Don’t feel like quoting it. What are the implications on Catholic theology and natural law?
it only looked at stable FF households. I would expect children can do OK in any stable household but that doesn’t cover aspects that are not modeled in a MF household.
First, if the article controlled for stability, that’s a problem right there. There is evidence that same-sex households are far less stable than normal households.
Second, a Catholic apologist discussed same-sex parenting studies on the radio recently. The show was Called to Communion with Dr. David Anders. A caller brought up same-sex parenting studies and asked if any of them show a significant problem for children. Dr. Anders cited the Mark Regnerus study and then added a comment that I thought was interesting: the Church doesn’t arrive at its moral conclusions by examining social science studies. It comes to its conclusions from several Other sources, including the design of creation. These sources prove that same-sex relationships are disordered from a natural perspective. One consequence of this is that “same-sex parenting” is bad for children. Wherever a same-sex couple teaches children that something bad is good, they’ve done harm to them.
I don’t know. I guess Tarzan turned out alright. :shrug:
More seriously though. I don’t see how kids can be normal without normal examples.
And I can see how pointless this sort of study could end up with the whole idea of what is normal these days being pretty subjective. So I stand off to the side with a really skeptical look. Like the one my mom used to give me when I told her I was too full for supper. But still had room for dessert. :rolleyes:
Everyone knows there’s a dessert compartment.
First, there may have been some inequality of outcome from household stress, whose source was “attributed to homophobia,” according to the article.
Second, only 95x2 families were studied–95 lesbian compared to 95 “matching” heterosexual families.
Third, afaict, information was gathered by asking questions of the parents.
There are just not enough same sex parenting famlies to draw from and not enough time spent for real evaluation. We don’t know how these children will turn out 20-30 years down the road.
‘Scientific’ studies have become the basis for all decisions. Unfortunately they aren’t nearly as reliable as they are made out to be. When you get into social sciences my opinion is they are especially suspect. How exactly do you measure differences? This seems pretty nebulous. From the abstract one measure is ‘emotional difficulties’. This is measured in a culture that has decided that men can actually be women and women men. Our society doesn’t think this is an emotional difficulty. I’d be very suspect of studies produced in such a culture.
Who’s “normal,” though? What’s a “normal” household? Or even a “normal” childhood? Which sort of proves your point. People can’t be normal without normal examples. Maybe that’s why the world is so messed up. I know my childhood was far from normal, or at least average, and I turned out okay.
Read full article at link below:
Media Gush over New Study, Only to Find Same-Sex Parents More Irritated with Their Children
Here’s what the new study claims: “No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes.”
Here’s what the study actually signals (and it didn’t take a PhD to see it): female same-sex parents report more anger, irritation, and comparative frustration with their (apparently misbehaving) children than do opposite-sex parents.
Although he commends certain things about the study he also says:
First, the rest of the measures they employ seem all but carefully selected. The NSCH survey, available online from the CDC, has lots of measures to evaluate child well-being. But the reader of this study is treated to a small number, including a general health measure. (Why would the average 8-year-old in a same-sex household be in worse health? I have no idea. Nor does it make sense to even evaluate it.) The authors overlook—that is, they do not include—measures of school progress, problems in school, participation in sports and recreational activities, volunteering, sleep, exercise, media consumption, reading, depression, bullying behavior, and all but one of five different measures of flourishing. A good question to ask them is: why not include all these measures?
Second, despite the improvements the study is still on the small side, leading to judgments of “no differences” in coping behavior (when, according to a parent, the child “stayed calm and in control when faced with a challenge”) that are—when you eyeball the study’s Table 3—quite different at face value. But when you only have 95 cases, the “power” to detect real differences in the population is limited. In other words, you can see that there is difference (and in almost every study I know it’s typically in more harmful directions). But unless you have a big sample, you’re left impotent, able only to state that there are “no statistically-significant differences.”
Observers have been hammered by this clever ploy for a decade now in the study of same-sex households. Judges and legislatures have been spoon-fed it and led to believe that statistics cannot deceive. They can, which is why I always report basic associations first. (To their credit, the authors of this study did, too.)
Third, the longstanding practice of discerning child outcomes by talking to parents about their children is getting old. Rather than asking questions of the children themselves (as I did in my 2012 study, and after they had left their parents’ household), we still go to the parents as their spokesperson. I am a big fan of speaking to independent sources—that is, the children—and doing so anonymously.
I get from that last paragraph that this study asks the parents to report on the children. If it does it opens the study potentially to social desirability bias if they are not asking the children at all?! Is that correct?
What does this have to do with Catholic theology? Even if the conclusions of this study were true how would that have any impact whatsoever on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior ?
It’s a legit study and the fact that it was tarred & feathered by those who said it was BS is proof that they have something to protect - and it ain’t the “dignity” of those same-sex pairings raising kids.
Legit or not many people have found flaws with it and many studies contradict it. But as Catholics we are called to follow the teachings of the church- not the studies of social scientists
I remember reading that the boy Rosie O’Donnell adopted wanted a daddy. She told him something like tough kid, mom likes women.
Little boys need a daddy. So do little girls.
They should not be denied a m-f parent household unless circumstances (widowhood, divorce due to abuse) prevent this.
And the studies which contradict Regnerus are very flawed. Regnerus was not about SS situations; that was a dot of pull-out from a larger study.
But as Catholics we are called to follow the teachings of the church- not the studies of social scientists
Yes, very much so!
One of the main problems with studies is that they can’t take into account spiritual harm. For example, one staidly I read about said that children raised in SS households were more open to engaging in SS activity. The authors did not see that as a problem…
If it’s a legit study then why even make an big deal about the flaws and if “many studies contradict it”?
Many of the flaws found in the Regnerus study can be found in studies that support same-sex parenting.
Okay, since many studies contradict Regnerus’ study what do you make of the studies that contradict if we set aside what the church teaches? I mean give your :rolleyes: you must look at least somewhat favorably on the “many studies that contradict it.” If you give a :rolleyes: to what I said then be consistent give a :rolleyes: to the posts that give credence to same-sex parenting.