Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Did you really just say that? That's hilarious.
    I'll assume that is your way of saying I am incorrect. Any particular justification for your objection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    That's a circular argument. We're in court because gay couples have been getting married but governments have been treating those marriages differently. It's rather like Scalia's attempt at being clever in which he demands to know when such discrimination became unconstitutional. The fact that a subject group has been discriminated against doesn't mean it was Constitutional, it only means it was done and tolerated until it wasn't.
    Circular argument? In what way?

    You fudgepackers are in court because you insist on being treated specially. Not because your rights are being trampled. You insist on adopting a social status called "marriage" not because you believe in it, but because you believe it brings you credibility.

    Silly boy. You're not credible. You pack fudge.

    Please offer something other than stupidity. Gay couples getting married isn't "taking the nation" in some direction other than the realization of the Constitution.
    So you disagree that the cultural shift that's been a hallmark of you faggots and faggot-keepers hasn't had a debilitating effect on the nation as a whole? That young people, in particular, haven't been browbeaten and brainwashed into thinking that faggotry is somehow normal?

    Puh-leeze. You're starting to bore me, silly boy.

    The Justices of the Supreme Court aren't required to change their opinion, if any, of gay couples marrying or gay people in general. They are under oath to put any prejudices aside and rule objectively and in accordance with the Constitution. What people like you can't stand is that the COnstitution couldn't be more unlike the Bible. You have bought into the BS that the Constitution is based in the Bible when clearly it is not. Ceremonial deism in documents doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers were snake handlers talking in tongues.
    I uttered not one word about the Bible. Not. A. Word. You might want to back up and spare me your history/civic lesson as well. Your credibility is leaking all over your boyfriend's ass.
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sarasota,FL
    Posts
    42,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    IN response to your concern, my understanding is that it's not much of an issue in coastal suburbia. Acceptance of gay people, while not infallibly variable with education and economic achievement, does tend to rise with both.

    Or, they could just get a puppy or a kitten...
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I'm glad you think you have something there. Surely it gives you comfort.
    When the real science is against you, slime the messenger, eh?

    On the other hand, Democratic UNderground is chock full of people who are completely convinced that biased work by biased academics (often far out of their titled field) is sufficient evidence that Global Warming is concrete science.
    And as far as what Democratic Underground thinks or believes, there's not enough tin foil in the US to handle the conspiracies that they dish up. They can believe what they want, but the lives of the adult children described in that study are real. We all know that DUmmies have a hard time with harsh realities.


    One more time: For a people study to be accurate, the sample has to be representative. Regnerus admitted that his sample wasn't representative, even if he continued to claim that his results were relevant.

    "I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships," Regenus told the magazine. "I said 'lesbian mothers' and 'gay fathers,' when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior."
    What Regnerus admitted is that he had not asked the parents how they viewed themselves and their sexual orientation. He went strictly by the behavior they exhibited as reported by their adult children. This doesn't mean that the sample isn't "representative": remember he was looking for the children of parents who had had a same sex relationship. That is what he found. The data was clean. The subjects were found and interviews were conducted by a third party that is accustomed to doing such work for academics without any bias. This sample used was the largest of its kind ever done. The stats that Regnerus ran on the data were also fine. There is nothing wrong with his sample or his methodology.

    What you and the other activists complained about was the way he categorized the subjects in the sample. Regnerus based his categories on the behavior exhibited by the parents. If they had a same sex relationship, they could not go in the "straight" category. Even the gay community would have put most of those parents into the "queer" category. They were not straight, they were very certainly queer, some may have been bisexual (especially those that married opposite-sex partners again) but some were not.

    Regnerus' quote above is a response to criticism that he didn't ask the parents how they categorized themselves. In other words, were they really really gay or bisexual or just experimenting. But that wasn't Regnerus' point. His goal behind the study was to show how same-sex relationships affect children on the long term no matter what the motive of the parent was in having the relationship. Regnerus was looking for the effect of a particular behavior on a particular group. It's like looking for the long term effects of domestic violence on children. It doesn't matter whether the parents are violent because they are drunk, mentally ill, lost their job, had PTSD from military service, or came from a culture with a higher tolerance for parental violence. It doesn't matter if the parents are now sorry, or if they are now hopeless drunks and don't care. All that matters is that the violence existed and that the children suffered and, as adults, are showing patterned and statistically significant signs of maladjustment.

