Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Study - Children From Same Sex Homes Have Lower Income And Poorer Mental/physical Health


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I heard something today that X% of homeless children and teenagers (I don't remember the exact percentage but it was sizable) identify as gay. Interesting.

 

If this study were true it could partially be as a result of poor treatment of gay children by mean, homophobic parents. Any emotional abuse really damages a kids self worth and self esteem. When you have terrible self esteem I would consider that poorer mental health. Also, it makes you less likely to believe you are "good enough" to do better and make more money.

 

I see no reason why homosexuals can't be parents. Being a parent is about love, not sex. What does being gay have to do with it? Who are you to deny another human love? Or deny a child with no family a chance for one? That's pretty messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more likely, that it's a result of alienation from normal society - the worst thing is for kids to not fit in

 

at home, AND not fitting into the world, either. They can become loners - knowing their family life is a disgrace,

 

and not identifying with the adults who pretend they are actual parents...and being unsure about a lot of things.

 

Not healthy. It's not my study. Too bad, Little Johnnie Woodpecker. And Passed Gas Vapor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying you don't believe it's true, or just bitching?

WSS

More misleading, but then again I expect that from any thing that cal posts. Considering that the study only found 248 out of 15k respondents that answered yes to "Did either of your parents ever have romantic relations with someone of the same sex?"study link

 

“The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex parents disadvantages children”, explains Marks. “However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way.”

 

“Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus’ descriptive analysis,” cautions Professor Cynthia Osborne from the University of Texas at Austin. “Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent. Or, it is quite possible, that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining ‘normal relationships’.”report link

 

The best case is the parents both raise the kid together but whether gay/lesbian parents have a more negative effect then no parent(s) is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More misleading, but then again I expect that from any thing that cal posts. Considering that the study only found 248 out of 15k respondents that answered yes to "Did either of your parents ever have romantic relations with someone of the same sex?"study link

 

 

The best case is the parents both raise the kid together but whether gay/lesbian parents have a more negative effect then no parent(s) is unknown.

If it is unknown, why then would we assume that the best case scenario is both parents raising a child?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is unknown, why then would we assume that the best case scenario is both parents raising a child?

WSS

 

Fair question, I was just merely restating what the study found I guess since it is always possible(though I would think unlikely) that having one natural parent and another parent that is of the same sex could be better than having both natural parents. I would assume that having both natural parents would be the best for raising a child.

 

The unknown part is the difference of adoptive same sex couples vs adoptive different sex parents, including when one of the parent is still a natural parent for both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying you don't believe it's true, or just bitching?

WSS

 

This study on gay parenting was horribly done and is essentially meaningless. Everyone and their brother and their sister in the scientific community seems to be pointing out all of its flaws.

 

Also was funded by socials conservative organizations:

 

"The lion’s share came from the Witherspoon Institute, a think tank in Princeton, New Jersey (and not affiliated with Princeton University). ...The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study. The Bradley Foundation is considered one of the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundations, although its contribution to this study is “only” $90,000."

 

Will Saletan:

 

"What the study shows ... is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus’ sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago. No more sham heterosexual marriages. No more post-parenthood self-discoveries. No more deceptions. No more affairs. And no more polarization between homosexuality and marriage. Gay parents owe their kids the same stability as straight parents. That means less talk about marriage as a right, and more about marriage as an expectation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blah blah blah.

 

Heck doesn't like the study, so it was "horribly done" blah blah blah.

 

gay people disagree blah blah blah.

 

Meanwhile, expect an American backlash to ENDA.

 

The time for this garbage to be sent out with the trash, has come.

 

But it will have to wait until the liar in chief is gone, after his corrupt AG resigns or is fired...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This study on gay parenting was horribly done and is essentially meaningless. Everyone and their brother and their sister in the scientific community seems to be pointing out all of its flaws.

 

It did get published in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal, though. People are going to twist this, however, and even the author went out of his way to say that correlation does not mean causation. Honestly, I'm not surprised by the findings. I'd be depressed too if I was 12, self-conscious and getting teased about having same-sex parents, but that's not a reason to ban same-sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did get published in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal, though. People are going to twist this, however, and even the author went out of his way to say that correlation does not mean causation. Honestly, I'm not surprised by the findings. I'd be depressed too if I was 12, self-conscious and getting teased about having same-sex parents, but that's not a reason to ban same-sex marriage. Vapor

*****************

Now that's a legit, classy appraisal.

 

And, it's one study -

 

but there are other studies that show dramatic importance in having female and male role models in childrens' lives, girls and boys.

 

It isn't natural to only have one or the other. In single parent homes, it's still important to have that other sex role model.

 

Aunt, uncle, church friend, friend, grandparent....

