Refuting study which claims same-sex parents offer equal outcomes

[NovusFidem]

Ok, first of all: the study analyzes literature. That is, it studies other studies and draws conclusions from them.

The first argument that can be made from this fact alone is that, if previous studies on the area were biased or had a problematic methodology, those biased and problematic results would affect the outcome. As I need to PAY in order to verify the data used in order to make judgement… well, sorry there.

This argument is presented by the author on the Discussion. Two authors (of, I imagine, some of the literature researched) question the validity of studies that claim “no difference” on the outcome of children raised by SS parents. They question the validity because those studies do “not rely primarily on population-based samples”, and any claim of consensus (which is what the current study tries to find) is PREMATURE without such evidence. The author tries to say that “they didn’t say there is no consensus, so I’m right”, but that was not a good refutation. Just because she/he found consensus on badly constructed studies, does not mean there IS a consensus on the subject.

Basically, if I pick 2 couples of SSM raising a kid, and find out that the kid came out alright? Yeah, not enough evidence. A good sample would be hard to come by, so until then, researchers have NOT achieved a consensus (even if the majority is pro or against it).

The literature used would HAVE to be appraised, for the sake of both sides of discussion. Did they consider that adoption often brings a burden to the family? Did they consider that if one of the SS parents is biological, that the child had to deal with divorce and separation? Did they consider that a single mother and/or separated parents, even if heterosexual, do NOT compose a healthy family formation (and, if included, would weight down on the “child raised by traditional family” results?).

Some other points to consider. There are not many adults (say, 30+) who were raised by same-sex couples who can give us a better figure of the results. You can’t look at a 10yo and say they are well adjusted; you can’t say that about most 25yo these days (I would know).

A good study would need to have a big sample and, just to make things clear, both children of homosexual AND heterosexual couples would have to be adopted. Just to make sure that, whatever trouble we find in either case, that the fault is not of the adoption.

AND that would protect the “traditional family” as well. How many man+woman couples today can honestly say that every pregnancy was wanted AND planned? Going for a study that claims no difference on outcome, but who get a homosexual couple who WANTED the kids, and a heterosexual couple who did NOT want the kids, raises a lot of concern…

 

[Midwest88]

Enter the Mark Regnerus study which was, after it was published, lambasted for “gay bashing.” The academic journal that published it, Social Science Research, is, I believe, a peer-reviewed (correct me if I’m wrong). When it the heat caught on University of Texas was urged, by gay activists, to conduct an investigation of the study it committed any serious research flaws. The verdict: It did not. Enter SIU a sociology professor (forgot his name) that also did a review of the study. The second time around it was found that the study, though has flaws, really didn’t commit any serious or true research flaw; the flaws found in the study were common flaws found across the social sciences when it came to quantitative research. BUT in the end the SIU professor said the study was “bullsh_t.” Since it is “bullsh_t” and is deemed as “gay bashing” then is it so. Regnerus study has ruined his academic career. He has only survived the wrath because he has tenure as UTexas. The faculty probably doesn’t like him now.

For those not familiar with the academia world and how academia handles politics, here’s a heads up: The humanities & social sciences are bastions of modern leftism. Any of you can say “Pish posh, Midwest,” but you’re the fool. Not me. I like to acknowledge reality.

Any study that goes against the narrative that children raised by same-sex pairings grow up to be sound adults equal to those raised in opposite sex households (there’s even a push to say kids from same-sex households even turn out better) will be met with the wrath that met Regnerus.

 

[NovusFidem]

For those not familiar with the academia world and how academia handles politics, here’s a heads up: The humanities & social sciences are bastions of modern leftism. Any of you can say “Pish posh, Midwest,” but you’re the fool. Not me. I like to acknowledge reality.

Any study that goes against the narrative that children raised by same-sex pairings grow up to be sound adults equal to those raised in opposite sex households (there’s even a push to say kids from same-sex households even turn out better) will be met with the wrath that met Regnerus.

Pretty much all that.

Just as proof of what Midwest said, look up “Brainwash: the Gender Equality Paradox” (or Norwegian Paradox). The documentary ends up proving that Norwegian Sociologists are basically wasting money instead of doing serious research. Not that Sociology doesn’t do REAL research, but some sociologists are more concerned with PROVING they are right, than they are with finding the Truth.

