Homosexuality

[Truth Detector]

How does allowing gay marriage erode two parent normal households?

Again that has been answered waaaaay back; but is much more than JUST gay marriage that serves to erode normal two parent households. It is the conglomeration of societies attitudes towards morality and religion, the idea that individuals are not accountable for their behaviors, the nanny State and the concept of villages raising our children combined with efforts like gay marriage to trivialize the importance of a committed normal relationship between a man and a woman to nurture and raise the children they produce.

If marriage merely means whatever we say it should mean to fit our lifestyles, if morality is merely a personal choice, if our actions and behaviors leading to really bad outcomes are blamed on our "environment" and excused by the nanny state, then marriage becomes nothing more than a State sanctioned piece of paper bestowing State benefits on the willing wards of the State, we the sheeple.

I know it makes Liberals feel good inside thinking that they are so open minded and caring that they want to bestow normalcy to demographics who will then vote for their politicians promoting their failed ideology; but it doesn’t do anything good for society. It is a failed dishonest and corrupt ideology that has historically led to bad outcomes and failure.

But if your goal is to turn every city into a Detroit, every State into a Venezuela and the nation into the malaise and disintegration of European socialism; then by all means, support this agenda.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Again that has been answered waaaaay back; but is much more than JUST gay marriage that serves to erode normal two parent households. It is the conglomeration of societies attitudes towards morality and religion, the idea that individuals are not accountable for their behaviors, the nanny State and the concept of villages raising our children combined with efforts like gay marriage to trivialize the importance of a committed normal relationship between a man and a woman to nurture and raise the children they produce.

If marriage merely means whatever we say it should mean to fit our lifestyles, if morality is merely a personal choice, if our actions and behaviors leading to really bad outcomes are blamed on our "environment" and excused by the nanny state, then marriage becomes nothing more than a State sanctioned piece of paper bestowing State benefits on the willing wards of the State, we the sheeple.

I know it makes Liberals feel good inside thinking that they are so open minded and caring that they want to bestow normalcy to demographics who will then vote for their politicians promoting their failed ideology; but it doesn’t do anything good for society. It is a failed dishonest and corrupt ideology that has historically led to bad outcomes and failure.

But if your goal is to turn every city into a Detroit, every State into a Venezuela and the nation into the malaise and disintegration of European socialism; then by all means, support this agenda.

HEAR HEAR

best post of 2014

Totally took down that fraud Winterborn.

 

[Truth Detector]

The truth about many non-scientific studies out there desperately trying to assert the great lie:

Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research
By Christine Kim

According to conventional wisdom, research regarding outcomes for children of parents in same-sex relationships shows “no difference.” For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated in 2005 that “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.”[1] This conclusion has been cited in the judicial proceedings on the nature of marriage. For example, Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision regarding Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, stated: “The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”[2]

However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings.[3] Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date.[4] Examples of the methodological problems are discussed below, as well as a profile of the recently released New Family Structures Study, which has raised the bar on quality of research in this area. Given the magnitude of the policy issues under debate, much more study is needed.

Non-Representative Samples

In order to generalize a set of social scientific evidence to a broader group, the samples upon which the evidence is based should accurately represent the broader group. In a probability sample, every member of the broader group has an equal chance of being selected into the sample, and the selection is random.[5] Non-probability samples, on the other hand, cannot make valid generalizations about the broader group because they do not represent it. These samples “may give us interesting leads, and suggest possible insights, but nothing reliable can be inferred from them outside the individuals studied.”[6]

Convenience Samples

A 2010 article reviewed 44 same-sex parenting studies and noted that only five had probability samples; moreover, only three used a nationally representative sample. However, this same sample used by all three studies contained only 44 children of same-sex parents.[7]

The remaining studies were all based on convenience samples, which are comprised of volunteers recruited through targeted advertisement (e.g., in specific publications), the “snowball” method (when respondents identify additional subjects), and/or an existing group.

