SSM warns that having gay parents is detrimental to children

[snuggles911]

In her latest post, Sunshine Mary complains that academic institutions are suppressing research that might not be politically correct in the name of "academic justice." She points to how liberal institutions are pro-homosexual and therefore loathe to reveal how detrimental gay parents can be to children and refers to an academic study done by an associate professor at the University of Texas as proof.

The data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.

Compared to children from intact biological families (IBF), children of lesbian mothers:

* Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (IBF 9%; LM 24%)

* Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance (IBF 10%; LM 38%)

* Are barely half as likely to be currently employed full-time (IBF 49%; LM 26%)

* Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed (IBF 8%; LM 28%)

* Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)

* Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting (IBF 13%; LM 40%)

* Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver†in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent; IBF 2%; LM 23%)

* Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced†to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood; IBF 8%; LM 31%)

* Are more likely to have “attachment†problems related to the ability to depend on others (IBF 2.82; LM 3.43)

* Use marijuana more frequently (IBF 1.32; LM 1.84)

* Smoke more frequently (IBF 1.79; LM 2.76)

* Watch TV for long periods more frequently (IBF 3.01; LM 3.70)

* Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense (IBF 1.10; LM 1.36)

After his study was published, the Left, led by homosexual activists, launched a campaign of intimidation and harassment and the University of Texas opened an inquiry into whether Dr. Regnerus was guilty of scientific misconduct (an allegation of which he was cleared). Even as recently as yesterday, homosexual lawyer and leftist pundit John Aravosis bizarrely claimed that Regnerus’ study has been “completely debunked,†which of course it has not been.

Is anyone familiar with this study? I've never heard of it. Incidentally, I know several same-sex parents who seem to be doing a great job of raising their children. In all but one situation, the couples adopted their children through the foster care system, which leads me to believe they are better off than if they had been raised by neglectful parents or stuck in the system until age 18.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Having parents like Sunshine Mary is more detrimental to a kid than having gay parents.

[Rebelwife]

Here's an article from the LA Times that discusses the study, and why it's pretty much universally dismissed by reputable social scientists.

articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/opinion/la-oe-frank-same-sex-regnerus-family-20120613

[Jana814]

Having parents like Sunshine Mary is more detrimental to a kid than having gay parents.

Agree!

[FJismyheadship]

I know two men who have a daughter. She is a very happy child. She is five, and I think her dads are awesome.

One of them married the girls mother so he could sign the birth certificate and legally be her father. Her mother was going to get an abortion, couldn't do it, and called him to come get her.

What would SSM think of that?

[Phoebe]

And how many children of the lesbian mothers were adopted from the foster care system? Not that adopting from foster care is a bad thing -- rather the opposite! But let's be real...children who spend time in the foster care system have much higher rates of attachment disorders, trauma-based acting out behaviors, and mental health diagnoses. That's due to prior abuse/neglect/in-utero drug exposure, etc. NOT the sexual orientation of their adoptive parent (s).

Edited for riffles

[Maggie Mae]

SSM is detrimental to children society.

[Hisey]

In my former state, I saw lots of foster children get adopted by gay couples. If you could see how profoundly, desperately grateful these kids were to get a family, you would cry. Kids who had been starved, beaten and r*ped by their heterosexual parents who are over the moon with joy to have a safe loving family.

I wonder how many kids SSM plans to adopt our of the foster care system, to save them from an evil gay family.

People are always judging whether an adoptive parent is "worthy." Are they gay, is it a single mother, are they too religous or not reigious enough. What they forget is that the alternative -- the foster care system -- is often very bad indeed. I think a loving gay couple is a fine choice. However, sometimes both choices (foster care or the adoptive parents) are both sub-par. You have to choose the best choice for a child born into a bad situation. You can't just hold out this ideal (that white picket fence will come along someday, kid!), because then the kid may wait forever.

And generally the people criticizing the adoptive parents have never adopted anyone themselves.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Having parents like Sunshine Mary is more detrimental to a kid than having gay parents.

So true. I truly feel sorry for her children who are being raised in what seems to be a very hostile, dysfunctional home by two maladjusted narcissists.

[jaynie]

EDIT: whoops, misread the paper. Ah well. The rest of it makes more sense now, though only barely...

I see that study has been debunked already, hooray, but I just wanted to note something that stood out to me:

Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)

Lesbian moms in "Not identifying as entirely heterosexual" shocker. News at eleven! And don't miss our special report: "Water: It's wet."

I mean, what? Why does this even dignified being typed out? I'm actually not understanding how 61% of lesbian moms ID as heterosexual?

(I'd reckon the reason that lesbian moms are more likely to be cohabiting in Texas is fairly obvious, too...)

[lilah]

In her latest post, Sunshine Mary complains that academic institutions are suppressing research that might not be politically correct in the name of "academic justice." She points to how liberal institutions are pro-homosexual and therefore loathe to reveal how detrimental gay parents can be to children and refers to an academic study done by an associate professor at the University of Texas as proof.

Is anyone familiar with this study? I've never heard of it. Incidentally, I know several same-sex parents who seem to be doing a great job of raising their children. In all but one situation, the couples adopted their children through the foster care system, which leads me to believe they are better off than if they had been raised by neglectful parents or stuck in the system until age 18.

Pretty much reputable study of the children raised by lgbt parents show they turn out about the same as children of straight parents who having similar living situations/socioeconomics, etc.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/3 ... parenting/

If you go and look at Regnerus's study he weeded out the responses from children who had been raised by openly gay families. He only wanted to look at families where one of the parents were closeted. And in fact the survey he used was just based on the kids' opinion of their parent. There was no independent verification that their parents were in fact gay or lesbian or bisexual.

[snuggles911]

SSM has another anti-gay marriage post today and presents a new theory:

I think it is also important to remember that feminists purposefully use gay marriage as a means to destroy traditional marriage, which they abhor. Gay “marriage†is both a cause and a result of the destruction of traditional marriage.

[lizziesmom]

SSM has another anti-gay marriage post today and presents a new theory:

How does gay marriage destroy traditional marriage (assuming that means male/female and not a subservient relationship where the woman bows to the man)?

[2xx1xy1JD]

All that Regnerus' "research" shows is that kids who found out that a parent engaged in same-sex sexual behavior did worse than kids from families where there were two biological parents who stayed married.

Well, duh.

Having your family breakup and discovering sexual stuff about a parent IS traumatic for kids.

Comparing them to kids from intact marriages, though, is comparing apples to oranges. It would be more meaningful to compare kids from say, homes where parents divorced due to opposite-sex infidelity, and see if there was any major difference. Even there, though, you'd have to adjust for the fact that the spouse of the one cheating with a same-sex partner is likely to be really hurt and confused and not particularly "congratulations on coming out the closet" about it. That causes conflict and mixed messages, which isn't great for kids.

That says nothing about the basic parenting skills of LGBT parents.

An equal valid conclusion would be that gay marriage is a good thing for kids, because it decreases the odds that someone in the closet will enter an opposite-sex marriage and have it blow up when their true sexual orientation is revealed.

[docmom]

SSM has another anti-gay marriage post today and presents a new theory:

OK time for another completely unscientific FJ poll:

If you are a feminist, do you abhor traditional marriage and seek to destroy it?

Me: I am in a traditional marriage and have no interest in destroying it.

[ILoveJellybeans]

OK time for another completely unscientific FJ poll:

If you are a feminist, do you abhor traditional marriage and seek to destroy it?

Me: I am in a traditional marriage and have no interest in destroying it.

Yes, I am a feminist. Although I am a lesbian, I have nothing against traditional marriage. Im more of a live and let live kind of person-marrying a man isn't for me, but of course there are others who are interested in men, and others who are interested in both, and I think all of those things are awesome and completely okay. As long as all people involved in a marriage, or a sex act, are consenting adults, good for them! Other people's love lives are none of my business, and I wouldn't ever come in the way of love. Why would I destroy traditional marriage and ruin other people's happiness? Trying to stop people marrying the person they love is wrong and an evil thing to do.

Although then again, I think I am more in favour of traditional marriage than fundies are. If someone wants to marry three other people, that is totally cool by me too. Everyone seems to forget that one man and one woman is a fairly new concept, in Biblical times people married more than one person.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Well, I suppose that if you want to define "traditional marriage" as "turn the clock back at least 100 years, so only husbands have the vote, wives have limited rights to own property in their own names, women teachers get fired upon marriage, men have the right to beat wives and children, women have few economic options outside of marriage, and women and children who leave a marriage or are abandoned face poverty and possible starvation", then yes, I dare say that most of the feminist posters on FJ would like to see it gone.

SSM needs a calendar, though, because most of the radical changes to traditional marriage took place long before gay marriage was legalized.

In the past 20 years, we haven't really seen many dramatic changes to marriage. Most trends leveled off. In the case of wealthier and more liberal areas, marriage actually grew stronger. Where we see a growing gap is with poorer areas, as folks in those areas are less likely to get married and stay married. In the very places likely to support gay marriage, marriage is seen as a stabilizing force. It's not just about romantic love, which you can have without marriage, nor is there pressure in more liberal circles to get married for the purpose of having sex. It's about making an adult decision to commit to someone for the long haul, to pool resources, to work together for the benefit of the family unit, to care for another person during times of hardship, to make a legal obligation to do these things, and in some cases, to have a legal framework adding stability and security if a couple chooses to have children.

[Rebelwife]

OK time for another completely unscientific FJ poll:

If you are a feminist, do you abhor traditional marriage and seek to destroy it?

Me: I am in a traditional marriage and have no interest in destroying it.

Damn! They've figured out our super-secret plan. Guess I might as well go ahead and file for divorce, although it will surely surprise my husband of 20 years.

[lawlifelgbt]

Where is SSM getting her study? My wife just posted this on her page today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... 54450.html

The studies may seem like same-sex couples have worse outcomes, but that's likely down to those couples adopting from bad situations, or the poverty and discrimination the parents face (that may decrease stability and increase unemployment and poverty, worsening child outcomes). But, if you match for those things, the kids do equally well!

[2xx1xy1JD]

That study is getting closer to controlling for variables.

An even better study, though, would compare circumstances of conception - ie. children conceived using donor sperm with lesbian parents vs. heterosexual parents. Otherwise, studies will actually skew toward same-sex parents, because you are comparing intentionally-conceived children with heterosexual families where a significant portion of pregnancies were not planned.