NOM BLOG

Washington Examiner: "Study Finds Children of Same Sex Couples Lag in School"

 

Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner:

Countering previous studies that found little difference between kids of same sex couples and those in a traditional marriage, a new report reveals that children of gay parents are 35 percent less likely to make normal progress in school that those living with their own married parents.

Based on the largest sample to date for such a study, the new work from three economists raises anew the impact state laws approving of same sex marriage have on children.

The new study provided to Secrets said: "Children of same sex couples are significantly less likely to make normal progress through school than other children: 35% less likely than the children of heterosexual married parents, 23% less likely than the children of never married mothers, and 15% less likely than the children of cohabiting parents."

The study also looked at similar scholarly work that had determined no difference in children of same sex and traditional marriages. The authors said that those studies filtered the sample of children to get their result.

22 Comments

  1. Garrett
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    And yet, even Allen is forced to admit that "we are unable to reject the hypothesis that there is no difference" between the children of each type of couple.

    (Also, for a point-by-point debunking of Allen et al.'s study by Michael Rosenfeld, who first published the data that Allen and his co-authors used for their study, see here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-012-0170-4/fulltext.html)

    (There's also a good chance that NOM's censors won't let this comment -- or any comment by me -- through.)

  2. Pat
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    I'm fairly certain I've pointed out flaws in this study before, right here in your comments section. You had no answer for me.
    While I wouldn't expect you to post a retraction admitting you're wrong, surely you could at least quietly not post about it any longer.
    No? Thought not.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Any child in a same-sex environment has been separated from at least one of her rightful parents. The child is repeatedly indoctrinated with the lie that she doesn't have a mother or father. It's a miracle she can function at all. But, like a hostage, she will sometime to her captivity. But how well can she be expected to adapt when she lives in a delusional environment where her guardians are convinced that two chicks or two dudes can create a baby?

    This is the same-sex environment that's considered "normal."

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    *sometimes adapt

  5. Posted December 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Barb, quite often she's been separated from her "rightful parents". Because they beat, molested, or otherwise abused her.

    As any social worker will tell you, usually the only people who shelter, care for, and adopt those children who are broken, catatonic, drug addicted from birth, mixed-race, sexually abused, or who have severe disabilities are gay couples.

    For some inexplicable reason, the Catholics don't do that so much. But gay couples, yep they always take in whatever child needs love. I don't know why that is, but it is reported to be true by every social worker out there (even in very conservative areas).

    Which brings up the key quote for this "study": Previous studies "excluded children who were not biologically related to the household head, and children who did not live in the same place for five years." Oh, but this study "put those children back into our analysis".

    And viola, adopted kids and the displaced kids turn out to have more problems. Who'd a thunk it?

    It must be the gays' fault.

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Nice little rant there, Tim, but completely made up. Children in sex-same environments suffer b/c they're living a lie, and b/c they're in an unnatural household.

  7. Michael Worley
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Garrett--

    You are citing that quote out of context. What Allen et. al. is pointing out is that Rosenfeld didn't have enough data to reach his conclusion

    Pat--

    Table 2 of Allen's work is good science, not based on any assumptions you'd question, and shows why Rosenfeld's accepting of the null hypothesis is premature.

  8. Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Barb,

    No, not "completely made up". Let me quote from the study they revisited:

    "In Judith Stacey’s (2006:39) discussion of gay adoption, she describes the gay men
    of Los Angeles as having to search through the state’s “…overstocked warehouse of ‘hard
    to place’ children, the majority of whom . . . have been removed from families judged
    negligent, abusive, or incompetent. Most of the state’s stockpiled children . . . are children
    of color, and disproportionately boys with ‘special needs.’” If it is the case that same-sex
    couples who adopt mainly have access to “special needs” children, the special needs of
    these children could exert a downward bias on the average outcomes for children of samesex
    couples. "

  9. a.mcewen
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Hold up. At the bottom of the page, the study's co-author is Douglas Allen, It also says that he is a member of the Ruth Institute. The Ruth Institute is a creation of NOM. In other words, NOM touts its own study without telling anyone that it had something to do with the group which created the study. Pretty shady.

  10. a.mcewen
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Hold up. At the bottom of the page, the study's co-author is Douglas Allen, It also says that he is a member of the Ruth Institute. The Ruth Institute is a creation of NOM. In other words, NOM touts its own study without telling anyone that it had something to do with the group which created the study. Pretty dishonest

  11. Michael Worley
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    The study is sound. Type II error may exist in the Rosenfeld study.

  12. Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Barb

    In case you think that I'm making things up, this is from a 2011 report from the Even B. Donaldson Adoption Institute:

    "As previously noted, public child welfare agencies and private agencies focusing on "special needs" placements are more likely to work with lesbians and gay men (Brodzinsky, 2003; 2011; Brodzinsky et al., 2002); they also tend to place children from the most difficult backgrounds, as well as those with the most challenging behaviors. This finding may help explain the results of other studies showing that lesbians and gay men are more likely to adopt children with developmental and/or mental health problems than are heterosexuals (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001; Matthew & Cramer, 2006). Whether these types of placements represent a true choice by lesbians and gays, or reflects a discriminatory practice, is open to question. One study argued that, given the history of resistance among agencies to working with LBGT clients, the tendency to match them with children who are difficult, have special needs or are "less preferred" is a form of placement bias (Kenyon, Chong, Enkoff-Sage, Hill, Mays & Rochelle, 2003).

    There also is some evidence that lesbians and gays more often adopt across racial lines than do heterosexual adults. For example, recent research has found that lesbian pre-adoptive couples expressed greater openness to the idea of adopting an African American child than did “straight” adults (Goldberg, 2009; Goldberg & Smith, 2009). In addition, data from several national surveys indicated significantly more adoption of racial minority children among same-sex (47%) than heterosexual (37%) couples (Gates, et al., 2007)."

  13. Posted December 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Michael, here is the Rosenfeld study. Read it for yourself. http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf

    (I hope it's okay to link to a pdf here. If not, I apologize)

  14. Michael Worley
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Barb--

    He's not joking. Rosenfeld has a point about excluding adoptive parents. He did make a fatal error in ignoring the effects of transitions into a same-sex parenting situation. This is a major public policy concern.

    On top of that, Rosenfeld's margin of error is too large to be effective. his confidence interval is from 2% better to be with a same-sex couple to 30% worse. That's not confident. that's uncertain.

  15. Michael Worley
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Timothy--

    I've read it. Table 2 of allen shows it has Type II error.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23161454

    Wikipedia Type II error-- it's failing to reject the null hypothesis.

    Rosenfeld found 15% difference, he just didn't have a big enough sample size.

  16. Preserve Marriage
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    a.mcewen wrote, "The Ruth Institute is a creation of NOM. In other words, NOM touts its own study"

    It was not a NOM study, nor was it a Ruth Institute study, just because one of its authors was a member of The Ruth Institute.

    Not too worried about libel?

  17. FemEagle
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    Gay couples who adopt children should be ashamed of themselves. They're harming children just so they can continue their self-delusion that what they have is a "marriage" that can emotionally support a family.

    Once again kids are being used as guinea pigs for a social experiment, and it's the kids who lose.

  18. chris from CO
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    I take offense to this artical big time it does not represent the truth. I will tell you so far my partner and I have A B C students and they are popular among their peers. One plays baseball, one is in karate, and our little girl does dance.

    Speaking of our little girl she is 11 we lost her aunt my sister-in-law to breast cancer last year, one day her and I were standing in line at a store she had a dollar to spend and she knew what candy she wanted so she grabbed it and gave it to the lady to ring it up. She saw on the counter a breast cancer pen for a dollar she said to the lady she only has one dollar, she can't have both so she will take the pen. I smiled at her and I put the candy bar back just to see what she would do, sure enough she bought the pen and told me her aunt Susan would want her to have the pen. So I grabbed the candy bar and gave it back to the lady and I told the cashier I think Susan would want her to have the candy bar too. When we left she was proud to have that pen, she even forgot that i bought the candy bar I had to reminded her when we were in the car.

    So before you look at these so called percentages that I personally don't agree with, just remeber gay people can raise great kids. I know we are. We are proud of everyone of them. They make good choice and all three of them hav a heart of gold.

  19. Michael Worley
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Chris--

    Gay people can raise good kids. Brian said this in the last letter. Not all of the kids in the study were held back in school. But that's not the question. The question is what the norm should be.

  20. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Plenty of talk on this thread about adopted children. No mention of children manufactured for the premeditated purpose of separating them from their mother and/or father for the pleasure of same-sex couples (human traffickers). Understandable that the opposition would want to avoid discussing the indiscrimate buying, selling and trading of human gametes.

  21. Chairm
    Posted December 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Timothy Kincaid @ comment #6displayed virulent anti-Catholic bigotry and did so for the sake of his deep-seated progay bigotry.

    The facts are no obstacle to his spouting vile lies. Those falsehoods sustain his feveirish hostility toward society. He hurts himself most of all.

    Such public behavior deserves pity more than rebuke.

  22. Chairm
    Posted December 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Timothy Kincaid @ comment #6 displayed virulent anti-Catholic bigotry and did so for the sake of his deep-seated progay bigotry.

    The facts are no obstacle to his spouting vile lies. Those falsehoods sustain his feveirish hostility toward society. He hurts himself most of all.

    Such public behavior deserves pity more than rebuke.