Consequently, most of the no-differences findings “describe samples of lesbian families that are disproportionately middle class, White, and highly educated.”[8] For example, a 2012 review of the 59 studies reported in the 2005 APA brief on same-sex parenting “reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially homogeneous samples.”[9] Even studies of donor-inseminated (DI) parenthood “do not know the extent to which the comparatively high socioeconomic status of DI parents studied accurately reflects the demographics of lesbian and gay parenthood generally.”[10]

Moreover, in many studies, even the opposite-sex comparison groups are not representative of their respective populations.[11] Researchers also acknowledge the nearly non-existent research on gay fathers and parents who are bisexual or transgender.[12]

Failure to Reflect Diversity

Emerging demographic data suggest significant diversity among same-sex parents. For example, using the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, a 2012 report found that, contrary to popular perception, at the national level, same-sex couples raising children are the most likely to live in southern states, not on the west coast or in the northeast. Moreover, minority same-sex parents and less-educated same-sex parents are more likely to be raising children than are white and more-educated parents.[13]

Small Samples

A 2010 review reported that the “mean number of children of gay or lesbian parents in these studies is 39, and the median is 37.”[14] The two studies that used longitudinal, probability samples identified only 44 children of same-sex parents in a sample of more than 12,000 adolescents and 18 lesbian mothers out of 14,000 mothers in the study, respectively. One was supplemented with 21 mothers through the “snowball,” or referral, strategy.[15]

False Negatives

Small sample sizes increase the likelihood of finding false negatives—that is, concluding that there are no differences when they do in fact exist. Of the 22 studies (out of the 49 reviewed) that had a different-sex comparison group, a 2001 review found only one study that had a sufficiently large sample size, which had 25 percent probability of finding a false negative.

For the remaining 21 studies, the false negative rate ranged from 77 percent to 92 percent.[16] Researchers have also acknowledged that “some of the findings of no differences may miss real differences…because some studies use levels of significance that may be too restrictive for their very small samples.”[17]

Inconsistent or Non-Existent Comparison Groups

To conclude that two groups are different, research needs to compare a study group (e.g., children of same-sex parents) with a comparison group (e.g., children of opposite-sex parents). Ideally, these two groups should be identical except for the characteristic of interest that is being tested—in the case of same-sex parenting, the parents’ sexual orientation or relationship status. However, a surprising number of same-sex parenting studies have no opposite-sex comparison groups.

For example, a 2012 review that evaluated the 59 studies in the 2005 APA report noted that only 33 had comparison groups, of which 13 clearly used single-mothers. In the remaining 20 studies, however, the comparison groups were often vaguely defined, with general references to “mothers” or “couples,” and only in rare cases was the comparison group explicitly defined as opposite-sex intact married families.[18]

Moreover, some studies fail to account for all the significant differences between the study and the comparison groups—e.g., mothers’ age or education level—that might bias the no-differences findings.[19]

Other Methodological Problems

Researchers have noted several other methodological limitations in the research on children of parents in same-sex relationships. They include a variety of measurement issues, such as questionable reliability and validity and potentially biased participant responses (e.g., given by parents) due to social desirability considerations.[20]

In addition, in many studies, participants, and researchers were not blind to the nature of the study, which may have introduced biases during the data collection and processing stages.[21] Furthermore, few studies examined longer-term outcomes, as some effects may not be observable until late adolescence or early adulthood.[22]

New Family Structures Study

In contrast to most studies on children of same-sex parents, a new national study called the New Family Structures Survey (NFSS) offers the most representative picture to date of outcomes for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[23] It compares a large, national, random sample of such children with their peers from intact families on 40 outcomes and finds significant disadvantages across many of the outcome areas for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[24] The NFSS is a rich data source for quality research on children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships. While the NFSS does not answer every research question, it represents an important contribution to the literature on the issue.

More Study Needed

Better data and theories, greater detail, and more rigorous methods over an extended period of time are needed before a broader understanding can emerge.[25] Today, the issue of children’s welfare in association with same-sex parenting calls for more rigorous research based on large, nationally representative samples.[26] The NFSS is an important contribution in this regard. The need is all the more serious given the magnitude of the policy questions at hand related to the institution of marriage.

Christine C. Kim is Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...parenting-on-children-evaluating-the-research

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The truth about many non-scientific studies out there desperately trying to assert the great lie:

Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research
By Christine Kim

According to conventional wisdom, research regarding outcomes for children of parents in same-sex relationships shows “no difference.” For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated in 2005 that “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.”[1] This conclusion has been cited in the judicial proceedings on the nature of marriage. For example, Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision regarding Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, stated: “The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”[2]

However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings.[3] Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date.[4] Examples of the methodological problems are discussed below, as well as a profile of the recently released New Family Structures Study, which has raised the bar on quality of research in this area. Given the magnitude of the policy issues under debate, much more study is needed.

