Study: Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Face Greater Risks

[Dawnia]

Originally Posted by Iowa7681

OK, what did I say is not true? (aside from simplifying lesbian family and gay father family into one)

You can see the tables of results he created. Note, there is no representation for a child raised in an otherwise functional same sex household. Not one. ZERO. Every "suspect" group is compared to a stable straight household, and the two groups that represent gay households is, by definition, a broken household containing only a mix mash of all the other rejected straight categories. Can you explain how this information can be used to say a stable gay household is damaging? Obviously a broken, partially gay household is damaging, no one needs a study to know that.

Thoughts?

That's not true...

Ancillary analyses of the NFSS suggests a likely ‘‘planned’’ lesbian origin of between 17% and 26% of such respondents, a range estimated from the share of suchrespondents who claimed that (1) their biological parents were never married or lived together, and that (2) they never lived with a parental opposite-sex partner or with their biological father. The share of respondents (whose fathers had a same-sex relationship) that likely came from ‘‘planned’’ gay families in the NFSS is under 1%.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

I don't give it the weight that some people are, because it's really only one study and a rather limited study at that. But, according to the data, a broken hetero relationship is what the "typical" gay relationship looks like. (or rather what they looked like when those questioned were minors) This is not surprising considering societal views up until recently.

The hardest part about these types of studies is that people don't fit easily into nice little categories, especially over an 18 year period. And according to the study scientists from both sides of the aisle helped concoct the categories and questions. It is hard to claim the study is totally biased if "pro-gay family" people helped come up with the categories.

I don't think there is bias here, but I do think the results are being misinterpreted. The groups being compared are:

1. Kids raised by heterosexual parents in a stable marriage.
2. Kids raised any parents, where at least one of the parents had a homosexual relationship.
2a. A lesbian relationship
2b. A gay relationship

In other words, group 2 could even have included kids raised by primarily a mother and father but subsequently one of those parents had a homosexual affair.

[Iowa7681]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

I don't give it the weight that some people are, because it's really only one study and a rather limited study at that. But, according to the data, a broken hetero relationship is what the "typical" gay relationship looks like. (or rather what they looked like when those questioned were minors) This is not surprising considering societal views up until recently.

The hardest part about these types of studies is that people don't fit easily into nice little categories, especially over an 18 year period. And according to the study scientists from both sides of the aisle helped concoct the categories and questions. It is hard to claim the study is totally biased if "pro-gay family" people helped come up with the categories.

Exactly, it says more about what these particular families looked like. It doesn't say much about a what a stable gay family is like vs a stable straight family. Actually, it doesn't really say anything about it, really.

Not sure how much input the "2 day consultation" really had, but its irrelevant to the discussion. And, if you notice, they go to great lengths to say all of nothing about what the consulted schools had to say. But I digress....

[Iowa7681]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

That's not true...

OK, now you are splitting hairs. Fine, its not true, but lets answer your point since you are oversimplifying.

First, the gay male sample at the end. They admit that "under 1%" of the gay male families were potentially planned gay families. Lets just call that zero and move on.

For the lesbians, the author says that "auxiliary analysis suggests a likely planned relationship...". That translates as "guess", but lets just take them for their word. He says 17 to 26% were likely planned lesbian relationship. He didn't ask the question, he just concludes this because:

- The biological parents never lived together or married and
- They never lived with their mothers opposite sex partner, or their father.

First off, that is the worst conclusion I think I have seen. In your own head, come up with all the other possible reasons that a gay mother doesn't do the above two options.

But, again, lets just take all this complete conjecture as fact. What is being said is that roughly one out of ten (10%) same sex couple was a "planned" gay relationship. Again, 10% (well, call it 7% to 13% if you wish). And that is if we take the above conclusion, which an affront to logic and statistics, but whatever.

My point in all my typing is that statements like "Thats not true..." with an unexplained link really does convince people who are poor at logic that "planned gay relationships" were present and accounted for, when clearly they were not. Even under the most rosy of assumptions. And rebuttals like this don't actually refute logical points, they just throw mud around.

