Newly Published Study on Same-Sex Parenting

[_The Nehor]

I am saying that I would bet diamonds to doughnuts that if the data went against them the study would have been terminated.

that's a pretty serious charge you are leveling on UofC San Fran. What do you know about that institution and it's researchers that makes you think they would do something that serious?

It's not a serious charge. I attended an academic institution. I made friends with many of my professors and learned what goes on. Comparing stories with friends and siblings I know my institution was not unique. The idea that data opposed to someone's pet theory may never be published is not a serious accusation. It's the status quo.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor's quote is a great example of Mormon hypocricy and the prevailing LDS double standard...

While growing up in the church, I cannot begin to describe how often I heard the concept that "If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask a Mormon!" And that one cannot rely on "Anti-Mormon" sources for accurate or true information. That seems to be an especially accurate stance for those engaging in Mormon apologetics—to question the source, motives, and methods of anyone who isn’t LDS.

When asking what someone believes I am still a believer in that teaching. When making comparing someone to another group I would not 'go to the source'. If I wanted to know if the LDS Word of Wisdom leads to a longer lifespan I would not go to them; I would go to the data.

I hope that makes the distinction clear.

Ironically, however, when it comes to understanding LGBT individuals or groups, Mormons immediately discredit the source if LGBT individuals are, themselves, involved. In short, they completely support, “Wanna know the truth about Mormons? Ask a Mormon!” but denounce “Wanna know about gays or lesbians? Don’t trust what they’d have to say—they’re only interested in advancing their own self-centered agenda.”

No. If I wanted to find out about enduring homophobia or 'coming out' experiences or something about finding a partner in their community I would ask them. They would know. If I wanted to know what they believed I'd be perfectly happy going to the source. The second they start making comparisons between themselves and the heterosexual community about the stability of their relationships or their fitness as parents I want data, not their views.

Neither extreme is reliable. Of course, while there is definitely merit in going to the source to find out truth, neither Mormons (as a group) NOR gays or lesbians (as a group) should be expected to give a fully comprehensive, utterly non-biased account of their own experiences, choices, and the ramifications thereof. Humans are both finite and self-interested beings, and as such, none of us will never be able to fully divorce ourselves from the inherent limitations of and blindness to our own personal biases.

Largely true.

That is why the fact that this (and any other study attempting to remove as much human bias ) is peer reviewed is so significant and important, notwithstanding Calculus Crusader’s flippant dismissal (when is the last time you saw any subject of significance regarding any given Mormon Apologetic claim published in a peer reviewed journal…?) A believe in Mormonism’s credibility depends on it appealing to it’s own authority and, when evidence clashes with doctrine, rationalizing away or rejecting data received from empirical, scientific methods.

I am not Scratch. I do not worship at the altar of peer-reviewed studies. I read the report the study put on their website and the limitations THEY mentioned in their own study. This is not conclusive in any way. It is a morale victory as now people will hold up this study as some kind of proof when it's support but not proof.

No, a belief in Mormonism's credibility comes through contact with the divine, not appealing to it's own authority.

Both that willful ignorance of science, and the hypocrisy of appeals to Mormon authority to ‘find out what it’s like to be Mormon,’ have elegantly been on display in this thread, thanks to Nehor and Calculus Crusader.

I think you overestimate this study if you call it 'science'. It's sociology after all.



It's interesting but not conclusive. Your faulty comparison to LDS requests to seek the source for basic knowledge is not really worthy of consideration as there is a distinct difference between learning what someone believes and studying sociological ramifications.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Ain't that right Rob? The statistics have to be skewed because Lesbians did it. Lesbians have a sinful mind.

Lesbians can produce decent statistical analyses but that does not appear to be the case here. I need to read the journal article but from what I gather the study suffers from the following problems:

The lesbians who participated were recruited from certain lesbian clubs and their sample of lesbians is biased toward older and financially established couples. I do not believe their sample is representative of all lesbians and it is not legitimate to compare such a sample to a sample of heterosexual parents that is (presumably) drawn from the entire population of heterosexual couples. Assuming their survey instruments are legitimate (which I'm not sure of), it would only be fair to compare their sample of lesbians to older, financially established heterosexual couples with planned pregnancies. Otherwise, the lesbian parenting is confounded with these other factors.

The lesbian parents were surveyed about the well being of their children and their answers are going to be skewed toward the positive, especially if they are cognizant (and I have no doubt that they are) of the impact such a study might have on social policy.

[_Calculus Crusader]

.
Nehor's quote is a great example of Mormon hypocricy and the prevailing LDS double standard...

While growing up in the church, I cannot begin to describe how often I heard the concept that "If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask a Mormon!" And that one cannot rely on "Anti-Mormon" sources for accurate or true information. That seems to be an especially accurate stance for those engaging in Mormon apologetics—to question the source, motives, and methods of anyone who isn’t LDS.

Ironically, however, when it comes to understanding LGBT individuals or groups, Mormons immediately discredit the source if LGBT individuals are, themselves, involved. In short, they completely support, “Wanna know the truth about Mormons? Ask a Mormon!” but denounce “Wanna know about gays or lesbians? Don’t trust what they’d have to say—they’re only interested in advancing their own self-centered agenda.”

Neither extreme is reliable. Of course, while there is definitely merit in going to the source to find out truth, neither Mormons (as a group) NOR gays or lesbians (as a group) should be expected to give a fully comprehensive, utterly non-biased account of their own experiences, choices, and the ramifications thereof. Humans are both finite and self-interested beings, and as such, none of us will never be able to fully divorce ourselves from the inherent limitations of and blindness to our own personal biases.

