Studies on Same-Sex Parenting

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Dear friends,

just a few days ago the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of Germany imposed on the federal government the obligation to completely equate same-sex civil unions with the privileged union of Marriage in Tax Law. The wording of its decision, which argues the current situation was discriminatory and not in harmony with the constitution, suggests and allows for further future steps to be taken to redefine marriage in Germany.

Now, as a result of the ruling, the Minister of labour and Social Affairs, Dr Ursula von der Leyen (conservative, CDU) has advocated for total equality of marriage and same-sex unions in Adoption Law. Just recently, the latter institution has been granted further rights on this. She says that her opinion came about by the fact she was not aware of an study suggesting that children did worse in same-sex parenting than by natural parenting, the latter not being her words.

I have tried to find representative and scholarly studies to refute this point to some friends of mine but couldn’t really get on with it very well. The only things that came up where news articles claiming new studies showed the opposite.

Do you have any resources, both such studies and arguments for Natural Marriage, to help me with this? That would be great. Thanks!
 
CutlerB said:
Dear friends,

just a few days ago the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of Germany imposed on the federal government the obligation to completely equate same-sex civil unions with the privileged union of Marriage in Tax Law. The wording of its decision, which argues the current situation was discriminatory and not in harmony with the constitution, suggests and allows for further future steps to be taken to redefine marriage in Germany.

Now, as a result of the ruling, the Minister of labour and Social Affairs, Dr Ursula von der Leyen (conservative, CDU) has advocated for total equality of marriage and same-sex unions in Adoption Law. Just recently, the latter institution has been granted further rights on this. She says that her opinion came about by the fact she was not aware of an study suggesting that children did worse in same-sex parenting than by natural parenting, the latter not being her words.

I have tried to find representative and scholarly studies to refute this point to some friends of mine but couldn’t really get on with it very well. The only things that came up where news articles claiming new studies showed the opposite.

Do you have any resources, both such studies and arguments for Natural Marriage, to help me with this? That would be great. Thanks!
Click to expand...
The Regenerus Study
 
I don’t understand the requirement for massive studies. It’s a simple question: Which parent is unnecessary, mother or father?
 
Monkey1976 said:
I don’t understand the requirement for massive studies. It’s a simple question: Which parent is unnecessary, mother or father?
Click to expand...
👍👍

While I agree totally with Coptic Christian’s reference to the study noted which is very extensive, my favorite Rabbi noted that when you here the words “Studies show…” it either reflects common sense or was not done properly.

Unfortunately our secular society (more so in Europe) has made a god of “studies” and polls as if the answers were not obvious

Lisa
 
I’m not quite sure what you are all saying. 😃

I took a look at the study, and it is a massive amount of text. I fail to understand its conclusion however.
 
**Studies on outcomes for children raised by homosexuals can be questionable on their reliability because they can have small samples, are open to social desirability bias, or have funding sources that are either pro studying homosexual issues or anti homosexual marriage, so either way the study is funded, people on one side will say the study can not be trusted because of the funding source, or there is question over the representativeness of respondents to a study.

Studies on the subject of outcomes for children who parented by homosexuals should not have a small sample of respondents; a study should not ask the parents to answer on how their children’s outcomes are, because that could be open to social desirability bias; and random sampling of respondents is important, rather than recruited respondents.

There are differences in how a adult male parents and how adult female parents and and these differing roles are part of the balance that is needed ideally in raising children: fathers are more direct, mothers more descriptive and encouraging; girls who have good fathers in their lives are predisposed to have healthy relationships when they are adults because they understand how a man is supposed to act towards a woman. Boys who grow in a home with a mother and a father are predisposed to have healthy relationships with women as adults because they know how to act towards women from learning from their father and how women should act towards them that they learned from their mother. Mothers tend to avoid risk in their style as parenting whereas fathers tend to take more risks in their parenting style which balances out and provides children with expansion of understanding in the world in terms of the risk but protection from the adverse risk of too much risk. These are basic things and is why the ideal for children should be to have a mother and a father, and it is not that homosexual couples or can’t love a child or children they bring up, but there for the most part there are distinct gender roles and these differing roles are part of the balance that is ideally needed for children growing up.

I have heard homosexual individuals in support of homosexual couples raising children discuss how their child will get the opposite gender influences in their lives from other family members or friends but transient friends or family can not make up the loss of a permanent presence of a mother or father. **
 
buffalo said:
Out from Under
Click to expand...
Sadly, historical experience like this will become part of the drama as it is played out.

Fortunately it will and should be used to counter anyone that offers…

“I know lots of gay,bisexual, transgender, people and they can love”

or

"What is wrong with homosexuals adopting and loving those abandoned children, I know many homosexuals…

or

“That isn’t consistent with my experience with my gay friends…”

I plan to get and read the book and I would hope others do to…

The theme for anyone looking to use children for the experiment to prove anything but a Father/Mother or Male/Female (Father/Mother) is not in the best interest of a child…and anyone proposing anything other than this is not thinking of the best interest of the child…
 
_Abyssinia said:
Studies on outcomes for children raised by homosexuals can be questionable on their reliability because they can have small samples, are open to social desirability bias, or have funding sources that are either pro studying homosexual issues or anti homosexual marriage, so either way the study is funded, people on one side will say the study can not be trusted because of the funding source, or there is question over the representativeness of respondents to a study.

Studies on the subject of outcomes for children who parented by homosexuals should not have a small sample of respondents; a study should not ask the parents to answer on how their children’s outcomes are, because that could be open to social desirability bias; and random sampling of respondents is important, rather than recruited respondents.

There are differences in how a adult male parents and how adult female parents and and these differing roles are part of the balance that is needed ideally in raising children: fathers are more direct, mothers more descriptive and encouraging; girls who have good fathers in their lives are predisposed to have healthy relationships when they are adults because they understand how a man is supposed to act towards a woman. Boys who grow in a home with a mother and a father are predisposed to have healthy relationships with women as adults because they know how to act towards women from learning from their father and how women should act towards them that they learned from their mother. Mothers tend to avoid risk in their style as parenting whereas fathers tend to take more risks in their parenting style which balances out and provides children with expansion of understanding in the world in terms of the risk but protection from the adverse risk of too much risk. These are basic things and is why the ideal for children should be to have a mother and a father, and it is not that homosexual couples or can’t love a child or children they bring up, but there for the most part there are distinct gender roles and these differing roles are part of the balance that is ideally needed for children growing up.

I have heard homosexual individuals in support of homosexual couples raising children discuss how their child will get the opposite gender influences in their lives from other family members or friends but transient friends or family can not make up the loss of a permanent presence of a mother or father.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I was going to say 🙂 Pretty much read the studies that say that the outcome of children of.homosexuals are the same or better. The samples have been altered to give the result the researcher wanted. The famous study of children of.lesbian compared the kids of 30 wealthy lesbian white women with the children of 30 black and Hispanic heterosexual women living in poverty. Who is going to have a better outcome? Obviously a child that grows in poverty is going to be more troubled than the child of a.wealthy, educated parent. And like that there a million other flaws when you look at the sample.
 
LisaA said:
👍👍

Unfortunately our secular society (more so in Europe) has made a god of “studies”

Lisa
Click to expand...
I agree so much with this. The new infallible God now a days are studies. The worst part to me is that our society is using studies to brainwashing people into believing certain things. From eating eggs, drinking milk to vaccination and parenting, studies are being published to make people stop doing something or to make people DO something. A stidy came out saying eggs are not good for your health, everybody stopped buying eggs. Then because egg sales dropped so much they come out with a new study saying that you need to eat eggs and all of a sudden egg sales.hit a record high. I wonder if people don’t see the pattern and how they are being used like Marionettes.
 
LisaA said:
Unfortunately our secular society (more so in Europe) has made a god of “studies” and polls as if the answers were not obvious
Click to expand...
The worst part to me is that our society is using studies to brainwashing people into believing certain things. From eating eggs, drinking milk to vaccination and parenting, studies are being published to make people stop doing something or to make people DO something.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anyone who has claimed that any research is foolproof or final. Even when studies confirm the “obvious” answer, the explanation(s) for that answer may be unclear.

Furthermore, if there’s any societal problem IMO, it’s not that people are being ‘brainwashed’ but accept numbers uncritically.
She says that her opinion came about by the fact she was not aware of an study suggesting that children did worse in same-sex parenting than by natural parenting, the latter not being her words. I have tried to find representative and scholarly studies to refute this point to some friends of mine but couldn’t really get on with it very well. The only things that came up where news articles claiming new studies showed the opposite. Do you have any resources, both such studies and arguments for Natural Marriage, to help me with this? That would be great. Thanks!
Click to expand...
The Regnerus study has been widely criticised for its methods and peer review process. While much of the discourse about his work appears (unsurprisingly) quite polarised, even Regnerus admits the limitations in his research:
The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation. It is a cross-sectional study, and collected data from respondents at only one point in time, when they were between the ages of 18 and 39. It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages, since the vast majority of its respondents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states.
Click to expand...
In other words, not only is the data sample rather narrow, it opens alternative explanations for his results.
 
Bezant said:
I don’t know anyone who has claimed that any research is foolproof or final. Even when studies confirm the “obvious” answer, the explanation(s) for that answer may be unclear.

Furthermore, if there’s any societal problem IMO, it’s not that people are being ‘brainwashed’ but accept numbers uncritically.

The Regnerus study has been widely criticised for its methods and peer review process. While much of the discourse about his work appears (unsurprisingly) quite polarised, even Regnerus admits the limitations in his research:

In other words, not only is the data sample rather narrow, it opens alternative explanations for his results.
Click to expand...
If there is no one claiming that studies are final why studies are being used in the courts yo support the claim that children of homosexuals.do as good or better than of.children raised by their natural parents? Why those studies are being used to support gay marriage in prop 8 and DOMA cases? If no one says they are conclusive then they shouldn’t be in a court because you can’t present non conclusive evidence in a court. And yes the problem is that people is being non critical, however is not that they are accepting numbers. The study regarding children of homosexuals came put under the heading that children of lesbians do better than their peers raised in married heterosexual household and people accepted as unconditional proof. If someone would have looked at the numbers they would have realized that the study was biased, but people don’t check numbers, they hear a study says x then is irrefutable truth.

The regnerous study is the only study that has been made with a good sample, non biased and the way it supposed to be. What you say about limitations is not a limitation is proof that the study is being real. If you think is a limitation then tell me why the study made on kids of lesbians doesn’t say this study was a questionarie filled out by the mother who had full knowledge of the purpose of the study and an interest in the outcome of the study, this study is only the lesbian’s mother opinion and in no way reflects the reality of the children? How come in that case they siente write that "major_ limitation?
 
CutlerB,

Here is the full text of the Regenerus study people have mentioned.

When you read it, ask yourself what groups the study is comparing. It does not compare children raised by opposite-sex couples to children raised by same-sex couples. Instead, the comparison it makes is between children living with their biological parents to children whose biological parents broke up and who subsequently lived with a mixed-sex couple (one being the biological parent) raising him/her.
 
marymary1975 said:
If there is no one claiming that studies are final why studies are being used in the courts yo support the claim that children of homosexuals.do as good or better than of.children raised by their natural parents? Why those studies are being used to support gay marriage in prop 8 and DOMA cases?
Click to expand...
In science, there is the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

The alternative hypothesis is whatever thing you’re trying to test for. In the case of a study comparing same-sex parents to opposite-sex parents, the alternative hypothesis might be that there is a statistically significant (meaning, that it is unlikely to be due to random variation) difference in the mental health of children raised by same-sex couples in comparison to those raised to opposite-sex couples.

The null hypothesis is just not confirming whatever the alternative hypothesis is. For the alternative hypothesis above, the null hypothesis would be the same except it would include a not, “there is [NOT] a statistically significant (meaning, that it is unlikely to be due to random variation) difference in the mental health of children raised by same-sex couples in comparison to those raised to opposite-sex couples.”

Note that the null hypothesis cannot be proven. One can, at best, fail to prove it. In general, a study either rejects or does not reject whatever the null hypothesis is. If a multitude of studies fail to reject the null hypothesis, those studies, strictly speaking, haven’t proved the null hypothesis, but they have shown that it’s irrational to accept the alternative hypothesis in favor of the null hypothesis.

Now, studies on same-sex parenting may have consistently failed to reject the null hypothesis that “there is [NOT] a statistically significant (meaning, that it is unlikely to be due to random variation) difference in the mental health of children raised by same-sex couples in comparison to those raised to opposite-sex couples.” Strictly speaking, this is not the same thing as proving that children raised by same-sex couples have as good of well being as those raised by opposite-sex couples. However, such a body of research would increasingly demonstrate that it’s irrational to accept the null hypothesis (which would include the hypothesis that children of same-sex parents have inferior mental health in comparison to children of opposite-sex parents).
Just to make it clearer, let’s say that 30 studies were done attempting to test whether children of Muslim parents were better off than children of Catholic parents. Let’s say that the alternative hypothesis for these studies is that there is a statistically significant difference in the mental health of the children of Catholic parents in comparison to those of Muslim parents. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say that the studies all use the same methodology, sample size, and sampled from a similar population.

Let’s say that 29 of the studies failed to find any difference that amounts to statistical significance, but one study found that the children of Muslim parents scored higher than then those of the Catholic parents. In the social sciences, the minimum requirement for being considered “statically significant” is that the odds of the difference being due to random variation/chance is less than 5%. Considering this, it’s not that unlikely that 1 out of 30 studies would reveal a false positive, so it would probably be wise to just consider the result of that study to be due to random variation.

So what conclusions should we draw from these studies? We should conclude that whatever methodology was used failed to find differences in the samples examined (considering that 1 out of 30 can be considered to be due to chance instead of an actual difference).

Let’s say other studies attempted to test the same thing using varying methodologies and sampling from various populations, but similarly failing to find a difference. Strictly speaking, it doesn’t prove that children raised by Catholic parents are as good as those raised by Muslim parents (it could be that a different methodology is needed to reject the null hypothesis), but at some point it would be very irrational to believe that such children are worse off and to base civil policies based off of that belief.

Here is a helpful and informative video about this on this general subject from a scientist.
 
LisaA said:
Unfortunately our secular society (more so in Europe) has made a god of “studies” and polls as if the answers were not obvious
Lisa
Click to expand...
You got that right, and it comes from being completely out of touch with the natural law that is written on our hearts, and the divine law that it mirrors.
 
apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf more than 100 studies, compiled

Another study is coming from Australia. Full text will be available soon as for short summary - everything is Ok with children raised by same-sex couples

smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

As for so-called Regnerus study it IS NOT ABOUT LGBT PARENTING. And Regnerus admitted it himself in the interviews.

thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc
The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels.** Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple**, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data_____. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.
Click to expand...
 
Hi ! my name is imidiwan i’m from morocco and i’m new catholic . i have the message from the God in dream before 15 days in i want to change my life , be another person and have new friends .
Plz contact to me i want to know more and more .
:tiphat: ow.ly/m4ILk :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top