Just in Case You Were Wondering

There's a new study -- from the description, it seems to be a literature review, actually -- that puts another nail in the coffin of "Children do best with a mother and father."

Scientists agree that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse off than children raised by parents of the opposite sex, according to a new study co-authored by a University of Oregon professor.

The new research, which looked at 19,000 studies and articles related to same-sex parenting from 1977 to 2013, was released last week, and comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage is legal.

“Consensus is overwhelming in terms of there being no difference in children who are raised by same-sex or different- sex parents,” University of Oregon sociology professor Ryan Light said on Tuesday.

I really had no idea there had been that many studies of same-sex parenting.

Note to TV talk show hosts: The next time Tony Perkins starts in on his "Social science has conclusively proven that children do best when raised by their married biological parents" bullshit, you have permission to laugh at him.

Saturday Science: About This "Mom and Dad" Thing (Update)

As in "every child deserves a mom and dad" and the variations thereon we hear from the anti-gay mob when arguing against same-sex marriage (because in their minds, marriage = children). This, of course, is the short, easy version of Tony Perkins' perennial whopper, "Social science has conclusively proven that children to best when raised by their married biological parents." Unfortunately for Perkins, that's not true (no surprise there, but it certainly doesn't stop him from repeating it at every opportunity), which is something we knew already, but a series of studies coming out of Australia recently indicate that not only is it not true, the reality is slightly weighted in the other direction.

As witness this study from the University of Melbourne. It seems to be ongoing, but the preliminary findings are illuminating, to say the least:

On measures of general health and family cohesion children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health measures there were no statistically significant differences.

And all the Tony Perkinses of the world have to offer is that pathetic political hit-job by Mark Regnerus. Pity.

Update: The full study is out.

If It's About Children

Maybe we should pay attention to what's happening with them. This, of course, stems from the time-honored battle cry of the anti-gay "Christian" right, "Save the Cheeeldren!!!" Well, aside from the travesty produced by Mark Regnerus on instructions from the Witherspoon Institute (and ultimately, it turns out, the Heritage Foundation), a number of sociologists and psychologists -- real ones -- have done studies about the effects on children of being raised in "non-traditional" families.

One of the first things I ran across this morning, which brought the whole issue to the fore, was this post at AmericaBlog, referencing a study from Britain (with, unfortunately, a broken link; if I find it, I'll link to it).

Whether the children lived with two biological parents, with a step-parent and biologic parent, or in a single parent family, made no difference: 64% said they were happy ‘sometimes or never’, and 36% said they were ‘happy all the time’.

Even when the researchers statistically removed the effects of other factors such as parental social class so that the effects of family type were isolated, the results showed no significant differences.

Jenny Chanfreau, Senior Researcher at NatCen, told the conference that, in contrast, relationships with parents and other children were strongly linked with how likely the seven-year-olds were to be happy. For instance, factors such as getting on well with siblings and not being bullied at school were associated with being happy all the time.

Ms Chanfreau said they found a similar result when analysing another set of survey data on 2,679 children aged 11 to 15 in the UK– this also showed no significant statistical difference in the level of wellbeing among children in the three types of family when the effects of family type were studied in isolation.

[She] told the conference: “We found that the family type had no significant effect on the happiness of the [two groups of children.]

“It’s the quality of the relationships in the home that matters–not the family composition.

Getting on well with siblings, having fun with the family at weekends, and having a parent who reported rarely or never shouting when the child was naughty, were all linked with a higher likelihood of being happy all the time among seven-year olds.

“Pupil relations at school are also important–being bullied at school . . . [was] strongly associated with lower happiness in the seven-year-olds, for instance.”

That called to mind a recent study from Australia that indicated that children of same-sex parents were happier and better adjusted than their peers from "traditional" families.

''Because of the situation that same-sex families find themselves in, they are generally more willing to communicate and approach the issues that any child may face at school, like teasing or bullying,'' Dr. Simon Crouch, the lead author of the Melbourne University study, said. ''This fosters openness and means children tend to be more resilient. That would be our hypothesis.''

It would seem that reality doesn't support Tony Perkins' often repeated assertion that "Social science has proven conclusively that children do best with their married biological parents." But then, we know Perkins will say whatever will bring in cash. (I actually remember seeing one study that stated that idea as part of the executive summary; it was a study comparing the children of married heterosexual couples with the children of unwed teenage mothers, and that statement wasn't even supported by the data. Draw your own conclusions.)

As to the kids and their reactions to their families -- well, someone decided to let them speak for themselves:

'Nuff said?

Connect the Dots

around the edges of Mark Regenerus' "study" of gay parenting (although it's not really about gay parenting -- just ask him) and you find yourself coming full circle.

