Gay marriage fight centers on what’s best for the kids

Print More
A boy holds up a sign during a rally by gay rights supporters. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Mark Makela

A boy holds up a sign during a rally by gay rights supporters. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Mark Makela

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

WASHINGTON — Some studies show that children raised in same-sex households fare no worse than those raised by mothers and fathers. Others say the differences are stark.

  • Pingback: Gay marriage fight centers around what’s best for the kids - by Rev. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Larry

    Many of the studies cited by the anti-gay crowd do not stand for the premises they are being used for. Christian conservatives always feel entitled to their own facts when reality doesn’t go their way.

    The Regnerus study did not actually study gay couples with children but what is better referred to as “mixed orientation” marriages. The “ex-gay” study touted in these briefs noted extremely guarded conclusions. Much different than how it is used in legal briefs or in public debate.

    Neither of these hold up from a legal standpoint because they are not accepted in the field, or considered accurate and methodologically sound.

    The “American College of Pediatricians” is a fringe group with no official recognition in the field. Their opinion carries no weight in a court.

    “30 years of research have not revealed substantial differences between the children of gay and heterosexual parents.”

    That says all that needs to be said here.

  • Ben in oakland

    Mr. wolf, maybe you should do some actual RESEARCH before you publish such drivel.

    The VAST majority of studies done in the past 40 years indicate that gay people do no worse a job than heterosexuals as parents.

    Regnerus was bought and paid for by the anti-ex-gay industry. It’s been laughed out of court for its obvious biases, including Regnerus’s admission that he NEVER studied two parent gay households, but mixed orientation marriages. He admitted IN COURT that in the two or three same-sex parent households he studied, the kids were doing well.

    This is all a major red herring. There is no test for parental fitness for heterosexual marriages. They can get married, reproduce, and fill the prisons, rehab programs, gangs, and congress with their badly raised spawn, and no one say BOO.

    Anti-gay groups, such as the American College of Pediatricians, are by definition anti-gay marriage and parenting. And I suppose no children of heterosexuals EVER thought their parents were…

  • opheliart

    Larry,
    the studies are early, but many of the negative results seen in the ssm may be due to the culture of these times. Young through old are having to shift mindset, and one cannot ignore the fact that many children of ssm are feeling the brunt of this shift, which is not so smooth in a lot of areas. Those involved in case studies need to be mindful of this. If researchers see stress and emotional/social issues in children of ssm, they need to be conscious of the whole picture.

  • Larry

    They had about 30 years to collect data. The problem is many of these studies from the conservative Christian wing are nothing more than “shill jobs” used for political effect to deny marriage equality or other civil liberties for gays.

    The chief complaint against them is sloppy methods or conclusions which don’t hold up to the data. Worse still that its supporters claim something entirely different from the findings of the reports.

    The Regnerus study being the most blatant example of this. Despite being cited in many legal cases including one that was already before SCOTUS, it shows that “mixed orientation” families are stressful, not gay marriage, not gay couples raising children.

    30 years is a lot of time to study a situation. Some of the children from the 1st generation of legal adoption by gays are parents themselves. The whole picture is if SSM caused real harm to children or society in general, its opponents would be able to point to real live examples. They…

  • “They get that there are real lives at stake here.”

    ALL of the evidence shows that Gay people are just as decent as any other parents – maybe even moreso since none of their children are ‘accidents’.

    This is yet another nail in the coffin for religion – as it should be.

    “Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (1 Corinthians 1:13)
    “have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thessalonian 3:14)

    We must stop paying any respect to this despicable, divisive religious nonsense.

  • Larry

    This article definitely suffers from a lack of vetting and verification.

    The author takes many of these “studies” and one outright fringe shill group at face value without discussing the very prominent criticism and lack of professional support in the field.

    “American College of Pediatricians” is to professional pediatrics and academic integrity what the Discovery Institute is for the study of biology. A Christian put up job to fool the uninitated into thinking its a legitimate and credible organization. A way too distribute garbage and claim it is “peer reviewed” or “officially recognized”.

  • ben in oakland

    for the record:

    Mixed orientation marriages, which are what Regnerus “studied”, are marriages where one of the spouses MIGHT be gay, the other not. In other words, Regnerus “studied” heterosexual marriages, and concluded that they were not optimal, after all.

    More importantly, he didn’t even study THAT. A good portion of his so-called “gay” parents were called “gay” if they had EVER had a same-sex experience, according to the MEMORY of their children.

    Here are two direct quotes: “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.” He also noted: “Finding someone whose parent had some sort of same-sex relationship as they were growing up is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

    In other words, he didn’t…

  • ben in oakland

    study same sex parents AT ALL.

  • opheliart

    I remember the strong debate in deaf children being reared in households with 2 hearing parents. Many capital D deaf claimed that the deaf children had a birthright of silence, and should not be receiving Cochlear Implants. I do not know how most of these feel about it today, but so many parents with deaf children were choosing the Cochlear Implant because of the choices these children would have. Many early studies of signing only or limited auditory access were showing adults with 4th grade writing ability, which is scary statistics for any parent. But it wasn’t that these deaf/hearing impaired individuals were any less capable, it was the lack of intervention—lack of understanding on the needs of those deaf, and lack of choices. Oddly, many Deaf parents felt hearing parents should allow their deaf children to be raised Deaf as Deaf, or with hearing aides only. The CI was seen as a no-no. It takes times, Larry … these studies are still in the early stages, IMHO.

  • Doc Anthony

    Thanks for trying to offer a FAIR and EVEN-HANDED article, Richard West. Obviously not appreciated by everyone here, but you did the right thing. A snippet:

    “Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent,” Heather Barwick wrote the court. “Accepting and promoting same-sex parenting guarantees that a child will miss out on their mother or father.”

    Barwick is exactly right. Here’s some more truth:

    “There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch **deprivation** on their hearts.”

    –Doug Mainwaring, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage” (2013)

  • Just a couple of brief notes:

    The American College of Pediatricians has a $65-thousand annual budget. The American Academy of Pediatrics has a $105-million annual budget. ACP is classified as a hate group by the SPLC.

    Sullins is actually “Father” Sullins. He is a Catholic priest.

    As for Regnerus, his own professional organization (ASA) wrote:

    The Regnerus 2012a paper offers no basis for conclusions about same-sex parents for the following reasons. First , Regnerus 2012a does not examine children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, but instead examines children who, from the time they were born until they were 18 or moved out., had a parent who at some time had “a same-sex romantic … http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2015/03/asa-brief-slams-regnerus-again.html

  • ben in oakland

    Mainwaring is not gay. He’s a bisexual man who has fathered children in his hetero marriage. According to Regnerus, he is by definition a poor parent.

    I am familiar with Heather Barwick. She has an opinion. What she doesn’t have is reality. She has daddy issues, and she wants to blame gay people for it.

    In an article she wrote in The Federalist, Heather explains that her mom left her dad when she was 3. Not only does she openly admit that her father “wasn’t a great guy,” but she says that he abandoned her after the divorce, and that her mother’s new same-sex partner didn’t fill the spot of her father.

    Her father abandoned her, so she’s pissed off at her lesbian mother who didn’t abandon her. Makes perfect sense in Opposite World, where no child of divorce was EVER pissed off at her parents for divorcing.

    But don’t conflate your “Father Hates Me / I Need a Daddy” syndrome with same-sex marriage. The two are not the same.

    try again.

  • MARRIAGE AND PARENTING ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES!

    It seems irrefutable that a child currently being raised by a gay couple will be advantaged if his parents are wed.

    What opponents are suggesting has two components. 1) If gays marry they will raise more children and; 2) that those children will be at a disadvantage. They never seem to address point one. Even if point one is true, a majority of those kids are presumably adopted – no parents to two parents.

    What they REALLY object to is lesbians and ART. ART is against Catholic Church teachings.

  • ben in oakland

    If we weren’t limited to 1000 characters, I would quote far more of the ASA analysis. Here is a key quote:

    “When the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison…the comparison group consisted of individuals who “[l]ived in intact biological famil[ies] (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present”). Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing.

  • Mainwaring’s children would be perfect examples of the subjects of Regnerus’ “research” and it proves nothing except that Mainwaring is a crappy parent.