To the original request of the OP: you don’t need to refute the study, because its only claims is that the “scientific society agrees that same-sex parents offer equal outcomes”. But the fact is that… no, the scientific society certainly does not agree on that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So I read this 10 page article, and there are a number of questions that came to mind when considering the article’s content and the way in which it is marketed. So I emailed the authors, Jimi Adams and Ryan Light, the following questions. So far, I have sent them 2 emails, one on July 2, 2015 and one on July 9. I have not heard back as of this post.

Anyway, these are the questions I posited to them:

1. 
   *]Does your study confront the following question: Regarding the different types of “family/parental configurations,” how do children raised from birth through adulthood by their mothers and fathers in a lasting marriage compare to children raised outside that arrangement? If your study does not confront this question, please respond as such. If it does, please provide the answer.
   *] The article references children raised “by same-sex parents” as compared to children raised in “other family configurations,” (1.a) elsewhere referred to as “other parental configurations.” (7.a) What are all the different “family/parental configurations” to which children raised in same-sex parents show “no difference”?
   *] What are the specific categories in mind to which the “no differences” phrase throughout the article references?
   *] Could you elaborate on the nature of consensus, which is described in seemingly contradictory senses at different points in your study. For instance, the article describes consensus as “a type of closure…when boundaries around a contentious issue are resolved or enclosed around one correct answer” (1.e.) versus later in the article which says “the state of consensus is subject to change” (2.a.) and “Consensus’] … state at any given point in time should be seen as a cross-sectional snapshot of a process that unfolds over time” and that “any current state that arose from a temporal process can be altered in the future.” (6.a)
   *] The article, in 5.1.d, identifies periods in consensus that correspond to political events, such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” or The Defense of Marriage Act. What confirmation can you offer that the presence of “consensus” in your topic is based on the scientific method and not, for example, systemic corruption at the political, industrial, or academic level? At one point, your study acknowledged this phenomenon when referencing how “the tobacco industry’s involvement in delayed the production and dissemination of knowledge…” (6.e) Was the methodology of each of the 19,000+ papers scrutinized for neutrality, and if so, what was the criteria to make that determination?
   *] The article, in 6.d, criticizes the 2012 Regnerus study for not “relying on the work that directly engages the question they seek to answer.” Beyond keyword searching “same sex or homosexual or gay or lesbian” and “parent” and filtering out uncited papers, how did your study confirm each of the 19,000+ papers “directly engages the question” you seek to answer?
   *] In that same paragraph, the article also criticizes the Regnerus study for “forc[ing] several sources in the supportive literature to cite them,” which resulted in “inflated…importance” of Regnerus’ claims. How did your study filter out the potentiality of any other study similarly altering your sample of 19,000+ papers?
   *] Multiple times, your study cited the concept of “consensus” with regard to studies on the “carcinogenicity of smoking.” (6.e.) How is consensus achieved with regard to biological and physical science comparable to consensus achieved with regard to social science?

 

[johnnypdx]

Studies can be read in many ways; there is no doubt about that. But they DO give us information that is helpful.

Perhaps rather than trying to prove that children fare better or worse in a same sex family, we might look for ways to help parents do their parenting well. For instance, would extended family help with gender concerns? Or perhaps a faith community that offers community events with different kinds of family structure? Lots of possibilities to think about.

We are all in this together, and I would rather support and help families, not look for ways to discredit them.

I agree with this post. Jesus did not preach to hate but to help others. While I may not fully understand same sex couples fully I do feel that a child is best when in a happy loving home. Bottom line same sex or not the results will be was the child cared for and loved and supported. No matter the sex if the couple is unhappy or living in stress or hurtful then that will not benefit the child! As for sex. Remember that gay boys and girls were raised in homes with a father and a mother for the most part!

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Maybe someone from a social sciences department at a local college could help you better understand it. That could be a good way to get started.
…

That would be the last place I’d go because academia has a vested interest in promoting homosexuality. Here is a startling admission by one of its own:

Decisions [by the courts] extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact.

“Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts”
by Lino A. Graglia, Professor Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.

The gay rights movement wouldn’t have gotten where it is if it weren’t for this academic support, if not endorsement, of homosexuality. Also, F. A. Hayek points out in his Road to Serfdom that Nazism wouldn’t have gone anywhere were it not for its academic support. So that is key.

 

[DonWaddell]

The University of Texas at Austin produced a study which does a good job of refuting the claim that children do not suffer adverse consequences from homosexual parents. Go to thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/12722-univ-of-texas-vindicates-study-that-casts-negative-light-on-%E2%80%9Cgay%E2%80%9D-parenting

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here’s an issue that I don’t hear being discussed.

Let’s pretend that it has been definitively shown that children of same sex parents faired worse than opposite sex parents with all other things being equal. (from what I’ve seen, this isn’t the case, but let’s pretend)

What would you do about it?

Argue that children have a right to a parent of each sex. And then attempt to rearrange ALL laws (including divorce laws and laws about single parenting) to guarantee that children’s rights are respected.

 

[unstoppable_II]

The University of Texas at Austin produced a study which does a good job of refuting the claim that children do not suffer adverse consequences from homosexual parents. …

With the introduction of politically correct victimhood as a vocation, whole new horizons were opened up. Ordinary complaining became an academic endeavor. Protests against “inequality” naturally come to be seen as a more productive activity than personal effort. Reality didn’t conform to Rosen’s ideology, and when people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination. Ergo, go crying to a political group and have them paint the Regnerus study as a denial of equality and VOILA! victimhood.

 

[Trident_H]

So a friend of mine who supports same-sex marriage sent me this link (I’ve attached the study in pdf):
sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm

Apparently it’s the largest metastudy ever done on the effects of same-sex parenting compared to opposite-sex parenting.

I’m not scientific enough to be able to refute it, or point of flaws in methodology or conclusions or anything.

I was wondering if anyone here was

Look anyone wanting to know my position can just look at my bio. Basically I think this study is a bunch of ****. I don’t see how it is possible. You want to know how kids raised by same sex parents end up? Just ask them. There are a bunch out there right now who claim that it messed them up because they wanted to grow up normal and knew they weren’t. I think it is pretty obvious that kids in a same sex couple are going to be different. I just wish these studies would tell us how different. This is one of the reasons I didn’t wank kids if I got into a relationship. I would always worry about how they are supposed to get the balance they need in order to stand on two feet.

I mean don’t get me wrong. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that it would always be a bad thing for same sex couples to have kids. I’m not. Members of my community usually have the same care and concern for their kids as anyone else. The problem is that if the kids don’t get a balance then let us just face that so we can take steps to fix it. So if my partner (which I don’t have right now) and I wanted kids would it be so wrong to get a big-sister type mentor to visit with them once in a while to show the other side of things? Is that so bad to face? I mean if I need to do things a certain way to make sure my kids have the best upbringing possible what is the problem with facing facts and doing it?

I mean if my doctor came to me and said that kids don’t do well with parents who never get off the couch I would have to make the changes necessary to fix that problem wouldn’t I? It wouldn’t mean I couldn’t have kids, but it would mean that if I did I would have to know in advance that I’d have to do a thing or two differently that would be in their best interest. So what? That’s life.

I just wish we didn’t live in a society that was so scared of offending people that it just lies to them instead. Does that really help anyone? I mean imagine if your doctors were afraid to offend you and so didn’t suggest to fix your diet or stop smoking or anything. Are they helping you by not making you face facts?

I mean let’s look at this another way. I was raised in a home that was very domineering and very anti-gay. That screwed me up quite a bit so why would I not at least expect a bit of an effect going the other way–although not as much because there isn’t the same kind of hostility going the other way?

The Emperor’s new clothes don’t look right. Why don’t we just tell him?

 

[DonWaddell]

Thinking the University of Texas Study is a piece of junk is different than it being a piece of junk. If we are trying to be truthful, we need to provide evidence for our position, not just take a position.

