Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Fathers and mothers both matter

Comments

Return To Article
  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @ Samuel L: According to you, according to the study, the study looks at one year of a 17 to 24 year old child's life and determines that the only thing that matters to the child's high school graduation is that one year of life and whether or not they were living with same-sex parents at that time.

    And the fact that the one year looked at was 2005 to 2006, and several of the survey subjects would have graduated or not graduated high school prior to that year and some of them would graduate or not graduate the year after the study is supposed to show the impact on their graduation rate of that one year?

    How can you look at something that happened years after a child did or did not graduate high school and claim a retroactive effect? How can you look at children who have not yet finished their final year of high school and determine whether they will or will not graduate and tie that graduation to one event over the course of their lives?

    How can you seriously claim that no other life events have an impact?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 16, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    @Samuel L. --

    "The point of this study is to refute the previous studies which claim "no-difference” even if the same-sex couple is not married."

    And, again, it fails. It compares stability to instability, not gay to straight.

    "In terms of sheer numbers, the real engine of child misery will always be family instability among heteros."

    Right.

    Yet we don't see anyone agitating to outlaw poverty-stricken marriages, or drug-stricken marriages, or ignorance-riddled marriages.

    "...then it will have done more harm than good. "

    If you're worried about kids in unstable families, then work to encourage stable families. As you point out yourself, the numbers are with the straight families -- not the gay ones.

    "Gay marriage involves deliberately detaching a child permanently from at least one of its parents. "

    Sigh. No, it doesn't.

    Any child being raised by a gay couple was ALREADY "detached", as you put it. Gay couples aren't somehow stealing kids from happy hetero homes.

    "ART exploits the young egg donors..."

    So outlaw ART if you want. The vast majority of customers are straight, not gay.

  • Samuel L. Murray, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:34 a.m.

    @Contrarius: “gay marriage is GOOD for kids”

    Yes, but which kids? In terms of sheer numbers, the real engine of child misery will always be family instability among heteros. Gay parents may be fabulous. Maybe there really is “no difference” between child outcomes for gays and heteros. But if the mind shift associated with gay marriage contributes even just a little bit to the ongoing general trends of family dissolution and single parenthood, then it will have done more harm than good. We will have blindly sought to benefit the few at the expense of all.

    One of the main purposes of marriage is to attaching a child to its natural parents in what is ideally a permanent relationship. Gay marriage involves deliberately detaching a child permanently from at least one of its parents. Gay marriage increases demand for and popularizes (especially among TV watching Americans who according to a Pew poll think 25% of people are gay) artificial reproductive technology (ART) in which children are a bought and paid for commodity. ART exploits the young egg donors who are eugenically selected for their good traits, and it exploits the third world surrogates who are cheap.

  • Samuel L. Murray, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:29 a.m.

    I think it is important to learn a lesson from no-fault divorce. With a handful of preliminary studies proclaiming that the kids will be fine it swept the nation in the early 70's. The happy talk continued until the late 80's when researchers started noticing disturbing trends. Fierce debate ensued for another decade until the academicians started to come to a reluctant consensus that the kids don't always do fine. And that was with 1 in 4 Americans being a child of divorce! The 2011 Canada census showed that married and common-law same-sex couples combined were 0.8% of all couples and only 9.4% of those are raising kids (3.4% of gay male couples). Gay marriage is far more politicized, the populations are much much smaller, and the effects are much harder to measure either way. Good data will be hard to get.

  • Samuel L. Redmond, WA
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:44 a.m.

    It really helps to read the study.

    @Hutterite,Really,Kalindra,Contrarius: The study states explicitly TWICE "this paper does not study the effect of growing up in a same-sex household, but rather examines the association of school performance for those children who lived with same-sex parents in 2006." The point of this study is to refute the previous studies which claim "no-difference” even if the same-sex couple is not married.

    Allen reviews 53 previous studies and discusses their methodological flaws. With only a few exceptions the studies use convenience samples collected, for example, by posting advertisements on gay-parenting mailing lists or "snowballing" where subjects in one study recruit there friends for a following study. All of the studies have trivial sample sizes. The only study with large sample sizes turned out to be so imprecise that it could not distinguish outcomes in same-sex househelds from others that are known to be poor. Most of the studies use methods subject to bias, such asking the parents how their kids are doing. Many don’t even have a control group. Allen’s study is really the first of its kind.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    " I read an article about a man..."

    Oh for heaven's sake.

    If you want to get into "I read an article about this one guy once", try listening to Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old raised by lesbian parents. Speaking in front of his state's legislature:

    "I score in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. .... I’m not so different from any of your children. .... The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family.

    .... In the next two hours, I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character. Thank you."

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    @Jeani --

    "gender in parents matters to children."

    Jeannie -- whether or not this is true, it's still a red herring.

    Poverty matters to children. Education matters to children. Drug abuse matters to children.

    Do we therefore deny marriage to poor people, to uneducated people, or to drug addicts??

    No, we don't. Heck, we don't even deny marriage to people who are serving life sentences in prison.

    In this society we don't permit or deny marriages based on what might or might not create the ideal conditions for potential kids.

    We already know that kids grow up just fine with gay parents. The question of whether they are 100% as successful, or only 99.9% as successful, as kids from straight homes is irrelevant. Unless you want to start banning those poor marriages, uneducated marriages, or drug-addicted marriages as well.

    "There is nothing magical about the number two"

    Actually, there is. Two people create stability where one does not. And we already know the importance of stability.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 15, 2013 1:08 a.m.

    Jeani:

    Your point is correct. I read an article about a man who was raised by two lesbian parents and he said that althought he turned out OK he suffered not having the male influence in his home.

    Men and women each bring a different perspective in the raising of a child. It is a yin and yang thing. The male influece and the woman influence are opposite but complementary in the raising of a well-rounded child. Lot of cultures in widely different locations and societies have recognized the complementary but different roles of fathers and mothers in the raising of child.

  • Jeani orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Contrarius,

    What YOU are steadfastly ignoring, and I understand why, is that gender in parents matters to children. There is nothing magical about the number two, except for the complimentary combination of a man and a woman, seeing this is how nature designated children to be created.

    My comments are up, I'm sure you'll get the last word. ;)

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    @jeanie --

    "Please do not assume you know what I am really saying or observing. "

    If I am mistaken about your real-world experience with gay couples, please correct me. Exactly how many children have you known who have been raised by gay parents??

    "I have observed that when one gender's influence is missing in a child's life there is a deficiency. "

    What you are steadfastly ignoring is the fact that every time you have seen one gender's influence to be missing, it is because there has been only ONE parent in the home.

    And we already know that children do better with two parents than with one parent. That is true regardless of the parent's gender or orientation.

    And it says NOTHING about whether children do better with stable opposite-sex families compared to stable same-sex families.

    Absolutely nothing at all.

    "What hurts kids is decisions adults make and then force kids to live with."

    Right. Like forcing kids to grow up in unmarried, unstable households just because you don't happen to approve of their parents.

    Marriage helps kids. And that includes gay marriage.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Contrarius -

    Please do not assume you know what I am really saying or observing. I have observed that when one gender's influence is missing in a child's life there is a deficiency. I am sorry, but that is what I have observed.

    What hurts kids is decisions adults make and then force kids to live with.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Did you know that Ted Bundy got married and fathered a child while he was in prison?

    Both of the guys who made up the "Hillside Strangler" duo married while in prison.

    Several other individuals have gotten married while in prison - some have been imprisoned in states that allow conjugal visits and have been able to get their wives pregnant or get pregnant themselves. Some states don't allow conjugal visits so the marriage is never consummated - but the spouse still gets all the benefits of marriage.

    Obviously, marriage is about more than children and it is about more than sex. There is no ground in either of these areas to stand on to oppose same-sex marriage.

    @ Rocket Science: Your first post, "Yes, both parents are important in the development of children as this study seems to confirm."

    Your second post, "So many have missed the point of this opinion article which is that more study is needed."

    Seems like you missed the point of the article - until people started pointing out the flaws with the study.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    @cjb --

    "If you need a study to let you know that fathers AND mothers are important, ... Chances are you are a pin headed pseudo intellectual."

    Is that really the most intelligent thing you can think of to say on this topic?

    And incidentally -- nobody here has said anything about either fathers or mothers being unimportant. So I guess nobody here qualifies as your supposed "pin-headed pseudo-intellectual" anyway.

    Would you like to try again?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    @Twin Lights --

    "What we legalize, we promote."

    Really?

    Alcoholic beverages are legal in Utah. Do you really believe that Utahns promote drinking?

    "If the data is insufficient to make a full analysis, then it would be wise to wait until we do. "

    Nope.

    It's still a red herring.

    And let's say that legalization DOES equal promotion. I don't agree with you, but let's assume that it's true for a moment.

    Marriage between drug addicts is legal. Is that a good situation for children? Let's make that marriage illegal!

    Marriage between poor people is legal. Is poverty a good situation for children? Let's make that marriage illegal!

    Marriage between uneducated people is legal. Is ignorance a good situation for children? Let's make that marriage illegal!

    You see the problem.

    In our society, we don't base the legality of marriages on whether or not those marriages create ideal environments for raising kids. So, once again, the issue of which homes are "best" is a red herring when we discuss gay marriage.

    Marriage helps kids. Gay marriage helps kids, too.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Who's the woman in this photo? She's beautiful!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Twin Lights
    Louisville, KY
    Contrariusiest,

    What we legalize, we promote. So legalization may defend those already in this position but it promotes others being place in this position. If the data is insufficient to make a full analysis, then it would be wise to wait until we do. Opinions are great. Expert opinions are great. But data wins. Again, if all is well with the concept, the data will show this.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    @Twin Lights --

    "So, should we (in the interest of putting kids first) wait for such a cohort..."

    We don't need to wait.

    First -- as I already mentioned -- the professionals who **know** kids and kid development already know from the current data and their professional experience that kids do fine in gay-led homes.

    Second, we do have lots of years of experience already. We've got 10 years in Massachusetts. We've got 8 years in Canada, and even more years in some of the Scandinavian countries.

    The problem is that Allen used old data.

    And third -- as I keep reminding people -- the whole question of "where do kids grow up best" is a red herring anyway. Gay couples raise kids with or without marriage. Denying marriage to gay couples would not make them magically stop raising children. So denying gays marriage does NOTHING to help kids, no matter *where* those "best" homes happen to be.

    In contrast, we know that stable homes help kids -- and we know that marriage promotes stability. So gay marriage actively HELPS kids.

    Denying gays the right to marriage only denies those kids stable homes. That HURTS children.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Fathers and mothers do both matter. More than that, they are critically important. They're just as important as either member of a same-sex parenting couple.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 14, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    @jeanie --

    " Children in a stable mom and dad home..."

    You're a teacher in a rather small town in Utah. You've probably never even SEEN a child raised in a gay-led home -- and if you have, only one or two.

    What you've actually seen is that children grow up best in STABLE homes as compared to UNSTABLE homes. And that's something all of us already know. You have NOT seen enough kids raised by gay couples -- if any at all -- to know anything about how they grow up on average.

    @Charles --

    "Male and male or female and female add nothing to society. "

    Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Leonardo da Vinci? Michelangelo? Richard Cromwell? King James, of the King James Bible?

    Do you seriously believe that none of these people have added anything to society?

    I could go on -- and on -- but you get the picture.

    "Commitment to our highest priority--to love and serve God--requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior."

    Loving and serving God does NOT require hating your neighbor -- or denying your neighbor equal rights, either.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    Truth seeker,

    In my experience it is a stable home with a mom and a dad. Economically unstable homes (unpredictable income, a need for government assistance) can be navigated successfully for children if the parents are stable (it is difficult, but possible). Emotionally secure homes include both gender parents since each gender brings unique skills in the raising of a child. I have witnessed children responding to male teachers differently than to female, as a rule. Male teachers bring with them aspects that women teachers don't. Children without a father in the home often crave male attention. Girls with very strong female influence in their home and who have no father often cannot relate well to men. Kids naturally sense gender differences and respond accordingly.

    Back to your point, can a child do ok with secure, stable same gender parents? I think they are in a better position than kids from unstable two gender homes. However, as a society we are experimenting with the idea that gender isn't important once a child is born. This is an idea that I believe is inherently wrong.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 13, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    Re:jeanie
    "Stable mom and dad home"

    Is it the mom or dad OR
    Is it that stability and security is preeminently important--economically, and emotionally stable secure homes?

    We know there are many homes with a mom and dad which aren't functionally stable.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 13, 2013 7:27 p.m.

    Contrariusiest,

    Agreed that we need to compare apples to apples (stable home to stable home) in order to have correct data. Others were saying this data was flawed on that basis - that there had been insufficient time for a stable cohort to develop for full comparison. So, should we (in the interest of putting kids first) wait for such a cohort so that we have data to prove whether or not they are comparable in result? As others (in favor of gay marriage) have said, we really don't have this data. How can we make a full analysis without such data? Though folks may opine one way or the other, without the data, opinions are somewhat suspect. If all is well with the concept, the data will prove out.

  • @Charles not from utah, 00
    Oct. 13, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    Homosexuality is not, nor has it ever been marriage. It's pure pretend. Male and female exist for a reason. Male and male or female and female add nothing to society. Never has, never will.

    I don't need a study to tell me what logic and commonsense dictate. Spin it however you wish but there is nothing virtuous about homosexuality.

    As was recently said, "the new morality is just the old immorality." and "Man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior."

    Christ taught that a man and a woman should leave their parent's and become one. Becoming one is impossible for homosexuals.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    Our biology speaks to the need of two distinct genders in getting kids here, feeding and raising them.

    If you really want experts who *KNOW* children, survey school teachers. We see the fall-out of parental decisions on children for good and bad. We can compare the emotional development of children within their peer groups because we live with them and work with them 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. We have had years of experience observing and interacting with hundreds of children from many different family situations. Children in a stable mom and dad home, on average, do much better than any other configuration.

    Professional child development experts have access to studies of select groups. They do not spend 40+ hours a week, year after year, helping children navigate social settings and academic learning. Their findings only go so far. To rely so heavily on current child development experts is unwise.

    I have lived long enough to see much expert advise be refuted years later.

  • Scott Rose New York, NY
    Oct. 13, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    When will the Deseret News be publishing an editorial about the Youth Risk Survey in Massachusetts, which shows that over time since equality became law in that state, youth suicides for both straight and gay teens have gone down? You know, since the editorial board is so concerned about the "consequences" of "redefining marriage."

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 13, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    @Twin Lights --

    "Should we then wait another 10 years to get that cohort before we jump into something that may not be the best for kids?"

    1. Every professional group of child development experts in this country supports gay marriage. They already recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes. Children are their lives' work -- they KNOW kids.

    2. What is best for kids is loving, stable homes. Gay marriage promotes stability. Therefore gay marriage is GOOD for kids.

    3. Gay couples raise children with or without marriage. Denying gay people the right to marry would not somehow magically remove children from those gay homes. Therefore the issue of gay homes vs. straight homes is a red herring anyway.

    4. The issue with this study is that it's dishonest. It claims to compare success of children in gay-led homes with success of children in straight-led homes -- but what it REALLY compares is the success of children in stable homes (married homes) with the success of children in UNstable homes (unmarried homes). As we all know, stability is better. This says NOTHING about orientation or gender of parents.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Oct. 13, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    To those that note that Canada has only allowed same sex marriage for 8 years so we don't have a cohort raised (fully) within marriage to study. Should we then wait another 10 years to get that cohort before we jump into something that may not be the best for kids?

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Oct. 13, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    In Utah past and present, if you have 7 wives and one husband that's still 7/8 same sex parenting isn't it?

    Even more if you count the fact the husband has no time for 30 kids. Then what tragedies await the kids if the husband dies and they are raised by said 7 women? Must never have happened.

    If you want a theocracy so you can ban gay marriage then have one, if you want a democracy then support the one you claim to love.

    Republicans say, "let them eat cake and have your cake and eat it too." Brilliant. I'm seeing where all the non sequitur arguments come from and what their purpose is.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    I read through the posts several times to make sure that I saw what was printed and not what I thought was printed. What I saw printed are the excuses that people make for their choice to live a same-sex lifestyle. What I was printed is that they care nothing about the children except for the fact that society owes them the right to have children in their home even though their lifestyle makes it impossible for them to procreate. What I saw printed is that they are unwilling to consider any comment that questions them or their chosen lifestyle.

    Thanks, Deseret News, for your effort to objectively show that the propaganda from those who believe in and practice the same-sex lifestyle is not going to improve society.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Oct. 13, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Well I know if we had a theocracy so you could outlaw gay marriage forever, most of my posts would be censored just like they are here at the DN.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Oct. 13, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    This article reminds me of all the "research" from a generation ago that showed that children from interracial marriages were disadvantaged. Armed with such "facts," Utah and many other states passed laws against "miscegenation." Its funny how nobody runs editorials in support of those alarming "findings" anymore. I strongly suspect the concern this newspaper has to Gays raising children is motivated by a deeply held religious objection to such unions, not any research study. Why not just say so?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    What hurts the kids the fact that two people raising them do not get benefits that other couples raising children get. As history shows, raising kids by same sex couples happens already. So we can also say banning gay marriage hurts the children.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 13, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    One thing we know about science research is that one study alone is not proof-positive. Only when there is an accumulation of well-designed and well-controlled studies do more reliable trends emerge.

    The NIH published a fairly thorough examination of research titled "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School" stating:

    "In 45 empirical studies of outcomes of children of same-sex couples—including all studies listed in Tasker’s (2005) comprehensive survey that examined childhood outcomes, several more recent studies listed by Wald (2006), all four studies listed by Meezan and Rauch (2005) as the highest-quality studies in this field,1 and all the more recent studies that cite the earlier ones—none found statistically significant disadvantages for children raised by gay and lesbian parents compared with other children."

    Questions:
    How many of the families surveyed included adoption of "special needs" children? Did the study control for children adopted at an older age?

    How does societal acceptance of nontraditional families affect children and their school experience? As someone noted, Canada legalized same-sex marriage mid-2005 and the researcher(s) used 2006 census data.

    Many more questions remain.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    So many have missed the point of this opinion article which is that more study is needed.

    "It makes no sense for society to fundamentally alter such an institution without understanding the consequences."

    It is funny that the LGBT community will not just assert their opinion but will either discount research, call names, or shout down anyone who disagrees with their position.

    Everyone who believes in the traditional family and that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a religious extremest, a bigot, a Nazi and does not hate LGBT.

  • cns St George, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    The study may be right -- MAY. The majority of the comments here point out the problems with the study that call into question the validity of the conclusion. Be that as it may, how about the children that do not have the opportunity to be raised by loving moms and dads ??
    Wouldn't it be better for the child to be raised by a loving and stable same sex couple than to spend a life in foster care or some public institution ??

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    "Canada is an ideal place to study the effects of same-gender marriage on children, as it has embraced gay marriage for eight years "

    1) As pointed out by isrred: Except that they used the 2006 census data, which means that at the time marriage had been legal for ONE year. And when you are looking at data of 18-23 year olds, the entirety of the sample grew up in homes THAT DIDN'T HAVE MARRIAGE.

    2) We HAVE examples of gay marriage in America for over ten years:

    'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – Think Progress - 09/27/13

    'But marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball.'

    5 years after gay marriage was legal in MA they still had the lowest divorce rate in the country.

    From the National Center For Vital Statistics

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    I love that they keep using this line in all the stories: "Canada is an ideal place to study the effects of same-gender marriage on children, as it has embraced gay marriage for eight years "
    Except that they used the 2006 census data, which means that at the time marriage had been legal for ONE year. And when you are looking at data of 18-23 year olds, the entirety of the sample grew up in homes THAT DIDN'T HAVE MARRIAGE.

    The complete and utter lack of understanding of research and blatant disregard for basic common sense continues to baffle me. It shouldn't, but it does.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    'The overall goal in caring for youth who are or think they might be gay, lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. If their environment is critical of their emerging sexual orientation, these adolescents may experience profound isolation and fear of discovery, which interferes with achieving developmental tasks of adolescence related to self-esteem, identity, and intimacy.'

    - American Acadamy of Pediatrics
    - PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 6 June 2004, pp. 1827-1832

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    I am glad this was presented as an opinion piece.

    Because every other credible source disagrees with the outcome conclusion:

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

    '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

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    If one is into multiculturalism and diversity (really into it rather than giving it lip service), they may see that a lot of cultures have stories about the father and the mother bringing different strengths and capabilities in the raising of children. Yin and yang, opposite male and female element come together and create a better whole.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Despite what voters may support, legislatures may enact, or courts may decide, marriage has been, is, and always will be the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A woman cannot be a husband and a man cannot be a wife and therefore same gender couples don't meet the criteria. Yes, both parents are important in the development of children as this study seems to confirm.

    Where there has been death of a parent or divorce, we need to do the best we can to compensate for the lack in parenting. Fiends and neighbors need to help where possible but, "It makes no sense for society to fundamentally alter such an institution without understanding the consequences."

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    I am confused about how the researcher came up with his conclusions. If gay marriage has only been legal in Canada for eight years, I can't help but wonder about how many of the children in families headed by gay married couples are old enough to have graduated from high school. I also wonder if they are comparing all gay couples--married and unmarried--to all heterosexual couples or just heterosexual couples who are married. I need to see more information about the study to come to a better conclusion about its validity.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    The Bigotry of the Dnews shines through again. Why are you so intent on attacking LGBT families daily in your "news" paper?

    In the state of Utah, I as a single person can adopt children legally and lawfully--but if I am in a loving, committed same-sex relationship then that somehow makes me an unfit parent for adoption purposes? Give me a break.

  • David Cary Hart Miami Beach, FL
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Gay couples are going to raise children irrespective of whether or not they can marry. That ship sailed a very long time ago. If children are the issue then marriage equality should be an imperative. Marriage provides kids with societal and economic security. For example, without a spouse, a defined benefit pension dies with the pensioner.

    As for that Canadian study, it's author made the same claim last March before he did any research. He is also on the advisory board of National Organization for Marriage.

    Post Windsor, Utah is sending its gay couples to other states to get married. Utah has to come to grips with the notion that religious opprobrium should not dictate civil law. Meanwhile, the full pool of the best talent is not available to Utah businesses. And it's not just gays. Others see marriage equality as an indication of tolerance and a welcoming of diversity.

    The "mommy and daddy" argument is a form of cognitive dissonance that is offered as a substitute for any real consequences of same-sex marriage. There are none. Only benefits.

  • THarrison SLC, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Not all marriages produce children so the "argument" that marriage is only to procreate is a fallacy. Any child who is raised by loving parents is one lucky kid regardless of the gender of the parents.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 13, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    The previous editorial in this paper about the study contained two quotes from the study that highlighted problems.

    One quote stated that current family situations of girls with gay parents was not relevant to graduation rates, just the mere fact of having gay parents was enough to produce the observed outcome. This flies in the face of all previous research into marriage and families which shows that things like divorce, single parenthood, and remarriage (current family situations) do have an impact on children.

    The other quote pertained to how the subjects were identified - by their answer to a question asking if they are the child of a same-sex couple. No data on the length of the parents' relationship, divorces, remarriages, or any of the many other things we know have an impact on children.

    The data looked at children 17 and older. Same-sex marriage has only been legal in Canada for eight years, same-sex common law relationships have only been recognized for 14 years. We know legality affects children of heterosexual relationships but the study's author wants to discount that for children of same-sex relationships?

    Solid, honest research is needed - this study is not it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    But, as the article pointed out, Canada has allowed gay marriage for 8 years...not long enough for such a marriage to produce a high school graduate from the ground up. So, other factors are at play here. Besides, so called traditional marriage hasn't much to brag about these days anyway, and ultimately I believe the obje3ction to gay marriage by the DN is religious, and therefore entirely subjective. The old 'think of the children' argument is a dodge.