Cross-posted from NRO's The Corner blog, where Maggie Gallagher originally published it:
Scott Rose, who writes that I have blood on my hands for opposing gay marriage (read this to get a flavor of who Scott Rose is and how he thinks), has filed an ethics complaint charging a serious scholar with “scientific misconduct” for publishing a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The study was incidentally reviewed by three major family sociologists, Paul Amato, Cynthia Osbourne, and David Eggebeen.
Will Saletan’s question about a “Liberal War on Science?” is beginning to look prophetic. Will the academic community react against political attacks on scholarship like this? Or will liberalism trump the guild? Stay tuned.
58 Comments
Come on, now. The attacks are due to the purposefully misleading way the data in the study are being presented. To quote Slate (which is link to in Will Saletan's article):
"The study, which found inferior economic, educational, social, and psychological outcomes among children of gay parents, comes across as evidence that homosexuals are unfit to raise kids. But the study doesn’t document the failure of same-sex marriage. It documents the failure of the closeted, broken, and unstable households that preceded same-sex marriage."
And again: "s same-sex marriage a good idea? Or is an intact biological family the best environment for raising a child? The answer may turn out to be yes and yes."
The study is often used to say that gays can't be good parents, and that marriage should be limited to one man, one woman for the sake of children. But that goes exactly against what the data show. It shows that limiting marriage leads to homosexuals leading closeted lives in opposite-sex marriages, having children, and then eventually poor outcomes for those children. If anything, the study is support for the importance, for children, of allowing homosexuals to marry, so that homosexuals can also provide stable loving environments for their children, instead of leading closeted lives that lead to broken homes.
First off Maggie, you never have nor shall you ever will have blood on your hands. You have a wonderfull heart and mind and any intelligent person can see your love for children. They cannot vote so therefore have no political power whatsoever. It is up to us adults to represent what is best for the kids. The evidence is real and overwhelming: children do best in homes raised by mothers and fathers. That is what this is all about and the study done proves this.
Again the opposition unable to refute the evidence always has to rely on personal attacks and persecution. The other side more and more shows how they could care less about what is best for children. It is all about their sexual lusts and if the kids are in the way then just cast them aside.
Only an idiot or someone who is close-minded would actually believe children are better off without either a mother or a father.
@John, You are completely missing the point of the study. The study shows that children DO NOT do best in homes raised by their mother and father, if either their mother and father is gay. By forcing gays into opposite-sex marriages, limiting marriage to male/female unions actually leads to poorer outcomes for children.
So who is it again who doesn't care about the children?
Maggie is right. Will Saletan’s article in Slate was prophetic. Bigots, who can’t stand hearing anything that challenges their ideologies, are going after Regnerus and the SSR journal.
It’s fine to criticize the NFSS and note its limitations, much of which were acknowledged by Regnerus, and even by most pro-marriage pundits like Maggie.
Criticism is fine. I actually hope SSMers will lend criticisms to the same-sex parenting research that they’ve been pushing for years!
But ethics complaints? Desperation—pure and simple.
I also agree with Maggie that Regnerus will be fine. Let’s just hope no one is intimidated by the reaction to NFSS and decides to back away from pursuing hot research topics.
I’m glad Regnerus expressed that he’s OK with “navigating controversy a bit…[and is] less concerned about making my professional peers happy and more about studying interesting things..”
The interview in which he made that statement can be found here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/06/q-a-with-mark-regnerus-about-the-background-of-his-new-study/
@Jon,
"The study shows that children DO NOT do best in homes raised by their mother and father, if either their mother and father is gay. By forcing gays into opposite-sex marriages, limiting marriage to male/female unions actually leads to poorer outcomes for children."
Jon, stop misrepresenting the study, as you have done before.
It DOES show that children do best in the intact family (a married mother and father).
The gay or lesbian parents measured had a previous heterosexual relationship, and went on to have at least one same-sex relationship. There were no children studied in the lesbian mother and gay father categories that were living with their married biological parents.
The LM and GF categories were not people who were living in a heterosexual marriage, while suppressing their homosexual desires. If there was, by chance, a child in the sample being raised by a gay father or lesbian mother in an unhappy opposite-sexed marriage, they were categorized as belonging to the intact family.
@Ash
Will you, then, offer your opinion in my post #1 about the misuse of the study by conservatives? The fact is that people are using the study as an anti-SSM thing, when it has nothing to do with SSM (and has everything to do with homosexuals living closeted lives in opposite-sex marriages). The study doesn't just have flaws -- it is being grossly misinterpreted and misused to attack same-sex parents.
Sure, the studies of same-sex parents aren't perfect, either, but they are at least studies that looked at same-sex parents. There is currently no evidence to show that same-sex parents can't be good parents, and the only evidence there is shows that they do well as parents, and yet people now latch on to the Regnerus study to discredit same-sex parents.
I really can not let go unremarked Maggie Gallagher's attempts to tie me to a supposed "Liberal war on science."
Firstly, my father holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has taught there, as well as at numerous additional prestigious institutions, including the University of Paris, the University of Western Switzerland, the University of Minnesota, which has one of the top Chemical Engineering departments in the world, the University of Puerto Rico and at the Technion in Israel.
In addition to all of those Chemical Engineer teaching credits, my father is consider the top world authority in the field of ferromagnetic fluids. There is a drop of one such fluid in virtually every computer hard drive, and in virtually every cell phone. The science of ferromagnetic fluids has led to advancements in areas as diverse as medical science, airplane engine science, the science of industrial seals, and moreover, ferrofluids have been used by artists in creation of artworks.
Gallagher by contrast holds a B.A in Theology; what are her credentials for evaluating anything science related?
I was raised in a family that placed unwavering importance on understanding science and adhering to scientific process when undertaking any scientific endeavor. From the earliest age, I was taken to my father's laboratories, where he patiently and lovingly explained the scientific marvels all around us, and made certain that I understood them. From him, I learned to love and to honor science. To illustrate how I was as a child; I was fascinated with meteorology. I had a home weather station with instruments on the roof. At 6, I wrote a letter to Norm MacDonald, a Boston TV weatherman, telling him that I wanted to be a meteorologist when I grew up. Norm invited me to the weather station at Hanscom Air Force Base. My Ph.D. Chemical Engineer father took me to the base; Norm MacDonald showed us around for hours, talking to me with greatest enthusiasm, and amazement over how much the 6-year-old me understood about the science of meteorology.
That Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage's heads fund a study by Mark Regnerus -- allegedly on the young adult children of gay parents -- hardly means that nobody may make accurate criticisms of the study. That Gallagher claims that such criticisms are "attacks on freedom of thought and scholarship" is typical of her ludicrous, hate-mongering propaganda, but not of scholarly method. The reason the Regnerus study has been judged invalid by knowledgeable social scientists is this; Regnerus did not make a valid comparison between his test group and his control group. That is as basic to sociology as 1 + 1 = 2 is to math.
Gallagher, funnily enough, linked to an article where Regnerus's own UT Colleague Debra Umberson said this: "Regnerus' study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison." She is making the same baseline criticism as I; that Regnerus did not make a valid comparison between his test group and his control group. Writing in the L.A. Times, Dr. Nathaniel Frank said the same thing: Regnerus: "fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant."
When is Maggie Gallagher going to explain to National Review readers -- or to anybody -- why it is imperative that a sociological study make a valid comparison between its test and its control groups?