  • There must have been a sale on commenting systems that RNS took advantage of. This one is particularly awful. Odd given the overall quality of RNS.

    Disqus anyone? Multi-level threads and email notifications.

  • Larry

    Let me put the kibosh in bad analogy theater right away.

    Being deaf is a disability. Being gay is not.

    Nobody is lobbying to keep deaf people from raising children.

    Nobody is using the deafness of parents to attack their civil liberties.

  • Jeff

    The studies which speak against same sex families have all been funded and vetted by some of the most rabidly anti-gay groups in the country. The same ones who tout conspiracy theories by the AMA, APA, APAA etc.

  • Larry

    “Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent,”

    The “lost parent” because the speakers were children of DIVORCE.

    But its not like the anti-gay crowd is big on honest presentation of facts. The way they cite those half-baked studies is proof positive of that. Quoting Mainwaring and Barwick is proof positive there is money to be made being the token gay for conservative christian bigots. There is not a hint of rationality in their writings.

    The whole, “a child needs a mother and a father” screed is one of the most moronic ones the anti-gay crowd comes up with. The dumb bunnies can’t seem to wrap their head around the idea that if not for the gay parents, many of these children would either not exist at all or be living in foster care with NO parents.

  • opheliart

    Let me put the kibosh in bad analogy theater right away.

    Being deaf is a disability. Being gay is not.

    Nobody is lobbying to keep deaf people from raising children.

    Nobody is using the deafness of parents to attack their civil liberties.
    **************
    Larry,

    Maybe being deaf is not a disability anymore than being DIFFERENT in any other area (math … being creative), or limited in use of motor skills for one reason or another. People need and use all sorts of “assists” throughout their lives, such as Teachers … Spiritual Mentors … even Parents. Maybe man needs to see people not as DISABLED. My oldest child was born profoundly deaf. I have never once viewed her as “disabled”.

    Peace

  • Doc Anthony

    “Mainwaring is not gay,” you say.

    But if I were to say “Ben is not gay”, you would immediately respond, “Who are you? You don’t know me! I get to choose my own adjective to describe me!”

    Simply put, the gay man Doug Mainwaring likewise gets to choose HIS own adjectives to describe himself, just like you do.

    You and I don’t get to label him “bisexual” unless he gives himself that label first. Seems fair enough. (Besides, you don’t know him, do you?)

  • Ben in oakland

    @ Doc

    This one’s bad, even for you. As Humpty Dumpty said– and very appropriately, given that this is the 150th anniversary of Alice:

    “Words mean what I say they mean. Nothing more and nothing less.”

    By your “logic”, I could say “I am a bible-believing Christian.” And you would have to agree with me. Because only I get to present a set of facts to the world, and then claim they mean something else entirely.

    That is what you are arguing. nothing more and nothing less.

  • opheliart

    We are talking about PARENTING, and what children need.

    Do not think I do not know what it is like to be different, and do not think I do not know what it is like to raise a child who is different from family, friends, classmates. It is a delicate, sometimes difficult, journey, ESP IN THE EARLY STAGES BEFORE THEY CAN ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES, but it is often times difficult because others make it difficult. They do not see the trees in that vast forest.

  • Marco Luxe

    It’s best to wait for history to decide the scholarly debate, but we don’t have the time. So it might be best to allow a professional judge who has the advantage of strong advocates posing their best arguments to him. Here’s what the district court judge in Chicago said after a full trial:
    “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence… demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

  • Larry

    “My oldest child was born profoundly deaf. I have never once viewed her as “disabled”. ”

    But I bet you qualify to get a little blue tag from the DMV to put on your windshield.

    [Why did I take the bait and respond here?]

  • opheliart

    No … never. And she has never had one either.

  • opheliart

    In addition, Larry, certainly you can make some correlation to the Catholic Church viewing homosexuals as “intrinsically evil”—“disordered” … and how people unable to speak for lack of hearing were often thought of as “evil”— POSSESSED—or thought of as unable to think clearly, and were treated badly. It took many years … study … UNDERSTANDING.