A group of eighteen social scientists have published a letter under the auspices of the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion defending the study. However, as Scott Rose points out:

Although the 18 signers rely on their academic credentials to attempt to give authority to their letter, they do not actually address any of the substantive criticisms made of Regnerus’s study. They instead appear to seek further to deceive the public, by repeating points that have already been thoroughly discredited and debunked. Of particular concern is that the signers trumpeted Regnerus’s sampling method as the best available, when in fact, address based sampling would have been superior, though more costly and time consuming. Another concern is that whereas the signers cite Paul Amato’s commentary on the Regnerus study as evidence of the study’s alleged integrity, they do so without disclosing that Amato was a paid adviser for the study.

Equality Matters did some digging on these "social scientists," which they've rendered into a handy table (click for larger view):

(Via)

And now, 200 social scientists and therapists have written a letter to Social Science Research, the journal in which Regnerus' study was published.

As researchers and scholars, many of whom with extensive experience in quantitative and qualitative research in family structures and child outcomes, we write to raise serious concerns about the most recent issue of Social Science Research and the set of papers focused on parenting by lesbians and gay men. In this regard, we have particular concern about Mark Regnerus’ paper entitled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.”

LGBT parenting is a highly politicized topic. While the presence of a vibrant and controversial public debate should in no way censor scholarship, it should compel the academy to hold scholarship around that topic to our most rigorous standards. We are very concerned that these standards were not upheld in this issue or with this paper, given the apparently expedited process of publication and the decision to publish commentaries on the paper by scholars who were directly involved with the study and have limited experience in LGBT parenting research. We also have serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.

Read it -- it gets better (or worse, I guess, depending on your point of view).

The University of Texas is beginning in inquiry into the circumstances and methods of the study.

Some days, it just doesn't pay to be anti-gay.

Update on the latest anti-gay junk science

The Heritage Foundation is apparently nonplussed at the criticism of its latest pet pseudoscientific study. This is telling:

The author of a new study showing some negative outcomes for young adults whose parents had same-sex relationships is under attack because his findings conflict with what, in some corners, has become conventional wisdom.

Apparently, the idea that there is “no difference” between children of same-sex parents and their peers raised in traditional married mother-and-father households has become so entrenched among some advocates that new research presenting a contrasting picture is unwelcome—to put it mildly.

University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a large, nationally representative random sample of 3,000 young adults ages 18–39. It found better outcomes for those raised in intact biological families when compared to peers in seven other family structures.

The article is so badly thought out that the author, Jennifer Marshall, apparently doesn't even realize that this last paragraph contradicts the one before. Or she hopes her readers don't notice.

Zinnia Jones does a good take-down.

The homophobic right-wing seems genuinely taken aback at how poorly received theirprecious Regnerus study has been. Clearly, being widely and loudly called out on shoddy science with a hateful agenda isn’t something they’re used to. And in another decade, these results might have been accepted at face value despite the study’s many flaws, simply because it aligned with the conventional wisdom of the time that gay people must be bad for children, society, and everything. This is no longer the case – these traditional assumptions aren’t assumed anymore, and the anti-gay movement have found themselves out of their element.

It's also instructive that the majority of the comments take the author to task for not addressing the real objections to the study.

Apparently Marshall's readers are smarter than she had hoped.

Ammunition (Update, Update II)

For the next time you encounter someone who "knows" that married biological parents are the "best" for children.

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

Update:

This is what we're fighting against:

Additionally, by defining marriage both in terms of the relationship between a man and a woman and its important role of guaranteeing the succession of generations, the state is recognizing the irreplaceable contribution that married couples make to society. Married couples who bring children into the world make particular sacrifices and take on unique risks and obligations for the good of society.

And all you adoptive parents, gay and straight, who are taking kids that no one else wants, fuck you -- you're worthless.

Timothy Kincaid has some rather pointed comments on this as well. He particularly notes the arrogance of the Catholic hierarchy, which we've seen more than a few examples of lately. (Even in my home town.)

The thing is, these authoritarian thinkers get so used to being in control that they just don't get it when they're not. And so they say really stupid things and are just amazed when there's blowback.

This is not counting professional whiners like Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the "will gay-bash for cash" crowd, whose statements are naked attempts at manipulation and are more cynical than clueless.

Update II: The SPLC Strikes Back:

Today at noon, a group of the nastiest gay-bashers in America plans to hold a press conference in front of the Montgomery, Ala., offices of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which publishes this blog. Claiming that the SPLC is engaged in a “campaign to demonize adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality,” the white organizers of the press conference are bringing along a set of black pastors in a presumed bid to embarrass the SPLC, a 40-year-old anti-racist civil rights organization.

The irony is that SPLC has named five of the participating organizations as hate groups precisely because they demonize LGBT people, using a series of well-worn lies to paint gays and lesbians as perverts, pedophiles and worse. Despite the claims of the groups, the SPLC is not attacking anyone’s morality. Instead, our hate group listings reflect the fact that they regularly propagate known falsehoods.