have failed- and the word "colossally" would not seem out of place to describe the totality of that failure.
So.
You have no precedent at law, you have no mandate from the people......
I hope this helps to make it clear why we are confident that this is the year it all becomes very clear to you; your strategy was always seven times less clever than it appeared.
Again, 14th.
You have no precedent at law, you have no mandate from the people......
I hope this helps to make it clear why we are confident that this is the year it all becomes very clear to you; your strategy was always seven times less clever than it appeared.
Let's put this study in perspective.
DoE
Yes, common sense.
A same sex household is never an *intact* biological family, which is the gold standard for raising children.
And this is very telling:
"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their tiny size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and a failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identity."
Even when focusing on gender and sexuality, children raised with gay parents exhibit higher levels of non- gender related behavior and less exclusively straight sexual identity.
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
WOW! An absolutely fabulous study. It also involved large sample of families too unlike the sodomites double standard. The one done by a lesbian with only a small group of families and comparing outcomes to single family homes.
(1) Glad this is in the Washington newspapers and reading their comments section showed people their get it. Hammer this point to win big at the next election.
(2) We need to get this to the Minnesota group. I would like to see Kelly Yanta cover this in her next video.
(3) Make sure this reaches Maryland and Maine to fight back the lies being used by the sodomites.
In January, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Baker was improperly applied to dismiss a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. This case originated in the same county as Baker.
An excerpt: Appellants here argue that MN DOMA violates the Minnesota Constitution. The district court determined that MN DOMA does not violate the Minnesota Constitution, relying on Baker, stating that it had "no reason to believe that the result in Baker would have been different had the Baker [appellants] alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution." But we do not agree that Baker forecloses an argument based on the Minnesota Constitution, and conclude that the district court inappropriately dismissed the matter on a rule-12 motion.
Full decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6771166795063120797&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
@ 14
The overwhelming majority of judges ruling on the subject of marriage have upheld traditional marriage, judge shopping and relentless lawfare notwithstanding.
And all the rulings overturning the federal DOMA have been properly stayed.
And every state that has held a referendum on state DOMA's has upheld traditional marriage.
"And every state that has held a referendum on state DOMA's has upheld traditional marriage."
Discrimination and bigotry are not justification for discrimination and bigotry.
Does it bother none of you that NOM put a blatant falsehood in the title of this post's graphic? Read the study -- it is NOT about comparing two moms to a mom and dad. Don't any of you care about whether NOM is lying?
Tam,
Are you saying the photoshot was not from the Washington Times?
@Publius-
Everyone has his or her own definition of "traditional" marriage. In Loving v Virginia, the SCOTUS ruled that limiting marriage to the "traditional" spouses of the same race was unconstitutional. So claiming that the SCOTUS has always ruled in favor of "traditional" marriage is patently false.
Just look at the box and it tells you everthing you need to see. Every comparison in the box proves the case for mom/dad. When you see the trolls come on here and harp the same old points you begin to see it is all about them and their lustfull sex acts with no regard for children.
Woody...playing semantic games is not an argument.
Both you, plubious and SCOTUS knows what traditional marriage means.
Indeed - Loving v Virginia was srtruck down in its main holding not based on the 14th amendment claim (although that was brought in earlier in the opinion) but on that traditional definition of marriage you think dosent exist or is subjective.
Indeed - anti-mescegenation laws were not part and parcel of marriage laws but rather were tacted on to other Jim crow laws that inforced segregation of the races.
In fact most such laws (as evidenced by there poipularity outside the south and inclusion of asians & hsipanic intermarriage - were legacies of the progressive eugenics movment,
Nothing about Loving changed the very definition of marriage.
"Nothing about Loving changed the very definition of marriage".
So Fitz, in your own words, what is the very definition of marriage? Does it include that women are property of their husbands? Be sure to include it in your definotion, otherwise you will be leaving out a fundamental characteristic of "traditional marriage".
Woody:
Marriage= that long term, stable union of the two complementary genders of the human species, from which union children commonly result, and within which union they are best nurtured.
Now go prepare for the oncoming disaster we are preparing for you this November.
Woody:
Marriage= that long term, stable union of the two complementary genders of the human species, from which union children commonly result, and within which union they are best nurtured.
Now go and prepare for the incredible electoral disaster we are preparing for you this November.
Yes, Randy, I'm saying the graphic is not from the Washington Times. Click the link NOM provided and check for yourself.
And it seems that no one cares about NOM's dishonesty. So much for the moral high ground.
43
Loving reiterates "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, regardless of race, or, by extension, politics, or whether the man and the woman are heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, for all the law cares.
37
There is no discrimination in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female. NOBODY is left out who is either.
Plus, the law doesn't say that the man and/or the woman must be heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, or atheist, or Republican, for all the law cares.
Woody asks...
"So Fitz, in your own words, what is the very definition of marriage? Does it include that women are property of their husbands? Be sure to include it in your definotion, otherwise you will be leaving out a fundamental characteristic of "traditional marriage"."??
Here is another old feminist canard that makes its way into the "thought" of your typical gay "marriage" advocate.
The truth of the matter is that NO..woman werte not\..."the property" of their husbands, you cant kill your wife ...or sell your wife to another...like a piece of land, or cattle, or a bed frame....
A much better understanding would be to say that both parties are susumned in the marriage into a single legal unit. That is still the case today in many regards. This had many advantages and pitfalls for both husband and wife...although it could be fair to say that the woman was (on the whole) more disadvataged...but only by contemprary standards.
The fact that Woody repeats these toupes demonstrates at least to things...1) his ideological lens that he views the world (and its scewed nature) 2) His fundemental disrespect and casual distaste for the insitution itself.
Most marriage curruptors have this false understanding of the history of marriage and this helps explain why they have so little reservation in changing the insitution so thouroughly....they think its fundementally archaic and patriachal and oppresive and repressive to begin with.
Yes, it is very helpful to our electoral victories to encourage marriage corrupters to actually share the degree of hatred and contempt they possess for traditional marriage.
Nothing more helpful than that.
Fitz-
Are you arguing that women were not once considered chattel of their husbands?
As far as being archaic is concerned, women are no longer considered property of their husbands because marriage has evolved. Now marriage is evolving again, to include same sex couples. Get with the times.
Rick-
You forgot to include in your definition that marriage is a legal, civil contract between mutally consenting adults, not subject to popular approval from strangers. Also, marriage is not always long term (as evidenced by a 50% divorce rate), the parties do not have to always and do not always complement one another (as evidenced by the divorce rate) and children are not a requisite to have or retain such a contract.
In short, the parties do not have to meet your definition and do not need your approval or consent to execute such a contract. Why do you think that you have any business and the right to tell mutually consenting adults how to live their lives?
One Trackback
[...] reprinted part of an article from the conservative Washington Times on the study as well as an article by NOM’s other [...]