Lesbian Couples have lower performing children: worse than even single mother homes.

Just thought about something: we could be seeing this result because most lesbian couples that bring children to their relationship are coming from "heterosexual" relationships. They bring the children into that relationship.

So they are coming from broken homes, already. Then pile on the stigma of their mothers being lesbians and it should make more sense why the children would fare worse than even single mothers: the single mother doesn't have to deal with the social stigma of being gay like the lesbian mothers do.

^ What about a same-sex male couple? They have a smaller incidence of bringing in children from broken homes?

Seriously, I'm wondering if this study is inadvertently highlighting the contribution that men make in raising a child. In my line of work, I deal with single mothers all the time, and there often are problems when dad is not around, especially if mom is raising sons.

Maybe the female-factor impact is doubled in lesbian couples?

Just brainstorming here...

Originally posted by Mindship
^ What about a same-sex male couple? They have a smaller incidence of bringing in children from broken homes?

Oh yeah, big time. Gay males that come from heterosexual relationships that produced children are far less likely to be custodial fathers and less likely to actually visit their children than even their heterosexual counterparts.

Several citations, needed.

Originally posted by Mindship
Maybe the female-factor impact is doubled in lesbian couples?

Just brainstorming here...

That was one theory. They also theorized that, to beat the system, steady-relationship gay-fathers would create super kids. teehee

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your criticisms:

1. Sample size too small: false.

The sample size goes into the base population about 11k times. It's a small sample when it attempts to create an establishment based on the overall population. I realize sampling everyone is expensive and unlikely from that standpoint, but this is less than 3k people and not all of them come from same-sex households. It's also funded by a conservative think-tank that is explicitly against same-sex marriage. I wouldn't trust this any more than I was trust a "reliable third party sample" posted on Verizon's website to taut their new coverage map (which somehow covers 96% of Americans but leaves whole swaths of the nation uncovered).

While this may not be the end-all of the issue here, it is still being interpreted to be meaningful in a greater context with an arguably small sample. My graduating class in a small city was about 1k. This sample is being compared to a greater population which is nearly 12k times as large, and again not all of the sampled adults were targets of the study, but used as comparison.

2. Confirmation bias: unsubstantiated and probably false.

1. The guy lobbies against same-sex marriage.

2. The group which funded this study lobbies against same-sex marriage.

[list]con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
1.
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.[/list]

^ When the institution actively expresses dislike of legalized same-sex marriage and the head researcher does as well, and the former funds a large (and thus expensive) study which just happens to disagree with all other major studies and comes to a conclusion that furthers the bias of both, it's entirely suspect.

The reason you may not conclude this is because it also reaffirms your beliefs, in which case I'm sorry you feel that way.

In the lead researcher's own words:

"People will say I'm irresponsible without weighing in with stronger data," he said. "This is the best quality data we've seen so far. If they don't like the results, I'm sorry."

"There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study," Regnerus said. "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers."

So really less than 2 % of the sample size actually could be called a stable environment and he doesn't think this makes a difference? That is a variable in the equation. If a heterosexual couple lives together for 18+ years and the child has stability, and another child does not have that stability, regardless of his or her parents' sexuality they will have a hard time.

His idea that collecting a sample that is representative of the population is a more apt comparison is closer to reality because we're not going to get the rare "same lesbian couple for all 18 years of the child's life" scenario, very often.

A stable same-sex couple should be used as a control against those who are obviously unstable because the impact on the child is very evident. If the researcher chooses to exclude that, assuming it makes no difference and then goes on to cite how random his study is, after he's already established his bias in the issue, I find no reason to believe him.

And this is what he said regarding the instability criticism: "People gay or straight should stick with their partners, he said. "I think the study provides evidence of that." I would note that these are not the words of someone that has confirmation bias in the manner you have accused.

Wow, you're a piece of work.

The man already has established bias against same-sex couples. The Institute which funded his study is likewise. It is in their best interests to skew the research, avoid anything to put their bias to test, or disprove what they think they know.

Again, this study is not done by someone who has a neutral interest. I don't care how you choose to interpret his words because you desperately want to believe he's right for whatever personal reasons you have, but it takes some serious wool over your eyes to think this study is anything but skewed.

And another researcher stated earlier (which I think was the motivation for Regnerus' research) "...burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."

I don't see how this is relevant. If he's talking about bullying being a factor and ignoring it, he's some kind of sophist. Things like SES, bullying, unstable homes, and even constant moving around because of dad/mom's work all affect childhood development and school behavior. He's throwing this out and just using a sample that fits his bias but is somehow random, and gets the result he's already looking for and that appeases the group which funded his study.

Lastly, he approached 4 pro-gay groups for funding for his research: all 4 of them declined. Why?

"When the NFSS was broadly outlined in late 2010, the Witherspoon Institute approached four different funding sources that were known to be committed to gay rights and also to have an interest in the welfare of children. They were asked to be partners by providing financial support to fund a study (the NFSS) with the proviso that none of the funding sources would have any influence regarding the design, implementation, or interpretation of the data. They were told the study would be conducted at a major research university and that the team of scholars involved in the design of the study would be evenly represented across ideological lines. All four declined."

Isn't that more telling of a "liberal research" slant than confirmation bias from Regnerus?

No. Quite frankly, the Witherspoon Institute is inclined to work against the interests of the groups. I wouldn't trust them either. Perhaps you've actually you know, read what they stand for?

[list][*] Thanksgiving and the Constitution
by Carson Holloway on November 26th, 2013
Strict separation of church and state would require us to throw out Thanksgiving as a religious holiday proclaimed by the president. Instead, we should embrace Thanksgiving and throw out strict separationism as a misguided interpretation of the Constitution.

[*] "The Conservative Mind" Turns Sixty
by Tim Goeglein on November 25th, 2013
With optimism, precision, and intellectual elegance, Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” defined what it meant to be an American conservative for the second half of the twentieth century.

[*] Jonathan Rauch’s Denial
by Doug Mainwaring on November 22nd, 2013
Jonathan Rauch, in his memoir Denial, argues that only access to the institution of marriage can make gays and lesbians whole. In doing so, he purposefully suppresses the truth that there are many other options available to those who are attracted to persons of the same sex.

[*] Gettysburg and the New "Proposition" of American Politics
by Matthew S. Holland on November 19th, 2013
In Lincoln’s day, America’s dedication to human equality was contested, but its embrace of God’s providential role in the world was a given. Now, the reverse is true.[/list]

You were saying?

Stuff.

I'm at my character limit and arguing point by point is pointless. You obviously subscribe to the logic the conservatives are selling here and it's unlikely that my appeal to reason will sway you, even though the Witherspoon Institute and this researcher are so far from supporting gay rights they might as well be on the moon.

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally, I'm always very cynical when it comes to these studies, it seems like they are very often intentionally slanted and done by groups with a predetermined bias and prejudice so they can say "look, see gay marriage is bad, think of the children, ban it."

Obviously I can't say if that's true in this particular case, wouldn't surprise me, though.

I have to agree with BF here. I think conducting a study like this in a context where discrimination is already well and truly established is extremely difficult to do without some substantial error.

I think its inetersting that children from same sex families are more likely to be enrolled but less likely to finish. I wonder how much the drop out rate of these kids has to do with them leaving school to avoid bullying etc? Maybe a qualitative study shld be done on WHY they chose not to finish. I think that may shed an interesting light on a study which is otherwise purely quantitative amd offers little real insight.

Who would compare lesbians to the general population? The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted. The general population is an absurd false-equivalence. Adopted children, especially ones raised for the first years of their in poor quality Chinese orphanages, generally underperform their peers regardless of who raises them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who would compare lesbians to the general population? The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted. The general population is an absurd false-equivalence. Adopted children, especially ones raised for the first years of their in poor quality Chinese orphanages, generally underperform their peers regardless of who raises them.

Originally posted by Kostabot
I have to agree with BF here. I think conducting a study like this in a context where discrimination is already well and truly established is extremely difficult to do without some substantial error.

I think its inetersting that children from same sex families are more likely to be enrolled but less likely to finish. I wonder how much the drop out rate of these kids has to do with them leaving school to avoid bullying etc? Maybe a qualitative study shld be done on WHY they chose not to finish. I think that may shed an interesting light on a study which is otherwise purely quantitative amd offers little real insight.

👆

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The sample size goes into the base population about 11k times. It's a small sample when it attempts to create an establishment based on the overall population. I realize sampling everyone is expensive and unlikely from that standpoint, but this is less than 3k people and not all of them come from same-sex households. It's also funded by a conservative think-tank that is explicitly against same-sex marriage. I wouldn't trust this any more than I was trust a "reliable third party sample" posted on Verizon's website to taut their new coverage map (which somehow covers 96% of Americans but leaves whole swaths of the nation uncovered).

While this may not be the end-all of the issue here, it is still being interpreted to be meaningful in a greater context with an arguably small sample. My graduating class in a small city was about 1k. This sample is being compared to a greater population which is nearly 12k times as large, and again not all of the sampled adults were targets of the study, but used as comparison.the moon.

The sample was not only collected properly, it was very large and constitutes some of the best sampling and size requirements as set by APA.

