Study: Outcomes for children raised by "gays" sub-optimal

[youngterrier]

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. An argument can be made for not allowing adoption unless we're talking about putting them into an "optimal" environment. While there are many factors in an optimal environment other than family structure, this study lends support to those who say that family structure is a factor with the "traditional family" involving a man and a woman in a stable marraige relationship being the "optimal" state with respect to that factor.

The only problem is that we live in a time when egalitarian philosophy trumps science anyway. So this study is not likely to be well received.

Go fuck yourself, that's not science, asshole. One study doesn't dictate reality, especially one promoted by the Family Research Council of Focus on the Family, or whatever it was. Those are the same people that tie homosexuality with heart attacks, and if I really need to explain why that is bullshit, then I guess we won't have much of a conversation

Your claim is falsifiable in that if one could find ONE same sex couple that could raise a child optimally, of which meets a certain criteria, then your whole entire bigoted argument falls apart because it was contradicted. It's quite simple of an assertion, either same sex couples can raise children optimally or not. And if the answer is "well some can and some can't" then the question is no longer about their sexual orientation, but rather other factors of raising kids.

If there is only one same sex couple capable of meeting such a criteria, you are automatically wrong, and that's the most simple way to put it. And I'm not stupid or bigoted enough to say that, out of hundreds of thousands or millions of same sex people, we can't find 2 of them that could raise a single child "optimally"

Quit pretending that you're logical or "scientific." You're just a bigot with numbers.

[CID1990]

And they were very heterosexual (6 kids).

Dude. It's a vagina, not a gottdam clown car.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

There are statistical techniques allowing consideration of multiple factors simultaneously. This study uses some. There is no claim that family structure is the lone factor.

And if one could do an experiment on something like this with people...and we can't because it wouldn't be ethical even if it were possible...any unknown factors would be handled by randomization. In fact that's why a controlled experiment is so important. Randomization means you can have confidence in the results even if there are factors of which you are unaware.

Joe's hypothesis could theoretically be falsified because it can be set up as a null hypothesis in a statistical experiment. He's basically saying the family structure in itself does not have an effect. So that can be a null hypothesis (no effect). So if we could set up an experiment in which we could control the environments kids grow up in, randomize, and ensure that all the factors that Joe identifies are taken out of the picture or accounted for then we show that there is still a difference in the distributions of outcomes, we'd have falsified his null hypothesis.

But the alternative hypothesis that it does have an effect cannot be falsified.

[youngterrier]

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.

There are statistical techniques allowing consideration of multiple factors simultaneously. This study uses some. There is no claim that family structure is the lone factor.

And if one could do an experiment on something like this with people...and we can't because it wouldn't be ethical even if it were possible...any unknown factors would be handled by randomization. In fact that's why a controlled experiment is so important. Randomization means you can have confidence in the results even if there are factors of which you are unaware.

Joe's hypothesis could theoretically be falsified because it can be set up as a null hypothesis in a statistical experiment. He's basically saying the family structure in itself does not have an effect. So that can be a null hypothesis (no effect). So if we could set up an experiment in which we could control the environments kids grow up in, randomize, and ensure that all the factors that Joe identifies are taken out of the picture or accounted for then we show that there is still a difference in the distributions of outcomes, we'd have falsified his null hypothesis.

But the alternative hypothesis that it does have an effect cannot be falsified.

I'm pretty sure you just dumbed down what he said for the sake putting forth a position at which he did not maintain.

Also, for a so-called libertarian, you seem to care how much people make all of a sudden. Did you ever think that perhaps lesbian couple were factored in to the statistics? I mean it's not necessarily because they're lesbians (as I haven't read into income discrepancy between hetero and homosexual households in general), but it's no secret that the average woman makes 77 cents for every dollar every man makes, and 2 women....eek that would be bad.

Either way, it's a null argument, because you're basing the concept of how great of a parent they are based on how much money they make a year? That's pretty fucked up actually. I mean, really Sandusky made probably thousands if not 10s of thousands more $$$$ a year than entire households do currently, while he was working at Penn State, but I don't think anyone would go as far as to say that he would have raised ANY child "optimally"

Try again barney

edit: I just realized you said "outcome" not "income" but still your argument is pretty faulty because unless you can pin-down specific factors that attribute to bad parenting, you can't narrow down to same sex couples alone, because that sole attribute doesn't say shit.

[JohnStOnge]

Your claim is falsifiable in that if one could find ONE same sex couple that could raise a child optimally, of which meets a certain criteria, then your whole entire bigoted argument falls apart because it was contradicted. .