    In the same way, Regnerus' study was only looking at how the same sex relationship, whatever its cause affected the children involved. Whether the parent was truly gay, truly bisexual or just experimenting was not a factor--only the presence of the same-sex relationship and its effect on the child was a factor. Interviewing the parents was entirely unnecessary under these conditions. Regnerus said the quote you have posted (I believe) after activists accused him of homophobia and tried to get his tenure revoked. In other words, interviewing the parents would have proved Regnerus to be more sensitive to the concerns of the gay community, but it would not have affected the science.

    You might say, well it's unfair to deny gay people marriage and parenthood because a bunch of possible bisexuals or experimenters in Regnerus' study had kids who were screwed up. But what Regnerus' study demonstrates is that overall, despite the actual orientation of the parents, a same-sex relationship made for problems later on in life. Regnerus' study, for better or for worse, is the best, most comprehensive study out there on the reality of non-heterosexual parenting across the US.

    I realize that the urge to believe that which you think supports your case is strong, but don't embarrass yourself.
    I didn't. You did by not understanding the experimental design or the logic of the study.,

    Regnerus didn't study two parent same sex couples and their children in intact families. He counted everyone as "gay parent" who had ever had sex or a relationship with a person of the same sex.
    Their motives may have been different, but the behavior was the same, and it was the behavior that affected the children. That's what Regnerus' study shows.


    If it makes sense to you to compare that to a Mr and Mrs Cleaver Standard then you aren't interested in a serious discussion.
    On the contrary, I have just given you a very serious discussion about study design. You, on the other hand, prefer to lob emotional grenades. So be it.
    Last edited by Elspeth; 03-28-2013 at 05:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    What Regnerus admitted is that he had not asked the parents how they viewed themselves and their sexual orientation. He went strictly by the behavior they exhibited as reported by their adult children. This doesn't mean that the sample isn't "representative": remember he was looking for the children of parents who had had a same sex relationship. That is what he found. The data was clean. The subjects were found and interviews were conducted by a third party that is accustomed to doing such work for academics without any bias. This sample used was the largest of its kind ever done. The stats that Regnerus ran on the data were also fine. There is nothing wrong with his sample or his methodology.
    Incorrect on many levels. He did not evaluate as a group intact same sex families. I don't know if you are willfully missing that or if you sincerely missed it or didn't understand the terminology. He did not interview a group of adult children of same sex couples, ie a group of adult children who had been raised in a stabile two parent same sex household.

    Seriously, we have been through this all before. I can't remember if you were a apart of that, but if you had any integrity then you would take a study like this and make an effort to pick it apart rather than accepting it. Mark Regnerus is tainted by associations and his work is suspect. That should have been a red flag. For as long as the internet has been up and running I have been watching people buy this kind of crap, and worse, hook line and sinker. I have explained it to them and have seen others explain it to them.... and they just go away for awhile and then repeat it somewhere down the road.

    A case in point. Dave Agema in Michigan made a stup[id post to h is facebook page citing Paul Cameron's notoriously defective and malevolent work. He should have known better, but apparent each dunce thinks he has discovered this "information".

    Here:

    While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.

    In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?

    Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and law. Ever since same-sex marriage started to become a reality in the U.S., conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute, which helped fund the Regnerus study, have cited research that — it's claimed — shows that gay parenting is a bad idea. In 2003, Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of NOM, wrote in the Weekly Standard of "a consensus across ideological lines based on 20 years' worth of social science research" that children do better with a married mother and father. Writing in The Times in 2004, Pepper-


    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...amily-20120613
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    What you and the other activists complained about was the way he categorized the subjects in the sample. Regnerus based his categories on the behavior exhibited by the parents. If they had a same sex relationship, they could not go in the "straight" category. Even the gay community would have put most of those parents into the "queer" category. They were not straight, they were very certainly queer, some may have been bisexual (especially those that married opposite-sex partners again) but some were not.
    The complaint here has nothing to do with bisexuals. He did not compare apples to apples. IF you want to compare a gay couple with two kids then you have to compare it to a straight couple with two kids where as many variables as possible are the same. You aren't going to learn anything if you compare two kids who have had the same mom and dad and living circumstances since birth to two kids whose parents divorced and Dad moved in with Fred. If you want to compare Daddy and Fred then you need to compare them to Daddy and and his second wife. I'll bet if you interview kids who went to live with Daddy and "That Whore" they would have rather gone to live with Daddy and Fred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Incorrect on many levels. He did not evaluate as a group intact same sex families. I don't know if you are willfully missing that or if you sincerely missed it or didn't understand the terminology. He did not interview a group of adult children of same sex couples, ie a group of adult children who had been raised in a stabile two parent same sex household.
    Regnerus did interview adult children of same sex couples as well as adult children whose parent had a same sex affair. Read the actual study here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49089X12000610

