New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter

The Foundary ^ | June 11, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Christine Kim and Jennifer Marshall

[Sopater]

Two peer-reviewed articles published Sunday in a scholarly journal cast doubt on a core assumption used to advance same-sex marriage.

A number of studies and articles have suggested that research shows no difference in outcomes between children whose parents have same-sex relationships and their peers raised by heterosexual parents. 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.”

Yesterday the academic journal Social Science Research published a detailed methodological review of the research on which the APA bases its conclusion—a study that questions the validity of the “no difference” assertion. Conducted by a Louisiana State University family scholar, the article concludes:

[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.

A large representative sample is supplied in a second new study, conducted by a University of Texas–Austin sociologist and published in the same journal. The New Family Structures Study (NFSS), under the direction of Dr. Mark Regnerus, provides the most representative picture to date of young adults whose parents had same-sex relationships. NFSS is a large, random, nationally representative sample.

In other words, because of how the sample was collected, it is representative of all young adults in this age group in the United States. Knowledge Networks, a respected research firm responsible for collecting the data, screened more than 15,000 young adults (ages 18–39) to identify nearly 3,000 participants, including 175 respondents who reported that their mothers have had a romantic same-sex relationship and 73 respondents who reported that their fathershave. This is the second-largest such sample of children whose parents had same-sex relationships, after the Census. The Census, however, provides a limited set of social welfare outcomes, while NFSS provides data on 40 outcome areas compared across seven family structures.

As Professor Paul Amato of Penn State University notes in his critique of the study, published in the same issue, “The New Family Structures Study is probably the best that we can hope for, at least in the near future.”

According to NFSS, just 1.7 percent of young adults ages 18 to 39 reported having a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship. The experience of long-term stability in same-sex households is rarer still. Among those who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship, 91 percent said they lived with their mothers when they were in the relationship. Fifty-seven percent reported living with their mother and her partner for more than four months, and 23 percent for at least three years. Among young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship, 42 percent said they lived with them during the relationship; 24 percent said they lived with their fathers and fathers’ partners for more than four months; and less than 2 percent for at least three years.

Only two respondents whose mothers had a same-sex relationship reported that this living arrangement lasted all 18 years of their childhood. No respondents with fathers who had a same-sex relationship reported such longevity.

The NFSS surveyed young adult respondents about their own relationship history and quality, economic and employment status, health outcomes, abuse history, educational attainment, relationship with parents, psychological and emotional well-being, substance use, and sexual behaviors and outcomes.

Compared to young adults in traditional, intact families, young adults whose mothers had a same-sex relationship tended to fare worse than their peers in intact biological families on 24 of the 40 outcomes examined. For example, they were far more likely to report being sexually victimized, to be on welfare, or to be currently unemployed.

Young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship showed significant differences from their peers in intact families on 19 of the outcomes. For example, they were significantly more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted infection, or to have been forced to have sex against their will.

These differences take into account the respondent’s age, race/ethnicity, gender, mother’s education, perceived family of origin’s income, whether or not the respondent was ever bullied, and the legal status of same-sex relationships in the respondent’s current state of residence. In other words, the study compared respondents who were identical on these characteristics, except for parental relationship status.

A significant improvement on the limited research to date on child outcomes and same-sex parenting, this new study marks an important development in the research. As findings based on studies using the NFSS and other large, nationally representative data on same-sex parents and their children accumulate, a more generalizable picture will begin to emerge.

At present, far too little is known about this new household form into which activist courts are pushing America—and much of what has been presented to date gives an inaccurate picture of the reality that children of same-sex parenting have experienced.

NFSS project director Dr. Mark Regnerus concludes in a piece running on Slate today that “the stable, two-parent biological married model [is] the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.”

[Sopater]

Well, ain't that somethin'.

[Chainmail]

So, now let's see the courts reverse their trend towards promoting same-sex couple adoptions. About as likely Hell freezing over: the legal system is riddled with homosexual activists who don't care a whit about children or their future.

All they care about is forcing the rest of us to enjoy their illness.

[redshawk]

Yeah, send the fags to Saudi. All of them.

[savagesusie]

Common Sense is removed by Marxists who want to normalize the absurd. To raise children in some artificial construct which removes their biological connection to the future and past-—is insane. (But Marxists want to destroy the interest of history so they can change it). To think it is “Good” for a baby not to be raised and nurtured by their own mother is really sick and evil.

Orphanages were seen as extremely evil places. Why? Because biology designs the safest and most perfect way to raise children-—and the family unit which has existed for thousands of years, has proved to be the most physically and emotionally safe for children. All other forms of raising children-—lead to perverted, artificial “realities” which destroy logic and rational understanding of human relationships and emotions.

To try to restrict a child from watching male/female interaction in an intimate setting with genetically connected adults—which teaches the child about the whole human race— is evil and a sick, sexist look at humanity.

Marxists are trying to normalize the sick and perverted nature of man. They want the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God out of our Founding Documents so they can construct NEW, Godless definition of human beings according to Barney Frank and Marx. If they can pervert the nature of children-—and pervert the family structure-—they will eliminate God the Designer of Man.

[madprof98]

the legal system is riddled with homosexual activists who don't care a whit about children or their future

And not just the legal system . . . If the study had shown that children raised by same-sex partners tend to die by age 5, the left would be perfectly content--or perhaps sad they were not just aborted before their gay friends went to so much trouble. To me, "gay marriage" is a perfect symbol of cultural rot, and if we keep going as we are now, America will soon be rotten to the core.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[ALPAPilot]

A child has a natural right to have a mother and a father.

[SierraWasp]

To my mind, the holidays of Mother's Day and Father's Day have been elevated to far more that just "Honor(ing) thy mother and father that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord Thy God giveth thee" (fifth commandment of God Himself).

The non-reproductive imposter perverts trying to act like parents when they are nothing but a sub-culture of sex fiends in search of orgasms with out the needed expense and efforts that reproductive hetrosexuals are constantly tested by. (like romance and responsibility)

Their phony efforts to force the rest of us to sanctify their sodomistic perversity by seeking with demonic zeal to keep getting in our faces with some feeble attempt to make everyone believe their lifestyle is some sort of civil right just like those who have truly had their civil rights denied due to skin color.

It's no wonder that blacks almost everywhere despise the convoluted concept of "gay marriage!" Everybody knows that traditional, normal hetrosexual marriage is FOR THE CHILDREN as in the liberal ten suggestions. Nothing in God's law (the ten commandments), or in man's law (the bill of rights) condones the insanity of denigrating the age old institution of the nuclear family headed by a man and a woman in holy matrimony!!!

Of course I'm just prejudiced by fifty years of marriage to my first wife as of a couple of months from now!!!

[Tex-Con-Man]

Anecdotal, but nonetheless...

When I was in my twenties, I went to work for a small local business. I had no idea of the “behind the scene” drama when I took the job. The owner was late forties, an engineer, and father of 3...his youngest was a 14 year old girl.

After a while, I learned the owner had recently divorced and taken up with a slim, 18 year old, red-headed male hair stylist...a real fem flamer. The office manager was always up on the family drama, and told me the owner's teenage son wouldn't talk to his dad. (He threatened to beat the crap outta Dad's "new wife".) The oldest daughter was married but had a strained relationship with her dad.

I was doing some mindless electronic assembly in the warehouse for a project one day, and the 14 year old daughter volunteered to help me. She was a sweet kid. We talked...or more like, I let her talk...I could tell she needed someone to listen to her. She started out flirting. Basically offering herself. After I made it clear it wasn't going to happen, I found out she knew a great amount of graphic detail about her father and his gay parties. And in her rambling, she was clearly confused about her own sexuality, suggesting she may try lesbianism for a while. I knew she had years of trouble ahead of her. I was horrified by the selfishness of the owner, and the damage his decisions were having on his daughter.

I started looking for another job, and eventually started my own company.

[ReformationFan]

In other words, it’s a good thing that both men and women exist. Where have I heard that before?

“Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;”

1 Corinthians 11:11

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:11&version=AMP

[ReformationFan]

“I was horrified by the selfishness of the owner, and the damage his decisions were having on his daughter.”

According to the narcissic liberal worldview, it’s all about him and his being “true to himself” regardless of the damage it causes to others.

[fwdude]

The sodomites are going ballistic over the release of this report, or either poohpoohing it and pertending not to notice.

It must be an excellent report.

[scottjewell]

Unfortunately, the gay advocates have the APA solidly in their pocket now, and the report’s methodology is being openly and blatantly attacked.

They will never give up their agenda: They will continue to insist that the reports of gay parenting being good for kids are the only scientific ones: The rest being hate speech and bigotry.

I am seriously wondering if anything can be done to reverse the tidal wave let loose on American and global culture the past 3 decades. It is a known fact that shrewd strategists on the side of the gay agenda set forth a very simple plan to sabatoge the culture. You can see it in the book, “After the Ball”: from the AFTAH website’s recent article on this subject:

“In 1989 homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen co-authored a book called, “After the Ball,” in which they laid out a comprehensive strategy on how to mainstream homosexuality in the 1990s. They were brilliant strategists and over time their plan was executed flawlessly. If you are interested or skeptical a google search can pull this up quickly. The basic details of the strategy were:

Desensitization: claim victim status for the purpose of gaining sympathy
Jamming: label your opponents as hateful and bigoted
Conversion: creating allies or at least apathy towards the activist agenda.”

This plan unfortunately came off without a hitch, and this is the culture we now live in.

[fwdude]

Fully agree. The agenda is, without any doubt, extant and has has been effectively implemented. Even the vociferous denial by homosexual activists that there is no agenda is part of the agenda.

A countering work by David Kupelian, “The Marketing of Evil,” attempted to counter this agenda with the truth. But, amazingly, the truth is rendered meaningless in this new PC environment bolstered by the sold-out media and other formerly honest institutions.

[scottjewell]

Yes, all true. I and of course the rest of us do not like the idea that this is a “case closed” done deal. But it would appear to be.

Protests (such as the Million Moms against JC Penney , etc.) are just laughed off. They get nowhere.

I am wondering exactly what it will take to reverse the tide. Each new attack by those of us who do not buy into the PC New world order has been broken up and made null and void. It is oppressive in the extreme.

Capitulation does not seem right. And this agenda winning and having endless victory actually defies the natural order of things. Cultures change, ideas collapse, popular ideology reverses. It must be in the offing. But when and how?

[scottjewell]

This item from a couple of days ago says it all, regarding the success of the gay agenda:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/06/15/out-of-the-closet.html

[AnonymousConservative]

>I am wondering exactly what it will take to reverse the tide.

I’ve done a tremendous amount of research into political ideology - what it is, where it came from in our species, etc.

The best evidence I’ve seen is ideology comes primarily from a brain structure called the amygdala. The amygdala is a brain structure which flags differences, provides the jolt produced by perception of danger, provides the irritation provoked by what we do not like, and motivates through the application of emotional pressure.

The amygdala would appear to be stimulated, and developed by hardship, and harshness in the environment.

Our environment has been easy for quite a while, which combined with genetic effects, has probably diminished overall amygdala functionality in our nation, compared with, say those who survived the Depression, or stormed the beaches at Normandy.

Interestingly, one study on political affiliation, took participants, measured their ideology, provided amygdala stimulating images of “mortal salience,” and then measured their ideology again. The subjects all saw their ideology shift towards Conservatism, in every aspect of ideology, including the social issues.

I suspect, as these debt bombs explode globally, and people find their degrees in womyn’s studies useless, people will find their amygdala’s stimulated, and they will become more Conservative, and less tolerant of this type of thing. This is why throughout history, these things gradually get tolerated once a society succeeds, and they mark the beginning of it’s downfall. Then fifty years later, after it’s collapse, society returns to where it began, and gays adopting kids is once again frowned upon.

Unfortunately, mankind’s noble spirit needs to be forged on an anvil of hardship. The only thing certain now is that hardship is coming.