Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families

[_Morley]

This severely flawed, unpublished study has been totally debunked.

Even the pop-science site live science has an article on its problems.

http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html

It has been published, and I'd say his study is superior to other studies that are cited by the gay rights lobby. It has been criticized but not "debunked," your delusions of adequacy notwithstanding. His decision to group as he did was based on statistical power considerations, which is something the imbeciles cited in live science should be familiar with.

You're right to correct me on the publication. When I first read about the study, it still hadn't found a journal.

You're wrong to dismiss the concerns expressed by the so-called "imbeciles cited in live science." What "statistical power considerations" are you talking about?

[_Kishkumen]

This severely flawed, unpublished study has been totally debunked.

Even the pop-science site live science has an article on its problems.

http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html

Thanks for posting this, Morley.

[_Kishkumen]

Here is what I find interesting about the LiveScience article:

Regnerus detailed his findings Sunday (June 10) in the journal Social Science Research, alongside several commentaries on the work. The study was funded by two conservative-leaning foundations, Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, though the funders had no control over the study design, interpretation or conclusions, Regnerus wrote.

Only two of the 1.7 percent of respondents who reported a parental same-sex relationship reported living with that couple as parents for their entire childhood, meaning that the study has little to say about gay couples who deliberately chose to parent children through donor insemination, surrogacy or other means.

That research has "bogus" written all over it.

[_bcspace]

The APA brief says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents,” said Loren Marks, associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University.

Is bcspace illiterate or just a troll?

You obviously didn't see that the APA's findings are now deemed questionable at best.

[_Samantabhadra]

Here is what I find interesting about the LiveScience article:

Regnerus detailed his findings Sunday (June 10) in the journal Social Science Research, alongside several commentaries on the work. The study was funded by two conservative-leaning foundations, Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, though the funders had no control over the study design, interpretation or conclusions, Regnerus wrote.

Only two of the 1.7 percent of respondents who reported a parental same-sex relationship reported living with that couple as parents for their entire childhood, meaning that the study has little to say about gay couples who deliberately chose to parent children through donor insemination, surrogacy or other means.

That research has "bogus" written all over it.

Kish (et al.),

Consider that the problem social conservatives have with gay "marriage" is that it severs the link between marriage and procreation. It's not that two homosexual human beings are inherently incapable of nurturing a child. It's that children deserve their biological mother and their biological father. It is literally physically impossible for two gay "parents" to be the literal biological parents of their "children." There is always going to be a third (and maybe a fourth, or fifth...) person involved.

The point is, same-sex couples, if they want children, will necessarily either have to adopt or have to involve at least one (and more likely two, i.e. a surrogate and a donor) other person. Instability is inherent in the arrangement. Of course a lot of social conservatives simply don't like "the gays," but I think the leftist narrative that gay marriage is about civil rights ignores some pretty big elephants in the room.

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

Kish (et al.),

Consider that the problem social conservatives have with gay "marriage" is that it severs the link between marriage and procreation.

So do contraception, infertility, and old age. Shall we outlaw contraception and force the old and infertile to divorce?

It's not that two homosexual human beings are inherently incapable of nurturing a child. It's that children deserve their biological mother and their biological father. It is literally physically impossible for two gay "parents" to be the literal biological parents of their "children." There is always going to be a third (and maybe a fourth, or fifth...) person involved.

I am the father of two adopted children. These kids, not by their choice, can't have their biological parents no matter how badly they might want them.

As for your point about "can't have children", science will probably change that someday.

The point is, same-sex couples, if they want children, will necessarily either have to adopt or have to involve at least one (and more likely two, i.e. a surrogate and a donor) other person. Instability is inherent in the arrangement. Of course a lot of social conservatives simply don't like "the gays," but I think the leftist narrative that gay marriage is about civil rights ignores some pretty big elephants in the room

Instability exists in families with heterosexual parents and their biological children. One of the leading conservative lawyers of our day argued on the side of gay marriage.

[_Drifting]

If marriage is specifically for procreation then those partners unable to have children should be weeded out prior to the legal consent to marry. So as well as sorting out the wedding dress, the flowers, the cars etc they should be obligated to sort out the medical certificate proving their fertility.

Now the down side to that is where to do all the unwanted children get placed?

1. With couples capable of producing offspring themselves
2. With singles who cannot produce offspring

Or do we allow the union of a man and a woman who cannot sire children themselevs?
And if we do, then the argument that same sex marriage should be outlawed for procreational justifications is completely untenable.

Please think of a different reason why you are against same sex marriage because that one doesn't work in any way shape or form.

[_Samantabhadra]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against same-sex marriage. I am simply trying to clarify why we should take studies like the one mentioned in the OP seriously, and what the stakes are for social conservatives whose opposition is not simply due to a reflexive homophobia.

I laud anyone who adopts, and I would rather see children adopted by same-sex couples than languish in foster homes. But I am concerned that our fraying social fabric might be further damaged by policies that are harmful to children, particularly in their earliest stages of development. To my mind, no-fault divorce is a much bigger problem than same-sex marriage. But the onus is on proponents of same-sex marriage to prove that outcomes for children are no worse than stable heterosexual marriages.

I do want to say, though, that if scientists do ever figure out a way for two parents of the same sex to have a child, that child would by definition be of some species other than homo sapiens. More broadly I think there are places we just shouldn't go as a society, and this kind of transhumanism is definitely on the list.

[_Kishkumen]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against same-sex marriage. I am simply trying to clarify why we should take studies like the one mentioned in the OP seriously, what the stakes are for social conservatives whose opposition is not simply due to a reflexive homophobia.

I laud anyone who adopts, and I would rather see children adopted by same-sex couples than languish in foster homes. But I am concerned that our fraying social fabric might be further damaged by policies that are harmful to children, particularly in their earliest stages of development. To my mind, no-fault divorce is a much bigger problem than same-sex marriage.

I do want to say, though, that if scientists do ever figure out a way for two parents of the same sex to have a child, that child would by definition be of some species other than homo sapiens. More broadly I think there are places we just shouldn't go as a society, and this kind of transhumanism is definitely on the list.

S, if the study was aimed at showing why heterosexual couples make better parents than gay ones, it was either shoddily or dishonestly constructed. I suspect the latter.