  • James Carr

    Children are born via a male and a female…thus the ideal is for them to know and be loved by their mother and father. Children will eventually yearn for this as a basic right, seeing that most children around them have a Mom and a Dad. Fitting in is a paramount need as children grow into young adulthood.
    Gays are very capable of caring for and raising children, but they must accept that their lifestyle will be an impediment at some point in the child’s life. Same goes for single parents, adoptive parents, parents via surrogate, or test tube babies. How the issues are handled is key to healthy acceptance.
    Adults know that all parents are not all good, some are murderers, drug addicts, or worse, but a child will always idealize who Mommy and Daddy really are.

  • ben in oakland

    “Gays are very capable of caring for and raising children” Thank you for that. Every once in a while, like with your comment about vaccination deniers, you surprise me.

    “but they must accept that their lifestyle will be an impediment at some point in the child’s life.” and yet there isn’t a single study that has been done that corroborates that. That’s simply an opinion. You’d think there would be, given the anti-ex-gay industry’s penchant for trying to use science to fit their religio-political purposes.

    But there isn’t. All that exists are a FEW children of gay people, like the above mentioned heather-with-daddy-issues, who claim this. Personally, as far as I can tell, children are grateful for parents of whatever gender who love them unconditionally.

    Heterosexuals produce children for ONE reason only: THEY CAN. there is no parenting test applied to them. There are precious few legal requirements for them to take care of their children.

  • opheliart

    “Heterosexuals produce children for ONE reason only: THEY CAN. there is no parenting test applied to them. There are precious few legal requirements for them to take care of their children.”

    Well, the reason we decided to have children is because we very much wanted to be parents—to raise children—to experience parenting—to be a family, with all the hope and desire of preparing them to become solid thinkers and fair-minded individuals moving into their own choices in life. That said, I do wish there were more stringent requirements for parenting, and some way to monitor this without being intrusive. Everyday I read of children starved, beaten, abandoned in houses for days, abused … kidnapped, raped … it sickens me, and the child protection services are way over cased. Some of what I see on this very upsetting.

  • Doc Anthony

    Okay, let’s test that example Ben.

    True or False question (from Ben’s own personal self-description as given in previous RNS posts).

    ***Ben is a Bible-Believing Christian***, I hereby declare aloud in this forum.

    Therefore, from your own truthful personal self-description, is my given declaration about you a **fact** or a **falsehood**?

    Please tell me which one.

  • Ben in oakland

    Thank you.

    I only wish more prospective parents thought about bringing a new life into the world with the same care that they bring to going to Redbox and picking up a movie.

  • Fickle Finger of Fate

    “Who are you? You don’t know me! I get to choose my own adjective to describe me!”

    -Doc Anthony

  • opheliart

    I know of a story in IN (of all places) … abusive husband, beaten up his wife many times—roughing up young daughter in the process— (had someone shoot wife once and steal her Christmas $), has been in jail numerous times for all sorts of things (once soliciting prostitutes while with his children 🙁 … even killed a man while in prison (claimed it was self defense) … wanted in something like 2 or 3 counties … impregnated several women, including the one he is currently married to with 3 kids … drugs, alcohol—the whole works, has even threatened to kill a member of his wife’s family if he interfered in his marriage. Last I heard the government had gotten him a job making $25 an hour.

  • James Carr

    I agree that those who procreate have no responsibility to validate their parenting skills, God forbid they create a Bureau for that !

    And children most often come around to loving those that raised them unconditionally, all I meant was that their awareness of any “difference” from others can be traumatic in their small view of the world.

  • samuel Johnston

    James,
    You really get off on speculating, and then presenting it as settled fact.
    Study some anthropology before you run off at the mouth.

  • ben in oakland

    “all I meant was that their awareness of any “difference” from others can be traumatic in their small view of the world.”

    Absolutely true.

    What’s interesting to me is that exactly these same arguments were used in support of preventing interracial marriage 50 years ago– the children of such unions would be treated badly by others, and therefore, the unions ought not to be.

    I’m not saying that you are making that argument. You’re clearly not. But it does show that homobigotry, like racism, is the problem.