That is why the fact that this (and any other study attempting to remove as much human bias ) is peer reviewed is so significant and important, notwithstanding Calculus Crusader’s flippant dismissal (when is the last time you saw any subject of significance regarding any given Mormon Apologetic claim published in a peer reviewed journal…?) A believe in Mormonism’s credibility depends on it appealing to it’s own authority and, when evidence clashes with doctrine, rationalizing away or rejecting data received from empirical, scientific methods.

Both that willful ignorance of science, and the hypocrisy of appeals to Mormon authority to ‘find out what it’s like to be Mormon,’ have elegantly been on display in this thread, thanks to Nehor and Calculus Crusader.

My view,
Darin

I ain't a Mormon. I am, however, a statistician with a degree from UCSD.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Ain't that right Rob? The statistics have to be skewed because Lesbians did it. Lesbians have a sinful mind.

Lesbians can produce decent statistical analyses but that does not appear to be the case here. I need to read the journal article but from what I gather the study suffers from the following problems:

The lesbians who participated were recruited from certain lesbian clubs and their sample of lesbians is biased toward older and financially established couples. I do not believe their sample is representative of all lesbians and it is not legitimate to compare such a sample to a sample of heterosexual parents that is (presumably) drawn from the entire population of heterosexual couples. Assuming their survey instruments are legitimate (which I'm not sure of), it would only be fair to compare their sample of lesbians to older, financially established heterosexual couples with planned pregnancies. Otherwise, the lesbian parenting is confounded with these other factors.

You're right that there are confounding factors here. But there also would be confounding factors for a hypothetical study that showed children of lesbians to be significantly worse-off. For example, how would researchers ensure that children in the hetero-parent comparison group suffered the same level of social opprobrium as the children of lesbian parents? That's one potential lurking variable among many that would cast doubt on a conclusion that having lesbian parents causes problems in itself.

But even if this study doesn't show that the typical lesbian mother is a better parent than the typical heterosexual, it does show that, under some circumstances, lesbians are very likely to raise well-adjusted children. And that's enough to look askance at laws that bar lesbians from adopting children, or that disfavor them in custody battles.

The lesbian parents were surveyed about the well being of their children and their answers are going to be skewed toward the positive

But this characteristic is shared by the heterosexual-parent control group as well.

, especially if they are cognizant (and I have no doubt that they are) of the impact such a study might have on social policy.

This is a valid concern, but one that doesn't cut too much against the study's findings, because if such a strong bias to report well-adjusted children were present, we wouldn't expect the significant differences the study found (and expected to find, given independent studies of those non-orientation variables) within the lesbian-parent group. The data would likely be more jumbled than it is if parental concern over the outcome of the study was an influential variable.

[_Euthyphro]

But, I can think of two reasons why children of lesbian couples do just fine. First, it's statistically established that males tend to be more abusive towards children and abused kids don't do as well in a large number of measures. Since there are no males raising the kids, the likelihood of abuse has gone way down. Second, equal partner lesbianism has historically been more socially acceptable than has been equal partner male homosexuality. Some examples of this show what I am getting at. There are zero prohibitions against lesbianism in the Torah. Also, in the middle ages the penalty for male homosexuality tended to be death, while lesbianism was largely ignored by the law. Even ancient Athens wasn't really an exception to this. So lack of abuse and social acceptance means that the kids will tend to do just fine.

I'm not sure I buy into these hypotheses, but I did want to ask Darin about what this means for male couples. One possible take-away view of this study is something along the lines of what Aristotle S. is talking about: women are better at raising kids than men and they get better breaks. So isn't this kinda bad news if you're a man in a committed homosexual relationship who wants to raise children with your partner? I mean that's twice the male badness right there. At least with a hetero couple you've got one woman and only one man to put the beat-down on the kids.

[_moksha]

How could gay couples who have jumped through so many adoption hoops possibly compete with a couple of teenagers (who did it God's way in the backseat) in the parenting arena?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Ain't that right Rob? The statistics have to be skewed because Lesbians did it. Lesbians have a sinful mind.

Lesbians can produce decent statistical analyses but that does not appear to be the case here. I need to read the journal article but from what I gather the study suffers from the following problems:

The lesbians who participated were recruited from certain lesbian clubs and their sample of lesbians is biased toward older and financially established couples. I do not believe their sample is representative of all lesbians and it is not legitimate to compare such a sample to a sample of heterosexual parents that is (presumably) drawn from the entire population of heterosexual couples. Assuming their survey instruments are legitimate (which I'm not sure of), it would only be fair to compare their sample of lesbians to older, financially established heterosexual couples with planned pregnancies. Otherwise, the lesbian parenting is confounded with these other factors.

The lesbian parents were surveyed about the well being of their children and their answers are going to be skewed toward the positive, especially if they are cognizant (and I have no doubt that they are) of the impact such a study might have on social policy.

Stop this. I'm trying to appeal to your Calvinistic side.

[_The Nehor]

How could gay couples who have jumped through so many adoption hoops possibly compete with a couple of teenagers (who did it God's way in the backseat) in the parenting arena?

The idea many has is that neither should.

P.S. God's way is with a copy of the Kama Sutra, lots of hot oil, handcuffs, and play-doh. Tell those kids to get it right.

[_Nimrod]

How could gay couples who have jumped through so many adoption hoops possibly compete with a couple of teenagers (who did it God's way in the backseat) in the parenting arena?

The idea many has is that neither should.

P.S. God's way is with a copy of the Kama Sutra, lots of hot oil, handcuffs, and play-doh. Tell those kids to get it right.

Silly Nehor. You only need those props if you're a sex-jaded adult. Teenage lust needs none of that.