Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I would rather have written a different title but I couldn't fit enough characters in the subject field to be fair. I would rather have typed, "Does this study debunk the idea that whether or not one is raised in a 'traditional' family or by a homosexual couple makes no difference?" An alternative title could have been, "Does this study show that the 'traditional family' is the best environment for children?"

And I really did hate having to type "gays." I'd much rather type "homosexuals" but that won't fit within the allowed number of characters either.

Here is the study:

http://www.scribd.com/kdial40/d/96719068-Regnerus-Study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Full disclosure: I was tipped off to it because I get e mails from Focus on the Family. One e mail I got directed me to this interpretation:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/06/11/s ... ter-risks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the study is not a "Focus on the Family" study as far as I can tell.

The answer to the title questions I might have used is "no" because it's an observational study. They didn't randomly assign family structure treatments to children. So the most the study can do is kind of suggest. But there are some interesting results. One, from the "Results" section on page 761 (see page numbers at top right of each page, first page of paper is 752), reads as follows:

At a glance, the number of statistically-significant differences between respondents from IBFs and respondents from the other seven types of family structures/experiences is considerable, and in the vast majority of cases the optimal outcome—where one can be readily discerned—favors IBFs.

"IBF" is defined at the bottom of page 757 as:

Lived in intact biological family (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present.

A statement on how children raised by homosexual (mostly lesbian) couples appears at the beginning of the "Discussion" section on page 764:

Just how different are the adult children of men and women who pursue same-sex romantic (i.e., gay and lesbian)relationships, when evaluated using population-based estimates from a random sample? The answer, as might be expected, depends on to whom you compare them. When compared with children who grew up in biologically (still) intact, mother–father families, the children of women who reported a same-sex relationship look markedly different on numerous out-comes, including many that are obviously suboptimal

Finally as far as this initial title question in this post is concerned, the following statement as to the "no difference" idea appears near the beginning of the "Conclusions" section on page 766:

Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from per-sistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go.

I haven't read the whole thing yet. It's a long one. Could be I could nit pick some methods as I often do. Also this study will be perceived by many as sending a "politically incorrect" message so I'm sure it's going to be subject to some pretty aggressive attacks. I'm guessing there will be some pretty ferocious ad hominem attacks on the author.

But it doesn't matter. From here forward those in the "Focus on the Family" camp have a pretty serious observational study to refer to while making their arguments. I expect to see a lot of Fox News and MSNBC segments on this. What'll be interesting is to see if it's widely reported by the big broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC).

Honestly, who gives a shit?

There are far more serious issues to concern ourselves with than the fact that the odd child of a same-sex couple MIGHT turn out to be "sub-optimal". Hows about we focus instead on worrying about those "sub-optimal" types who now have their own show on the History Channel? You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't fucking speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

Yeah. Those guys.

AZGrizFan wrote:Honestly, who gives a shit?

There are far more serious issues to concern ourselves with than the fact that the odd child of a same-sex couple MIGHT turn out to be "sub-optimal". Hows about we focus instead on worrying about those "sub-optimal" types who now have their own show on the History Channel? You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't fucking speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

Yeah. Those guys.

/thread.

You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't **** speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

That's not true. They know how to kill lots of stuff.

The significance of this study is that it appears at least on the surface to be a pretty darned good observational study because it deals with a large probability sample. And the author states directly that the "received wisdom" holding that there are no differences between children raised in homosexual families and those raised in "traditional" families "must go." He threw a glove down there. Some people are going to be really pissed off at him. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't **** speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

That's not true. They know how to kill lots of stuff.

The significance of this study is that it appears at least on the surface to be a pretty darned good observational study because it deals with a large probability sample. And the author states directly that the "received wisdom" holding that there are no differences between children raised in homosexual families and those raised in "traditional" families "must go." He threw a glove down there. Some people are going to be really pissed off at him. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

There's 5000 x more children of traditional marriages who are at risk because their parents are complete, utter chide-abusing fuckups, but nobody's worried about them now are they, because those kids have two god-fearin' parents, one of whom has a vagina and one of whom supposedly has a penis--a by-god nuklear family!