Non-Representative Samples

In order to generalize a set of social scientific evidence to a broader group, the samples upon which the evidence is based should accurately represent the broader group. In a probability sample, every member of the broader group has an equal chance of being selected into the sample, and the selection is random.[5] Non-probability samples, on the other hand, cannot make valid generalizations about the broader group because they do not represent it. These samples “may give us interesting leads, and suggest possible insights, but nothing reliable can be inferred from them outside the individuals studied.”[6]

Convenience Samples

A 2010 article reviewed 44 same-sex parenting studies and noted that only five had probability samples; moreover, only three used a nationally representative sample. However, this same sample used by all three studies contained only 44 children of same-sex parents.[7]

The remaining studies were all based on convenience samples, which are comprised of volunteers recruited through targeted advertisement (e.g., in specific publications), the “snowball” method (when respondents identify additional subjects), and/or an existing group.

Consequently, most of the no-differences findings “describe samples of lesbian families that are disproportionately middle class, White, and highly educated.”[8] For example, a 2012 review of the 59 studies reported in the 2005 APA brief on same-sex parenting “reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially homogeneous samples.”[9] Even studies of donor-inseminated (DI) parenthood “do not know the extent to which the comparatively high socioeconomic status of DI parents studied accurately reflects the demographics of lesbian and gay parenthood generally.”[10]

Moreover, in many studies, even the opposite-sex comparison groups are not representative of their respective populations.[11] Researchers also acknowledge the nearly non-existent research on gay fathers and parents who are bisexual or transgender.[12]

Failure to Reflect Diversity

Emerging demographic data suggest significant diversity among same-sex parents. For example, using the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, a 2012 report found that, contrary to popular perception, at the national level, same-sex couples raising children are the most likely to live in southern states, not on the west coast or in the northeast. Moreover, minority same-sex parents and less-educated same-sex parents are more likely to be raising children than are white and more-educated parents.[13]

Small Samples

A 2010 review reported that the “mean number of children of gay or lesbian parents in these studies is 39, and the median is 37.”[14] The two studies that used longitudinal, probability samples identified only 44 children of same-sex parents in a sample of more than 12,000 adolescents and 18 lesbian mothers out of 14,000 mothers in the study, respectively. One was supplemented with 21 mothers through the “snowball,” or referral, strategy.[15]

False Negatives

Small sample sizes increase the likelihood of finding false negatives—that is, concluding that there are no differences when they do in fact exist. Of the 22 studies (out of the 49 reviewed) that had a different-sex comparison group, a 2001 review found only one study that had a sufficiently large sample size, which had 25 percent probability of finding a false negative.

For the remaining 21 studies, the false negative rate ranged from 77 percent to 92 percent.[16] Researchers have also acknowledged that “some of the findings of no differences may miss real differences…because some studies use levels of significance that may be too restrictive for their very small samples.”[17]

Inconsistent or Non-Existent Comparison Groups

To conclude that two groups are different, research needs to compare a study group (e.g., children of same-sex parents) with a comparison group (e.g., children of opposite-sex parents). Ideally, these two groups should be identical except for the characteristic of interest that is being tested—in the case of same-sex parenting, the parents’ sexual orientation or relationship status. However, a surprising number of same-sex parenting studies have no opposite-sex comparison groups.

For example, a 2012 review that evaluated the 59 studies in the 2005 APA report noted that only 33 had comparison groups, of which 13 clearly used single-mothers. In the remaining 20 studies, however, the comparison groups were often vaguely defined, with general references to “mothers” or “couples,” and only in rare cases was the comparison group explicitly defined as opposite-sex intact married families.[18]

Moreover, some studies fail to account for all the significant differences between the study and the comparison groups—e.g., mothers’ age or education level—that might bias the no-differences findings.[19]

Other Methodological Problems

Researchers have noted several other methodological limitations in the research on children of parents in same-sex relationships. They include a variety of measurement issues, such as questionable reliability and validity and potentially biased participant responses (e.g., given by parents) due to social desirability considerations.[20]