I am the same Scott Rose whom Ms. Gallagher libels in her referenced post.
She linked to my article here: (http://tinyurl.com/88l6q63) in connection with an outright lie, by which she claims that I write that she has blood on her hands for opposing gay marriage. Nowhere have I said that for "opposing gay marriage" alone, Gallagher has "blood on her hands." In my article to which Gallagher links, I included a discussion of *her* prior article in which she examined the question of whether she has "blood on her hands." You will note that I did not provide a "yes" or "no" answer to that question. What I *did* do, was to expose Gallagher's lies about the youth suicide rate in Massachusetts, which, since state-level marriage equality for gay and/or lesbian couples was established there, has gone down for *all* categories of youth. Gallagher had said that she "took the trouble" to examine the statistics and found that "gay marriage is not the answer." Now, throughout the Youth Risk Surveys from 2000 to the present, in Massachusetts, the *ratio* of gay to apparently non-gay youth suicides has remained constant at about 4:1. (During that same period, Gallagher and her organization have perpetuated known negative falsehoods against gay people in Massachusetts). Though the ratio remained the same, the *total* number of youth suicides went down. That result illustrates the findings of Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, who found that all youth have lower suicide rates in liberal areas than in anti-gay-rights ones. Gallagher acknowledges nothing of the suicide rate in Massachusetts going down in numbers for *all* youth over time generally since marriage equality for homosexual couples became law. Gallagher appears willfully to wish to conceal the truth; that all youth suicides have gone down in number over time generally since state-level same-sex couple marriage equality became law in Massachusetts.
Additionally be it known, that Gallagher has repeatedly been invited to fact-check my article "The endless anti-gay lies of the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher" (see here: http://tinyurl.com/6wnz5v7) Furnished with authentic documentation that anything said in that article is not factual, we will publish corrections. Gallagher has never replied to requests for her to fact-check the article.
The National Review editors should note that the day after the Regnerus study was published, the religious-right splinter group "The American College of Pediatrics" filed an amicus brief in the Golinski-DOMA case in California, relying heavily on the Regnerus study. One month later, eight major professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, filed what essentially is a "response" amicus brief, methodically debunking both the ACP amicus brief *and* the Regnerus study as unscientific. I would very much like to know what Gallagher has to say to each of the 1) American Psychological Association; 2) the California Psychological Association; 3) the American Psychiatric Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American Medical Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 8) the American Psychoanalytic Association, who are united in a belief that the Regnerus study does not meet minimum scientific standards.
That brief is here:
http://tinyurl.com/7g55hzt
Additionally, I question the ethics by which The National Review continues to allow Gallagher to publish advertorials for the Regnerus study, without disclosing that her National Organization for Marriage is connected to Regnerus's study funding. The funding so far known for the Regnerus study came from the Bradley Foundation (where NOM head Robert George is a Board Member, and which Bradley Foundation also helps to finance the) Witherspoon Institute, whose president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member, and where Robert George is a Senior Fellow.
There simply is no daylight between NOM's leaders and the Regnerus study funders; Gallagher should always disclose that when writing about the Regnerus study. Gallagher previously was caught out taking money from the Bush administration to further its "family" related policy goals, and she not disclose that she was writing advertorials for the Bush administration.
Tomorrow, I shall contact publications that specialize in exposing unethical publishing practices, and propose writing an article for them about the National Review publishing Gallagher's, and other connected person's advertorials for the Regnerus study without disclosing their connection to the funding of the study. Please advise me immediately if the National Review editors intend to publish "disclosure" notices on all Regnerus-related articles published in the magazine and/or on the publication's website with Regnerus-funder-related by-lines.
In terms of Gallagher's character, it must be noted that after state-level marriage equality for gay couples became law in New York, Gallagher and NOM immediately announced plans for protests on July 24, the day that marriage licenses were first issued to same-sex couples in NY. Joining Gallagher in protesting those marriages that day were persons from the Westboro Baptist Church. Note that NOM has a heavy affiliation with Liberty University, whose founder Jerry Falwell said that the 9/11 attacks occurred due to America's acceptance of gay people, and that the attacks were "probably deserved." Under heavy criticism for those remarks, Falwell walked them back a bit, only to confirm towards the end of his life that he meant what he said. At Liberty University in 2010, NOM's William Duncan participated in an all-day anti-gay hate fest; his symposium topic was "Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?" That is the crowd Maggie Gallagher runs with, yet she accuses me of attacking scholarship. Note that I published and e-mailed a letter to Gallagher, offering to help her to help the homeless for one week, pro bono on my part, if she would call off her planned protests of the first same-sex marriages in New York. The letter, which received no response, is here:
http://tinyurl.com/4yylxxu
I find troubling -- the word sickening might be le mot juste -- that Gallagher thinks she is going to show National Review readers "how I think" by linking to a strictly facts-based article critical of her, while not mentioning that I offered to help her to help the homeless, pro bono on my part, for one week in exchange for her calling off her protests of gay human beings' love, and that she did not respond to that offer. As happens, stigma and discrimination contribute greatly to the elevated levels of gay youth homelessness; Gallagher, her organization and those like it, with whom she frequently associates, do perpetuate the misinformation about and bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings that lead to anti-gay bigot parents throwing their gay and lesbian children out of their homes without resources to survive.
Jon, yes, there are people using Regnerus’s study to argue against ssm, in the same way SSMers have used the woefully flawed pro-LGBT same-sex parenting research to argue for ssm, adoption law changes, and a raft of other things. That previous research, though far too flawed to make any meaningful conclusions, has been used to undermine gold-standard research amassed over decades which shows that children do best when raised by their married biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
I understand the frustration of SSMers—I’ve experienced it myself with the previous same-sex parenting studies. Now you all know how it feels to attempt to take apart a study that you view as flawed, and that you see people using to make a lot of claims that are not warranted by the study.
But I don’t think this should be taken out on Regnerus. What sense does it make to persecute someone because they did scientific research and others might misuse the conclusions?
All Regnerus is doing is helping to further debunk the myth that there are millions of same-sex parents who jointly decided to bring children into their home and who are superior to the married biological family in terms of child-rearing--a myth which is not even supported by the same-sex parenting studies cited to show it!
I don’t think anyone is arguing that same-sex parents can’t be good parents. The question is do they, on average, measure up to the best family structure known to man, i.e. the married biological family?
We don’t know the answer to this. There aren’t enough same-sex families in this country to measure and draw such conclusions--nor to draw the conclusions drawn by SSMers in the past.
I don’t think it’s wise to glorify untested family structures because there is *currently* no evidence of harm. We don’t promote three-parent families, although there might not be evidence that three parents can’t be good parents.
As to your claim about the existing “evidence” showing that same-sex parents are good parents, you must take into consideration the review of said studies done by Loren Marks in the same journal. The studies are too flawed to draw any conclusions, or to be considered as serious evidence for anything.
As it stands, stable same-sex couples raising children are a relatively untested family structure. The testing done by Regnerus simply shows the rarity of stable same-sex households, the overwhelming majority of children who have ever spent times in said households coming from heterosexual relationships (not surrogacy, etc.), and that the kids are not “alright.”
I don’t mind interpreting Regnerus’s study within scope. I just hope it helps to put the previous research in the proper perspective. That’s why Regnerus did the study. He found the oft-repeated “no differences” claims to be “quirky.”