    Regnerus worked with real world data. The professional, well-known firm he hired to collect the data sample did not find a lot of adult children who had been raised in a stable, still-intact gay parenting families, in which both gay parents remained together through all of the childrearing. There simply weren't a lot of these families in the real world data. There were only two stable lesbian families in the sample--and remember, this is the largest sample ever taken of real-life adult children of parents who had same sex relationships. A sample size of two is impossible to analyze statistically, and since they were anomalous, there's not much they could add to the study anyway. You and other activists are decrying the fact that Regnerus didn't study stable gay parents, but what Rengerus' data shows is that, from the mid 1970s to the end of this last century (Regnerus' range), the stable intact gay parenting situation was not the norm at all. There may be a good many reasons for this lack of stability, but when you're working with real world data, you get what you get. You can't decry the fact that Regnerus didn't find unicorns either.



    Seriously, we have been through this all before. I can't remember if you were a apart of that, but if you had any integrity then you would take a study like this and make an effort to pick it apart rather than accepting it. Mark Regnerus is tainted by associations and his work is suspect. That should have been a red flag. For as long as the internet has been up and running I have been watching people buy this kind of crap, and worse, hook line and sinker. I have explained it to them and have seen others explain it to them.... and they just go away for awhile and then repeat it somewhere down the road.

    You have to be careful accusing people of tainted research. Academics get money from all kinds of sources, including those well disposed toward gay parenting. Regnerus (and others) have made the argument that much of the previous research on gay parenting was done by folks with a vested interest. These studies tend to have small data sets with subjects drawn from limited areas, like liberal urban cities in blue states. You may not like Regnerus' beliefs or who funds him, but the research he did was just as tainted or untainted as previous studies that said gay parenting was all sunshine and flowers. If you read the study at the link, Regnerus gives a good review of the literature and you can find some of the previous studies in his bibliography.


    Here:

    While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.

    In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?
    Once again, here are the perils of dealing with real world data.

    First: From the mid 1970's to the mid-late 90s, the situation of a gay parent raising children with a same sex partner arose principally through heterosexual divorce. The children had to come from somewhere. The phenomenon of gay couples making a commitment FIRST and then having children through artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or adoption is much more recent. When their children grow up and are studied, the result may be different from those Regnerus found. But there is no getting away from the fact that these newer options did not exist for most gay people in the 70s and 80s.

    Second: Regnerus did not limit his comparisons of adult children with parents who had same sex relationships to only intact heterosexual marriages. If you actually read the study, he ALSO compares them to adult children of divorce who lived with single parents and to adult children whose divorced heterosexual parent remarried. Regnerus specifically looked at the adult children of divorced heterosexual mothers and the adult children of divorced mothers who had a same sex relationship. He found more problems in the latter.

    You can't just read what people write on Facebook. You have to read the study. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49089X12000610



    Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and law. Ever since same-sex marriage started to become a reality in the U.S., conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute, which helped fund the Regnerus study, have cited research that — it's claimed — shows that gay parenting is a bad idea. In 2003, Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of NOM, wrote in the Weekly Standard of "a consensus across ideological lines based on 20 years' worth of social science research" that children do better with a married mother and father. Writing in The Times in 2004, Pepper-[/I]

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...amily-20120613


    Yes, the funders had an ideological bent. So do a lot of sources of academic funding. What you actually have to do is look at the logic of the study design and the methodology. What Regnerus did was look at real world data. He did not cherry pick his data set. He basically found what was out there to find. And what he found is no surprise, really, if you consider the conditions pertaining during the childhoods of current adults (the 70s, 80s,. and early 90s).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The complaint here has nothing to do with bisexuals. He did not compare apples to apples. IF you want to compare a gay couple with two kids then you have to compare it to a straight couple with two kids where as many variables as possible are the same. You aren't going to learn anything if you compare two kids who have had the same mom and dad and living circumstances since birth to two kids whose parents divorced and Dad moved in with Fred. If you want to compare Daddy and Fred then you need to compare them to Daddy and and his second wife. I'll bet if you interview kids who went to live with Daddy and "That Whore" they would have rather gone to live with Daddy and Fred.
    If you want to do individual case studies, where you tell stories but don't do large statistical samples, then you can indeed do you what you suggest. Case studies are a well respected way of getting ideas. But Regnerus' study was not about case studies of a handful of families. He was doing a wide-sweeping statistical study of real world data and he had to use what he found. The data itself was gathered by a professional company who does this kind of work for all kinds of studies.