Honestly, your obsession with this issue is on par with Douche1Bag's obsession with the Catholic Church. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin the children of America. These people just want to live their lives, John. Why don't you let them...

AZGrizFan wrote:Honestly, who gives a shit?

There are far more serious issues to concern ourselves with than the fact that the odd child of a same-sex couple MIGHT turn out to be "sub-optimal". Hows about we focus instead on worrying about those "sub-optimal" types who now have their own show on the History Channel? You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't fucking speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

Yeah. Those guys.

Don't you dare kill my guilty pleasure entertainment.

CAA Flagship wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Honestly, who gives a shit?

There are far more serious issues to concern ourselves with than the fact that the odd child of a same-sex couple MIGHT turn out to be "sub-optimal". Hows about we focus instead on worrying about those "sub-optimal" types who now have their own show on the History Channel? You know, them Americans who live in the swamps of Louisianna who can't fucking speak ENGLISH (requiring subtitles on their show), have never heard of a toothbrush and only know how to kill alligators?

Yeah. Those guys.

Don't you dare kill my guilty pleasure entertainment.

There is a soft spot in AZ's heart for them there gators.

grizzaholic wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Don't you dare kill my guilty pleasure entertainment.

There is a soft spot in AZ's heart for them there gators.

Only softer spot is for wolves.

As a parent who has children that go to school, and are friends with children who have parents in gay relationships (in fact, two such families), I've come to believe that one of the ways we can assure that their children turn out "optimal" is to open our doors to these children (and their parents), and to make no judgments in the presence of the children.

From what I can see, if these kids are turning out "sub-optimal" it is more because of the external judgments that they begin to perceive about their family life as they get older -- which cause them to lose self-esteem -- not because of their parenting.

Presently these boys are just fine little kids with parents who care about them as much as any parent could. If they go off the track, it is more likely because of judgments which they will feel later. We are doing our part to make sure they are always welcome to come over to play, and their parents are welcome too to come over for a beer or a barbeque while they play. So maybe the time has come to stop the judgments and to become more empathetic by getting to know a few gay people.

BTW, even if you do not approve of their lifestyle, that is no reason to shut your door to your neighbors. I've known and been friendly with adulterers. I don't approve of their conduct, but I don't shut them out of my life because of what they've done.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That's not true. They know how to kill lots of stuff.

The significance of this study is that it appears at least on the surface to be a pretty darned good observational study because it deals with a large probability sample. And the author states directly that the "received wisdom" holding that there are no differences between children raised in homosexual families and those raised in "traditional" families "must go." He threw a glove down there. Some people are going to be really pissed off at him. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

There's 5000 x more children of traditional marriages who are at risk because their parents are complete, utter chide-abusing fuckups, but nobody's worried about them now are they, because those kids have two god-fearin' parents, one of whom has a vagina and one of whom supposedly has a penis--a by-god nuklear family!

Honestly, your obsession with this issue is on par with Douche1Bag's obsession with the Catholic Church. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin the children of America. These people just want to live their lives, John. Why don't you let them...

Great post.

JoltinJoe wrote:As a parent who has children that go to school, and are friends with children who have parents in gay relationships (in fact, two such families), I've come to believe that one of the ways we can assure that their children turn out "optimal" is to open our doors to these children (and their parents), and to make no judgments in the presence of the children.

From what I can see, if these kids are turning out "sub-optimal" it is more because of the external judgments that they begin to perceive about their family life as they get older -- which cause them to lose self-esteem -- not because of their parenting.

Presently these boys are just fine little kids with parents who care about them as much as any parent could. If they go off the track, it is more likely because of judgments which they will feel later. We are doing our part to make sure they are always welcome to come over to play, and their parents are welcome too to come over for a beer or a barbeque while they play. So maybe the time has come to stop the judgments and to become more empathetic by getting to know a few gay people.

Well said!

I think JSO just outed his parents.

The world could use a few more kids raised by queer couples. App State alone could benefit from the improvement in dressing standards.

