Children Reared by 'Mom and Dad' Are Better Off Than Those in Same-Sex Couple Households

[buffalo]

Children Reared by ‘Mom and Dad’ Are Better Off Than Those in Same-Sex Couple Households

 For the past decade, a cadre of social scientists has claimed that kids  raised by homosexuals show “no differences” from kids raised by  opposite-sex couples.

  Now, a large national study of the well-being of young adults reared in  different types of families challenges this widely circulated “no  differences” thesis.

  In this month’s *Social Science Research*, University of Texas  sociologist Mark Regnerus reports that Americans ages 18 to 39 who grew  up in families where either parent had a same-sex romance fared  significantly worse on 25 of 40 measures. They were three and a half  times likelier to be unemployed and almost four times likelier to be on  public assistance than children raised in biological, intact mom-and-dad  marriages. Children reared by same-sex-wooing adults were also more  likely to have been arrested, to have pled guilty to a minor criminal  offense, to smoke marijuana, and to have thought about suicide during  the previous year.

  Regnerus’s “New Family Structures Study,” which screened more than  15,000 Americans and interviewed nearly 3,000, radically challenges the  previous scientific consensus.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/children-reared-by-mom-and-dad-are-better-off-than-those-in-same-sex-couple/#ixzz1ywdzJxFm

%between%

 

[ASimon]

  In this month’s *Social Science Research*, University of Texas  sociologist Mark Regnerus reports that Americans ages 18 to 39 who grew  up in families ***where either parent had a same-sex romance*** fared  significantly worse on 25 of 40 measures.

And that’s how you skew data to make a point.

 

[PeterJohn]

And that’s how you skew data to make a point.

On what do you base your post?

 

[ASimon]

On what do you base your post?

They’re not comparing kids raised by heterosexual parents with kids raised by homosexual parents. They’re comparing kids raised by heterosexual, intact parents with kids raised “in families where either parent had a same-sex romance.”

What does this mean? I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that these kids were raised by couples that were intact. It doesn’t mean they were even necessarily same-sex. A heterosexual parent couple where one (or even both) principles carried on a same-sex romance would’ve fallen into this category. Meanwhile these relationships are being compared with kids raised in biological, intact, heterosexual families. And the comparison data is being passed off as evidence that same-sex parents are worse for children than opposite sex parents.

It’s no newsflash that kids raised in less-than-stable homes tend to become less-than-stable adults. This is not an indictment of same-sex parenting.

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Children of Same Sex Couples

*Kids thrive in families with same-sex parents. This is beyond serious debate. The science says so. Get over it. *

Denying this self-evident truth has become tantamount to homophobia. In 2010 a Florida court, the Third District Court of Appeal, was certain enough to state complacently that: “based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise.”…

…From a social science point of view, Marks concludes, the jury is still out on gay parenting. There are simply no solid studies which prove or disprove whether gays and lesbians make good parents. Fans of the traditional family can rest easy: a stable family with a married mother and father is still the best place to raise kids.

Blue excerpts from entire article here: crisismagazine.com/2012/children-of-same-sex-couples

 

[lerapt78]

They’re not comparing kids raised by heterosexual parents with kids raised by homosexual parents. They’re comparing kids raised by heterosexual, intact parents with kids raised “in families where either parent had a same-sex romance.”

What does this mean? I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that these kids were raised by couples that were intact. It doesn’t mean they were even necessarily same-sex. A heterosexual parent couple where one (or even both) principles carried on a same-sex romance would’ve fallen into this category. Meanwhile these relationships are being compared with kids raised in biological, intact, heterosexual families. And the comparison data is being passed off as evidence that same-sex parents are worse for children than opposite sex parents.

It’s no newsflash that kids raised in less-than-stable homes tend to become less-than-stable adults. This is not an indictment of same-sex parenting.

ASimon, I got nothing from that article that suggested the same-sex families were not intact. What I gleaned from the “same-sex romance” was that these were two same-sex parents who were living together as a family, even if they were not legally married. It did not imply that it was a single mother who was seeing another woman on the side. Therefore, in comparing the effects of a mother-and-father household versus a mother-mother or father-father household on children, the homes with heterosexual parents were more likely to produce better-adjusted offspring.

I have to say, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. This is not to imply that same-sex couples are incapable of loving their children. Rather, it only reinforces the notion that we as children gain certain insights from both sexes that are helpful in forming our own patterns of behavior and learning how to interact in our own relationships with the opposite sex.