Jon, stay tuned for my response. It's in the filter.
"....less concerned about making my professional peers happy and more about studying interesting things..."
Sounds like an objective researcher.
Better start a smear campaign against him quick.
The peer reviewed scientific valid study clearly shows the horrific harms that innocent children experience when exposed to homosexual relationships. Facts are facts, and every court in the nation needs to how these children suffer when impose a pseudo marriage on society.
Something tells me that the investigation has more to do with complaints by other scholars as opposed to the obsession of 1 blogger.
"Five UT faculty members also signed a letter, along with 200 scholars at multiple universities, to the editor of Social Science Research, James Wright, pointing out what they said were flaws in Regnerus' methodology and saying the journal's review process took five weeks, when most take between two and three months."
If he didn't do anything wrong then the investigation will show that.
He obtained prior approval and followed the University protocol for the research, and the study was subsequently peer reviewed. The bloggers attack seems to focus on funding sources and outside organizations not the quality of the research, the scientific validity of the findings. Sour grapes from one person who filed an ethics complaint, which so far has gone no-where, along with the complaints about the peer reviewed process. Nothing but more "so what" and "no it isn't" or simple the usual hot air and hand waving from SS"m" extremists.
The study is flawed due to the sample groupings used not the base statisical methodologies used. Regenerus has effectively studied the impact of family structures on child outcomes... NOT the effect of the sexual orientation of the parents.
"just under half of such respondents reported that their biological parents were once married"
Existing research may not have population sampling, but at least the control is there and the studies try to compare the actual impact of parental sexual orientation on child outcomes.
Regnerus and Ash both trumpet the supposed 'statisical power' of the NFSS. It only has that power wrt to the supposed control group. The cells for lesbian moms or gay dads are not large enough to do that, as Regenerus admits. Regenerus found nothing new in this study and that is why his ethical approach should be challenged. Why create a study that measures impact of family stability and then make claims that the study brings into quesstion previous results? It simply doesn't. It didn't do what what previous studies did on the whole, which was to compare like with like and on a longitudinal and not a cross sectional basis.
Another observation I make from Table 3-4 is that outcomes are not so differnet from other groups compared, such as Single parent, adopted, divorced, step famiies - which are structures in this case involving one or more HETEROSEXUAL parents! The data support the view that sexual orientation of parents, compared across various family structures other than the control group has no effect on child outcomes.
The only valid conclusion one can make from the results is that equal marriage would benefit children. A conservative policy unit in the UK will be bringing out new research on this next week. Watch out for that.
Paul Mc: @ 12
Actually, we don't need a study to tell us what we already know....Check this bloglink for similar comments like the one below:
http://www.nomblog.com/24657/
....The Regnerus's study, confirms that children raised by their biological parents are much better off, in comparison to same sex parenting with all its variables, which is the "the norm" for that lifestyle. For the other side to say SS parenting is equal to biological parenting or better, his study debunks that notion using "similar", "creditable" SSRs sampling, and concluded with the opposite, period.
It was the gay activists and supporters claiming SS parenting evolution( an altered norm of acceptance) based on faulty statistics, because as noted, there isn't any and never was, creditable data (samples to draw this conclusion by the other side).
Marriage and parenting supporters, based their statistics on self-observation and mother nature, first and foremost, at no time did we suggest or inject experimentation for SS parenting to come to the conclusion we hold dear; those participants (SSCs) did that themselves. We remain bias to this notion ( SSM and parenting) for logical and obvious reasons, regardless of the effectiveness pretentious capabilities when it comes to parenting and raising children from these individuals. We, marriage supporters, are not interested one way or the other in proving or not proving through “statistics” that, SSCs raising kids are equal or better to heterosexual couples. The other side is interested (wanting) in such a study for obvious reasons. Quite frankly, for us marriage/m&w parenting supporters to every take up such interest or experimentation, the outcome could be devastating. Thus, the "scientist’s analysis" ( peer view or critics of the study) suggestive conclusions, by overreaching and contesting that, the study is also sound in wanting SSM and parenting to further dismiss the original study for said subject, or to attempt to support a finding for the opposition, despite the harm involved. They also imply manipulation (which includes experimentation) rather than allow nature to determine the outcome for its subject. Regnerus’s raw, unbiased, un-tampered sample, likely represents the "natural course", the path same sex parenting will go without coercion for the sake of a study. Leave Regnerus's study be, let the other side remaining wanting to their peril.
We need not convince anyone on the ultimate union, Mother Nature’s influence on human nature is evident every single day, just pay more attention to your surroundings... See the truth and not what you want or think you should see...
To poster #3: Although as usual Ash did a great job in answering the objection I too noticed that you guys just dismissed the study because it proved you wrong.
It clearly proved in the best interest of children, they do best with a mother and a father. The statistics and facts proved the case. The other side when facts get in the way just makes stuff up. Like a bogus claim that a homosexual male was FORCED into a marriage with a straight female. Give me a break.
Since when does a government agency FORCE you into a marriage you did not want. They volunteered into these relationships and as Ash pointed out the majority of children were through previous opposite sex marriage. What was that lie again about being born that way and one cannot change.
So who is it again who doesn't care about the children?
It is your group that does not care as you use children as pawns and trophys to get what you want. If you truly cared about children then you have FORCED yourself into one of those opposite sex marriages for the sake of the children.
"But that goes exactly against what the data show. It shows that limiting marriage leads to homosexuals leading closeted lives in opposite-sex marriages, having children, and then eventually poor outcomes for those children."
The data show no such thing. Marriage as defined between a man and a woman has not stopped gays from freely entering into ss relationships. What a ridiculous assertion.
Ash wrote:
I feel this statement goes too far.
1) You say a stable household with two same-sex parents is "untested," but that's not really true. It has been tested, just not to a degree that allows us to definitively compare it to the stable two-bio parent household. As Meezan and Rauch write:
Earlier on they note that 1000 children with gay parents have been studied and are as healthy as any other people their age. There's a difference between some testing and none at all.
2) Regnerus cites past work that suggest children in other family structures ("unmarried motherhood, divorce, cohabitation, and step-parenting") do worse
So given that stable same-sex parents are by definition stable, that would also suggest a positive effect for their children. This is more evidence that gay parents in stable relationships have done a fine job raising their children.
Has same-sex parenting been overly "glorified"? Based on the weakness of the many studies that are cited, yes. However, it's also been unfairly criticized, as no study shows that children need a mother and a father (when compared with gay couples).
Ash wrote:
I disagree. Maybe you only wish to compare gay parents to opposite-sex parents, but there are many people who never want to see gays raising children at all. Many who favor bans on gay adoption would argue that gays are unfit to be parents altogether. Example 1. Example 2. (These are a little dated, but it was a quick Google search. Also, these were a politician and a judge!!) Family structures that are believed to be worse than the stable two-bio parent structure have marriage and adoption rights that gays do not. For example, divorced parents are allowed to remarry, but gays are not. So in the grand scheme of things, many people are trying to argue gays cannot adequately raise children.
Common sense would agree, but for a different reason than you suggest.
It makes sense that having a gay parent would generally have a detrimental affect upon a child if the gay parent was open and notorious about it.
However, a closeted gay parent married to a straight spouse would probably have little or no detrimental affect on children if the gay parent was committed to the marriage as a matter of duty to the child.