I'll assume by referring to my bigoted argument you're referring to the conclusions of the study. The conclusions would not be "falsified" by having one same sex couple raise a child optimally specifically because of something you alluded to earlier: There are many factors involved in determining the outcome; including random chance. All the study says is that there are associations between family structures and outcomes with the highest positive association...all other things being equal..involving the structure with a Man and a Woman in a stable marriage who are biological parents of the offspring.

[BlueHen86]

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.

Look, JSO, this is the deal: you're a homophobe. No need for a study, your posts are evidence enough.

[BlueHen86]

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.

In other words, you found a study that supports your homophobic position, and you agree with it.

I always agree with people when they agree with me.

[youngterrier]

Your claim is falsifiable in that if one could find ONE same sex couple that could raise a child optimally, of which meets a certain criteria, then your whole entire bigoted argument falls apart because it was contradicted. .

I'll assume by referring to my bigoted argument you're referring to the conclusions of the study. The conclusions would not be "falsified" by having one same sex couple raise a child optimally specifically because of something you alluded to earlier: There are many factors involved in determining the outcome; including random chance. All the study says is that there are associations between family structures and outcomes with the highest positive association...all other things being equal..involving the structure with a Man and a Woman in a stable marriage who are biological parents of the offspring.

but your banking on the ability of ever nuclear family to touch on those associations, it's utopian at best. If we're talking about adoption, then your study is useless because we're not talking about those kind of relationships involving biological parents.

[griz37]

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.

I don't know if you have ever watched Swamp People, but those guys are far better parents & love their kids more than 90% of the population that I see running around the world today.

[youngterrier]

I'm calling you a bigot Jon, because you consistently miss the point of the opposition in favor of a bigoted opinion.

This study says next to nothing of importance in the discussion.

[JohnStOnge]

edit: I just realized you said "outcome" not "income" but still your argument is pretty faulty because unless you can pin-down specific factors that attribute to bad parenting, you can't narrow down to same sex couples alone, because that sole attribute doesn't say ****.

There is something to that in this respect:

In an observational study, you have to assume that you can identify the important factors in an outcome and mathematically "control" for them. That's obviously very difficult to do in a situation like this. That's why I have said, in the past, that all social science has to be viewed with caution. It is pretty much all observational.

On the other hand, those in the "homosexuality is normal" movement have not hesitated to use observational studies that have failed to show an association involving homosexual pairs to promote the view that it makes no difference.

But it's not a matter of narrowing it down to one factor alone. It's like if you did an observational study to see if a higher level of some substance in the soil leads to more rapid growth of a particular plant. So you'd go out and measure the level of the substance in the soil around individuals of that plant. But it's not all you'd measure because there are other factors such as sunlight, temperature, and moisture. So you'd have to measure those other things too and "control" for them. It's quite possible that you could find a plant in an area with a high level of the substance that had slower growth than one with a lower level. But maybe that area got less sunlight and moisture while being exposed to lower temperatures.

When all is said and done you make a model that includes the level of the substance in each location as well as some index of the moisture, sunlight exposure, and temperature. Then you see if the level of the substance has a "significant" effect when the other three variables are "controlled" for.

And that is the kind of thing that guy is attempting to do in that study on family structure. If you say the situation is so complex...that there are so many factors that they can't possibly all be considered adequately...that the results have to be viewed with caution I agree with you. But that is the case with all social science.

So remember that when you see social science invoked to promote either side of any debate.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Who are you kidding here? You ARE "the other side".

Again, go research studies on MILLIONS of kids from "traditional families" who are beaten, sexually abused, neglected, abandoned, etc., etc., etc. and get back to me. Until then, I'm hardly worried that the .05% of the kids in America being raised by same sex parents MIGHT turn out to be "sub-optimal"...it just doesn't register on the give-a-fuck meter.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

I don't know if you have ever watched Swamp People, but those guys are far better parents & love their kids more than 90% of the population that I see running around the world today.

I watch it almost every night, and did I say otherwise? I said they couldn't speak English, don't own a toothbrush, and their entire skillset consists of being able to kill things. Oh, and drive a boat.

[JoltinJoe]

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.

I don't know you can credibly measure "gay friendly" environments for purposes of a study like this.

My point is simply from observation and some common sense.

Observation: These little kids at the moment have no idea that there is something "wrong" with their families. They are happy, well-adjusted kids. Welcome to play with my kids at any time; good kids who are respectful, well behaved, and polite.

Common sense: When someone feels they are being looked down upon as if something about them is inferior, that affects them socially and psychologically. So I simply cannot accept that there is no connection between observed "bad" behavior and a person's sense of worth and value.