JoltinJoe wrote:As a parent who has children that go to school, and are friends with children who have parents in gay relationships (in fact, two such families), I've come to believe that one of the ways we can assure that their children turn out "optimal" is to open our doors to these children (and their parents), and to make no judgments in the presence of the children.

From what I can see, if these kids are turning out "sub-optimal" it is more because of the external judgments that they begin to perceive about their family life as they get older -- which cause them to lose self-esteem -- not because of their parenting.

Presently these boys are just fine little kids with parents who care about them as much as any parent could. If they go off the track, it is more likely because of judgments which they will feel later. We are doing our part to make sure they are always welcome to come over to play, and their parents are welcome too to come over for a beer or a barbeque while they play. So maybe the time has come to stop the judgments and to become more empathetic by getting to know a few gay people.

BTW, even if you do not approve of their lifestyle, that is no reason to shut your door to your neighbors. I've known and been friendly with adulterers. I don't approve of their conduct, but I don't shut them out of my life because of what they've done.

Great post. Thread over, nexxxxxxxxxxxxxt.......

How much longer until the 7171 kids begin making excuses to avoid being seen with their ogre father in public?

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That's not true. They know how to kill lots of stuff.

The significance of this study is that it appears at least on the surface to be a pretty darned good observational study because it deals with a large probability sample. And the author states directly that the "received wisdom" holding that there are no differences between children raised in homosexual families and those raised in "traditional" families "must go." He threw a glove down there. Some people are going to be really pissed off at him. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

There's 5000 x more children of traditional marriages who are at risk because their parents are complete, utter chide-abusing fuckups, but nobody's worried about them now are they, because those kids have two god-fearin' parents, one of whom has a vagina and one of whom supposedly has a penis--a by-god nuklear family!

Honestly, your obsession with this issue is on par with Douche1Bag's obsession with the Catholic Church. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin the children of America. These people just want to live their lives, John. Why don't you let them...

Holy Fuck!

BlueHen86 wrote:I think JSO just outed his parents.

But seriously, 2 moms is better than 1, 2 dads are better than no dad, etc.....

I'm willing to bet the chances of one being raised "sub-optiminally" are much higher in homes of single parenthood, than in that of same sex parents.

[youtube][/youtube]

From what I can see, if these kids are turning out "sub-optimal" it is more because of the external judgments that they begin to perceive about their family life as they get older -- which cause them to lose self-esteem -- not because of their parenting.

I think that is a commonly embraced hypothesis and I think the author alludes to it as a possibility. He did, however, make an attempt to get at that sort of thing by including and controlling for "bullying" and "gay friendliness" of State of residence. You can see a description of that at the bottom of page 760. The "bullying" question on the survey was as follows:

‘‘While growing up, children and teenagers typically experience negative interactions with others. We say that someone is bullied when someone else, or a group, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. We do not consider it bullying when two people quarrel or fight, however. Do you recall ever being bullied by someone else, or by a group, such that you still have vivid, negative memories of it?’’

The "gay friendliness" index was as follows:

1 = Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
2 = Legal ban on gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
3 = No specific laws/bans and/or domestic partnerships are legal.
4 = Domestic partnerships with comprehensive protections are legal and/or gay marriages performed elsewhere are recognized.
5 = Civil unions are legal and/or gay marriage is legal.

Many of the "statistically significant" differences are still "statistically significant" when the "bullying" and "state gay friendliness" variables are controlled for.

If all of the "significant" differences went away when those two variables were controlled for your hypothesis would be more strongly supported. It's not "falsified," as YT likes to say, by the fact that they didn't. But at the same time there was some effort to look at the effects of treatment by others and it didn't make the differences go away.

And so it is with social science. It's not possible to do an experiment to get at the answer.

But the big thing here...again...is that for years those in the "homosexuality is normal" movement have been touting far less rigorous observational studies as showing that being raised by homosexual couples makes no difference. Those studies have been used in the political arena. Now the other side has a study that appears so far to me...by observational study standards...pretty stout.

So, if the goal is to raise "optimal children" maybe we should outlaw divorce and force parents to marry and live under one roof. We should also pass a law that they be happy and prosperous.

