S/O Children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" in almost every category

[Heidi]

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

 

Children ages 18-39 asked about their experiences growing up.  (as opposed to the other study of homosexual parents being surveyed on the happiness of their children)

[bettyandbob]

I don't really care one way or the other on this issue, other than I want children to be happy and healthy in general.

 

However, the Family Research Council is most definitely not going to provide unbiased information. They clearly have only one goal.

[kiana]

This study has some serious methodological issues: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

 

As a specific example:

 

"Because of how the paper was written, Sherkat said, it would have been easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as “lesbian mothers†and “gay fathers.†If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all."

 

It appears that he was comparing statements from children whose parent had a string of relationships, including at least one same-sex relationship, to children from intact two-parent families. I would not be AT ALL surprised to find negative outcomes from that. As far as I know, his data set has yet to be released, but I have been following this with interest since I saw the rebuttal blog in the Chronicle.

[Alessandra]

The FRC's Executive Director is Josh Duggar. Not the group I would choose if I were looking for unbiased research.

[poppy]

The study that showed children with gay parents is "controversial" because the researchers are gay.  This study was performed by a heterosexual, so, it must be equally suspect. In other words it "undermines the validity of the research"........... right?

[kiana]

Oh for goodness sake. Is one positive study about growing up with same sex parents so threatening it immediately needs someone to dig up a rebuttal ?

 

Guess it is.

 

This is why we can't have nice conversations.

 

I actually think it's entirely reasonable to post a rebuttal -- just as if she'd posted it first, you'd be entirely justified in posting yours in response.

 

I just don't think that this study (in this thread) carries much validity.

 

I'll be really interested to see what the studies show when there are enough children who've been born into same-sex families to have the numbers to do a really valid comparison. I suspect that you'll end up with no significant difference, but as of right now, there really aren't enough to get a comparison of a comparable cross-section.

 

[NotSoObvious]

OMG, it actually claims children are more likely to be gay if raised by gay parents. You either are gay or you aren't gay. Here's a thought, perhaps children who are raised by parents who love their children for who they are are won't reject their children because of sexual orientation are more likely to have kids who are honest with themselves and confident about who they are, so they don't pretend and enter into heterosexual marriages, only to be miserable and end up divorced with kids.

Gee, if only there was some way we could set these kids up to have parents who aren't ridiculed for who they are and could be treated like full human beings. Maybe there is some way we could give these kids permanency and acceptance. Hmmm...

[katilac]

I have zero intellectual respect for the Family Research Council.

[Joanne]

Why, why, why the extreme and absurd emphasis on sexual "sins"?

 

Why not campaigns, lobbies and research councils that study gluttony? Gossip? Envy?

 

The conservative Church's (not limited to Christian) hyper focus on sex is creepy and alarming. That more people don't see that is even more creepy and alarming.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As the link is to a poorly written synopsis of the paper and not the paper itself, I can't draw many conclusions from the results.  I can say there are definitely some potential issues regarding sample bias and selection that are evident even in the summary.

 

 

[NicAnn]

The report may well be true, but FRC cannot be the source of the information. They have a very set mission and agenda, not at all unbiased. I say this as a Christian and a huge duggar fan.

[Guest submarines]

Both studies have huge design issues and biases. It doesn't look like anyone wants the answer, it is all about politics and money. Yeah, what else is new.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh the frc!  Such a GREAT group!

 

 

Let's have a look back at some of the wonderful things they have done:

 

Lobbied congress NOT to denounce Uganda's Death to Gays Bill

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-research-council-lobbied-congress-on-resolution-denouncing-ugandan-anti-gay-bill/

 

Publicly endorsed death to gays. Tony Perkins calls law a modern example of repentance or something wacko like that

 

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/family-research-council-american-family-association-leaders-praise-kill-the

 

Josh Duggar is exec director?  WOW!  Intellectual giant ex used car salesman lands this job in DC?  Small town boy makes good on homeschool ed by becoming top lobbyist for a hate group.  Impressive.

 

Gays will take over and send christians to death camps in box cars (the gays are so similar to the nazis apparently).

http://americablog.com/2014/06/frc-hate-group-suggests-gays-will-send-christians-death-camps.html

 

Here's Perkins 2012 insistence ythat he had data about gay parents

http://americablog.com/2012/05/cnn-refuses-to-take-tony-perkins-lies-as-fact.html

 

Why FRC is a hate group (in case spreading lies and misinformation and lobbying to not denounce state sponsored murder doesn't make it clear enough)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

 

Well.

I believe that is going to leave a mark.

[SadieMarie]

I know it is only anecdotal, but I am going to go with my personal experiences with families headed by gay couples. There were two classmates, one being a friend and playmate, of my older dd when she was in elementary school, and a third family whose dd was my younger dd's best buddy in preschool. We continue to socialize with two of these families.

 

There is also a family with one parent being a colleague of dh who have grown children who are doing quite well in life (one of whom has become a public figure ).

 

I have a family member who is gay and she and her partner have one child, also doing just fine thankyouverymuch. We see them on a regular basis.

 

I also worked with a lesbian couple who were providing fostercare. Their regular caseworker was on maternity leave and I covered for her for a couple months. I only wish all the foster parents I worked with were as wonderful as they were, as foster parents that is.

[Mergath]

Looks like even the sociology department the author of this study works for has made a statement saying that this paper is crap.

 

I guess the FRC somehow missed that when they were wetting themselves over how this was supposedly "the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue."  :001_rolleyes:  

[Sarah CB]

The study that showed children with gay parents is "controversial" because the researchers are gay.  This study was performed by a heterosexual, so, it must be equally suspect. In other words it "undermines the validity of the research"........... right?

 

Perhaps there's a need for asexual researchers.  Or bisexual researchers?

[albeto.]

Perhaps there's a need for asexual researchers.  Or bisexual researchers?

 

Yeah, 'cause who needs data when we opinions are just as accurate.

 

;)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Looks like even the sociology department the author of this study works for has made a statement saying that this paper is crap.

 

I guess the FRC somehow missed that when they were wetting themselves over how this was supposedly "the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue."  :001_rolleyes:  

 

FRC was probably too busy trying to figure out if they can get a group rate on a gay bashing safari in Uganda.

[texasmama]

I think I would like to get together with one of my gay friends in the mental health field and design a research study on this topic.  Until something like that happens, I am not interested in reading any of these studies.  Ugh.

[Corraleno]

Looks like even the sociology department the author of this study works for has made a statement saying that this paper is crap.

 

I guess the FRC somehow missed that when they were wetting themselves over how this was supposedly "the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue."  :001_rolleyes:  

 

Quote from the article:

 

"[Regnerus] admitted under questioning from the state on Monday that only two of the subjects in his study were raised from birth by committed same-sex couples and both had positive outcomes. Still, he asserted his own personal views that the state should prohibit legal recognition of same-sex families."

 

So his true "sample size" was 2, and the results of his sample of 2 showed the opposite of what he was trying to prove. 

 

I'd like to see a comparison of the children with gay parents who had previously been in straight marriages, and had gone through divorce & custody issues, to children of straight parents who had also gone through those issues; and a comparison of any of the children of gay parents who were adopted as older children with children of straight parents who were adopted as older children; and then find out how many of the issues (if any) that the children of gay parents have that aren't due to those other factors are due to the social stigma and prejudice perpetuated by jerks like Regnerus.

[SadieMarie]

Quote from the article:

 

"[Regnerus] admitted under questioning from the state on Monday that only two of the subjects in his study were raised from birth by committed same-sex couples and both had positive outcomes. Still, he asserted his own personal views that the state should prohibit legal recognition of same-sex families."

 

So his true "sample size" was 2, and the results of his sample of 2 showed the opposite of what he was trying to prove. 

 

I'd like to see a comparison of the children with gay parents who had previously been in straight marriages, and had gone through divorce & custody issues, to children of straight parents who had also gone through those issues; and a comparison of any of the children of gay parents who were adopted as older children with children of straight parents who were adopted as older children; and then find out how many of the issues (if any) that the children of gay parents have that aren't due to those other factors are due to the social stigma and prejudice perpetuated by jerks like Regnerus.

Wow! so my anecdotal sample size (when I add up the number of children of the gay parented families I know) is four times the one of this study lol.  Maybe I should write it up.

[6packofun]

I don't have any comments on the study--or the opposing study from an unbiased source with unbiased funding that shows children of long-term gay parents do just as well as those with heterosexual parents. (Did I miss that link in this thread?).

 

Anyhow, I don't understand the continual comments from those (especially those who claim they were formerly Christians) that think Christians are obsessed with sex. Christians care about the creation of human life, that thing that really does require both male and female.  So yes, sex is actually really important because human beings are important.  Not just their creation, but their imaging of God, their thriving in the best possible way, their giving glory to God with their lives.  I find it surprising and strange that anyone would think Christians shouldn't care about sex!  Creating human life is one aspect of Imago Dei.  (Not the only, not the most important over other aspects.)

 

This is only one small part of the gender issue.  (Being "obsessed" with sex is one thing; our interest in gender identity, etc. is a slightly different conversation.  If you think we're just playing with semantics, please refer to the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transsexual/pansexual/asexual/pomosexual/autosexual/cisgender/terms-still-being-invented conversation.  Wait, who's obsessed?)

 

 

[kiana]

Anyhow, I don't understand the continual comments from those (especially those who claim they were formerly Christians) that think Christians are obsessed with sex. Christians care about the creation of human life, that thing that really does require both male and female.  So yes, sex is actually really important because human beings are important.  Not just their creation, but their imaging of God, their thriving in the best possible way, their giving glory to God with their lives.  I find it surprising and strange that anyone would think Christians shouldn't care about sex!  Creating human life is one aspect of Imago Dei.  (Not the only, not the most important over other aspects.)

 

I think it's more that you will see far more Christians outspokenly denouncing sexual sin than other sins. You don't, for a specific example, see groups of Christians picketing a hot-dog eating contest with signs saying "GLUTTONY IS A MORTAL SIN" or something similar.

[albeto.]

I think it's more that you will see far more Christians outspokenly denouncing sexual sin than other sins. You don't, for a specific example, see groups of Christians picketing a hot-dog eating contest with signs saying "GLUTTONY IS A MORTAL SIN" or something similar.

 

Nothing in the bible about hot dogs. Divorce, on the other hand...

 

:leaving:

[SadieMarie]

Nothing in the bible about hot dogs. Divorce, on the other hand...

 

:leaving:

 

Maybe not all beef hot dogs, but I think it has a few things to say about pork.

[SemiSweet]

The Family Research Council is a hate group. Period. Anything they say regarding this topic is heavily biased and completely invalid. It is not worth the paper it's written on.

[SemiSweet]

As the daughter of a gay man, I am very resentful that some think it's apparently okay to say my family is invalid.

[Corraleno]

Here's another interesting tidbit from that study:

 

"Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent's partner at the same time."

 

So... 77% of children with lesbian mothers and 98% of the children with gay fathers did NOT live with their gay parent + partner for at least 3 years. The vast majority of the adults interviewed for this study had parents who were in heterosexual marriages that ended in divorce. And yet Regnerus's conclusion is not that children of divorced parents who had unhappy marriages (especially where one parent was not living in accordance with his or her true nature) have less positive outcomes than children from intact families, it's that the negative outcomes result from the parent's sexual orientation — even if the child never lived with the parent while he/she was in a same-sex relationship. 

 

Also of note: some of Regnerus's measures of "negative outcome" include being more likely to cohabit rather than marry, having more sexual partners, and being more likely to identify as gay — things that not everyone would agree are "negative outcomes." And some of the other negatives, such as higher rates of unemployment and public assistance, correlate with single-parent households, not sexual orientation: 60% of US children living with single mothers live in poverty, compared to 11% living in intact 2-parent families. Comparing children whose parents divorced, most of whom lived with single mothers, to children from intact two-parent families, is comparing apples & oranges — as I'm sure any sociologist at UT Austin is well aware. Purposely tailoring his "research findings" to suit his anti-gay agenda is quite unprofessional.

[SemiSweet]

I was going to stop with that last post but I just can't.

 

My dad came out when I was 9, my parents remained good friends and I lived with both of them at different times. In 1989 homosexuality was not nearly as widely accepted/discussed as it is now. I struggled severely. Felt like I was living a lie because I felt unable to tell my friends about who my dad was, I thought I would be ostracized. I kept it a secret until I was about 15. In the years I was 12-14 the struggle caught up to me. I became very very depressed, tried to kill myself, etc. in addition to the normal hormones and being a teen, I had this huge weight on my shoulders about my dad. I would go to gay parades with him and enjoy myself but be terrified that I would see someone's knew (not considering why they would be there too ;) ). My grandmother was of the sort who liked to go on rampages about how my dad was a pervert, disgusting, abomination, etc. so that was nice, that I got to hear that. She even called his commander (he was active duty military) and had him investigated, even though they couldn't find him guilty they pulled his clearance so that he couldn't work and he was basically forced to retire.

 

When intentionally hateful things are said about groups, not only are they harmed but their families too. I tried to *kill myself* because of the likes of this junk science/religion. Gay teenagers have the highest rates of suicide and attempted suicide in the country. Words mean things. You can't say love the sinner hate the sin if you are driving people that much closer to the edge. This post is incredibly hateful and I hurt for the kids who are going through these things every day, when others get to just sit back and pint and gossip about how bad *they* are. And now I'm done. I hope this thread gets deleted.

[Vera]

I wasn't going to respond, then I was, then I wasn't, then I decided I can't let this go.

 

This is perhaps, the most disgusting thing I have seen posted on this forum. It was done with an intent to hurt, there can be no other intention.

 

We can have disagreements about lots of different topics. And sometimes they get heated. But this was a direct attack on many parents on this forum. And no, this is not a "rebuttal." The earlier post was not an attack on anyone. It was simply affirming that families of all types can come out all right.

 

This should be locked and deleted and the op should be ashamed of herself.

I wish I had more likes. As the parent of a gay kid, I find this highly offensive. I can't say what I really want to say as it would include a lot of swearing so I will leave it at that.

[Corraleno]

I don't have any comments on the study--or the opposing study from an unbiased source with unbiased funding that shows children of long-term gay parents do just as well as those with heterosexual parents. (Did I miss that link in this thread?).

 

Here are a few, from the American Psychological Association website:

 

 Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 19-35. 

...This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature comparing the impact of heterosexual and homosexual parents, using a variety of measures, on the child(ren). The analyses examine parenting practices, the emotional well-being of the child, and the sexual orientation of the child. The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)...

 

 

Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351. 

Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). ... The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. 

 

Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press. 

Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce.

Note that this study found that childhood issues were more likely correlated to prejudice/stigma and divorce than the parent's sexual identity.

 

 Kirkpatrick, M. (1987). Clinical implications of lesbian mother studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 13, 201-211. 

Studies have shown similarities between lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers in marital history, pregnancy history, child-rearing attitudes, and life-style. Motherhood was the most salient factor in both groups' identity. Lesbian mothers had more congenial relations with ex-spouses and included men more regularly in their children's lives. Coupled lesbians had greater economic and emotional resources and provided children with a richer family life than did mothers of either group living alone with children.

Note that children in families with two lesbian parents were slightly better off than children living with single heterosexual mothers.

 

Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479. 

Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers.

 

[Momling]

I hadn't heard of this study. I think it's probably because I've been too busy sub-optimally parenting my children. It's hard work to get in those hours of television and teach my kids how to fill out the welfare forms and how to organize an over-active love life. Why, I hardly have time to abuse my children at all!

 

There's actually a whole website dedicated to this study - www.regnerusfallout.org explaining who funded the research and reviewed it and how it's being used.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I wasn't going to respond, then I was, then I wasn't, then I decided I can't let this go.

 

This is perhaps, the most disgusting thing I have seen posted on this forum.  It was done with an intent to hurt, there can be no other intention.

 

We can have disagreements about lots of different topics.  And sometimes they get heated.  But this was a direct attack on many parents on this forum.  And no, this is not a "rebuttal."  The earlier post was not an attack on anyone.  It was simply affirming that families of all types can come out all right.

 

This should be locked and deleted and the op should be ashamed of herself.

 

Agreed. 

[Corraleno]

While I agree that the OP is... unpleasantly motivated, shall we say, I disagree that the thread should be deleted. I think there are probably a lot of people reading this thread, but not posting, who may have taken that "study" at face value when their friends & neighbors linked it on FB or whatever. Seeing it debunked here is probably a good thing, as distasteful as it may be to see that thread title popping up over and over.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

While I agree that the OP is... unpleasantly motivated, shall we say, I disagree that the thread should be deleted. I think there are probably a lot of people reading this thread, but not posting, who may have taken that "study" at face value when their friends & neighbors linked it on FB or whatever. Seeing it debunked here is probably a good thing, as distasteful as it may be to see that thread title popping up over and over.

 

+1

[[email protected]]

Deleted name-calling and board-bashing, left substantive commentary. 

 

Moderator