Responsible conduct by gays-with-children married to straights is the solution, not gay marriage.
As a society we need to return to this old fashioned idea of responsibility.
Your idea suggests that children are harmed because a gay parent is closeted when married to a straight.
If the gay parent was living responsibly toward the wife and not acting on the same sex attraction, that should protect the integrity of the marriage, and protect the child from developmental or sociological harm.
Are we to suppose a gay man with a child should marry a gay man so the child won't be "harmed" by having his straight mother in his life?
The absurdity is so great it boggles the mind.
Its the gay man who needs to get his act together so the child can have both his mother and father.
That may seem like a novel idea but its the correct one.
@AM
Then why do so many homosexuals fake being heterosexual and enter into opposite-sex marriages? If there were no stigma to being gay, and homosexual relationships were recognized as equal under the law, and if it were legally possible to start a legitimate family with someone of the same sex, then it wouldn't happen.
@John Noe
I'm not saying they were forcefully/physically coerced into marrying someone of the opposite sex, I'm saying that they are effectively forced by society to decide between being with someone to whom they are sexually attracted, or being able to start a family with someone with whom they may be very good friends, but with whom they have to fake sexual attraction. This is a decision that I, as a heterosexual, will never have to make. Nor will I be stigmatized or called immoral, disgusting, etc. because I happen to be attracted to women.
Since you NOMers are so focused on the children, why don't you read an article about what the children of same-sex parents have to say for themselves: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-28/living/gayby_1_same-sex-couples-lesbian-parents?_s=PM:LIVING
As the guy in that article says, if you want children raised in intact families, then allowing same-sex couples to get married is the way to increase the number of intact families.
Jon,
society forces pedophiles to brake their bad behavior or end up in jail. It is a good thing not a bad one when society forces people to stop behaving badly.
Jon
If you truly believe that in 2012 many gays and lesbians are "faking" and marrying due to social pressure, I simply disagree. Anecdote is not data.
I have also noticed that ssm advocates manipulate language in ways that are confusing, not clarifying. For instance, your use of the word “family” when you really mean “couple”. Most people do not use the word family to describe a couple without children.
Another word you use incongruously is “intact” when describing families that are not based on shared kinship. The only intact family is the one that combines all of the elements of parenthood: biological, social and legal. Other family structures are certainly real families and often good families but they are not “intact’ families.
@PaulMc,
The study may be flawed (I prefer to use the term "limited" since the researcher is not interpreting beyond the scope of his methodology), but it is the most comprehensive study we have to date on same-sex parenting. I've explained numerous times on the blog why it's concerning same-sex parenting.
Sheesh. If locating, defining, and measuring a small and nationally-dispersed family structure like same-sex parents is difficult, imagine trying to quantify something as dubious as the effect of a parent's "sexual orientation" on the kids!
I, and others, prefer to focus on family structure because it has been shown as very important to the well-being of children. Does lacking a mother or father affect kids? Does lacking a biological connection to one's child influence care-taking? Are two parents better than one, and is three better than two?
Stuff like that.
The only way I could think of measuring the effects of "sexual orientation" on parenting is to try and operationalize it and make the behaviors and a few other things measurable.
For instance, is male homosexuality correlated with promiscuity? Does male homosexual promiscuity subside when the men become parents? If not, are children in such households exposed to a carousel of parental sexual partners thus increasing their chance of abuse? Are children whose male parents are constantly on the prowl for sexual partners at risk of lacking care and attention?
Or, is homosexuality associated with certain psycho-pathologies, and do these play out when homosexuals care for children?
All of these complex variables would have to be defined in a way to render them measurable; and no doubt someone will take issue with how they are defined. But those are some ways you could even begin to measure how sexual orientation affects kids. You'd have to break it down to behavior, etc.
I agree that even Regnerus's sample is not large enough to draw a lot of conclusions. One of the family scholars who commented in the journal noted this, as did Regnerus.
'Why create a study that measures impact of family stability and then make claims that the study brings into quesstion previous results? It simply doesn't."
It sure does. The previous studies compared broken lesbian families to broken heterosexual families that were much worse off and found "no differences." Some studies compared an elite group of lesbian parents to a random sample of all families in the US and found "no differences" or lesbian parent superiority. And this incomplete body of data has been used to say that lesbian and gay male parents (a seldom studied family structure) perform better than what is known as the gold standard of family structures: the married biological family.
Regnerus noted the change in message that spanned a mere decade, and decided to draw a nationally representative sample and measure 40 outcomes. He found that children from broken lesbian families are not "alright," as has been repeated constantly over the years; that stable same-sex families are rare; and that the married biological family still reigns supreme.
"It didn't do what what previous studies did on the whole, which was to compare like with like and on a longitudinal and not a cross sectional basis."
The previous studies did not compare "like with like." And there is only one longitudinal *lesbian* (no gay males included) parenting study that is far more limited than Regnerus's.
"Another observation I make from Table 3-4 is that outcomes are not so differnet from other groups compared, such as Single parent, adopted, divorced, step famiies - which are structures in this case involving one or more HETEROSEXUAL parents!"
You all are enslaved to the concept of sexual orientation. Who cares of they did the same as children of divorced and single parents? For those focused on *family structure* that's not a good thing! They did slightly worse than the other broken families but the differences were not significant. I'll have to verify your claim that they did the same as children who were adopted. Doesn't sound right.
"The only valid conclusion one can make from the results is that equal marriage would benefit children."
That's not what I get from the study, but anyone can draw the conclusions they want. Some may think that a single mother marrying her new boyfriend would benefit her children, but research shows that kids don't benefit from step-parent families.
But if the study makes the case for ssm, why file an ethics complaint?
Paul Mc, my response to you is in the filter. Stay tuned.
No people don't understand what the other side is saying. We understand that children do best with there biological parents, that is also not a new fact. With that said the research has nothing to do with SSM. Nothing new was found of this, but to compare a same sex couple to an heterosexual adoptive parents there isn't much of a difference. To also belive that illegalizing same sex marriage would make it so all children would also be raised by there birth parents is a dream. That's what I don't get people are against gay marriage and pro life. So you want make is so every child has to be born and them limit who can adopt them, seems to me that it would make for a lot more children on government pay. A loving family that care rathe sme sex or not doesn't matter and it's better then not having a home at all.
AM
The social forces in 2012 are certainly less than in the past. But the study is about the parents of people who are now adults. My statements about social forces pressuring homosexuals to hide their true sexual orientation are about the parents studied by Regnerus, who grew up in a time when the social forces were unarguably powerful. As for modern day, I don't know the numbers, so I can't say for sure. It is not unheard of, though, for a modern day opposite-sex marriage to be broken because one person is actually gay.
As for my use of family, I consider a homosexual couple with children to be a family. I consider a single parent with her kids a family. When I use family to describe a gay couple I'm referring to a couple who is going to or already is raising children.
As for my use of intact, I disagree with your definition. If a heterosexual couple adopts a child, can they not have an intact family? If they cannot, please explain why. If they can, then I don't see why a homosexual couple couldn't have an intact family as well with adopted children
Ash, you are doing very well in your representation of the available evidence.
Paul Mc said the following:
"[1] Why create a study that measures impact of family stability and then make claims that the study brings into quesstion previous results? [2] It simply doesn't. It didn't do what what previous studies did on the whole, which was to compare like with like and on a longitudinal and not a cross sectional basis."
1. The previous results? You mean the inconclusive conclusions drawn from profoundly flawed studies and insufficient evidence?
From a social-scientific point of view (which is what I think ought to be the vantage point for any critique of studies on these matters), your question answers itself by virtue of the lack of "previous results". Consider what results means in social-scientific terms; consider the other such terms used by the LGBT activists who have misrepresented the available evidence. Or don't. That is a political choice you can make; but it would not be a responsible nor a credible social-scientific choice.
2. Compare like with like? What do you have in mind, precisely?
After several decades of study it ought to come as no surprise to social-scientific observers that the established gold standard is the married mom-dad-child family in a low-conflict or good enough marital relationship. All other structures fall short.
It is amusing that you have now discovered that this is so for "single parent, adopted, divorced, step famiies".
The lack of the child's "biological" mom or dad is a structural feature of these scenarios. The lack of one sex is also a structural feature of single-parenting scenarios. These are not intact scenarios -- just as so-called "same-sex parenting" is not an intact scenario.
When comparing like-with-like, well, structure matters more than gay identity politics. At least to the intellectually forthright social-scientific observer.
If you think that "gay" is a structural feature, then, explain your thinking on that. If you think it is not a structure feature, then, why are you complaining?
Look, if same-sex sexual attraction is the magic ingredient that makes so-called "same-sex parenting" superior to these other not-intact structures, then, the onus is on you -- or at least on the activists making their claims -- to provide the evidence and the analysis that would at least address the hunt for the link between the magic ingredient and superior outcomes for children.
If it is not same-sex sexual attraciton, then, is it same-sex sexual behavior of the adults? Or perhaps it is merely the grandiousity of gay identity? Because these are the soft features, that SSMers often wish to recast as structural features, that might distinguish different scenarios in which children are raised minus either mom or dad.
There are millions of children raised by mom and grandmom, dad and grandad, or mom alone or dad alone. If you want to isolate the gay factor as special, then, do not forget the much broader spectrum of same-sex parenting that exists in the realworld.
But then you would also need to look for a means to do longitudinal studies of randomized samples. That leaves you still with the problem of a very tiny pool from which to pull samples of the type you might wish to favor as the gaycentric same-sex parenting scenarios.
This ought to show you that the supposed "previous results" from supposedly conclusive studies in which you place so much credence, well, it ought to show you that you are mistaken to be so dogmatic about this.
Jon said:
"It is not unheard of, though, for a modern day opposite-sex marriage to be broken because one person is actually gay."
Sure, we are more likely to hear from the failures who blame society than the successes who quietly go about their business in their intact families.
Your use of "intact" is not social-scientific.
As for adoption, well, less than 5% of the tiny pool of children living in same-sex households have adoptive parents. And that is padded quite a bit by so-called second-parent adoption whereby an adult of the same sex as the parent may adopt that parent's child without that parent relinquishing parental status -- it is accomplished via a court decree.
Less than 1% of children in same-sex households were attained via donor-sperm donor-egg or surrogacy scenarios.
But for both adoption and third party procreation there are at least two pre-requisites for attaining full parental status for two individuals of the same sex.
1) parental relinquishment of either mom or dad (either voluntarily -- even pre-emptively as in "donors" -- or coercively).
2) government intervention to assign a substitute parent (usually through the court system).
This is the inverse of an intact family whereby the mom and dad have procreated together and have responsibility for their offspring.
If you would rather that we consider a subset of such intact scenarios to be closer to intact than others, fine, but let's recognize that there is an intact category and a non-intact category and proceed from there.
Why has my response to Ash still not made it through? It's been almost 24 hours. This is very frustrating.
Ok @ash and chairm
So what your saying is that a separation of a child's parents has a negative affect on children. That is true but that also happens in a heterosexual relationship as well were parents split and the child is raised in a home with one step parent, looking at what a lot of social science is saying and also what some of th children that have already bin raised in a same sex relationship is that the children are better in that situation then with one parent. All this study shows is what we already know is that a child needs TWO loving parents. It is also stating that seperation hurts children. So it has nothing to do with gay marriage it also doesn't prove that same sex couples are poor parents. Seperation of ones parents is bad for any child regardless of the parents sexual orientation so why just not let the two parents in a same sex relationship marry so that both parents can't have the same rights of the child thrus maling there household stronger making it better for the children that are present. Also this shows that with exemptsance of the LGBT community making so people are not afraid to come out and they will be less likely to have a Kid and the split. Also with joint adoption there would be no need for the court because the two imidiate parents of the child have rights hence mom an mom or dad and dad.
Ash wrote:
Usually, but not always. Meezan and Rauch point to four studies they believe are "state of the art, studies that are as rigorous as such research could today [2005] reasonably be expected to be. In particular, the studies by Chan, Raboy, and Patterson (1998) and Brewaeys and others (1997) do compare stable lesbian families and stable opposite-sex families. Are these studies alone enough to represent stable lesbian families in the US? Of course not. But they do control for relationship stability among the parents.
I understand your frustration with the use of other studies that aren't as rigorous in their sampling, but you still need to be careful when making generalizations about every study in general.
Ian, you said:
"All this study shows is what we already know is that a child needs TWO loving parents. It is also stating that seperation hurts children."
Intact Biological Families -- IBF -- is the category. There is no "loving" category in the study.
Each child has both a mom and a dad. Same-sex parenting means the seperation of the child from either mom or dad.
The issue here is structure. And, sure, transition from one structure to another can be taken into account. But the lack of either mom or dad is not something you can dismiss by false equivalencies.
Spunky said:
"Are these studies alone enough to represent stable lesbian families in the US? Of course not. But they do control for relationship stability among the parents."
The samples are not randomized and so cannot be reasonably assumed to be representative of that subset of same-sex parenting.
Indeed, the adult homosexual population, male and female, is quite far from an optimum pool of stable relationships in the first place. Adding children into the mix hardly improves the pre-existing tendency toward instability.
But the data and the evidence are insufficient given the inherent difficulties in doing longitudinal studies of randomized samples for the various subsets of the adult homosexual population.
Meanwhile there is a mountain of data and evidence on non-intact families. So it would be stretching way too far for LGBT activists to claim that gayness is a structure feature that either increases relationship stability or increases the average outcome for children. Afterall, the activists seem to sense that problem when they insist that gayness is supposedly irrelevant to the family structure.
Yet the lack of either mom or dad is highly relevant.
It should also be remembered that the vast majority of the small population of children residing in same-sex households (census term used with the assumption that the adults are in a same-sex sexualized relationship) got there by migrating with either mom or dad from their parent's previously procreative relationship (usually the husband-wife type relationship). So this child population does reside in non-intact family structures.
Also, the non-resident mom or dad is not irrelevant. Dad or mom might have a positive influence on the child's outcomes, even if that mom or dad is not resident with the child. This is evident with children of divorced but involved parents.
I point this out to note yet another wrinkle or complication for those who espouse the merits of same-sex parenting scenarios. These are often not entirely same-sex parenting scenarios; for the nonresident mom or dad may be very involved to moderately involved with the children. It certainly happens often with the two-sexed scenarios in which mom and dad are divorced or otherwise estranged.
Food for thought.
I have a couple of comments in the moderator's que.