In addition, in many studies, participants, and researchers were not blind to the nature of the study, which may have introduced biases during the data collection and processing stages.[21] Furthermore, few studies examined longer-term outcomes, as some effects may not be observable until late adolescence or early adulthood.[22]

New Family Structures Study

In contrast to most studies on children of same-sex parents, a new national study called the New Family Structures Survey (NFSS) offers the most representative picture to date of outcomes for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[23] It compares a large, national, random sample of such children with their peers from intact families on 40 outcomes and finds significant disadvantages across many of the outcome areas for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[24] The NFSS is a rich data source for quality research on children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships. While the NFSS does not answer every research question, it represents an important contribution to the literature on the issue.

More Study Needed

Better data and theories, greater detail, and more rigorous methods over an extended period of time are needed before a broader understanding can emerge.[25] Today, the issue of children’s welfare in association with same-sex parenting calls for more rigorous research based on large, nationally representative samples.[26] The NFSS is an important contribution in this regard. The need is all the more serious given the magnitude of the policy questions at hand related to the institution of marriage.

Christine C. Kim is Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...parenting-on-children-evaluating-the-research

Seriously, if this were a prize fight it would have to be stopped to spare Winterborns life. Now being a moderate, he should accept these facts. Being non ideological as he claims he should change his opinion. But he won't. He will probably just keep linking to the same bogus studies like Desh with a bone.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I guess you missed the part about extensive data available, yet this PDF Pediatric tome contains NO factual data to support its claim and is filled with hyperbolic gobbledygook.

Actually, if you had read the information and look at the referenced notes, you would have seen that it used the research contained in 17 different studies.

"20. Lamb ME. Mothers, fathers, families, and
circumstances: factors affecting children’s
adjustment. Appl Dev Sci. 2012;16(2):98–111

21. Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. How does the sexual
orientation of parents matter? Am Sociol
Rev. 2001;66(2):159–183

22. Golombok S, Badger S. Children raised in
mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-
up of children of lesbian and single
heterosexual mothers in early adulthood.
Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):150–157

23. Bos HM, Sandfort TG, de Bruyn EH, et al
Same-sex attraction, social relationships,
psychosocial functioning, and school performance
in early adolescence. Dev Psychol.
2008;44(1):59–68

24. MacCallum F, Golombok S. Children raised
in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-
up of children of lesbian and single
heterosexual mothers at early adolescence.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45
(8):1407–1419

25. Vanfraussen K, Ponjaert-Kristofferson I,
Brewaeys A. What does it mean for
youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family
created by means of donor insemination? J
Reprod Infant Psychol. 2002;20(4):237–252

26. Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay
parents. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(5):
241–244

27. Wainright L, Russell ST, Patterson CJ. Psychosocial
adjustment, school outcomes,
and romantic relationships of adolescents
with same sex parents. Child Dev. 2004;75
(6):1886–1898

28. Tasker F. Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and
their children: a review. J Dev Behav
Pediatr. 2005; 26(3):224–240

29. Perrin EC. Sexual Orientation in Child and
Adolescent Health Care. New York, NY:
Wolters Kluwer; 2002

30. Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay
parents. Child Dev. 1992;63(5):1025–1042

31. Anderssen N, Amlie C, Ytterøy EA. Outcomes
for children with lesbian and gay parents. A
review of the studies from 1978 to 2000.
Scand J Psychol. 2002;43(4):335–351

32. Goldberg AE. Lesbian and Gay Parents and
Their Children: Research on the Family Life
Cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2010

33. Perrin EC; American Academy of Pediatrics,
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of
Child and Family Health. Technical report:
coparent or second-parent adoption by
same-sex parents. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):
341–344

34. Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al The
effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic
partnership laws on the health and
well-being of children. Pediatrics. 2006;118
(1):349–364

35. Wainwright JL, Patterson CJ. Delinquency,
victimization, and substance abuse among
adolescents with female same-sex parents.
J Family Psychol. 2006;20(3):526–530

36. Wainwright JL, Patterson CJ. Peer relations
among adolescents with female same-sex
parents. Dev Psychol. 2008;44(1):117–126

37. Golombok S, Perry B, Burston A, et al
Children with lesbian parents: a community
study. Dev Psychol. 2003;39(1):20–33"



And the combined information from those 17 studies was used as the basis for the pediatric recommendations.



And the study done by Melbourne University in Australia (I linked it previously) shows good research numbers.

"The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, called the world's largest study of its kind, drew upon health data from over 500 children aged 5-17 and 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents"



As for the study presented by the FRC, there are quite a few flaws in the research methods used.



"While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed."

"Regnerus seeks to enhance the credibility and relevance of this body of research by including in his sample respondents who actually had a gay parent instead of just people from broken or single-parent homes. But because his sample is mostly made up of fractured families, he fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant. What he has produced is no better than its predecessors at yielding insight into the effect of same-sex parenting. [LA Times, 6/13/12]"

"Gary J. Gates, author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas and Williams Distinguished Scholar at UCLA Law School, criticized Regnerus's comparison between children of intact heterosexual families and children whose parents had at some point had a same-sex relationship — the latter group, he noted, had experienced divorce, step-parent arrangements, and foster care, all of which are known to affect children's lives no matter what the sexual orientation of their parents.

"The methodology," he said, "is designed to find bad outcomes" for children with same-sex parents.

Regnerus argues that he simply couldn't find enough intact same-sex-parented families to do a comparison, but Gates counters that "if you have limited sample size then you can't do the analysis."

Gates called the findings obvious: "All he's shown us is that family instability isn't good for kids. [BuzzFeed, 6/12/12]"



So the FRC study compared intact heterosexual families with broken families in which one of the parents was involved in a same-sex relationship at some point. Yeah, that is great research. Great research if you know what point you want to prove and don't mind working directly towards it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

The truth about many non-scientific studies out there desperately trying to assert the great lie:

Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research
By Christine Kim

According to conventional wisdom, research regarding outcomes for children of parents in same-sex relationships shows “no difference.” For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated in 2005 that “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.”[1] This conclusion has been cited in the judicial proceedings on the nature of marriage. For example, Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision regarding Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, stated: “The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”[2]

However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings.[3] Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date.[4] Examples of the methodological problems are discussed below, as well as a profile of the recently released New Family Structures Study, which has raised the bar on quality of research in this area. Given the magnitude of the policy issues under debate, much more study is needed.

Non-Representative Samples

In order to generalize a set of social scientific evidence to a broader group, the samples upon which the evidence is based should accurately represent the broader group. In a probability sample, every member of the broader group has an equal chance of being selected into the sample, and the selection is random.[5] Non-probability samples, on the other hand, cannot make valid generalizations about the broader group because they do not represent it. These samples “may give us interesting leads, and suggest possible insights, but nothing reliable can be inferred from them outside the individuals studied.”[6]

Convenience Samples

A 2010 article reviewed 44 same-sex parenting studies and noted that only five had probability samples; moreover, only three used a nationally representative sample. However, this same sample used by all three studies contained only 44 children of same-sex parents.[7]

The remaining studies were all based on convenience samples, which are comprised of volunteers recruited through targeted advertisement (e.g., in specific publications), the “snowball” method (when respondents identify additional subjects), and/or an existing group.

Consequently, most of the no-differences findings “describe samples of lesbian families that are disproportionately middle class, White, and highly educated.”[8] For example, a 2012 review of the 59 studies reported in the 2005 APA brief on same-sex parenting “reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially homogeneous samples.”[9] Even studies of donor-inseminated (DI) parenthood “do not know the extent to which the comparatively high socioeconomic status of DI parents studied accurately reflects the demographics of lesbian and gay parenthood generally.”[10]

Moreover, in many studies, even the opposite-sex comparison groups are not representative of their respective populations.[11] Researchers also acknowledge the nearly non-existent research on gay fathers and parents who are bisexual or transgender.[12]

Failure to Reflect Diversity

Emerging demographic data suggest significant diversity among same-sex parents. For example, using the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, a 2012 report found that, contrary to popular perception, at the national level, same-sex couples raising children are the most likely to live in southern states, not on the west coast or in the northeast. Moreover, minority same-sex parents and less-educated same-sex parents are more likely to be raising children than are white and more-educated parents.[13]

Small Samples

A 2010 review reported that the “mean number of children of gay or lesbian parents in these studies is 39, and the median is 37.”[14] The two studies that used longitudinal, probability samples identified only 44 children of same-sex parents in a sample of more than 12,000 adolescents and 18 lesbian mothers out of 14,000 mothers in the study, respectively. One was supplemented with 21 mothers through the “snowball,” or referral, strategy.[15]

False Negatives

Small sample sizes increase the likelihood of finding false negatives—that is, concluding that there are no differences when they do in fact exist. Of the 22 studies (out of the 49 reviewed) that had a different-sex comparison group, a 2001 review found only one study that had a sufficiently large sample size, which had 25 percent probability of finding a false negative.

For the remaining 21 studies, the false negative rate ranged from 77 percent to 92 percent.[16] Researchers have also acknowledged that “some of the findings of no differences may miss real differences…because some studies use levels of significance that may be too restrictive for their very small samples.”[17]

Inconsistent or Non-Existent Comparison Groups

To conclude that two groups are different, research needs to compare a study group (e.g., children of same-sex parents) with a comparison group (e.g., children of opposite-sex parents). Ideally, these two groups should be identical except for the characteristic of interest that is being tested—in the case of same-sex parenting, the parents’ sexual orientation or relationship status. However, a surprising number of same-sex parenting studies have no opposite-sex comparison groups.

For example, a 2012 review that evaluated the 59 studies in the 2005 APA report noted that only 33 had comparison groups, of which 13 clearly used single-mothers. In the remaining 20 studies, however, the comparison groups were often vaguely defined, with general references to “mothers” or “couples,” and only in rare cases was the comparison group explicitly defined as opposite-sex intact married families.[18]

Moreover, some studies fail to account for all the significant differences between the study and the comparison groups—e.g., mothers’ age or education level—that might bias the no-differences findings.[19]

Other Methodological Problems

Researchers have noted several other methodological limitations in the research on children of parents in same-sex relationships. They include a variety of measurement issues, such as questionable reliability and validity and potentially biased participant responses (e.g., given by parents) due to social desirability considerations.[20]

In addition, in many studies, participants, and researchers were not blind to the nature of the study, which may have introduced biases during the data collection and processing stages.[21] Furthermore, few studies examined longer-term outcomes, as some effects may not be observable until late adolescence or early adulthood.[22]

New Family Structures Study

In contrast to most studies on children of same-sex parents, a new national study called the New Family Structures Survey (NFSS) offers the most representative picture to date of outcomes for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[23] It compares a large, national, random sample of such children with their peers from intact families on 40 outcomes and finds significant disadvantages across many of the outcome areas for children whose parents had a same-sex relationship.[24] The NFSS is a rich data source for quality research on children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships. While the NFSS does not answer every research question, it represents an important contribution to the literature on the issue.

More Study Needed

Better data and theories, greater detail, and more rigorous methods over an extended period of time are needed before a broader understanding can emerge.[25] Today, the issue of children’s welfare in association with same-sex parenting calls for more rigorous research based on large, nationally representative samples.[26] The NFSS is an important contribution in this regard. The need is all the more serious given the magnitude of the policy questions at hand related to the institution of marriage.

Christine C. Kim is Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...parenting-on-children-evaluating-the-research

The study you presented from FRC fails to qualify based on these same issues.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Again that has been answered waaaaay back; but is much more than JUST gay marriage that serves to erode normal two parent households. It is the conglomeration of societies attitudes towards morality and religion, the idea that individuals are not accountable for their behaviors, the nanny State and the concept of villages raising our children combined with efforts like gay marriage to trivialize the importance of a committed normal relationship between a man and a woman to nurture and raise the children they produce.

If marriage merely means whatever we say it should mean to fit our lifestyles, if morality is merely a personal choice, if our actions and behaviors leading to really bad outcomes are blamed on our "environment" and excused by the nanny state, then marriage becomes nothing more than a State sanctioned piece of paper bestowing State benefits on the willing wards of the State, we the sheeple.

I know it makes Liberals feel good inside thinking that they are so open minded and caring that they want to bestow normalcy to demographics who will then vote for their politicians promoting their failed ideology; but it doesn’t do anything good for society. It is a failed dishonest and corrupt ideology that has historically led to bad outcomes and failure.

But if your goal is to turn every city into a Detroit, every State into a Venezuela and the nation into the malaise and disintegration of European socialism; then by all means, support this agenda.