Lets force all children to be optimal, not just the ones that fit a homophobic agenda.

BlueHen86 wrote:I think JSO just outed his parents.

They met when my Mom was 3 and my Dad was 5. They were friends from that point on. They were married when my Mom was 17 and my Dad was 18. They stayed married until my Dad died at 80. 62 years married and 75 years of knowing/liking/loving each other. And they were very heterosexual (6 kids).

But it's true that I drink for recreational purposes.

BlueHen86 wrote:So, if the goal is to raise "optimal children" maybe we should outlaw divorce and force parents to marry and live under one roof. We should also pass a law that they be happy and prosperous.

Lets force all children to be optimal, not just the ones that fit a homophobic agenda.

And enforce strict income to number of children ratios.

Force all single mothers to abort, since that is not optimal, and clearly adoption is not optimal either.

BlueHen86 wrote:So, if the goal is to raise "optimal children" maybe we should outlaw divorce and force parents to marry and live under one roof. We should also pass a law that they be happy and prosperous.

Lets force all children to be optimal, not just the ones that fit a homophobic agenda.

Look, Hen, this is the deal: For many years now those in support of the "homosexuality is normal" movement have touted studies purporting to show that being raised by homosexual couples makes no difference. Now it looks like there has been a very rigorous study...and I'll go ahead and say it looks so far to me to be far superior to any study I've seen to support the "no difference" mantra...that contradicts that.

The other side now has support for saying we should not, for example, allow homosexual couples to adopt children. And I don't think we have to worry about homosexual couples having children through natural processes. There is that other thing of artificial insemination. But this does potentially change things.

People having children biologically is one thing. Adopting children is another. This study used "traditional families" with biological children as the standard for comparison. It'd be good for them to do a follow up on different adoption scenarios.

JohnStOnge wrote:

From what I can see, if these kids are turning out "sub-optimal" it is more because of the external judgments that they begin to perceive about their family life as they get older -- which cause them to lose self-esteem -- not because of their parenting.

I think that is a commonly embraced hypothesis and I think the author alludes to it as a possibility. He did, however, make an attempt to get at that sort of thing by including and controlling for "bullying" and "gay friendliness" of State of residence. You can see a description of that at the bottom of page 760. The "bullying" question on the survey was as follows:

‘‘While growing up, children and teenagers typically experience negative interactions with others. We say that someone is bullied when someone else, or a group, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. We do not consider it bullying when two people quarrel or fight, however. Do you recall ever being bullied by someone else, or by a group, such that you still have vivid, negative memories of it?’’

The "gay friendliness" index was as follows:

1 = Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
2 = Legal ban on gay marriage and/or other legal rights.
3 = No specific laws/bans and/or domestic partnerships are legal.
4 = Domestic partnerships with comprehensive protections are legal and/or gay marriages performed elsewhere are recognized.
5 = Civil unions are legal and/or gay marriage is legal.

Many of the "statistically significant" differences are still "statistically significant" when the "bullying" and "state gay friendliness" variables are controlled for.

If all of the "significant" differences went away when those two variables were controlled for your hypothesis would be more strongly supported. It's not "falsified," as YT likes to say, by the fact that they didn't. But at the same time there was some effort to look at the effects of treatment by others and it didn't make the differences go away.

And so it is with social science. It's not possible to do an experiment to get at the answer.

But the big thing here...again...is that for years those in the "homosexuality is normal" movement have been touting far less rigorous observational studies as showing that being raised by homosexual couples makes no difference. Those studies have been used in the political arena. Now the other side has a study that appears so far to me...by observational study standards...pretty stout.

Way to use falsification in the wrong context asshole This is why no one takes you seriously, you put forth the facade of being bright through dense rhetoric, but when one looks a little deeper that's all it is.

statistics are bullshit when evaluating which lifestyle of any kind is "best" for x,y,z, because people aren't comprised of one lone factor or another. Unless a statistic is 100% or 0%, I'm skeptical of it being a sole contributing factor in an experiment, especially when dealing with people.

The only thing statistics and percentages are good at exemplifying are opinion polls, which don't describe reality, rather our perception of reality.