  • bqrq

    The important point that everyone should remember is to never talk to anyone’s children about gay marriage without first consulting their parents and obtaining permission. As parents, it is our duty and obligation to teach and instill moral values in our children and we vigorously object to anyone who would attempt to oppose us and teach our children to reject God, disobey parents and engage in immoral behavior.

  • James Carr

    Probably. My complaint is the redefinition of the word “marriage” on religious and secular grounds, but that is another subject.
    Children are precious little people who can’t be loved enough. They deserve to be loved by people who want them; gay, black, single, etc.Foster care is generally a moral disgrace and orphanages have too many kids for the small staff. We see kids aligning with pimps or gangs as family because of their gross neglect from their parents, so to me, give them over to those willing to sacrifice their own life to enrich theirs.

  • James Carr

    Sammy Jo, I didn’t realize that this was a Mensa web page, and that opinions were not allowed.
    I would actually study Anthropology if the history of villages raising children in the Stone Age was relevant to the subject being discussed.
    And I love running my mouth off, especially when I have no idea what I’m talking about.

  • Greg

    Larry, you have proven you are neither fair, nor neutral, and should be withholding your opinion on this topic. I would ask you how many children you have raised? If none, then you should not comment on this blog. The traditional family has thousands of years to look back upon for proper evaluation, the gay family has mere decades, and the jury is still out.

  • Greg

    This link provides a brief summary, and some of the actual findings from these studies:
    http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

  • ben in oakland

    The link takes you to the website of the virulently antigay FRC. The wonderful study you are referencing is the Regnerus study. The person who wrote the article is Pter sprig, who thinks gay americans ought to be deported.

    do try to keep up with the conversation, please.

  • Greg

    Ben at the bottom of the summary (footnotes), are the links to the two studies in review. I’m sure Science Direct will charge for those, so the digest is sufficient for me. And whether or not the site is pro-Family is beside the point, the digest is only reporting the facts found in the study.

  • Larry

    Greg, appealing to “tradition” and age old prejudices is not the makings of a credible argument. Unless you can show some kind of inherent harm or damages caused by gay couples raising children, you have no cause to ban such things. After 30 years, there has been NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support such bans.

  • Larry

    Greg, if you were keeping up with the conversation, you would know the study cited was garbage. It does not stand for the premise that it is used for by authors like Peter Sprig or yourself. These studies have already been envicerated by professionals in the field as methodologically sloppy and bearing conclusions unsupported by the data.

  • Calphers

    “Gay Marriage Fight Centers” -what, a new MMA category and hosting facility?

  • Calphers

    “Children are born via a male and a female”, umm, science is getting ahead of you fast.

  • Calphers

    Well then you must shut your kids off from the internet. And reading the news. And having lives and friends…

    Censorship is not the answer.

  • James Carr

    How can pro-family be a lie? You must mean pro-choice (abortion).

  • Ben in oakland

    Greg, if you wish to be deliberately ignorant in support of your obvious prejudices, then there is really nothing I can do about it. As Larry said, the “study” was eviscerated by Regnerus’s own professional association, as it was eviscerated by Judge Friedman, as it was eviscerated by Regnerus himself.

    But if you insist on being deliberately ignorant, then do try to stop hiding behind your religious beliefs. It just makes you look like a hypocritical bigot who would rather believe anything about the people he despises than actually inform himself of the truth.

    Someone– obviously a someone who is of no importance to you– said, in another context: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Someone else, again of no importance, said that revilers and slanderers are going to be burning in hell forever, too.

    Free yourself of your bigotry, Greg. the world will be a better place for it. You might even take a cue from Mr. Carr.

  • Ben in oakland

    There you go again, fantasizing about sodomy among young males.

    Kinda an obsession, no?

  • Larry

    When one is lobbying to make the ability to raise of children in a sane manner within a family more difficult due to unnecessary legal complications, they cannot call themselves in good faith, “pro-family”. Banning gay marriage does nothing to support heterosexual families whatsoever except bigoted bragging rights.

    Gay marriage bans do not prevent gay couples from raising children. As stated earlier, the two issues are not related. The fight to make homosexuality grounds for loss/prevention of child custody was lost 30 years ago. No chance of reversing that after almost 2 generations.

    It is not a hypothetical situation nor can be treated as one. Marriage bans prevent one parent in a gay couple from being able to act as a legal parent to their children. This brings a load of practical difficulties.

    Very anti-family. Focus on Family and Family Research Center are just nice names for hate groups. Like “Committee for Public Safety”.

  • Larry

    “nor who gets hurt.”

    Is there a story here you would like to share?

  • Greg

    Ben, I have no idea–and neither do you–as to what the long term effects of this new type of parenting will ultimately result in. As for what the American Psychological & Psychiatric Associations are saying is irrelevant, as the studies need to go on for decades more before any statistically significant results can be measured. As for the summary at the Family Research Council’s website, well they reported one set of findings, based upon several studies, the APA has other ideas, but the truth will not be known for a long time to come. And the APA has become very political on this topic, so we must assess their statements with a critical eye; we must determine where the science ends, and the politics begin. I myself cannot say one way or the other, but I do know from historical results that a biological mother & father, are the best two parents a child can have, until proven otherwise. So, enough with the bigotry nonsense. You are beginning to sound like Larry.

  • Larry

    So therefore you have no basis for a legalized ban of gay marriage based on parenting or alleged harm to children it may cause. Since there is no evidence whatsoever such things are harmful or can support preventing it by force of law.

    This “new” type of parenting has been around for over a generation. 30 years+ is plenty of time to study such things and draw some kind of conclusions. Aside from a couple of shill jobs commissioned by the anti-gay crowd which lacked any professional credibility, you have nothing to support your position. Bans require affirmative support. What you have admitted to is none is out there.

    The FRC is a lobby group seeking political and legal means to attack marriage equality. It is not a source people can take at face value. Attacking the professional organization for the entire American Psychological field will not yield credible arguments either. In a court, the weight of professional opinion on a subject is evidence in support.

  • Larry

    American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

    https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-
    Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-Same-Gender-Civil-Marriage.aspx

    A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children’s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities — not the sexual orientation of their parents.

  • Greg

    Larry, my aversion to Same Sex Marriage is based upon Eternal Truth revealed by God Almighty through the Church. I love all people, and hope the best for them in eternity, but I cannot support something God condemns. As for new types of parenting, well children these days are being raised in just about every environment imaginable: broken families, single mothers, single fathers, divorced and remarried mothers and fathers, spending weekends with one parent, weekdays with the other, gay households, foster homes, and just about any other arrangement you can concoct. And until proven otherwise, none of those are equal to, or superior than, a biological mother and father, and married before God Almighty. That family model has stood the test of time.

  • ben in oakland

    Actually, Greg, we have 30+ years of studies. They overwhelmingly support gay people as parenting. We have a hundred years of studies showing that heterosexual parenting can be good, bad, or indifferent.

    It’s not a new type of parenting. What’s relatively new is believing that because people are gay, they are by definition anti-family, and-human, and anti-god, emotional wrecks, and dangerous.

    As for the APA being “political”, it is to laugh. FRC is a political organization, not a scientific one. The Sutherland institute, who paid for regnerus, is political.

    And of course, you are just ignoring what has been written here. REGENERUS said he didn’t study what he has claimed to study. The ASA critique pointed out major flaws in the study. regnerus didn’t study same sex couple parenting AT ALL. “Finding someone whose parent had some sort of same-sex relationship as they were growing up is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

    In other words, he didn’t study…

  • ben in oakland

    But enjoy your ignorance and your obvious bigotry. You, like doc, prefer to believe what you prefer to believe.

    Personally, I will prefer to believe actual science, not propaganda put out by virulently antigay political groups.

  • James Carr

    Really? How so? No combination of male sperm and female eggs is necessary? Glory be, I better get myself a googling.

  • Larry

    “Larry, my aversion to Same Sex Marriage is based upon Eternal Truth revealed by God Almighty through the Church”

    Thank you for proving what I keep on saying, you have no rational or secular arguments to make on the subject.

    That whole religious freedom thing, you have repeated shown your ignorance of, stands for the notion that nobody has to care what you think God condemns. Least of all, our laws.

    Your God is not the basis of our laws. Not now. Not ever.

    “but I do know…that a biological mother & father, are the best two parents a child can have”
    …therefore all other types must be banned by law!

    You can’t even pretend to make an argument that needs to be taken seriously.

  • Shawnie5

    “Marriage bans prevent one parent in a gay couple from being able to act as a legal parent to their children.”

    No they don’t. Many states provide for “second-parent” adoptions in the case of unmarried partners.

    Even where partners are legally married, consent of a child’s natural parents is necessary before someone else can adopt them. Marriage doesn’t automatically give you any rights over other people’s children.

  • Shawnie5

    “It seems irrefutable that a child currently being raised by a gay couple will be advantaged if his parents are wed.”

    That isn’t irrefutable at all. Obviously at least one of the parents in such a situation is not the child’s biological parent, and we know from studies of children in heterosexual stepfamilies that a parent’s remarriage constitutes no benefit to a child — unless, of course, it’s a remarriage to the child’s other biological parent. Indeed, when socioeconomic status is controlled for, remarriage is associated with even poorer child outcomes than single parenthood.

  • Larry

    In states without marriage equality the child of a gay couple is usually only legally the child of one parent, not both.

    Much like the nonsense argument that civil unions are an equivalence to marriage, laws permitting “unmarried partner adoptions” are not uniform in application. Many states do not have such options. Many make exceptions to gay couples. Such adoptions lack the recognition of a default shorthand that a child by a legally married couple has. This makes adoption by a spouse procedurally more streamlined than the alternative you suggested.

    Aside from children of a divorced parent, the typical ways children enter a same sex family usually preclude issues concerning the parental rights of the non-custodial biological parent. [Artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption from outside the family]

  • Larry

    Based on what?

    Remarriage means two parents are living with custody of a child. That alone confers a benefit that the child did not have in a single parent household. It means more time with adults caring for a child.

    “we know from studies of children in heterosexual stepfamilies that a parent’s remarriage constitutes no benefit to a child ”

    Give a citation here. An online one.

    “unless, of course, it’s a remarriage to the child’s other biological parent ”
    -Source: The Parent Trap 1961

  • Shawnie5

    “Remarriage means two parents are living with custody of a child.”

    It means nothing of the sort. It means that one custodial parent and an unrelated adult are living with a child.

    “Remarriage does not generally improve outcomes for children, despite the potential gains from both improved economic circumstances and the presence of an additional adult to help with parenting tasks. Indeed, some studies have shown children to be worse off after a parent’s remarriage.” — https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj24/24-impact-of-family-structure-and-family-change-on-child-outcome-p111-133.html

    More details may be found here:

    http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107&sectionid=691

  • Jane Carr

    Indeed you should.

  • Shawnie5
  • Jane Carr

    “Pro-family” is a flat out lie when it is presented as being something that supports better families, when that is clearly known to be either wrong or misleading, or both. Generally, that is the case when it is used by anti-abortion bullies.

  • Shawnie5

    Marriage presents no true “shorthand.” A marriage might avoid the necessity of a home study or somesuch, but someone else’s natural child must always be released (by the parent or involuntarily by the state) to the adoption of another, whether a marriage exists or not. This is also true of the children of surrogacy, AI or stranger adoption.

  • Susan

    My synagogue has lesbian and gay members and some of them have children that participate in Hebrew school and other synagogue events. They all seem to be thriving and have loving parents and devoted parents.

  • ben in oakland

    @greg

    “And until proven otherwise, none of those are equal to, or superior than, a biological mother and father, and married before God Almighty.” It has been proven, pretty much. And there is nothing anywhere that says that good parenting is only come by with religious marriage.

    “but if you are so concerned about “broken families, single mothers, single fathers, divorced and remarried mothers and fathers, spending weekends with one parent, weekdays with the other, gay households, foster homes, and just about any other arrangement you can concoct.” Well you left out the illegitimate children of heterosexuals– 40%, rising to 70% in some vociferously antigay communities.

    but if you are so concerned about it, perhaps you ought to talk to the man+woman who produced those children, rather than claiming that the gay people who are willing to take in so many of those children should be barred from doing so, or barred from marriage entirely, based up your religion and willful…

  • Larry

    Except your categorical claim (and your source’s) that stepchildren are not improved by remarriage is only half-correct. the reality is it depends on the family situation, step parent involvement, relationship with biological parents.
    http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/stepfamily.aspx

    Most importantly, we are wayyyy past the “gays don’t really need marriage rights” argument. The subject is a gay marriage ban, not justification for affirmative rights. One has to show why a ban is necessary. The fact that heterosexual couples need not be married to raise children doesn’t support such a thing.

    In surrogacy and single parent adoption there is only one parent with parental rights. Unmarried gay couples raising children only have one legal parent in most situations.

    Most importantly, none of what you mentioned is in any way a refutation that Focus on Family and Family Research Center are not “pro-family”. They oppose the formation and the ability to raise children in many…

  • Larry

    In the majority of situations where gay couples are raising children, the non-custodial parent has already given up their rights in one form or another. Your example of non-marital cohabitating parental adoption is not even legal in much of the country. Adoption of spouse’s children (in the absence of other biological parents who can lay claim to the child) is a fairly quick process.

    We are way past the point where you can use the argument, “gays don’t really need marriage anyway”. the subject before SCOTUS is a gay marriage ban. You have to justify why gays never need to get married at all by force of law.

    What you are stating is an irrelevancy to the subject.

  • James Carr

    Anti abortionists are bullies? People trying to stop the murder of human beings are bullies? Mothers who kill their children usually go to jail, don’t they? With abortion we have now a legal Murder Inc. The government, the doctor, his assistant, the loving mother, and the janitor who tosses the dead baby in the trash ( in pieces), are all now complicit in a murder. And those who wish to stop it are bullies? Shame the baby can’t talk.

  • Larry

    Yep. Especially when they threaten the lives of abortion doctors, set up mobs to intimidate women entering family planning clinic, use legislative means to attack even education of family planning and commit murder and occasional acts of terrorism.

    Zealotry does not make all actions moral. Lying, intimidation and violence are not excused because you think God thinks its OK.

  • Larry

    Preventing baby murders is a worthy goal. But that has nothing to do with abortion. But a fetus is not a baby. A baby is born. A fetus is not.

    Maybe guys who want to get involved in the lives of pregnant women should just grow the F up and realize it is none of their business. You don’t have to like their decision, but it is delusional nonsense to think you have a say in it.

  • Larry

    Hey BB, what you do in your bedroom is your own business. You want to proclaim it to the public, so be it. There is some good money to be made doing that. 🙂

    What consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn’t require government approval or affirmation. I am not one who has such a disregard for civil liberties to think such things are necessary. You have some growing up to do.

    Btw I am not Christian bashing. They do it to themselves.

  • Larry

    Do you know the National Socialists really liked?

    Appealing to reactionary religious dogma. They loved appealing to a return to “traditional values” and decrying things such as a right to privacy. They hated the idea of women of working, being educated or pretty much anything other than breeders. The loved the idea of declaring war on an entire faith and going to war to wipe them out.

    Pretty much the current conservative christian agenda. 🙂

  • James Carr

    A fetus is not a baby? Really? Can the human fetus grow into a dog or a cactus at some point in its development?
    Men should have equal say in the child a woman carries…since she did not procreate alone. She is the host of new life, not the owner of it.

  • Larry

    Nope. A baby is born a fetus is not. You can take custody of a baby from its mother. You can’t do so for a fetus. As long as its in her body and her body is the only thing keeping it alive, it will always be her choice.

    There are various biology texts that are available which could explain the difference between pregnancy and birth for you.

    If God wanted the subject of abortion to be precluded he would have given the platypus sapience instead of humans. 🙂

    “Men should have equal say in the child a woman carries”

    When you can take possession of the fetus from her, you can have a say. 🙂
    You are so immature that you are railing against biological facts here. Grow up. The world doesn’t revolve around your wishes. No woman has to take your concerns seriously as to what goes on in her body.

  • The right wing doesn’t really care about the research. They will use children in the service of attacking homosexuality regardless of the data.