It is not something that can be argued regarding this study unless you plan on taking down APA.

You can bust the lead researcher's balls and the financing institute's motives but not the sampling methods and the sample size.

Like I said before, if you want to use that same data to come up with your own numbers, pay for the article and content of the results. You don't even have to conduct your own study. However, I doubt you would get different results because it has already been peer reviewed and published.

The issue, and part of the reason why he decided to tackle this issue, is the criticisms you are leveling regarding sample size and collection methodology are the problems with the previous studies.

Person 1: "This glass is too small to fit a liter of water. We need to design a new glass that is not only sturdier but is large enough to hold all the water."

*Creates glass that meets those specifications*

Person 2: "That glass is too small and is not sturdy enough to hold 1 liter of water."

If you go through my posts, you'll see that I advocated more rights for gay couples, regarding children, because I was familiar with the years of research that showed heterosexual and homosexual couples to be comparable (and the homosexual couple were even better in some areas). Once I familiarized myself with the criticisms with the previous studies and then familiarized myself with this one, I see why I might have been mislead in the past.

This does not mean that I no longer support homosexual couples having children, adopting, etc. I still do. For me, this research indicates homosexual couples will need to be slightly more vigilant than their heterosexual counterparts when it comes to their children. One of the issues this study noted was that lesbian mothers had more partners (meaning, they changed partners more often than their heterosexual counterparts). This is part of the problem and raising children, successfully, requires a stable home environment (previous research has shown this).

Pretend for instance that all the criticisms about the study are true (within reason). Then at worst, this study shows that unstable homes create problems for children: homosexual or heterosexual. Now imagine that the results are at least statistically significant (but not as marked as the results show); then that should indicate that homosexual parents need to be even more careful than their heterosexual counterparts.

I think this study is the first of many studies that are going to open the door for more honest research. I like that. I don't want volunteer studies who are funded from biased resources that have control over the conditions of the studies (a criticism of prior studies in this particular area). I would definitely like long-term, unbiased, well-designed, large samples.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who would compare lesbians to the general population?

It wasn't to the general population: it was to hetersexual couples, single mothers, and single-fathers.

But a person that would compare them would be a person wanting to get a comparison between lesbian mothers and "not lesbian mothers." That's a reasonable comparison if that's what you want to compare.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted.

I believe that's false:

"The majority of these children were born while their biological parents were still in heterosexual marriages and then one parent subsequently came out as gay or lesbian."

Also, as is the case of one of my gal pals:

"An increasing number of lesbians, however, are using donor insemination to conceive biological children..."

Her daughter is now 16 (for any lesbians out there reading my post, it is very safe and it is effective! If you want children, you can adopt or actually have your own children)!!!

http://www.education.com/reference/article/families-lesbian-gay-parents/

edit - I would also note that the study revealed many differences (it said 24 out of 40), not just 1 or 2. Lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (duh).
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance.
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time.
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed.
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting.
Are 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will.
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others.
Use marijuana more frequently.
Smoke more frequently.
Watch TV for long periods more frequently.
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense.

It's pretty sad that I had to go to an extremely biased website to find a breakdown of just some of those 24 areas. 🙁

Edit 2 - I would like to see another study done that uses some of the sampling methodologies from this study applied to a European country that has had homosexual marriage and homosexual acceptance for quite a while. I wonder what the differences would be? I bet you some of the differences this guy found would not be as stark or would even disappear (meaning, the results would indicate that broken homes are bad, stable relationships between custodial parents are good regardless of sexual orientation).

Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

Yeah, that might be why they regularly practiced this:

What a better way for a child to develop than by being sexually used by his mentor? Or in the case of the Spartans, separated from women so much that homosexuality actually becomes an institutional problem?

Are you illiterate?

Originally posted by Astner
Are you illiterate?

Is that a valid question given my obvious ability to formulate words and sentences by virtue of comprehension and infinite generativity?

The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age, whether you're all on the hetero nuclear family train or not. I figured if you wanted to offer your opinion you could also accept some acknowledgement of that opinion with you know, facts.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Is that a valid question given my obvious ability to formulate words and sentences by virtue of comprehension and infinite generativity?

The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age, whether you're all on the hetero nuclear family train or not. I figured if you wanted to offer your opinion you could also accept some acknowledgement of that opinion with you know, facts.

Don't make the bar tooooooo high. 😆

Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

You are likely being sarcastic, but just saying, that's obviously not true, not even the study cited here supports anything even close to that claim.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't make the bar tooooooo high. 😆

*Clap*

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age,

Is that a scarecrow?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that a scarecrow?

Originally posted by Astner
I'm not sure what his point was, I took it as an appeal to emotion.

I never appeal to emotion.