Again, I am not making a case for all the other studies, they are a separate issue. But this particular study, right here, is terrible, and is used to make completely unfounded conclusions about gay parenting. This study shows broken gay families from the 70s and 80s produced damaged kids not dissimilar from adopted kids, single parents, step families and other broken homes. Yay.

Plus, my entire point that you tried to refute was that neither gay group in any way represents a stable, "planned" gay household. Which is true, unless you are going to make the argument that the above logic is even defensible, AND that anything from 7 to 23% of a population is a representative population. Which I assume you certainly would not.

[Iowa7681]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

I don't think there is bias here, but I do think the results are being misinterpreted. The groups being compared are:

1. Kids raised by heterosexual parents in a stable marriage.
2. Kids raised any parents, where at least one of the parents had a homosexual relationship.
2a. A lesbian relationship
2b. A gay relationship

In other words, group 2 could even have included kids raised by primarily a mother and father but subsequently one of those parents had a homosexual affair.

Hmmm, I dont think the 2, 2a and 2b are broken out correctly. The population groups for the gay families only consisted of gay male families, and lesbian families, and that is all. It looks like all these kids, at this time in history, came from "broken" heterosexual relationships. Meaning, either the mother, or the father, was gay. Hence the two groups. I don't think any were the result of two coincidentally gay opposite sex people. And the author states that less than 1% of the gay male parents were planned, but somehow concludes that 17 to 23% of the lesbians were planned, but offers no actually data, just a guess, as discussed above.

Either way, the only two groups then show up in any of the statistical analysis is the gay male, and lesbian categories.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Iowa7681

....And I also agree that many are biased and flawed. But just because they are, does not make this study posted here accurate or unbiased on its own, would you not agree?

I agree that the Regnerus study had its flaws (although I can answer to the bias charge, as the pc winds currently blow in favor of SSM, especially among our enlightened intelligentsia), but there was also much that it got right, and was an improvement over previous methods. I think the critique I posted was a fair analysis.

[Dawnia]

Originally Posted by Iowa7681

OK, now you are splitting hairs. Fine, its not true, but lets answer your point since you are oversimplifying.

First, the gay male sample at the end. They admit that "under 1%" of the gay male families were potentially planned gay families. Lets just call that zero and move on.

For the lesbians, the author says that "auxiliary analysis suggests a likely planned relationship...". That translates as "guess", but lets just take them for their word. He says 17 to 26% were likely planned lesbian relationship. He didn't ask the question, he just concludes this because:

- The biological parents never lived together or married and
- They never lived with their mothers opposite sex partner, or their father.

First off, that is the worst conclusion I think I have seen. In your own head, come up with all the other possible reasons that a gay mother doesn't do the above two options.

But, again, lets just take all this complete conjecture as fact. What is being said is that roughly one out of ten (10%) same sex couple was a "planned" gay relationship. Again, 10% (well, call it 7% to 13% if you wish). And that is if we take the above conclusion, which an affront to logic and statistics, but whatever.

My point in all my typing is that statements like "Thats not true..." with an unexplained link really does convince people who are poor at logic that "planned gay relationships" were present and accounted for, when clearly they were not. Even under the most rosy of assumptions. And rebuttals like this don't actually refute logical points, they just throw mud around.

Again, I am not making a case for all the other studies, they are a separate issue. But this particular study, right here, is terrible, and is used to make completely unfounded conclusions about gay parenting. This study shows broken gay families from the 70s and 80s produced damaged kids not dissimilar from adopted kids, single parents, step families and other broken homes. Yay.

Plus, my entire point that you tried to refute was that neither gay group in any way represents a stable, "planned" gay household. Which is true, unless you are going to make the argument that the above logic is even defensible, AND that anything from 7 to 23% of a population is a representative population. Which I assume you certainly would not.

You are reading way more into my comment than was there. You stated that ALL were from broken homes. I countered that they were not ALL from broken homes. The study itself, which I posted the relevant portion, states that some were not from broken homes.

The total number of participants in the study itself is only a drop in the bucket of the entire population and gay parents represent a very very small minority. A representational study goes on a cross section of the population. The smaller the group, the less they are represented.You have to take what you get in this type of study.