    Now, something else you may not know is that Regnerus revisited his study after he was pommeled in the media. The link is here: Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses


    He addresses many of the concerns that people had. Here are some of Regnerus' quotes.

    1. About previous studies (NFSS is his own study)

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...er_share=c3a1b

    While sample size issues—as well as concerns about representativeness—have long hampered the general line of inquiry into same-sex parents and child outcomes, prior to the NFSS most suppositions about possible problems with studies based on nonrandom samples were intellectual rather than data-based. That is, it was easy for scholars to admit the limitations of their study samples. What was more difficult, however, was to grasp just how nonrandom they were and how that might affect their results (Marks, 2012). Even while family scholars have long acknowledged the likelihood of demographic diversity among same-sex households, most have been unable to document the extent of this diversity in a statistically-meaningful way. National probability surveys have typically been constrained by the relatively small number of same-sex households in the general population, resulting in small sample sizes and limited statistical power to detect between-group differences. Most research has instead relied on snowball and convenience samples, which often minimize genuine racial, socioeconomic, and geographic heterogeneity (Tasker, 2005). Others have turned to the Census and the American Community Survey for more representative demographic characteristics of same-sex couples with children (Rosenfeld, 2010 and Gates and Ost, 2004). However, these population-based resources are not able to tell us about gay or lesbian single parents or non-residential parents. In addition, Census data provide very little detail about the diversity of family structures experienced by children of same-sex parents over time.

    Thus the original NFSS study, while subject to its own documented limitations, suggested the possibility that previous nonrandom studies were painting a rosier picture of child outcomes than would be the case were a more random sample to be employed or if the outcomes were based on the reports of young adults themselves rather than relying on parental self-reports. In other words, the original study muddied what had largely been, up to that time, a relatively consistent, positive portrait of child outcomes in gay and lesbian households (however defined).
    In other words, previous studies, which had shown positive outcomes for children of gay parents, had been based on small, non-random samples of non-diverse (mostly white) children. What Regnerus did was actually do a random sample. The random sample did not show the same results of the non-random (cherry-picked) samples.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...er_share=c3a1b

    The most consistent criticism is that the original study’s analyses “compare apples to oranges”. That is, the primary comparison is between LM/MLRs, GF/FGRs, and intact biological families (IBFs), and that given prevalent instability in the NFSS sample of the former pair’s households, that to compare them to IBFs is to cause the former pair to look poorly. However, if stability is a key asset for households with children, then it is sensible to use intact biological families in any comparative assessment. But this has rarely been the approach employed in past research: Rosenfeld (2010: 757) notes that of the 45 studies listed in Tasker’s (2005) review article, only two included “a more traditional family control group built into the study”.

    Moreover, it is inaccurate to imply that the original study did not evaluate distinctions between LM/MLRs and other categories that displayed some degree of instability. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 in the original study (not shown) displayed indicators of statistically-significant differences between LM/MLRs and all other groups, and I briefly describe on page 13 (Section 3.2) of the original study text the number of (and percent of possible) statistically-significant differences both before and after controls between both LM/MLR and GF/FGR categories and all non-IBF groups.
    In other words, if you are going to look at stability, it is reasonable compare the most stable situation statistically speaking (intact heterosexual biological-parent families) with other situations. You may disagree with that, but this is not an unprincipled stance. The second paragraph tells you what I already stated: the same-sex relationship parents were not just compared to intact bio-families but to all the other types of families--single parent, divorced, remarried, adopted, etc.


    Finally, I'll leave you with this last quote. We were talking above about comparing random sample of "stable" gay parenting situations with a stable intact hetero parenting situations, and whether or not the result would then be the same (or close) since we'd then be comparing apples to apples. Regnerus has this to add to that conversation:

    2.2.2. Gay and lesbian relationship instability: An artifact of the past?

    Since the NFSS did not select by design a group of unstable gay or lesbian parents, a key issue is whether or not the LM/MLR and GF/FGR households are more unstable than those of heterosexual couples. If stability was comparatively rarer in the lives of MLRs and FGRs growing up some decades ago when stigma was more pronounced and social support for lesbian and gay parents far more modest than today, is it a safe assumption that the NFSS study is a “dated” one by definition and that if the study could be replicated in the future that the associations here would very likely disappear? Perhaps, but hardly certain: assumptions about comparative relationship stability among gay and lesbian couples—including parents—can and have been empirically tested using other data on current relationships.

