Originally posted by snowdragon
Propogating lies, the devil walks amongst us. I kid but let's just dismiss the money conversation, people only have so much time. Two men raise a kid, ok. Two women raise a kid, ok. The reason pairs matter aside from earnings is a time deficit created by the responsibilities. It only grows exponentially with more kids as well.Realistically, I haven't seen BLM produce anything other than propaganda to support their cause which isn't black lives and in turn families. It's like watching Edward Bernays and a marriage of manufacturing consent had a baby which is a shit news/media (now I'll add activists to that.)
The only non-"Pro-LGBT" study I've seen on LGBT families did not show a good result for single parent homes and it showed the worst possible outcome, for children, for single lesbians.
It was criticized heavily by the LGBT community for being biased and with a religious agenda (pro-family agenda).
Still, the result did show that Father-Father homes didn't do much worse than Father-Mother homes.
...children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.
Employing regression models and series of control variables, Allen concludes that the substandard performance cannot be attributed to lower school attendance or the more modest education of gay or lesbian parents. Indeed, same-sex parents were characterized by higher levels of education, and their children were more likely to be enrolled in school than even those of married, opposite-sex couples. And yet their children are notably more likely to lag in finishing their own schooling.The same is true of the young-adult children of common law parents, as well as single mothers and single fathers, highlighting how little—when you lean on large, high-quality samples—the data have actually changed over the past few decades. The intact, married mother-and-father household remains the gold standard for children’s progress through school. What is surprising in the Canadian data is the revelation that lesbian couples’ children fared worse, on average, than even those of single parents.
The truly unique aspect of Allen’s study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of same-sex households on children. He writes:
the particular gender mix of a same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child graduation. Consider the case of girls. . . . Regardless of the controls and whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.
Prior to the NFSS, the academy had come to believe that children raised by gay or lesbian parents fared, on average, no worse, and in some cases better, than children raised by heterosexual parents. Dr. Regnerus and a group of social scientists decided to evaluate this claim empirically by studying the responses of children who were raised in a variety of family structures. The goal of the NFSS, from the beginning, was to gather the best social science possible to address the question of what family arrangements were best for children. The results of the NFSS research revealed that the “no differences” claim—the claim that children raised by parents in gay or lesbian relationships fared no worse and in some cases better than children raised by intact biological parents—was not true. On the contrary, the children of these households, on average, did worse than children raised by their biological, still-married parents.
The NFSS studied a statistically large, random sample of the general U.S. population. By using a sample that is randomly selected and statistically large, scientists can be highly confident that the sample represents the makeup and behavior of the bigger population with almost as much certainty as if they had surveyed every individual in the population. In all prior surveys of gay parenting, except one by Dr. Michael J. Rosenfeld of Stanford University, the sample size of children was either too small to make meaningful claims or the participants were not selected randomly but by other methods like “snowball” or convenience sampling. These other methods tend to select people that are more similar to each other than is the case in the larger population that they are meant to represent. They inherently lack the representative accuracy and strength of random samples.The NFSS also surveyed participants on a broad range of outcomes spanning physical and emotional health, experience in personal relationships, and general social behavior. The one other survey that studied a statistically large, random sample (Rosenfeld’s) studied only one outcome: children’s educational achievement.
Finally, the NFSS surveyed the children of parents who had a same-sex relationship directly and as young adults (after they had reached maturity). Many previous studies surveyed only the children’s parents, and no prior study surveyed the children in their young-adult years.
My favorite part about this study is the lead researcher tried to get pro-LGBT groups involved in funding the study but on the condition that they were not allowed to interfere with the study (no corruption):
"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."
Another favorite part of the study is the inability of the researchers to find stable lesbian couples with children: they simply could not find them because lesbian couples were so unstable (long term partners, with children). They had 2 left out of the initial sample of over 170. That's hilarious but also sad - lots of instability for the children which also is part of the reason the had such poor outcomes relative to their peers.
What children need:
1. Stable, 2 parent homes. Same mom and dad. Or dad and dad. Or mom and mom.
2. Healthy discipline.
That's really it. You can be largely unloving parents and your children will, on average, have better outcomes psychologically and socio-economically than children that come from single parent homes.
This is also why in the social sciences especially the science around children and development, the "Gold Standard" is the biological Mother and Father raising the child in a stable marriage their entire childhood.