Gay parenting study

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

I'll just leave this here...

I suppose those of us who support the traditional family structure might have some ammunition against the "studies show..." quip that inevitably surfaces when discussing standing against the torrent of rage that accompanies the conventional wisdom surrounding this issue and marriage in general.

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

The source of your "research" is a conservative lobbying organisation. The Southern Poverty Law Centre has designated them a hate group. Josh Duggar served as the executive director of FRC Action for a couple of years before resigning earlier this year due to his being a disgusting incestuous pedophile. So yeah, your source is not the most reliable.

The OP's link shows the well-known Regnerus study from 2012 that was reported to have shown that children raised by same-sex parents had worse outcomes on average than those raised in other family structures. This study was demonstrated to have had a number of methodological faults, not least among which is that only two of the children in the study were raised by same-sex parents for their entire childhoods. All the other ones that were reported to have been raised by same-sex parents had had, in fact, multiple types of parenting during their upbringing, so any negative outcomes can't be specifically and/or exclusively attributed to same-sex parenting alone.

That's not to say that it doesn't have some kind of scientific value; it's just that it doesn't actually prove that same-sex parenting itself is worse than other forms. More specifically, it certainly doesn't prove that same-sex married parents are less capable than opposite-sex married parents. In fact the study doesn't have any information on the former at all – which makes it puzzling as to why it keeps featuring in the debate on same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples will continue to lawfully raise children, with or without marriage: do opponents of SSM think that same-sex couples will be better parents if they're forced to remain unmarried?

Even most homosexuals are raised by mommy and daddy, I personally do not think it's fair to force homosexual parenting on toddlers who can have no saying in that.

I am pro-choice, and I don't mind homosexuality, but I don't think homosexual parenting should be forced.

But that implies that just the attribute of both parents outweighs all other considerations, such as:
-single parents
-alcoholic parents
-abusive parents
etc., ad nauseum.

In reality, there's this:
"25 year-long study finds children with lesbian parents may be better adjusted"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better
"Kids With Lesbian Parents Report Higher Self-Esteem Than Kids With Heterosexual Parents"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/lesbian-moms-high-self-esteem_n_4854450.html
"World’s largest study on same-sex parents finds kids are healthier and happier than peers"
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/worlds_largest_study_on_same_sex_parents_finds_kids_are_healthier_and_happier_than_peers/
"73 [studies] concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children."
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
And, from the APA back in 2012:
"On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."
http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx

Isn't biological parenting forced?

Many people grow up in care, that is not a fun time for them. Just having a stable base is much better.

These types of studies are heavily politicised on both sides. Science should be blind.

Even if there was some disadvantages, it doesn't mean those can't be overcome.

Very true, social science in particular has gone the way of newspaper polls, maybe it was never used in any other way. While polls are now commissioned to influence opinion instead of measuring it, scientific studies are now commissioned to change reality rather than observe it. As is the case with most sweeping political changes, the effects, positive or negative, won't be felt until the people responsible are long gone from office, often life itself.
Another problem with studying social "adjustment" for lack of a better word, is it depends entirely on the society in question and in turn the opinions of the age. There are very few, if any, fixed independent measures on what a "good" society is or is not. If the society in question is busy flushing itself down the toilet, is crass, degenerate, full of slogans, generally uneducated what good is it to be well adjusted that kind of place? Is employment a good measure when a huge number jobs are unproductive or mindless. Is religiosity a good measure if you live in the new caliphate? Is a married person really well adjusted to a society where marriage is rapidly dying? Makes you wonder sometimes.

So you think science should be blind, but you have no trouble linking a study from a seriously questionable source with a clear bias and agenda. Interesting level of hypocrisy you've got going on there.

You can't just write off twenty years of replicated & confirmed studies that have been expanded upon into other academic disciplines by saying, "oh, studies on both sides are politicized". If you try, the burden of proof is on you to then go back and prove political bias in the methodology of each study. That is what insulates Science from such influences over time, and allows it to determine what ideas are closest to the truth.

Replicating studies like this is not like replicating an experiment it is less exact than that. Quite a bit of the question being asked is itself subjective in nature.

Also I'm not discrediting these studies. I do think that the volume of studies does add weight. I'm simply saying that these "types" of studies can be quite politicised.

There very many factors involved in the success of a child, even if you could isolate the specific aspect you wish to look at, that isn't necessarily going to tell you much.

Many thing are politicised. For instance sexuality. The origin of sexuality shouldn't be an issue, it is a scientific question. However becuase views about sexuality are polorised, people need to to be cut andthe dry. The actual science says soemthing different. It says it is both nature and nurture. As in we tend to have a primary sexuality, but to a lesser or greater extent it can be fluid.

Hehe I just said it was ammunition for the debate. I read 2 rebuttals of this study before linking, I did note that neither tried to argue against the assertion that the majority of the often cited "pro" studies showing the opposite were seriously questionable.

I think it's fair to say that Focus On The Family already had had a preconceived, ready made conclusion even before any studies were conducted, which alone should call their motives into question.

I'm sure that is is true, but is true a lot of the time. Confirmation bias is hard to isolate from.

One of thing that need to be considered is that it might be negative purely because it is not the norm or as accepted, and when it is more accepted it may not have that problem.

Except of course, that the burden of proof is on them and their studies (multiple!) have already been resoundingly criticized for their faulty methodology. That sort of stuff matters as it's no longer just a case of "he said, she said" opposing studies.