Does Scott Rose intentionally misinterpret every sentence of his opposition regarding the defense of marriage or is this touchiness talking? Or extreme prejudice? People who oppose same-sex "marriage" no matter how respectfully, are indeed treated to violent reactions. After the Rwandan genocide, and all its lessons, Scott would call a person a "cockroach" while still insisting that person is not a victim of abuse?
The anti-gay lobby conveniently omits one important thing from the discussion. The negative consequences of a child being separated from one or both biological parents is primarily the result of that separation occurring AFTER the child has spent some portion of his or her childhood with that parent. It's the loss of a caregiver that is important. For example, they will attempt to use the experience of a child whose father was present for the first four years of the child's life then took off and the emotional damage caused by that loss in argument for why a lesbian couple shouldn't use an anonymous sperm donor to conceive a child. The absence of the biological father in the life of the lesbian couple's child will not have the same negative effect on the child as it will on the one who actually began life with his or her father as a provider and caregiver then lost him. They're two entirely different situations.
Jacob Z,
Loss is experienced by "donor conceived" children.
Why do you imagine it would be different just because the participating adults are lesbian?
Meanwhile the structural issues remain. Do you imagine that lesbianism overcomes that better than other non-intact family structures? If yes, please explain howso and provide the conclusive evidence that supported your reaching such certitude on this.
I know for a fact that Mr. Scott Rose will violate a parent's civil rights and speak to children about homosexual matters WITHOUT the knowledge or consent of that child's parents.
http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2011/05/scott-rose-vs-parental-rights.html
NOM please releas my post, thank you!
Chairm:
Preach it, I enjoyed reading all of your post, you are highly analogical, I think you and I are on the same page regarding Regnerus's “Census", or study, yet your intellectual view are more profound than mine. LOL
But, I chose not to dwell too much on the details of the study and focused more on the big picture, the purpose for the work and how the “results” should be received. Moving forward, my concerns are as followed: • The study suggesting a call to action or a solution as if one is needed.
• **The label attached, “Scientific Study”, implies a wanting of an end result. I prefer to call his study a “Survey”. Part of being a Scientist calls for experimentation be it good or bad; reckless regards or just.
• The political or social position of the interpreter reinterpreting the study.
• Holding too much value or credence for any study absent of once own intelligence, intuition and good self-observation. For example, 7 million pro 8 supporters Vs. opponents’ research on SSM & Parenting, where the people were perceived as bigots, unintelligent, and have no reasoning to oppose pseudo marriage, etc.
• Social Scientists, non-credited officials trying to make or create public policy.
Furthermore, although the study defends marriage and natural parenting (as if you and I devalued this institution or ignorant to the necessity), I am deeply concerned about the various commentators’ “call for action” as the result of Rugnerus’ findings…
And, for the record, I do not support same sex marriage or homosexuality despite the likely pretentious heterosexual couple role play effectiveness. I do not support using humans as “lab rats” to conclude his work, as if a conclusion is desired by the masses or that one is needed.
Chairm:
Preach it, I enjoyed reading all of your post, you are highly analogical, I think you and I are on the same page regarding Regnerus's “Census", or study, yet your intellectual view are more profound than mine. LOL
But, I chose not to dwell too much on the details of the study and focused more on the big picture, the purpose for the work and how the “results” should be received. Moving forward, my concerns are as followed:
1. The study suggesting a call to action or a solution as if one is needed.
2. **The label attached, “Scientific Study”, implies a wanting of an end result. I prefer to call his study a “Survey”. Part of being a Scientist calls for experimentation be it good or bad; reckless regards or just.
3. The political or social position of the interpreter reinterpreting the study.
4. Holding too much value or credence for any study absent of once own intelligence, intuition and genuine self-observation. For example, 7 million pro 8 supporters Vs. opponents’ research on SSM & Parenting, where the people were perceived as bigots, unintelligent, and have no reasoning to oppose pseudo marriage, etc.
5. Social Scientists, non-credited officials trying to make or create public policy.
Furthermore, although the study defends marriage and natural parenting (as if you and I devalued this institution or ignorant to the necessity), I am deeply concerned about the various commentators’ “call for action” as the result of Rugnerus’ findings…
And, for the record, I do not support same sex marriage or homosexuality despite the likely pretentious heterosexual couple’s habit role play effectiveness. I do not support using humans as “lab rats” to conclude his work, as if a conclusion is desired by the masses or that one is needed.
Sorry for the repeated postings but there was no indication that my first post was received or accepted. Again, my appology!
Spunky, I agree that some of the same-sex parenting studies are better than others. I really like the analysis of Meezan and Rauch, and view it as a very frank piece from ssm supporters on the nature of this body of research.
With the four strongest studies, we now have to take into consideration the reviews of Loren Marks and Steve Nock; but not too much, as we seem to agree that the four are far from ideal.
I think my original statement is fairly correct about the studies not comparing "like with like." Dr. Nock, for instance, came to the same conclusion as Meezan and Rauch, noting that two of the four named studies are the strongest of the research area. But he also noted that they had disproportionate numbers of wealthy and educated lesbians compared to a lower SES'd sample of heterosexual parents, and didn't control for these disparities.
In addition to Chairm's comment about the representativeness of the lesbian samples, there is also the question of whether there were direct comparisons between the children of lesbians and intact families.
I actually read the Wainright study before, and one thing I noticed is that they compared children of lesbians to children currently living under a marriage or "marriage like" relationship. This means that the comparison group was composed of intact families, step-families, and cohabitating families, thus dragging down the average of the intact families, I could say.
Loren Marks noted in his review that of the studies that even had a comparison group, and of those studies that had a comparison group and didn't explicitly describe them as single parents, the others used vague descriptions like "couple" to describe the heterosexual comparison group, meaning that intact families were not directly compared.
"You say a stable household with two same-sex parents is 'untested,' but that's not really true. It has been tested, just not to a degree that allows us to definitively compare it to the stable two-bio parent household."
Although measuring stability is important, unless the study is longitudinal, I'm not sure to what degree family stability can be ascertained. If school-aged children in lesbian homes are measured, but the relationship dissolves in two years, that makes for instability undetected by the study. In short, though the studies may take stability into consideration, the lack of longitudinal observation brings into question whether that factor was properly taken into account.
Furthermore, Regnerus notes on his NFSS website that Judith Stacey (a pro-LGBT researcher) found in her review of the research a high level of relationship instability among the lesbian parents. It may be that stability among same-sex unions would benefit children, but the question is, is that a present or attainable reality? Children of single mothers may do well if they enjoy wealth and stability, but that's not a present or attainable reality for most.
Given the limitations of even the four top studies, perhaps some could say that children of lesbians (not gay males) do similarly to all other children, including ones in broken families. But considering the limitations, I wouldn't venture to say such myself. I still see the body of research as only suitable for tentative conclusions.
Since the testing done isn't meaningful, is it all that wrong for me to use the term "untested family structures"? I believe that it would eliminate a lot of confusion in these discussions by saying "untested." Some people get confused when discussing study limitations, and it's hard for them to reconcile the fact that something has been measured, but measured in a way that precludes sound conclusions.
"However, it's also been unfairly criticized, as no study shows that children need a mother and a father (when compared with gay couples)."
I believe that research esteeming married biological parents necessarily means that children do best with a mother and father.
But I understand that some people question whether it's the actual presence of male+female that really makes this family structure so valuable.
I'd admit that sexual duality is not all sunshine and song. For instance, step-parent families (both having the advantage of marriage, two parents, and sexual duality) are troubled along the lines of single parent families. For this reason, studies comparing children of gay couples to sub-optimal families don't really mean much, and shouldn't be used to make widespread claims that children don't need a mother and father.
Some may say that instead of the benefits coming from a mother and father per se (i.e. gender differentiation), they come from having biological parents who are heavily invested in their offspring. But, of course, same-sex couples can't circumvent this blockade, and it wouldn't explain the under-performance of cohabitating biological families. And that's why Regnerus is puzzled as to how same-sex couples are alleged to have succeeded in doing what no other alternative family structure has been able to do: outperform the married-biological arrangement.
I'll try to be more specific in my descriptions of the same-sex parenting research. Some studies do what others don't, but the research area is rather preliminary. Far too inadequate for people to automatically view Regnerus's study as suspect; and far too inadequate to nullify the consensus that married-bio-low-conflict structure is best.
@ Ash
I like the Meezan and Rauch paper too--I wish everyone from both sides read it.
Ash wrote:
The income levels of the lesbian and opposite-sex couples in Chan, Raboy, and Patterson (1998) were comparable (lesbian: $90K mean, $40K std. dev.; opposite sexed: $76K mean, 31.4 std. dev), but the lesbian families did have higher levels of education. While it would have been difficult to control for education level as well, it would have been better to do so. So you're right about that.
Ash wrote:
Nor would I without evidence stating otherwise. As with stable relationships, I would assume that the sexes of both parents doesn't matter as much as the stability of the relationship. This is based on personal experience as well as the data I've seen.
Anyway, I understand why you used the term "untested" to describe stable gay parenting, and maybe I was nitpicking. I just don't like the idea that "bio parenting has been the best so far, so anything else is probably worse." Rather than having to prove that gay parenting is as effective as bio parenting (and constantly having to disprove prejudiced notions people may have about gay parents), I'd prefer to assume they're roughly as good as each other unless evidence (statistical or experiential) would suggest otherwise.
Ash wrote:
At least one study and a survey (!!) would dispute this notion. Note the study summary specifically states that adoptive parents "invest more time" even "when financial resources were taken into consideration.". Adoptive parents seem to do really well, and if their children don't it's usually because of their troubled past before being adopted.
Ash wrote:
My understanding is that people are upset that Regnerus' study has been used to describe the effect of same-sex parenting, when it really doesn't. Yes, I think they're going overboard and wish instead that they tried to use the study to promote gay marriage, but then again, I'm not gay.
Anyway, it's a pleasure exchanging ideas with you (I wouldn't even call this a debate); I've learned a lot.
Reading my statement @ 43, then reading Spunky’s response to Ash’s post, is a clear example of a "wanting" SSM experimentation being subtly permeated to concede Regnerus's study, that should be a call for great concern. Spunky’s need to defend SSM and/or SSM parenting, in his attempt to dissect Regernus study and to determine what is good parenting what is not, he avoids the question, “ should there be SSM parenting and why, or whether children should be raised by a mother and father if at all possible?”
Spunky's mentality-"what if?", instead of, " we should not because"....
Why is so much effort spent by ssm advocates denying the benefits of the natural family? It is still the gold standard for child outcomes and frankly, nothing could ever take it's place.
This is all the more puzzling as we are told, again and again, that procreation and children have nothing to do with marriage.
@ leo
leo wrote:
I didn't attempt to dissect Regnerus' study at all. I did say that his study wasn't really about gay parents. That's not a dissection; it's an observation.
leo wrote:
Replace "what if?" with "why not?" and you're exactly right. I don't think this is unreasonable; if studies come out suggesting I'm wrong (again, I don't think Regnerus' work does this) then I'll reconsider.
*******************************************
In general, I feel studies don't make discoveries so much as they rigorously confirm what we already suspected. We don't need studies to confirm that divorce hurts children--we all know children whose parents got divorced, and how much it negatively affected their childhood. I ask you this: to anyone who is so against the idea of two moms or two dads raising children, have you actually met gay parents and/or their children? My experience has been that the people who are the most against gay parenting have never actually seen gay parents raise their children. Am I wrong?
Scott Rose doesn't seem to grasp the fact that a sound argument cannot be based on the ad hominem fallacy. It's amazing that the University of Texas pays any attention to his juvenile tactics.
Spunky, your question is irrelevant to the discussion of the available social scientific evidence.
Hyper personalization is actually a way to overcompensate for insufficient data and evidence. The lack of randomized longitudinal studies is not overcome by sampling and snapshots of the kind that hobbles the studies that activists have used to overstate the conclusiveness of their speculations on insufficient data and evidence.
That said, I know plenty of instances of same-sex parenting and most are not comprised of the gaycentric examples you'd emphasize. But such examples I certainly do know firsthand.
Now,apart from your gay emphasis what is the point of your hyper personalizing a query about same-sexparenting scenarios?
Do you propose that gay is a structural feature that equalizes a subset of same-sexparenting? If yes please explain.
Here is what I have observed of people who push the gay emphasis. They presume that their gay-straight dichotomy is relevant all the time and that the dichotomy is really just a false equivalence they feel they need to be true. Regardless of other considerations.
Spunky, thank you for the civil dialogue. I learned some things, too, and I appreciate the adoption links you provided.
I’m going to do more research on adoption. I’ve understood that adopted children do well, and it’s something conservatives point to when talking about children born to single mothers. But I’ve also heard different things about how adopted children can experience unique difficulties. I know that two important keys are openness (not keeping the adoption a secret) and early placement. I’ll have to get to the root of it all. What’s important is that we don’t apply adoption research that focused on opposite-sexed parents to same-sex couples.
Heck, the research demonstrating that cohabitating biological families don’t measure up to the married-intact family proves that biology is not the only thing that furthers child well-being. My statement on biological parents investing in their offspring was more of a description of the different theories people offer to explain why the married-intact family is so successful.
“Rather than having to prove that gay parenting is as effective as bio parenting (and constantly having to disprove prejudiced notions people may have about gay parents), I'd prefer to assume they're roughly as good as each other unless evidence (statistical or experiential) would suggest otherwise.”
I don’t think people should have to constantly ward off claims that gay people might molest kids, and stuff like that (though I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned in our investigations of same-sex families). But I’d take the opposite approach and maintain that same-sex couples are rather unknown, and that the married-intact family supreme until evidence suggests otherwise.
On my own—before the research comes in—I would reason that the married-intact family is best. I just think, all things being equal, it is better for children to have daily male and female influence, interaction, role modeling, etc.; access to their genealogical history; knowledge that they came from the union of the two people who raised them; and the assurance that they don’t have a biological parent out there that they don’t know about, or who is not interested in them enough to help raise them.
Nevertheless, I’m open to the possibility of evidence showing same-sex couples as equal to married-biological parents. But when the research comes it must be strong, because other family structures (divorced and single-parent families) have been propped-up throughout the decades by shady research and were later shown as not only inferior to the intact family, but associated with a plethora of social problems.
This leads me to address the comment you made further in the discussion with others here:
“In general, I feel studies don't make discoveries so much as they rigorously confirm what we already suspected. We don't need studies to confirm that divorce hurts children--we all know children whose parents got divorced, and how much it negatively affected their childhood.”
I appreciate that you view divorce as harmful to children; to their credit, many SSMers do as well. However, in the 1970s, people touted research saying that divorce doesn’t harm children. Some family diversity advocates today really don’t believe that divorce harms children, but that the problems for those children were present before the divorce.
You may look at same-sex families and say: “Based on my experience with these families, I’d say that this is a positive family structure.” But others might look at the ones involving artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc., and say: “This child was willfully created to be separated from one of her biological parents. They will never know half, or maybe all, of their origins, not because of a tragedy, but because these adults purposefully created this situation for this child.”
I think about Rosie O’Donnell’s son, who said, as a small boy, that he wished he had a dad. I’ve also read things here and there. I would post the links without hesitation, but I have to find the stories. One same-sex male couple was raising a son, and they admitted that he expressed desires for a “mommy.” They told him: “If you had a mommy, you wouldn’t be able to have two daddies. So, do you still want a mommy?” They said he responded: “I want two daddies and a mommy.” Lastly, I read an article from a young, lesbian, feminist who was raised by a lesbian couple. As a feminist, she, of course, spurned the notion that a patriarch was needed for a loving home. But she expressed that she sometimes wonders what it would have been like to be cared for by a man as she grew, and that she is curious to know what women in her father’s family have her body type, since her biological mother doesn’t share it.
Basically, I’m sure there are happy kids in same-sex homes, as there are in single-parent homes, etc. And I’m not necessarily arguing that a child being raised by a same-sex couple is suffering harm. But if we were to base our ideas on reason, and even experience with families, some may come to the conclusion that a same-sex household is not ideal. Some people may genuinely suspect—and expect studies to confirm, as you say—that it’s best for children to grow with their married, biological parents. Most people around the world believe that children do best when raised by their mother and father. The only exception is Sweden, with under 50% believing that. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/family_values_remain_strong_in_a_changing_world
Lastly, I do think Regnerus’s study is on same-sex parenting, but it’s more so a description of the landscape, and a report on the status of adults who have ever spent time in a same-sex home.
@ Ash
This is great to hear, especially since I've seen others at the NOM Blog (and even scholars elsewhere) argue against same-sex parenting by using language that is intolerant of adoptive parenting. (You might imagine then that comments in NOM Blog forums can be outright hateful.) So, thank you for wanting to learn more. We should all do the same.
I have a good view on this situation since I am the product of artificial insemination by my then-single mother. And I can tell you with 100% certainty that aside from his medical history, which my mom has, I could not care less about my biological father. Yeah, it's interesting to think about what he might look or act like, but really, there has never been a moment in my life--not a single one--where I ever thought to myself, "man, I really wish I knew my biological father." I never thought of him as a real father because the only relationship we have is by DNA, which means nothing to me. Similarly, I'm sure he doesn't view me as a real son, for similar reasons. I have no problem with this--in fact, I think it's the result of a great system that allowed me to come into this world. Now, I can only speak for myself. Plus, I've been blessed with a wonderful father for the past 17 years, so I've had two parents in my household for most of my life. But that's my perspective.
Your comments about Rosie O'Donnell's son (and other children raised by gay families) don't surprise me. And while it's sad to see a child want someone he can't have, I don't really see any damage being done. If the worst effect of gay parenting is the child's occasional desire for a father, then that's pretty great news.
If I edit out the middle part, then we're in perfect agreement. Cheers!
Spunky, my respons to your post @ 49 for starters, using another Nomer's post because he tooked the words out of my thoughts, and I see the relevancy to your query:
bman
Posted July 15, 2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink
from Jon-I don't think statistics studies are going to convince either one of us to change our minds, so I simply appeal to your common humanity. Gay couples just want their love recognized and want to start legal families.
A public gay marriage law can not be viewed as simply allowing gays to marry without also harming society collectively
A gay marriage law is like a legal virus that would infect, and take over, all other laws, and this virus effect on other laws would greatly hurt public society at various levels.
Indeed, until you are aware of this virus effect on other laws and the harm that poses to society, you would be supporting gay marriage ignorantly.
For starters see The Hausvater Project brief
Parental Rights as an example of this virus effect.
Furthermore, it is your type of risk taking, exploitation, disregards of Mother Nature mentality that has fueled the sex culture fusion, society faces now... What comes next, as the moral authority, you want the masse to cuddle to your way of thinking because if it feels good it must be just and healthy, and morally right, or else.... If it is presumed harmless to someone who is already delusional, it must be harmless? Or, if others can be good pretenders for an institution they despise as superior, it must be seen as its equal? Or, if I'm too dumb to know what is good or bad; holly or devil; healthy or unhealthy, that’s OK, society should still embrace my individuality as just, or be thought of as bigots?
Spunky, my response to you should be posted soon by the moderator...
@ Moderator
I posted a response to Chairm before my respones to Ash, but it seems it was blocked. I'm not sure why--I basically said, "yes, Chairm, my question is not relevant with regard to scientific studies, hence the asterisks separating it from the rest of my response to leo. But I don't understand your answer to said question."
I also posted my email address in case Ash wanted to debate outside this forum. I've done it before with no problem at all. Is that not allowed?
"I don't really see any damage being done. If the worst effect of gay parenting is the child's occasional desire for a father, then that's pretty great news."
Just... Wow. No child should be deliberately cut off from half his family.
Spunky,
We agree that "your question is irrelevant to the discussion of the available social scientific evidence."
_ _ _
Yet you sought a means by which to introduce hyper-personalization so as to overcompensate for insufficient data and evidence.
That said, you asked about who I know.
Well, I do know many people living in scenarios in which either mom or dad are not present or are minimally present in the lives of their children. Most of these scenarios are non-gay.
But of course you meant to emphasize the gay subset. And I said I know such families.
I followed-up by asking for an explanation of your gay emphasis and for your own intended meaning of asking the question you asked.
Also, I asked:
Apart from dwelling on your gay emphasis what is the point of your hyper personalizing a query about same-sexparenting scenarios?
Do you propose that gay is a structural feature that equalizes a subset of same-sexparenting? If yes please explain.
I'd add: please include in your explanation the weight you place on anecdotal data points.
For instance, is my firsthand knowledge of all same-sex scenarios relevant, in your view, only when it fits the subset you would emphasize as gay and would be otherwise irrelevant due to some big gay-only structural feature that is revealed through ancecdotes?
What I have seen of the gay subset is a disproportionate instability in the adult relationships and, as a tragic if unintended by-product, serious shortcomings in the outcomes of the children in such circumstances. I have also see what can be starkly and accurately described as father-hunger; children -- male and female -- feeling an emptiness due to the lack of their father's routine involvement in their lives. This becomes pronounced during adolescence. No amount of politically-correct managing of the family's brokenness can make-up for that shortfall.
It serves to remind that each child has a birthright to know and to be raised by her mom and dad -- barring dire circumstances or tragedy. Perhaps gay identity is a dire circumstance in some people's view; perhaps it is a tragedy; and if so how can that be squared with the deliberate intention to deprive a child of either mom or dad due to gayness?
Sex difference does matter. It is the mix that matters, really, the complimentarity that weighs heavily in childraising. I've seen it firsthand -- both the deficits of the sex-segregative scenarios and the advantages of the sex-integrative scenarios. The married scenario is far more reliable.