 

[johnnypdx]

You seem very confused on the point. As for asking the kids then I would add that a lot would say they were well adjusted and doing find. Also 98% of the kids are straight not gay. I would say if the choice was a home with a mom and dad that was positive and loving over a same sex home of same value I’d recommend the mom dad home. However; if it were a home where dad was a drunk or mean and demanding or the family was living in stress then I think the better choice be the same sex home. Bottom line it is the personal success of the two parents not the sex. You may be best not to have kids; however, that does not say another couple should not. God knows we have a large number of straight couples that should not have kids! I know two women that have three children. They have been together for well over 10 years and are both very successful. They have 2 girls one boy. All three kids are loved and doing very well. Now I know a straight couple that have two teen boys. The father never works and has a drinking problem and smokes pot daily. The mother is weak and just does as dad says. Both boys are not doing so good. The 16 yr old dropped out of school. The 18 year old just moved in with his girlfriend that is 16 and with a child! She is on welfare he is on pot! So I say it is the home environment not the sex that will result in success or failure! By the way! The same sex home are very into God and their Church and are passing the Faith on to the kids. The straight home has no Faith and dad will tell you there is no God!

 

[Trident_H]

Yeah, these are good points. What I was trying to say is that I am tired of studies that show up from time to time and tell us everything is fine with whatever we want to be fine. I am going through a phase of absolute honesty right now so I find those kind of things to just be a bit patronizing. I don’t mind if it finds problemes. I don’t mind if it makes us look the issue over, but my intuition tells me that it saying there is no difference is a bit simplistic. That’s all I’m trying to say.

I think I am just annoyed that our society can’t handle truth anymore. That stuff has to be glossed over so we will be happy. And maybe I am wrong and this study isn’t doing that, but I can’t help but just find the timing a bit convenient.

And yes, of course, your points are valid, but what I was picturing was a normal family (which I’m sure I didn’t have) compared with a normal same-sex couple. I was not comparing a broken family with a same-sex couple because then I’d have to compare a broken family with a broken same-sex couple. That’s not what I’m talking about.

And maybe it is just me because I am hyper sensitive to having kids get as normal an upbrining as possible because I don’t think I had it. Maybe I am just idealizing things a bit too much, but my gut says that this study doesn’t make sense.

I mean maybe there is no such thing as a normal upbringing anyway?

But you are right, I don’t have kids and don’t think I should have any so that might make me a bit biased and not a really good example for this right now. I just wanted people to know that not everyone in the community has moons and stars in their eyes when we hear what we want to hear.

And if I am being honest, sometimes I might just overstate things the other way in an effort to balance things out. I don’t know. I’m not an expert. I just have a hunch. That’s it.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[unstoppable_II]

So if my partner (which I don’t have right now) and I wanted kids would it be so wrong to get a big-sister type mentor to visit with them once in a while to show the other side of things?
…

Wouldn’t this be the same as a divorced father having visitation rights on the week-ends?

Anybody come across some writings about imprinting being the cause of homosexuality?

In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be “imprinted” onto the subject.

Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period. Imprinting is a crucial factor of the critical period because it facilitates the newborn’s abilities to form bonds with other people, from infancy to adulthood. … wiki.

The Emperor’s new clothes don’t look right. Why don’t we just tell him?

Interesting you should mention that story, which is a situation in which nobody believes but everybody believes that everybody else believes. The Emperor’s New Clothes is the perfect allegory for political correctness. It requires that we reject truth that conflicts with ideology.

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of decency. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Theodore Dahlrymple

 

[Trident_H]

Wouldn’t this be the same as a divorced father having visitation rights on the week-ends?

I don’t really know.

Anybody come across some writings about imprinting being the cause of homosexuality?

I’m not really sure about that either. I mean I don’t think it would make sense because there are certain physiological differences that have also been noticed so I don’t think it would really be much to do with patterning. Otherwise why would so many gay men have really ungay parents?

Interesting you should mention that story, which is a situation in which nobody believes but everybody believes that everybody else believes. The Emperor’s New Clothes is the perfect allegory for political correctness. It requires that we reject truth that conflicts with ideology.

Yeah I guess that’s where I was going with that too.