    A study of Norwegian and Swedish same-sex marriages notes that divorce risk is higher in same-sex marriages and that the “risk of divorce for female partnerships actually is more than twice that for male unions” (Andersson et al., 2006: 89). Moreover, early same-sex marriages—those occurring shortly after a shift in marriage law—exhibited a similar risk of divorce as did more recent marriages, suggesting no notable variation in instability over time as a function of new law or pent-up demand among more stable, longstanding relationships. The study authors estimate that in Sweden, 30% of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within 6 years of formation, compared with 20% for male marriages and 13% for heterosexual ones. Moreover, they found lesbian couples to be more “sociodemographically homogamous” than other couples, and speculate that “this situation may be conducive to a high level of dynamism in the relationship, but perhaps not to the kind of inertia that is related to marital stability” (Andersson et al., 2006: 96). Biblarz and Stacey (2010: 17) similarly note this phenomenon in their review of research on lesbian parents, asserting that they face a “somewhat greater risk of splitting up”, due in part, they suggest, to their “their high standards of equality”. A follow-up assessment of more recent Norwegian statistics, presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Population Association of America (PAA), found no evidence that the gender gap in same-sex divorce has closed (Noack et al., 2012).

    Michael Rosenfeld detects the same pattern in a study of nationally-representative data on American relationships presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. He finds that lesbian couples report higher relationship satisfaction alongside higher break-up rates. The highest stability rates appear among heterosexual married couples, while notably better stability is located among married gay and lesbian couples than among those in civil unions (as would be expected). Yet his analysis too detects greater instability among lesbian couples in general, a finding that persists even after a lengthy series of control variables are included. While lesbian couples in the study are more apt to be raising children, the presence of children does not appear to be a factor in the diminished relationship stability evident among them.

    That few LM/MLR respondents reported stability in their mother and her partner’s relationship (in the domicile in which the respondent lived) ought not be simply chalked up to greater stigma or insufficient social support as factors that account for the entirety of the association. In light of evidence of the same pattern among current lesbian couples in the US and Scandinavia, it remains an open question.

    While the cited study authors tend to find the difference in divorce behavior between lesbians and gay men intriguing, this “lesbian effect” is anticipated in a sexual economics approach to romantic relationships (e.g., Baumeister, 2010). This perspective places no blame for instability on sexual orientation per se, but rather on stable gender differences and preferences in relationships (e.g., for women, a significantly higher bar for the relationship’s quality and emotional satisfaction). Gay men’s relationships thus appear predictably more stable than lesbian relationships, but are less likely to be sexually monogamous when compared with lesbian or heterosexual relationships (Hoff and Beougher, 2010). Here again, this is believed to be due not to sexual orientation but stable gender differences in relationship preferences and sex drive (Baumeister and Vohs, 2004). While the effect of relationship stability on child health and development is well-documented and apparent in the original NFSS study’s findings—as well as this follow-up exploration—the effect on children of parental nonmonogamy is not well understood.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...er_share=c3a1b
    Interesting food for thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post


    Interesting food for thought.
    Amicus American College of Pediatricians – not to be confused with amicus herein, the American Academy of Pediatrics – seriously mischaracterizes a recent study (“the Regnerus study”) as having compared children of married heterosexual
    parents with those “raised by same-sex couples.” Amicus Brief at 6.38 The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc. There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.”39 Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent
    38 Citing M. Regnerus, How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41 Soc. Sci. Res. 752 (2012).
    39 Id. at 756 (emphasis in original).
    -22-
    Case: 12-15388 07/10/2012 ID: 8243116 DktEntry: 94 Page: 34 of 40
    (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”40 Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples – as Regnerus himself acknowledges41 – and thus it is gravely misleading to say, as the American College of Pediatricians does (p. 6), that the study involved 175 participants who “were raised by two women and 73 by two men.”
    Accordingly, the conclusions by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect a consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents.42
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,861
    Question, how did a thread about black children being born out of wedlock become a thread about gay marriage? Oh, I forgot. When it comes to nova, it's all about the gays.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •