Comments about ‘Studies challenge widely held assumptions about same-sex parenting’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 9 2012 10:01 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
my slc
Newport Beach, CA

zoar63

I think the 10th amendment with the state sovereignty is great. But...

The 14th amendment with it's due process, which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness trumps it.

As soon as your marriage, drivers license, etc are in question or put to a vote you may be a big believer in the 14th. Just saying.

Amazed
Bountiful, UT

They interviewed a "whole" 3000 people in this "study"? I'm supposed to give some sort of far reaching credibility to someone's "conclusions" based upon the same number of people that were in attendance at my daughter's high school graduation? I think not; moreso, another "let's back into the numbers" so that my preconcieved opinions can show up on the internet, effort. I read this article will hit my personal delete button because it was a waste of time.

Born that Way
Layton, UT

Every human is the product of a male and female. Regardless of the confusion that ensues after birth, there's a genetic advantage to having one's biological parents involved in the rearing of the child. Ironically in our age and understanding of genetic health history, there's even more impetus for children to be raised by their biological parents, when possible--yet socially the opposite trend is occuring.

This is a great study because it focuses on child development first. Clearly there are advantages to certain family models, which are being proven. It's within the interest of all civil society to understand these advantages and take steps necessary to encourage the ideals.

If we know the best way to do something, but continue to take the worst path, we're only asking to be replaced by a society or nation that chooses to take the more biologically optimal option.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Born that way

In general terms what you describe is an ideal situation with which most if not all would agree. However, this is not a black or white situation. There is plenty of gray around it.

Reality show us that there are many children who become 18 ears old in foster care and have no family to call home.

Same sex people as most people want to to have posterity. What is wrong with that?

This article as many DN readers and others, attempt to put blame for the stigma and problems that children of SS couples face on the parents. I don't deny that there may be some SS couples who may be dysfunctional parents. (I never met one)

The stigma and frustration that children from SS couples face is not from the home in which they are raised. Bigotry, ignorance lack of acceptance and tolerance , misconceptions from outside the home, all contribute to harm the self worth of any individual.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

Article quote: "Among other things, they reported lower income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more troubled current romantic relationships. The study found 25 differences across 40 measures."

And that came from the 'Mormon bastion' of Latter-day Saint thinking, the University of Texas at Austin, so I'm sure that holds weight with the pro-homosexual community, right, guys?

Answer: no, sadly it won't.

I'll go one further: the reason, which the study didn't address, as to WHY this occurs, is because it is virtually impossible to achieve "good" from a "bad" foundation.

The older I get the more I literally thank God for my mom and dad, who raised me right.

gemstate marxist
Provo, UT

@ Born That Way (and others)
"there's a genetic advantage to having one's biological parents involved in the rearing of the child."
"Clearly there are advantages to certain family models, which are being proven."

There's actually no conclusive evidence at all about any advantages of living with one's own biological parents. There is way too much selection bias for any study to "prove" that the two-married-biological-parent household is any more beneficial than other family forms. Advantages are just a byproduct of other factors. Family structure is spurious.

The problem is that the people that are most likely to be high earners are also more likely to marry, remain married, have stable family lives, etc. Advantages follow for this group, certainly, but they are due almost entirely to factors OTHER THAN family structure.

Pick up a copy of the "Journal of Marriage and Family" or the "American Journal of Sociology" and look for authors Smock, Cherlin, Gibson-Davis, McLanahan. They're the top of the field. You'll quickly see that most of the "evidence" in support of traditional family structures is based on seriously flawed research.

gemstate marxist
Provo, UT

@ Amazed

"They interviewed a "whole" 3000 people in this "study"? I'm supposed to give some sort of far reaching credibility to someone's "conclusions" based upon the same number of people that were in attendance at my daughter's high school graduation?"

Hahahahahahaha!!
Actually, as long as the 3000 people were selected completely at random from the population, you'll get more accurate results than if you tried to interview everyone in the United States and accidentally missed a few. The purpose of drawing samples is precisely so that you CAN generalize and give "far reaching credibility" to the conclusions. I bet your daughter learned this in high school, maybe she could explain it to you. Don't dis science just because you don't like the results.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Ranch Hand:
I agree that bigoty is evil but that comes about because I believe in moral absolutes. However, last week you said that morality is relative. This week you said that bigotry is evil. Is morailty an absolute, or is it relative? If it is relative did you mean to simply say that it is bad manners?

Rational
Salt Lake City, UT

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT
"In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
- 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10
--------------

A value statement, not a correct conclusion based on good science. But congrats on your Google proficiency.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

The paper is fundamentally flawed and intentionally misleading. It doesn't even measure what it claims to be measuring. Most of the children examined in the paper were not being raised by parents in a committed same-sex relationship (only about 1% were); whereas the other children in the study were being raised in two-parent homes with straight parents for their full childhood. One of the respondents supposedly a child of a 'same-sex relationship' by Regnerus weak definition (as having a parent that had a same-sex encounter) was the child of a divorced woman who had a lesbian relationship after the "child" was already an adult.

TheWalker
Saratoga Springs, UT

I see the issue of SSM not so much as what is right for the couple and their children, which can always be debated. For me, this issue is about religious freedom, and our rights under the 1st Amendment.

Freedom to refrain from performing a marriage that contradicts writings which I consider to be sacred.

Freedom to speak my opinion in a public forum w/o being terminated by my employer.

Freedom to to screen out leaders of my youth organization that live in a relationship which contradicts what I have taught my children.

Freedom to send my children to school with the knowledge that they will not be taught principles contrary to my core beliefs.

Freedom to live according to my conscience as a medical provider w/o losing my license.

Freedom to operate a business in accordance with my religion w/o being fined or picketed.

I am a Freedom Fighter!

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

TheWalker, let's go through your "freedoms" one by one..

1. A religion cannot be forced to perform any marriage. Religion is a protected class, yet no Catholic could ever successfully sue to be married in an LDS Temple.

2. The first amendment protects you from government imposition only. Your employer can fire you if you identify yourself as an employee and say something that your employer might decide is harmful to their image or is harassing to other employees or customers.

3. If you have a private youth organization, it is your right to determine your membership / leaders. However, you are not shielded from criticism or boycotts. Free speech is not a one way street.

4. The first amendment does not shield you or your kids from things you may find offensive.

5. As part of having a medical license, you are expected to treat all patients with equal care. You cannot pick and choose who you will serve. Would you like someone to deny you healthcare because of your religion?

6. If your actions/inaction as a licensed business violate the law, you can be fined. Picketing/boycotts are free speech.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

DamO:

You are right. But you are not addressing TheWalker's points. A student studying counseling was removed from a counseling program because she felt it would be violation of her principles to counsel a gay person about their gay relationship.

It is fine that religions won't be required to marry two people of the same gender. (But then what happens if the law becomes that only individuals have rights and not organizations?) But what happens if teachers are required to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral against their freedom of conscience? Should a wedding photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding?

Some people want to blindly make laws that are going to exclude whole segments of our society and that is a very definite movement away from an open, diverse, liberal society.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

I did address TheWalker's points.

Now yours:

The student that was removed from the counseling program was removed because it's not a counselor's job to inject their own morality into that doctor/patient relationship. They are licensed based on requirements that are set by their professional organization. If she could not meet those requirements, she didn't qualify for the license.

Religions have First Amendment protection. That's solid and is not going to change. You ignore my example that religions already have protection to pick and choose who they marry.

A public teacher teaches curriculum set by the state. They don't get to pick and choose what they teach. And as a government employee, they have a duty to be neutral.

If a wedding photographer advertises a public service in a State where their condition to have a business license requires them to not discriminate based on protected classes, then they face the consequences of not providing that service equally.

Your last sentence is actually true, but you're looking at it backwards.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Tekakaromatagi
It is fine that religions won't be required to marry two people of the same gender. (But then what happens if the law becomes that only individuals have rights and not organizations?) But what happens if teachers are required to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral against their freedom of conscience? Should a wedding photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding?

KJK
Then the Church will do what it does elsewhere, have members marry at City Hall and then have a non-legally binding temple ceremony. Since the sealing isn't leaglly recognized, there is no standing for gays to sue to obtain it.

Teachers already teach things contrary to our subjective morals - evolution for example. We LDS aren't to rely on schools to teach our morals. That is the job of parents, seminary and church. Whose morals are the schools supposed to teach?

Being libertarian, I believe that people should be able to discriminate regarding whom they serve in their business. The law doesn't say that though. Would you OK with the photographer refusing to photgraph an LDS wedding or would you claim persecution?

Larry Lawton
Wan Chai, Hong Kong

I sincerely hope Mark Regnerus has taken steps to protect himself and his family. I'm concerned about the fate of those who break with conventional wisdon now-a-days. Remember what happened to those who supported Prop 8 in California? We are near the time when freedon of speech protects only those who are politically correct.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

What happened in CA? no one was fired. Some quit their jobs, but no one got fired for their vote. That's illegal. I know of no jailings, fines or lawsuits over anyone getting fired for how they voted on Prop.8 or anything else. Some boycotts were held, but boycotts are a form of free speech and free association. Opponents of SSM boycotted Disney World when they had a "Gay Day".

I find it ironic that you claim that your rights are endangered when you seem to have no reservation about voting to take away the rights of others which prop.8 did. Scripture prohibits us from using religion as an excuse to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4).

You should be more concerned about how we harmed others than the false allegations of how others have harmed us.

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

almost all of the information we have been given about homosexuality has been filtered by activists and altered by those who have little concern for traditional families or our country. Their primary goal is to push their agenda and they have pressured and tried to intimidate any group or person that they think stands in the way, including APA Presidents, religions and Obama (successfully) and they have also employed many people to Misinform us in comment sctions. Read narth for more info. On their manipulation of information and read crafting gay children for more info on media control

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments