Glenn Stanton at CitizenLink:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued what appears to be a politically motivated statement suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents do just fine. In fact, the AAP goes so far as to suggest that children are more affected by the health of the relationship between the people raising them than by whether they are being raised by their own mother and father.
...To be clear, this recent announcement is not science, but propaganda rooted in social activism regarding the family, which is the foundational unit of humanity. That such a credentialed and well-known organization would play politics with this issue should grieve all of those who are committed to the integrity of science when it comes to the future of our children. Their well-being and health is far too important an issue to play politics with, especially of such a radical nature.
The AAP would be well-advised to stick to what the reliable and time-tested body of research tells us about what kinds of families promote the robust array of child-health: a family where children are raised by their mother and father who are in the midst of a healthy marriage.
A statement by the American College of Pediatricians in response to the AAP:
“The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. The College, therefore, disputes the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) claim that supporting same-sex unions promotes the “well-being of children.” In its newly released statement, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian,” the AAP ignores important research on risks to children in favor of the wants of adults.
“The College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. “The AAP ignores generations of evidence of health risks to children in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage and child-rearing.”
Mark Regnerus reacts to the news of the AAP's political decision to endorse SSM:
I’m neither surprised at the statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing gay marriage nor at its timing. Whether the statement adequately captures the consensus of pediatricians across the country is, of course, unknown. The report points out the strengths and weaknesses of the social science in this area, and notes correctly that causal arguments here are very difficult to make. The science on same-sex parenting remains comparatively new, unable to keep up with political and legal developments. But those few population-based studies that exist — that map what’s going on across the country — seem to foster skepticism about moving quickly or universally to deny children their right to a mom and a dad. It’s not a popular position, of course. In the end, we all want children to thrive. Many organizations and scholars assert that same-sex marriage is a step toward that end, ensuring household stability. Others remain skeptical, and wonder whether this isn’t more about parents’ wishes than those of children.
Ryan Anderson of Heritage (and co-author of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman: A Defense) writes in CNN:
"...So what about that release from the American Academy of Pediatrics? Two eminent political scientists, Leon Kass (a professor at University of Chicago) and Harvey Mansfield (a professor at Harvard), filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court cautioning against accepting politicized science: "Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science."
Kass and Mansfield urge the court not to redefine marriage based on new, inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show "no differences" are, they argue, "subject to severe constraints arising from limited data" and a lack of "replicable experiments." The professors contend:
"Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects."
Although we still have much to learn about the impact of same-sex parenting, we do know quite a bit about marriage and child well-being. We have decades of rigorous social science data confirming that children do best with a married mother and father.
February 23, 2013 – 9:00 am
Reprinted from The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy:
Although the American Psychological Association (APA) boasts scholarly objectivity, the social-science guild has for years conducted studies that generate the results—from the alleged benefits of the “good” divorce to the virtues of homosexuality—that progressive activists’ itching ears want to hear. Consequently, it often falls to one brave solider to challenge the groupthink.
Indeed, Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas has done exactly that, conducting the first methodologically rigorous study of homosexual parenting, the latest cause of American elites. Exposing the discredited studies hailed by the APA, the sociologist establishes that children raised by homosexual parents—like all children raised by anything but a married mother and father—suffer risks that should not be overlooked or minimized.
Unique to Regnerus’s study is the data source: his New Family Structures Study, a new research instrument that yielded a data sample of 2,988 randomly selected Americans between the ages 18 to 39, including 175 adults with lesbian mothers and 73 with homosexual fathers. The cross-sectional study queried respondents about their social and economic behaviors, health behaviors, family of origin, and current relationships. Based upon their answers, the lone Texan quantified how the 248 adult children who reported parental homosexual behavior prior to age 18 differed from their peers from six other family-of-origin types.
December 10, 2012 – 10:00 am
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.
December 8, 2012 – 9:00 am
A remote where homosexuality does not exist challenges postmodern western ideas of sex, love, marriage and babies:
"Barry and Bonnie Hewlett had been studying the Aka and Ngandu people of central Africa for many years before they began to specifically study the groups' sexuality. As they reported in the journal African Study Monographs, the married couple of anthropologists from Washington State University "decided to systematically study sexual behavior after several campfire discussions with married middle-aged Aka men who mentioned in passing that they had sex three or four times during the night. At first [they] thought it was just men telling their stories, but we talked to women and they verified the men's assertions."
In turning to a dedicated study of sex practices, the Hewletts formally confirmed that the campfire stories were no mere fish tales. Married Aka and Ngandu men and women consistently reported having sex multiple times in a single night. But in the process of verifying this, the Hewletts also incidentally found that homosexuality and masturbation appeared to be foreign to both groups.
... The finding with regard to homosexuality is perhaps not that surprising. As the Hewletts note, other researchers have documented cultures where homosexuality appears not to exist. If homosexual orientation has a genetic component to it -- and there is increasing evidence that it does, in many cases -- then it would not be surprising that this complex human trait (one that involves non-procreative efforts) would be found in some populations but not others.
... But, the Hewletts suggest, "The bonobo view may apply to Euro-Americans (plural), but from an Aka or Ngandu viewpoint, sex is linked to reproduction and building a family." Where sex is work, sex may just work differently." -- The Atlantic
November 28, 2012 – 1:00 pm
William C. Duncan at NRO's The Corner:
The journal Demography has just published a very interesting article that reexamines the claims of a 2010 study that suggested (and was widely reported) as showing that children raised by same-sex couples experienced no academic disadvantages. The catch of the earlier study was that it was significantly different from previous studies on same-sex children and their parents since it used a large sample from the Census rather than a small self-selected one which is more typical of this body of research.
The 2010 study had excluded children who were not biologically related to the head of household and who were not in the same home for at least five years. This reduced “the sample size by more than one-half.” The 2012 study explains that putting the children who had been in unstable households (lived at the same address less than five years) back into the sample increases the sample “by more than 80 percent.” This fact alone seems important. The new study’s conclusion is that “children being raised by same-sex couples are 35 percent less likely to make normal progress through school.”
November 13, 2012 – 9:00 am
Prof. Mark Regnerus shares his comments in National Review Online on the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which once again is garnering plenty of favorable press despite the methodological failings he points out:
"...What exactly is the NLLFS and why do I say it should be retired?
... the reason is that its sample — 78 kids growing up in activist households — is no longer a source for valid, reliable information. Why?
... The “Hawthorne effect” refers to the tendency of study participants to work harder or perform better because they know they are being studied. While it is typically applied to experimental research studies of worker productivity, the same could be true here. It’s a cousin to “social desirability bias,” which is closer to what I’m suggesting. In this case, I’m concerned that the kids feel pressure to give better-than-accurate portrayals of their household and personal life. When the adolescent children of lesbian parents are being intermittently interviewed for a study whose results have proven quite politically important — and almost always covered favorably by the mainstream media — it’s prudent for scholars to be skeptical about whether respondents are still offering valid and reliable responses years after they were first contacted. Some kids will always offer valid information, but given the fishbowl these 78 have lived in, I’m concerned that social desirability bias will affect disproportionate numbers of them, especially in contrast to far larger survey projects.
... I just don’t believe the 78 kids in the NLLFS are capable of reporting unbiased information any more, not after a childhood and adolescence spent entirely in a fishbowl. Even the NLLFS’s principal investigators suggested that 25 years of data collection may be enough. I would concur, and — since the study commenced in 1986 — we eclipsed that mark in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to commit significant funds — and a panoply of research perspectives — to a very large (and hence expensive), longitudinal, population-based data-collection effort that would make fans of the NLLFS and fans of the NFSS alike content with its methodology.
I’m all for more information. But if the data are to be valid and reliable, the study needs to be as free of source bias as is humanly possible. I won’t hold my breath, though, because in the case of lesbian parenting, a nationally representative sample is not what many of my scholarly, rational, and allegedly dispassionate colleagues in the social sciences appear to want."
November 2, 2012 – 1:00 pm
Keith Moore in the Portland Herald Press:
"...I appeal to the intuition and experience of the people of the great state of Maine. I know this about you. You are men and women committed to your children. You are serious parents. May I propose that there is not enough data for us to safely conclude that children thrive in households with same-sex parents?Far too little is known about this new household form. For this reason alone, and for our children's sake, doesn't it make sense to wait before we institutionalize same-sex marriage?
To this point, the data shows that the safest place for a kid is in a household with a mom and dad. Common sense dictates that every child should be mentored every day with both male and female influences. Mainers United for Marriage consistently claims that they have 30 years of research on their side. Do they?
Every study has weaknesses, but here are the two weaknesses I see with these studies. First, most of this research is based on samples too small to detect genuine differences that may exist in children raised in opposite-sex partnerships versus same-sex parents; and second, much of this research is based on self-selected pools of volunteers, not a random, unbiased look at the entire population of same-sex parents."
... Mainers should vote "no" based on the serious questions that remain concerning the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
...In my opinion, this is not about kids and wanting to protect them at all. It's about adults asking the state to affirm their relationship choices. As people who care about children, Mainers must vote "no" on Question 1."
November 1, 2012 – 8:00 am
Today on Public Discourse, Matt Franck discusses new analyses that confirm Mark Regnerus's findings. The second in a two-part series.
"Yesterday on Public Discourse, I described the controversy that followed the publication of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. During a summer of unusual abuse, Regnerus remained largely silent but with his head unbowed. As autumn arrived, he found himself vindicated as an honest scientist by his university, with continued support from the journal editor who published his research.
In the November 2012 issue of Social Science Research, Regnerus has published a new article: “Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses.”... How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000.I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships..."
October 31, 2012 – 8:00 am
Matthew Franck's first part in a two part series for the Public Discourse where he argues "Attacks on sociologist Mark Regnerus after he challenged the “no differences” thesis haven’t obscured the high quality of the New Family Structures Study or its troubling findings":
Seldom has the publication of a dry, factual report in sociology caused such a storm of controversy. In June 2012, the bimonthly peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research published an article by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus titled, “How different are the children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” The answer to his title’s question was: quite a bit different, and most of the differences are not good.
Within minutes, it seemed, Professor Regnerus, a gifted and highly productive scholar with two previous books published on related subjects, was denounced as “anti-gay,” attacked personally and professionally, and his thoughtful, measured research conclusions were buried under an avalanche of invective, abuse, and misunderstanding. For the remainder of the summer months, Regnerus withstood an onslaught of criticism, but as the autumn arrived, it became clear that his reputation and the soundness of his research had been vindicated.
What had happened? [Continue reading...]
October 17, 2012 – 2:45 pm
Opponents of Minnesota's Marriage Protection Amendment have been trying to revive the "no differences" thesis through op-eds and other writings.
Dr. Kion Hoffman of Cohasset, who has practiced family medicine for 23 years, the past 19 of them in Deer River, and was an adjunct faculty member for the universities of Washington and Minnesota in the rural-training tract of family-practice residency program, reminds them about some of the findings of the new Regnerus study:
"...The problem with much of the previous research is it suffered from three types of bias. The first is sample size. If you don’t have a large enough sample, then differences don’t reach statistical significance and you can say, from a statistical standpoint, the study finds no difference between two groups when there may still be true differences. The second bias is in survey methodology. If you are trying to determine how the children raised by lesbian or gay couples fare, asking their caregivers is not conducive to objectivity. And the third bias of many studies of homosexual parenting is called selection bias. If you recruit your study subjects rather than obtaining a random sample you can introduce significant error. Admittedly, random sampling of this group is difficult because it represents a very small fraction of the general population.This recent study minimized these types of bias. It compared the responses of adult children of intact biological families with those of adult children raised in homosexual families.
Those raised in lesbian households had lower educational attainment, felt less secure and reported worse health and lower incomes. Thirty-one percent reported having had sex forced on them vs. 8 percent of adults raised in intact biological families.
Those raised in gay households with their father were more likely to have received public assistance, to have suicidal thoughts, to have had a sexually transmitted disease, to have experienced forced sex (25 percent vs. 8 percent), to have smoked, to have been arrested and to have had more sexual partners.
The study found many other differences not listed here. It showed important differences between the self-reported lives of adult children of intact biological families vs. those of adult children raised in homosexual households. Adult children of gay and lesbian households, in general, were not as healthy emotionally, physically or socially.
The marriage amendment would not change our current state law. It only would add to our state Constitution so a judge may not change marriage law against the will of the people of our state.
The marriage amendment does not prevent homosexuals from having committed relationships.
As a family-practice physician, I advocate for the health of families, and I would recommend we vote “yes” for the marriage amendment." -- Duluth News Tribune
October 11, 2012 – 9:00 am
Prof. Mark Regnerus sat down with Christianity Today to explain more about his study on outcomes of children raised by a same-sex parent:
How does your methodology compare with those used in previous surveys on this topic?
This is the key area of distinction between my study and most others. Almost all studies that came before this one were small and "nonrandom." That is, we have no idea how similar most other studies' research participants are to the general population they seek to study. And with many previous studies, I think it's fair to be skeptical. For example, if you know you're participating in a small study on gay parenting and that it'll make the news and perhaps have political ramifications, I think it's fair for scholars to wonder whether such a study will yield valid, reliable data.
The NFSS, on the other hand, is much larger than most others, and is a random sample of the population of American adults ages 18–39. I focused not on their parents' sexual orientation—after all, it was a quite different era back then—but on their parents' relationship behavior. So I compared how young adults whose mothers or fathers had a same-sex relationship fared when analyzed alongside other types of arrangements, including the traditional, biologically intact married mother and father.
A new study of Canadian women finds that pregnant women who are married suffer less partner abuse, substance abuse, and post-partum depression than women who are cohabitating or single.
