Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.It's irrational to think that there would be any other outcome....
The methodology of that study has been criticized.As if no one could have predicted it, the largest study to date of adult children of same sex couples shows that they suffer poorer outcomes than adult chidlren of traditional couples. This would be a big "Duh" except the Gayhaddis kept quoting small selective studies that showed the opposite. But politicized science and small samples are no match for a broad wide range study. And the results are just what you would expect.
Cue "bigoted Texans"meme in 3...2...1....
Adult Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Report Varied Outcomes
The study is controversial because of its methodological flaws, how it was financed, its clear anti-same-sex-marriage motivations, and the suspiciously fast and sloppy way it was published in a peer review journal.
The major religious right groups in the U.S. – many of which are have ties to the Witherspoon Institute – immediately promoted and defended the study, including the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, NOM’s Ruth Institute, the Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, and, of course, the Witherspoon Institute.
But Regnerus’ stated findings were incredibly misleading. Regnerus did not compare children raised by stably coupled same-sex parents with children raised by stably coupled opposite-sex parents. Remember, he only found two respondents who said they were raised by two lesbian parents for their entire childhoods, but he lumped these respondents in with all of the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship. Thus, his conclusion that he had debunked the “no differences” theory is not supported by the data he analyzed. Instead, Regnerus had effectively measured children raised in stable household to children whose households were characterized by instability. Many critics of this study, including Regnerus’ professional organization, the American Sociological Association, have pointed out that the negative outcomes were predictable rather than revelatory.
The Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank based in Princeton, N.J., funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, to the tune of nearly $700,000. Initially, the Witherspoon Institute, which has been advocating against same-sex marriage for years, gave Regnerus a $55,000 planning grant and followed it up with a $640,000 grant.
Are you admitting that you favor the abolition of heterosexual marriage and mandatory gay sex?ADULT children of gay parents. That means they were raised in the much more anti-gay environment of 20 years ago or more.
As I said. Putting anyone on the other side of the debate in the position of proving a negative.
Solid move there NY.
Do you dispute that society's general attitude towards gays was measurably more negative in 1990 than it is now?
I dispute the idea that society is the source of their problems.
So you reject the common conservative complaint that conservative institutions are being harmed by liberal attacks.
The methodology of that study has been criticized.As if no one could have predicted it, the largest study to date of adult children of same sex couples shows that they suffer poorer outcomes than adult chidlren of traditional couples. This would be a big "Duh" except the Gayhaddis kept quoting small selective studies that showed the opposite. But politicized science and small samples are no match for a broad wide range study. And the results are just what you would expect.
Cue "bigoted Texans"meme in 3...2...1....
Adult Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Report Varied Outcomes
Regnerus Fallout
The study is controversial because of its methodological flaws, how it was financed, its clear anti-same-sex-marriage motivations, and the suspiciously fast and sloppy way it was published in a peer review journal.
The major religious right groups in the U.S. – many of which are have ties to the Witherspoon Institute – immediately promoted and defended the study, including the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, NOM’s Ruth Institute, the Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, and, of course, the Witherspoon Institute.
But Regnerus’ stated findings were incredibly misleading. Regnerus did not compare children raised by stably coupled same-sex parents with children raised by stably coupled opposite-sex parents. Remember, he only found two respondents who said they were raised by two lesbian parents for their entire childhoods, but he lumped these respondents in with all of the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship. Thus, his conclusion that he had debunked the “no differences” theory is not supported by the data he analyzed. Instead, Regnerus had effectively measured children raised in stable household to children whose households were characterized by instability. Many critics of this study, including Regnerus’ professional organization, the American Sociological Association, have pointed out that the negative outcomes were predictable rather than revelatory.
The Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank based in Princeton, N.J., funded the bulk of the New Family Structures Study, to the tune of nearly $700,000. Initially, the Witherspoon Institute, which has been advocating against same-sex marriage for years, gave Regnerus a $55,000 planning grant and followed it up with a $640,000 grant.
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.It's irrational to think that there would be any other outcome....
1. No. The Gold Standard is the traditional nuclear family. Comparing gay couples to that is certainly called for.
2. Yes, you are completely right about averages. That is incredibly rare for liberals to understand. Are you sure about your choice of a clown avatar?
That would make sense only if there weren't a vast number of problems encountered in traditional families. You can't just say that statistically things are a better; you have to show that they'd be overwhelmingly better.Considering the vast problems that are caused by single parent homes, that's an incredibly low bar you just set.My guess would be that the answer is "worse than the children of gay couples".Why do you ask?How do they do compared to single-parent children or orphans?
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.It's irrational to think that there would be any other outcome....
1. No. The Gold Standard is the traditional nuclear family. Comparing gay couples to that is certainly called for.
2. Yes, you are completely right about averages. That is incredibly rare for liberals to understand. Are you sure about your choice of a clown avatar?
The so-called traditional family is not diminished by the existence of gay married couples with children, single parent families, couples with adopted children, or anything of the sort.
LOL! The only ones not concerned with facts are the gayhaddis. Look at them desperately spinning and dismissing the study. IT was doen in Texas. It contradicts previous studies. It was funded by someone or other. All facts but all irrelevant. It is merely spin.this supposed concern for the well being of children is coming from the guy (faux rabbi) who believes it is terribly oppressive government intrusion into family privacy if their pediatrician inquires and informs them about firearm safety in the home...
In 47 states, a parent can leave a loaded, unlocked gun on a dining room table or a nightstand and face no legal rebuke for leaving that gun within a child’s reach. The danger of children accessing loaded, unlocked guns is very real. According to a January 13, 2014, report by Diane Sawyer entitled Kids and Guns: By the Numbers, 31 percent of U.S. households in 2012 had at least one child and one gun in the home, and 1.7 million kids in 2002 lived in homes with a loaded, unlocked firearm. The American Academy of Pediatrics adds sobering statistics around the issue of gun access and child safety. Guns cause twice as many deaths in young people as cancer, five times as many deaths as heart disease, and fifteen times as many deaths as infections.
Several states have taken steps to protect children from tragic gun accidents.
Kids and Gun Safety | Children's Rights Litigation | ABA Section of Litigation
Florida Wants to Kill Kids
that said, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports ALL families...
To promote optimal health and well-being of all children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports access for all children to (1) civil marriage rights for their parents and (2) willing and capable foster and adoptive parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. The AAP has always been an advocate for, and has developed policies to support, the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being of all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. In so doing, the AAP has supported families in all their diversity...
Children may be born to, adopted by, or cared for temporarily by married couples, nonmarried couples, single parents, grandparents, or legal guardians, and any of these may be heterosexual, gay or lesbian, or of another orientation. Children need secure and enduring relationships with committed and nurturing adults to enhance their life experiences for optimal social-emotional and cognitive development. Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders.
Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or LesbianGarbage like this what the phrase "past the point of no return" is meant to explain.
You are one sick puppy...
what does the American Academy of Pediatrics know...
surely some lousy internet troll must be know better than them.
Don't bother, Rabbi and Rustic are not concerned with the facts surrounding this Mark Regnerus' 'study' and it's laughably flawed methodology. They are only interested in getting their bias confirmed and this 'study' fulfills that role.
The study confirms what common sense would tell you: dysfunctional people raise dysfunctional kids. And gays are nothing if not dysfunctional.
I'd leave it alone. When it comes to gay sex, Rabbi has some kind of strange obsession, i.e. he protests too much.English please.Are you admitting that you favor the abolition of heterosexual marriage and mandatory gay sex?
That would make sense only if there weren't a vast number of problems encountered in traditional families. You can't just say that statistically things are a better; you have to show that they'd be overwhelmingly better.Considering the vast problems that are caused by single parent homes, that's an incredibly low bar you just set.My guess would be that the answer is "worse than the children of gay couples".Why do you ask?How do they do compared to single-parent children or orphans?
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.It's irrational to think that there would be any other outcome....