No one is making marriage anything except what it has always been, a committed relationship between people who love each other. This claim of a "slippery slope" towards other types of marriage is nonsense. If anything, this would add more weight to the importance of a committed relationship.

Also the idea that wanting gays to be able to marry is somehow dodging personal responsibility is simply nonsense. Is my marrying a woman dodging any responsibility? No. And neither is a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. If they are being irresponsible, please tell me how?

And this whole idea that gay marriage will make every city a Detroit and every state into Venezuela (btw, Venezuela is a nation), and yada yada yada.

Detroit has never been pro-gay marriage, has it?

Gay marriage is not about any nanny-state efforts. Unless straight marriages are also about a nanny-state effort. (personally I think the state should be out of the marriage business)

In short, none of this is an answer as much as it is baseless accusations that gay marriage will cause moral decay, tooth decay, and the sky to fall.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No one is making marriage anything except what it has always been, a committed relationship between people who love each other. This claim of a "slippery slope" towards other types of marriage is nonsense. If anything, this would add more weight to the importance of a committed relationship.

Also the idea that wanting gays to be able to marry is somehow dodging personal responsibility is simply nonsense. Is my marrying a woman dodging any responsibility? No. And neither is a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. If they are being irresponsible, please tell me how?

And this whole idea that gay marriage will make every city a Detroit and every state into Venezuela (btw, Venezuela is a nation), and yada yada yada.

Detroit has never been pro-gay marriage, has it?

Gay marriage is not about any nanny-state efforts. Unless straight marriages are also about a nanny-state effort. (personally I think the state should be out of the marriage business)

In short, none of this is an answer as much as it is baseless accusations that gay marriage will cause moral decay, tooth decay, and the sky to fall.

Well, now that you are beaten down you want to change tactics. Not surprising from a disingenuous "misunderstood" asshole like you.

But, marriage was always about children. That the government instituted itself into it is irrelevant. The institution was about raising children. It wasn't because "two people loved each other".

You lefties will spin anything to support your immoral beliefs. Just accept your defeat. But, I doubt you will. Look if you want to suck cock, please do. Just stop infringing on normal peoples lives with your nonsense

 

[maineman]

Well, now that you are beaten down you want to change tactics. Not surprising from a disingenuous "misunderstood" asshole like you.

But, marriage was always about children. That the government instituted itself into it is irrelevant. The institution was about raising children. It wasn't because "two people loved each other".

You lefties will spin anything to support your immoral beliefs. Just accept your defeat. But, I doubt you will. Look if you want to suck cock, please do. Just stop infringing on normal peoples lives with your nonsense

so...I take it that you are against marriage between two people who cannot not or chose not to conceive? Should that be just as verboten as gay marriage in your view?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Well, now that you are beaten down you want to change tactics. Not surprising from a disingenuous "misunderstood" asshole like you.

But, marriage was always about children. That the government instituted itself into it is irrelevant. The institution was about raising children. It wasn't because "two people loved each other".

You lefties will spin anything to support your immoral beliefs. Just accept your defeat. But, I doubt you will. Look if you want to suck cock, please do. Just stop infringing on normal peoples lives with your nonsense

I have not changed any sort of tactics. I have always maintained that marriage is a committed relationship between people who love each other. THAT is the basis for marriage, not child bearing or raising. That is why people who cannot reproduce are still allowed to marry. That is why an 80 year old woman can still marry. She will not be raising children and damn sure not bearing them.

And no, I do not see any reason to accept defeat. The percentage of the population that approves of gay marriage is going up and up. The number of states that allow gay marriage is growing. 10 years ago there were no states that recognized gay marriage. Now 34% of the states recognize them. No, I won't accept defeat. We are winning.

And gay marriage does not infringe on your life at all. There are gay couples now. Allowing them to marry does not change how many there are. The marriage does not have any effect on you.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

so...I take it that you are against marriage between two people who cannot not or chose not to conceive? Should that be just as verboten as gay marriage in your view?

God you are stupid. I never said marriage was about CONCEIVING children. It is about RAISING children. Please tell me you know the difference between CONCEIVING a child and RAISING a child. It is such a lame argument all your lefties try and you fail miserably every time.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I have not changed any sort of tactics. I have always maintained that marriage is a committed relationship between people who love each other. THAT is the basis for marriage, not child bearing or raising. That is why people who cannot reproduce are still allowed to marry. That is why an 80 year old woman can still marry. She will not be raising children and damn sure not bearing them.

And no, I do not see any reason to accept defeat. The percentage of the population that approves of gay marriage is going up and up. The number of states that allow gay marriage is growing. 10 years ago there were no states that recognized gay marriage. Now 34% of the states recognize them. No, I won't accept defeat. We are winning.

And gay marriage does not infringe on your life at all. There are gay couples now. Allowing them to marry does not change how many there are. The marriage does not have any effect on you.

You would be wrong. Thousands of years of human history proves that. Why are you trying to conflate conceiving a child with raising a child? Oh yeah, you are a disingenuous, lying prick liberal who will lie cheat and steal to get your way.

Yay, you think you are winning? What are you personally winning? Do you have a big wedding to Howey planned?

Gay marriage is nothing but another tactic in the leftist arsenal to tear down America. You are a dupe and an idiot. If you can't even distinguish between conceiving a child and raising a child then you are obviously too stupid or too dishonest to discuss this with

BTW, tell me again how I didn't lead your self ban? This should be good

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You would be wrong. Thousands of years of human history proves that. Why are you trying to conflate conceiving a child with raising a child? Oh yeah, you are a disingenuous, lying prick liberal who will lie cheat and steal to get your way.

Yay, you think you are winning? What are you personally winning? Do you have a big wedding to Howey planned?

Gay marriage is nothing but another tactic in the leftist arsenal to tear down America. You are a dupe and an idiot. If you can't even distinguish between conceiving a child and raising a child then you are obviously too stupid or too dishonest to discuss this with

BTW, tell me again how I didn't lead your self ban? This should be good

For thousands of years parents arranged their children's marriages. But that is no longer how things work in the US (except for rare cases, usually involving recent immigrants or cults)

People get married because they love each other. They don't marry who their parents pick for them. They don't pay dowries.

I am capable of distinguishing between conceiving and raising a child. But conceiving a child without assistance is the only thing a straight married couple can do that a gay married one cannot. Both can raise children equally well.

Whenever things are more equal in this country we all win.

 

[maineman]

God you are stupid. I never said marriage was about CONCEIVING children. It is about RAISING children. Please tell me you know the difference between CONCEIVING a child and RAISING a child. It is such a lame argument all your lefties try and you fail miserably every time.

So..... If a couple refuses to conceive a child, one would expect that they would be, in most cases loathe to raise one as well. Are you saying that, because marriage is all about raising children, couples who fail to agree to RAISE children should not be granted marriage licenses?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So..... If a couple refuses to conceive a child, one would expect that they would be, in most cases loathe to raise one as well. Are you saying that, because marriage is all about raising children, couples who fail to agree to RAISE children should not be granted marriage licenses?

Nope. Nice try fag breeder

DISMISSED RECRUIT

 

[canceled.2021.1]

For thousands of years parents arranged their children's marriages. But that is no longer how things work in the US (except for rare cases, usually involving recent immigrants or cults)

People get married because they love each other. They don't marry who their parents pick for them. They don't pay dowries.

I am capable of distinguishing between conceiving and raising a child. But conceiving a child without assistance is the only thing a straight married couple can do that a gay married one cannot. Both can raise children equally well.

Whenever things are more equal in this country we all win.

Queers are equal. Marriage isn't a government function or shouldn't be. I know you love big gubmint, but facts be facts

 

[maineman]

Nope. Nice try fag breeder

DISMISSED RECRUIT

why not? If it's all about raising children, why should people who have no intention or no desire to raise children be allowed to get married?

It's all about raising children.... your words, not mine. defend then, or, in your case tap dance away from them.

 

[maineman]

Queers are equal. Marriage isn't a government function or shouldn't be. I know you love big gubmint, but facts be facts

and you are saying that it is a FACT that marriage is not a government function? really?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

and you are saying that it is a FACT that marriage is not a government function? really?

You missed the part where I said "shouldn't be"? Must be too distracted learning your son is a pole smoker

 

[maineman]

You missed the part where I said "shouldn't be"? Must be too distracted learning your son is a pole smoker

well...actually, you said, "or shouldn't be" which sets up the dichotomy that you failed to resolve.