 

[Rkdajr]

To save you guys the trouble -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8851
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=108759
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=214674
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338935
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=430150
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486789
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=617847
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677964
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=684347
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=684797

Now, a large national study of the well-being of young adults reared in different types of families challenges this widely circulated “no differences” thesis.​

Regnerus’s “New Family Structures Study,” which screened more than 15,000 Americans and interviewed nearly 3,000, radically challenges the previous scientific consensus.

Wow, opponents are going to have to believe it now

 

[Gorillaman]

They’re not comparing kids raised by heterosexual parents with kids raised by homosexual parents. They’re comparing kids raised by heterosexual, intact parents with kids raised “in families where either parent had a same-sex romance.”

What does this mean? I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that these kids were raised by couples that were intact. It doesn’t mean they were even necessarily same-sex. A heterosexual parent couple where one (or even both) principles carried on a same-sex romance would’ve fallen into this category. Meanwhile these relationships are being compared with kids raised in biological, intact, heterosexual families. And the comparison data is being passed off as evidence that same-sex parents are worse for children than opposite sex parents.

It’s no newsflash that kids raised in less-than-stable homes tend to become less-than-stable adults. This is not an indictment of same-sex parenting.

Yeah I agree with you…that’s a good point. How long have same sex couples been around? Like in retro spect don’t you think it’s like comparing a little kid to an old man? Same sex households have only been around for a blink of an eye compared to hetero…

 

[twoangels]

My husband read the actual study. It is inaccurate to say that it prooves that gays harm children or are worse parents. What the study points out is that there are very few individuals who were raised in a household from infancy to adulthood by homosexuals that are now adults in order to offer a fair study of it. In order to find such individuals, you have to be very selective which causes the other studies to be flawed. When broadening the horizon to anyone whose been raised by same sex couples, we do find such flaws in rearing because these are typically situations where one parent was in a heterosexual relationship, came out as gay and later entered into a homosexual relationship. As such, the harmful effects can be found in the effects of infidelty.

If society were more accepting of homosexual unions and children adopting gays from infancy, we simply do not have enough data to conclude one way or another the harm that may or may not be done to a child. Personally, I find the claim that homosexuals harm children very offensive. If a group of religious sisters can run an orphanage and not damage children, I don’t see the difference.

The reality, though, lies in that adoption should be for needy children. It should not be turned into viewing children as commodities. When a heterosexual has a child, that child is their child. It is not simply a random human belonging to the human community. Giving up a child for adoption is hard because its your child. Certainly adoptive parents’ grow to love their child and thus adopt the child as their own into their hearts, but biological parents are not merely sperm donors and egg donors and uteruses. At this we get to the heart of how offensive surrogate motherhood, invetro fertilization and sperm donation are and how this with contraceptives have led to the view that having a child is liken to the same decision as “adopting” a pet. Its optional and ultimately for your benefit.

 

[Seeker1961]

There really isn’t enough data to extrapolate anything and there are FAR too many variables. You can’t really set up situations where all other data is equal except the fact that the parents are of the same or different genders.

This is just another “study” that makes people happy who already believed everything it said.

 

[twoangels]

A total of 58% of the 15,058 persons screened report spending their entire youth—up until they turned 18 or left the house—with their biological mother and father. While gay and lesbian Americans typically become parents today in four ways—through one partner’s previous participation in a heterosexual union, through adoption, in-vitro fertilization, or by a surrogate—the NFSS is more likely to be comprised of respondents from the first two of these arrangements than from the last two. Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions. The youngest NFSS respondents turned 18 in 2011, while the oldest did so in 1990. Given that unintended pregnancy is impossible among gay men and a rarity among lesbian couples, it stands to reason that gay and lesbian parents today are far more selective about parenting than the heterosexual population, among whom unintended pregnancies remain very common, around 50% of total (Finer and Henshaw, 2006). The share of all same-sex parenting arrangements that is planned, however, remains unknown. Although the NFSS did not directly ask those respondents whose parent has had a same-sex romantic relationship about the manner of their own birth, a failed heterosexual union is clearly the modal method: just under half of such respondents reported that their biological parents were once married. This distinguishes the NFSS from numerous studies that have been entirely concerned with “planned” gay and lesbian families, like the NLLFS.

 

[AndreaG1979]

Yay lying with statistics to bash gay people!

Come on, of course in tact families fare better than divided families that have gone through a lot of upheaval. That’s true for heterosexually reared kids as well.

To me, what this study shows is the danger of trying to pretend to be something you’re not (straight). To try and live a false life will likely crumble, at great detriment to yourself and your family. Better to be who you are from the start, rather than setting yourself and your family up for great strife.

Thank you for posting this. It has made me even more convinced how important it is to make homosexuals feel accepted in our society so they don’t feel the need to “fake it” and harm their children by doing so.

 

[buffalo]

Yay lying with statistics to bash gay people!

Come on, of course in tact families fare better than divided families that have gone through a lot of upheaval. That’s true for heterosexually reared kids as well.

To me, what this study shows is the danger of trying to pretend to be something you’re not (straight). To try and live a false life will likely crumble, at great detriment to yourself and your family. Better to be who you are from the start, rather than setting yourself and your family up for great strife.

Thank you for posting this. It has made me even more convinced how important it is to make homosexuals feel accepted in our society so they don’t feel the need to “fake it” and harm their children by doing so.

That ignores the real issues. Children’ rights - they have a right to a biological mother and father not concocted schemes.

 

[Crescentinus]

That ignores the real issues. Children’ rights - they have a right to a biological mother and father not concocted schemes.

Exactly. However, homosexualists will continuously deny that.

 

[fix]

That ignores the real issues. Children’ rights - they have a right to a biological mother and father not concocted schemes.

Indeed. So-called scientific studies are not needed to prove what is self evident. Every variable, every bias, every left out detail can produce any study to support pretty much anything one wants to push.

The deeper question is why does anyone rely on “scientific” studies to prove right from wrong?

 

[Crescentinus]

Indeed. So-called scientific studies are not needed to prove what is self evident. Every variable, every bias, every left out detail can produce any study to support pretty much anything one wants to push.

The deeper question is why does anyone rely on “scientific” studies to prove right from wrong?

One word. Scientism.
When societies forget or oversimplify the metaphysical, it will turn to other things. Science, metaphysics and morality are complementary, not opposites.
Homosexualists typically disregard the metaphysical and moral. Since they have disregarded the metaphysical and the moral, they will try and use science to validate their argument. However, it would be a losing battle since science without metaphysics as well as morality is weakened substantially and would leave it open to abuses. Besides, the homosexualists have this knack for leaving out data in scientific studies to try and validate their arguments.
Homosexism uses 99% rhetoric and childish emotionalism and 1% objective reason.

 

[buffalo]

One word. Scientism.
When societies forget or oversimplify the metaphysical, it will turn to other things. Science, metaphysics and morality are complementary, not opposites.
Homosexualists typically disregard the metaphysical and moral. Since they have disregarded the metaphysical and the moral, they will try and use science to validate their argument. However, it would be a losing battle since science without metaphysics as well as morality is weakened substantially and would leave it open to abuses. Besides, the homosexualists have this knack for leaving out data in scientific studies to try and validate their arguments.

The problem is they have no training and simply rely on emotion. As soon as logic is applied it undercuts their arguments, but they do not see it. They want the license to do what they want and can’t figure out why anyone objects.

 

[Crescentinus]

The problem is they have no training and simply rely on emotion. As soon as logic is applied it undercuts their arguments, but they do not see it. They want the license to do what they want and can’t figure out why anyone objects.

In short, they want to shut us up and convert us to homosexism.

 

[fix]

One word. Scientism.
When societies forget or oversimplify the metaphysical, it will turn to other things. Science, metaphysics and morality are complementary, not opposites.
Homosexualists typically disregard the metaphysical and moral. Since they have disregarded the metaphysical and the moral, they will try and use science to validate their argument. However, it would be a losing battle since science without metaphysics as well as morality is weakened substantially and would leave it open to abuses. Besides, the homosexualists have this knack for leaving out data in scientific studies to try and validate their arguments.
Homosexism uses 99% rhetoric and childish emotionalism and 1% objective reason.

I agree science is a new god to many today. Materialists want to act as they want while claiming science as a type of “proof” that they are acting morally.

 

[Crescentinus]

I agree science is a new god to many today. Materialists want to act as they want while claiming science as a type of “proof” that they are acting morally.

Problem is, scientific determinism is lacking in substance. In fact, the phrase “science can solve everything” is hardly a scientific statement, but a philosophical one. For homosexism, the usage of science is nothing more than a minor accessory that is used to silence the skeptics. However, it does not work that well either since most of homosexism’s arsenal consists of childish emotionalism and really weak rhetoric.