1. No. The Gold Standard is the traditional nuclear family. Comparing gay couples to that is certainly called for.
2. Yes, you are completely right about averages. That is incredibly rare for liberals to understand. Are you sure about your choice of a clown avatar?
The so-called traditional family is not diminished by the existence of gay married couples with children, single parent families, couples with adopted children, or anything of the sort.
This thread is about the outcomes for the children of such marriages.
It is interesting that you tried to change the subject so quickly and easily.
Are you that convinced that your case is so weak?
I'd leave it alone. When it comes to gay sex, Rabbi has some kind of strange obsession, i.e. he protests too much.English please.Are you admitting that you favor the abolition of heterosexual marriage and mandatory gay sex?
That would make sense only if there weren't a vast number of problems encountered in traditional families. You can't just say that statistically things are a better; you have to show that they'd be overwhelmingly better.Considering the vast problems that are caused by single parent homes, that's an incredibly low bar you just set.My guess would be that the answer is "worse than the children of gay couples".Why do you ask?How do they do compared to single-parent children or orphans?
Yes, that is the situation you see when you compare a traditional nuclear family with single parent households.
"overwhelmingly better".
Contrasting the numbers from homosexual couple families would give us an useful scale for judging the issues.
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.It's irrational to think that there would be any other outcome....
1. No. The Gold Standard is the traditional nuclear family. Comparing gay couples to that is certainly called for.
2. Yes, you are completely right about averages. That is incredibly rare for liberals to understand. Are you sure about your choice of a clown avatar?
The so-called traditional family is not diminished by the existence of gay married couples with children, single parent families, couples with adopted children, or anything of the sort.
This thread is about the outcomes for the children of such marriages.
It is interesting that you tried to change the subject so quickly and easily.
Are you that convinced that your case is so weak?
The case for what? Keeping gay marriage and gay parenting legal? Keeping single parenting legal? Keeping adoption legal?
Do you honestly think you people are going to get every parental circumstance outlawed,
except for heterosexual married couples and their biological children?
That would make sense only if there weren't a vast number of problems encountered in traditional families. You can't just say that statistically things are a better; you have to show that they'd be overwhelmingly better.Considering the vast problems that are caused by single parent homes, that's an incredibly low bar you just set.My guess would be that the answer is "worse than the children of gay couples".Why do you ask?
Yes, that is the situation you see when you compare a traditional nuclear family with single parent households.
"overwhelmingly better".
Contrasting the numbers from homosexual couple families would give us an useful scale for judging the issues.
Judge them to what end? No one is going to make the single mom give up her children to a 'better' set of parents.
These sorts of attacks on mixed race parents and their children used to be quite common too.
Are we to assume from your avatar that you're quite vacant?I'm seeing the clown avatar making more sense now. THe classic use of an implication of homosexuality being used as a homophobic slur. Very clown like.
It's being willfully blind to deny that there are other situations with possible negative outcomes that aren't being mentioned. Also, we're talking averages, so the fact that one child has same-sex parents doesn't automatically mean a child with a traditional upbringing is in a better situation.
1. No. The Gold Standard is the traditional nuclear family. Comparing gay couples to that is certainly called for.
2. Yes, you are completely right about averages. That is incredibly rare for liberals to understand. Are you sure about your choice of a clown avatar?
The so-called traditional family is not diminished by the existence of gay married couples with children, single parent families, couples with adopted children, or anything of the sort.
This thread is about the outcomes for the children of such marriages.
It is interesting that you tried to change the subject so quickly and easily.
Are you that convinced that your case is so weak?
The case for what? Keeping gay marriage and gay parenting legal? Keeping single parenting legal? Keeping adoption legal?
Do you honestly think you people are going to get every parental circumstance outlawed,
except for heterosexual married couples and their biological children?
I was just referring to your attempt to defend homosexual parent households as the equal of the traditional nuclear family.
I thought that was clear...
Would you like to discuss how clear it was? I mean it seems you want to do anything but discuss the actual topic?
These sorts of attacks on mixed race parents and their children used to be quite common too.
Did you run away from the facts in those discussions too?