 

not necessarily violated by a set of gay "parents", but ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did get published in a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal, though. People are going to twist this, however, and even the author went out of his way to say that correlation does not mean causation. Honestly, I'm not surprised by the findings. I'd be depressed too if I was 12, self-conscious and getting teased about having same-sex parents, but that's not a reason to ban same-sex marriage.

 

Well, the whole point is that the study is twisted because it doesn't control for what they needed to control for. We shouldn't be surprised that it appeared on Glenn Beck's website and then in here, if that's what you mean by twisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same study no matter where it is posted.

 

Come on. It would be a better study if it were posted on a CNN website?

 

That's really ridiculous. Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are certain websites where I'd consider studies more credible. The fact that it is from this website doesn't necessarily make it not credible, but because it is from the type of websites you copy and paste from it makes most people want to double check the credibility.

 

 

This study, like most, is trying to just record the effects of changing one independent variable. That's unrealistic though, and many variables van change from one case to the next. Combined that with the small gay parent sample size and the authors own comments and it's credibility begins to fall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looked over the actual paper, found here:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

 

I, personally, don't have any huge problems with it. The author acknowledges that he is being funded by a conservative source, and asserts that they did not affect the science conducted. After reading his methods, with my limited knowledge of biostatistics, the techniques he uses appear to be legitimate. I am not a social scientist, however, and my opinion may mean squat.

 

There is good reason, however, for this study to be conducted. Many people claim that there is no difference in outcome between being reared by straight or gay parents, and the evidence to back that assertion has its own issues. These issues are outside the scope of this experiment. The author also writes:

 

Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.

 

If there is a problem with his methods, I'd invite anyone to point it out, though I'm sure we'll hear some feedback from people in this scientific community soon.

 

Here is the volume it was published in:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X

 

If you look at the first paper listed, here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

 

It attempts to explain why previous studies do not support the claim that there is no difference between the two.

 

Going back to Regnerus's paper, I don't think he did a particularly good job of presenting the data so that it's easy for us to see why he came to the conclusions. The other paper presents its data in a much better way. That being said, the science appears to be sound, and if it was just bullshit spewing from the religious right, it would have no place in this journal.

 

tl;dr

This paper is NOT saying that gay parents lead to depressed kids a la cal's title for this thread. This paper IS challenging the assertion that there is NO difference between kids in gay and straight households. He shows statistical evidence that this is not the case.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the comments by that author make a lot of sense. I haven't actually read into any one the study yet but since you posted all the links I'll get to it eventually.

 

I think this is a very hard thing to do a study on. Since it is damn near impossible to completely eliminate all other variables except the sexual orientation of the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to better than this guy, so take a look.

 

"If one wanted to intentionally create Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers groups which were least likely to look like an intact biological family, I can’t imagine a better way to do so than to take the steps Regnerus has taken here.”

 

Interesting response, but I don't like how the guy is demonizing the author. Then again, I do the same thing when I look at sources for my relevant research. This guy looks to be light years ahead of me in statistical social research, so I'll heed what he has to say. However, I don't think this study was subversive. Regnerus picked a way to sort and analyze his data, and then he sorted and analyzed it. Was it the best way? This guy doesn't think so. Was it the worst way? I'd wager it was not. But that's typical in the social sciences as there are an infinite number of ways to sort the data, and I don't see how his methods invalidate his manuscript. The beautiful thing about science is that no one ever has the TRUE story. This guy struck a chord with a number of scientists, and I would bet that some are going to challenge what he has to say.

 

Will this get picked up and skewed by conservative think tanks? Unfortunately, yes, but the questions this study generated will lead to further research in this area. Everybody wins. This is why I love science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things that keep this argument from being very useful are these.

One side needs to insist that homosexuality is completely normal and natural.

The other side needs to insist that it makes a difference in their own lives.

 

Aside from those I'd imagine it there are a lot of other factors that separate gay people with children from a more traditional relationships.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being gay is normal in the same sense being really tall, having red hair, or being really really smart. It's just uncommon genetics. Sure, it may not be even close to the majority, but it's not some abomination

I never mentioned abomination.

The fact that something occurs in nature, no matter how few times, does not make it the norm.

Nor does it make it moral or immoral.

pedophilia, dwarfism, albinos, down's syndrome, autism, sadism, masochism and a host of others all occur in nature.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said pedophilia occurs in nature. So that's why I said a study of it would be weird

 

I kinda misunderstood what you originally said and we're just getting off track now haha

No big deal.

There probably are a lot of studies I guess.

But I think pedophilia is more natural then homo sexuality just because we have placed moral boundaries and legal limits upon it .

I won't ask anyone to post any insincere denials but just ask yourselves: is it likely that you could be aroused by a hot 13 year old girls?

How a bout an attractive 23 year old man?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...