Hey, maybe this study is right, but on the other hand, maybe it's wrong. If these kids develop problems down the road, I'd hate to think it was because people in my community treated them as outsiders, so I'm not going to do it. Love they neighbor as thyself. WTF? Do it.

[SDHornet]

Let's see...AZ, DBJ, JJ, AND D1B all aligned against another hate motivated JSO ideal...yup time for an /thread.

[Ibanez]

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.

Great response!


JSO, if someone outside your marriage, is able to effect your marriage, then you have failed.

[Ibanez]

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.

I don't know if you have ever watched Swamp People, but those guys are far better parents & love their kids more than 90% of the population that I see running around the world today.

Do you know them personnally? I watch How I Met Your Mother, that doesn't mean Jason Segal is truly a great husband or Allison Hannigan is a devoted wife.

[Ibanez]

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:



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.

I don't know you can credibly measure "gay friendly" environments for purposes of a study like this.

My point is simply from observation and some common sense.

Observation: These little kids at the moment have no idea that there is something "wrong" with their families. They are happy, well-adjusted kids. Welcome to play with my kids at any time; good kids who are respectful, well behaved, and polite.

Common sense: When someone feels they are being looked down upon as if something about them is inferior, that affects them socially and psychologically. So I simply cannot accept that there is no connection between observed "bad" behavior and a person's sense of worth and value.

Hey, maybe this study is right, but on the other hand, maybe it's wrong. If these kids develop problems down the road, I'd hate to think it was because people in my community treated them as outsiders, so I'm not going to do it. Love they neighbor as thyself. WTF? Do it.

So why do you hate gay people? Why do you feel threatened? What if your daughter came home and said she was gay?

7 out of 10 college aged women have experiemented with the same sex.

[CAA Flagship]

7 out of 10 college aged women have experiemented with the same sex.

I find that statistic hard to believe. Just sayin.

[Ibanez]

7 out of 10 college aged women have experiemented with the same sex.

I find that statistic hard to believe. Just sayin.

Yeah, because I made it up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9358339/ns/ ... sexuality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The survey, released Thursday by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, found that 11.5 percent of women, ages 18 to 44, said they’ve had at least one sexual experience with another women in their lifetimes, compared with about 4 percent of women, ages 18 to 59, who said the same in a comparable survey a decade earlier.

[kalm]

7 out of 10 college aged women have experiemented with the same sex.

I find that statistic hard to believe. Just sayin.

You've gotta have a little faith my friend.

JSO, you will come off as far more intelligent once you remove yourself from the Focus on the Family mailing list.

[Vidav]

I don't know if you have ever watched Swamp People, but those guys are far better parents & love their kids more than 90% of the population that I see running around the world today.

Do you know them personnally? I watch How I Met Your Mother, that doesn't mean Jason Segal is truly a great husband or Allison Hannigan is a devoted wife.

Yes they are! Also Neil Patrick Harris is a womanizer. . .

Oh but see you are talking about a scripted sitcom about fictional characters. AZ is talking about a reality show about real people.

[CAA Flagship]

Do you know them personnally? I watch How I Met Your Mother, that doesn't mean Jason Segal is truly a great husband or Allison Hannigan is a devoted wife.

Yes they are! Also Neil Patrick Harris is a womanizer. . .

Oh but see you are talking about a scripted sitcom about fictional characters. AZ is talking about a reality show about real people.

Wait. Does this mean Rosie O'Donnel is NOT fat?

[JoltinJoe]

I don't know you can credibly measure "gay friendly" environments for purposes of a study like this.

My point is simply from observation and some common sense.

Observation: These little kids at the moment have no idea that there is something "wrong" with their families. They are happy, well-adjusted kids. Welcome to play with my kids at any time; good kids who are respectful, well behaved, and polite.

Common sense: When someone feels they are being looked down upon as if something about them is inferior, that affects them socially and psychologically. So I simply cannot accept that there is no connection between observed "bad" behavior and a person's sense of worth and value.

Hey, maybe this study is right, but on the other hand, maybe it's wrong. If these kids develop problems down the road, I'd hate to think it was because people in my community treated them as outsiders, so I'm not going to do it. Love they neighbor as thyself. WTF? Do it.

So why do you hate gay people? Why do you feel threatened? What if your daughter came home and said she was gay?

7 out of 10 college aged women have experiemented with the same sex.

Huh? Why do you think I hate gay people?

[89Hen]

Am I the only one who enjoys how riled up everyone gets on JSO threads? I've never seen so many people call one person so many names and have that person never namecall once.