 

[johnnypdx]

People for 100’s of years have been trying to figure out “why is he or her gay?”. No one really knows. Those that wish to believe something went wrong try and look to evidence that maybe it was of no father in the home; an over protective mother or some other cause. To do that I have to ask what makes him/her straight? Why are two kids raised in same home and one is gay not the other? Why is it that a lot of gays came from what we would say was a very good home and gay? Who knows? I say that ALL men/women are children of God. Only God himself has that answer and maybe we need to just leave it with Him. I am not the one to pass Judgment on others. That I leave to God. I do believe that Jesus was here to teach us to accept others and love others. Not Judge others. When one accepts God and Jesus into their lives they can then start to accept that they and they alone are responsible for their own lives and the choices they make. Not their parents or anyone else. They may learn to stop looking for someone or something to blame and accept responsibility for themselves. Who one makes a choice to love and comment to is his/her choice. Better they choose to love and comment to one other than sleep from bed to bed. Be they straight or gay. We need to leave the rest of it to God!

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Sparkythedog;13095472]Here’s an issue that I don’t hear being discussed.

Gay divorce is something not being discussed because too many folks are obsessed with so-called gay “marriage”.

Let’s pretend that it has been definitively shown that children of same sex parents faired worse than opposite sex parents with all other things being equal. (from what I’ve seen, this isn’t the case, but let’s pretend)

It is the case.

What would you do about it?

It’s just another solid reason to oppose so-called gay “marriage”.

But if you are actually interested in the truth, then you will try to learn all you can about it and go where the evidence leads.

Even if it shows so-called gay “marriage” is a bad investment for the state and harms the development of children?

Bradski:

‘I have no idea how valid this report is but I want to deny its conclusions in any case’.

An all too familiar mind set, I’m afraid.

Like all those who criticized the University of Texas study without reading it?

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Otherwise why would so many gay men have really ungay parents?

I think you are looking at it as an inherited trait, like blue eyes or blond hair. Imprinting is the result of the imprinted one observing something another does at a critical time. At least that’s my understanding of the articles.

 

[Trident_H]

I think you are looking at it as an inherited trait, like blue eyes or blond hair. Imprinting is the result of the imprinted one observing something another does at a critical time. At least that’s my understanding of the articles.

Well there might be something to that too. I mean, my own attraction to guys started at a specific point after a specific relationship with a friend went sideways because of my actions. I never got over it so it is possible that this lead me to be the way that I am, but on the other hand it may not have gone the way it did if I hadn’t already been on this path. I’m not trying to make excuses: I really just don’t know.

 

[johnnypdx]

My friend from your post you are having a very hard time accepting yourself. I would recommend professional help. If you can not accept who you are and love yourself as yourself, then relationships will be very hard be they straight or gay. I feel God will Judge one by the way they live their lives. Do you care about others. Are you able to love and comment to one. Do you reach out to help those less able. Do you do and say things that hurt or judge others? Do you promote hate or pain to others in your actions. Do you believe and is your Faith strong? As for saying it is not as easy as having blue eyes just maybe it is that easy. You do not know that. If it is based on one action you had as a young person that then made you gay then why is it that many young boys have the same and they end up straight. If you are to ask what makes me gay then should you not ask what makes me straight? Could a straight man just one day say “Oh today I will be gay. I will love another man and be attracted to him.” No! A straight man will tell you he could never have those feelings or attractions to the same sex. So why is it so hard to believe that a gay man feels the same? In studies a very large number of gays say they knew when they were children that their feelings were different. Those that were loved and supported were able to accept them selves and love themselves as they were and love Jesus and understand that Jesus loves them. Then too many were hated, told they were sick, even told this by their own parents. Many young gay boys were thrown out of their homes onto the streets. So would one wonder why some of these may have problems? Others hide from themselves the truth. They tried very hard to “be straight”. They Married had children and they tried so hard to not face their true feelings. Then in years later they came out. Or they were caught with someone of the same sex. They ran from one sex act to the next behind closed doors in fear they would be found out. When they are then they are not alone in the pain and hurt. You now have a wife that is hurt and the children that is very confused. So is that a better result than accepting gay marriage and promoting the true commitment and love to ONE person? Accept yourself and love yourself. Until then you will be unable to really love another. Know that Jesus loves you.