Tuesday, January 08, 2013

The Truth About Children With "Gay" Parents

Stanford sociologist, Dr. Michael Rosenfeld, published a study this past year that has been widely used as a basis to advance and increase adoption of children to homosexuals.

Rosenfeld found, "No difference between children who are reared by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual couples."

His study has been widely used by homosexual advocates, including here in Washington State, and will likely be used again in the upcoming legislative session.

However, Rosenfeld's study has been found to be flawed.

Dr. Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University and Dr. Joseph Price of Brigham Young University have reviewed the study and found a mistake in Rosenfeld's work that completely alters the outcome.

Their work has been published in the peer-reviewed University of Washington based "Demography."

Here is what they found.


One News Now reports that they found children from homosexual homes don't do nearly as well as Rosenfeld had reported.

In fact, they are 35% more likely to fail a grade.

They also found that children with co-habitating heterosexual parents are 15% more likely than those with same-sex parents to make normal progress through school.

If the child has a never-married single mom, they are 23% more likely to make normal progress through school compared to growing up in a same-sex household.

While Washington has affirmed homosexual behavior as normal and legalized same-sex marriage, standing against timeless cultural norms, religious teaching and nature itself, the facts remain.

Children do not do as well in a homosexual family arrangement.

The gold standard is what we have always known it to be---married, heterosexual parents.

I tried to link the study but "Demography" data is available only by subscription. The subscription is $250 per year.

To further review the study, I suggest you check out your local library. Many subscribe to these publications.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

21 comments:

  1. Gary, your news sources are being less than complete as they are prone to do.

    The article by Allen is titled "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A comment on Rosenfeld." In it the author complains about the statistical methods and then applies new ones and gets different results.

    What your news source didn't bother to tell you is that there is also a reply comment by Michael J. Rosenefeld that refutes Allen's conclusions and explains the decisions made in the original study.

    Boils down to Allen added in children who had incomplete data - those who's grade retention was unknown, and adopted and foster children whose election process into the families were unknown. The original study was trying to compare children who were not previously disadvantaged and how they do with same-sex vs opposite-sex parents. Also Rosenfeld was only included children who had lived with their current parents for at least five years - as how could brand new parents be responsible for things before they were the parents? - while Allen just used all children regardless of their history in getting some of his range of alternative answers.

    Adding in the children where these parameters are not known is just a pretty transparent attempt to get a different result more to someone's liking. And publishing something just mentioning one of the Journal's commentaries and not the rebuttal is simple gossip don't you think? I know the original online service you are referencing did this and you are just repeating it but still gossip none the less.

    Both the Demography articles are available online at Springer - I would send you the links if you allowed them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be almost comical to watch the anti-gays play "logic contortionists" on increasingly irrelevant blogs, such as this one, if it didn't hurt real people and real families so much.

    I think Oshtur does a good job of pointing out, once again, how the anti-gays twist studies to fit their own agenda to the point where the studies' own authors have to come out and refute them.

    The bottom line is this: EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC ORGANIZATION STANDS ON THE SIDE OF GAY PARENTS. You can believe if you want that gays have somehow managed to hypnotize these gigantic networks of medical professionals into conforming to "our agenda," but seriously, would that even be manageable?

    Gary, what are you suggesting here? That gay people should be banned from having children? If so, have the guts to say it. If not, then gay people will continue to have children, and marriage can only help the children raised by gay parents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have omitted one of the authors of this analysis of Dr. Rosenfeld's work. From the linked news article - "Dr. Douglas Allen, Burnaby Mountain professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, tells OneNewsNow that he, Dr. Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University, and Dr. Joseph Price of Brigham Young University took a look at a large study conducted by Stanford sociologist Dr. Michael Rosenfeld..."

    It should be noted that Dr. Allen is a member of the Ruth Institute's "Circle of Experts" which is an affiliate of the National Organization for Marriage an organization that coordinates and funds opposition to marriage equality at the state and federal level.

    Neither your post, nor the source article provides either an abstract of the original work, nor an abstract distilling the critique, nor citations of both so that other scholars and members of the public can locate and examine the data and analysis for themselves. Your post also neglected to reference Dr. Rosnefeld's response to the critique of his study by Allen et al. which is also available from Demography. Abstracts and citations are free and not covered by subscription fees.

    The original research study being analyzed is from 2010 and not 2012 as the linked news article states - "Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography, 47, 755–775." (URL omitted due to comment policy)

    The analysis has not yet been published in print and so doesn't have a full citation - "Douglas W. Allen & Catherine Pakaluk & Joseph Price (2012) Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld" (URL omitted due to comment policy)

    The response to the critique of Allen et al. by Rosenfeld - "Reply to Allen et al." - is also yet to be published in a Demography print issue (URL omitted due to comment policy)

    Here is the summary of Rosenfeld's response with table references omitted for readability:

    "Allen et al.’s finding of worse school performance by children living with same-sex couples is due to their conflating the initial disadvantage of children who come into same-sex couple families (a disadvantage that appears to be substantial) with the progress children experience during the time when they are actually being raised by same-sex couples (progress that is excellent).

    There is no statistically significant difference in making normal progress through school between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual married couples after family socioeconomic status is taken into account. Allen et al. noted that even if the difference is not significant, the children of heterosexual married couples appear to be faring better. By the same logic, the children raised by unmarried heterosexual couples appear to be faring worse (with higher rates of grade retention) than children raised by same-sex couples (all of whom were unmarried according to U.S. law), though the difference in grade retention is not significant after socioeco- nomic controls are applied.

    If formal marriage of the parents is beneficial to children, and if the goal of public policy is to maximize children’s chances of success, then perhaps the logical public policy prescription would be to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the United States."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just not fair to the children! They will be confused what sex they are instead of focusing on everyday tasks.

      Delete
    2. Let's give the responder above the benefit of the doubt that they are making a joke rather than a serious critique.

      If just having male parents or female parents did result in gender confusion (and there is no credible science to support that claim) then every single parent of any gender would incur the same problem. I don't see a wave of gender confused children of single mothers and fathers turning up in the data.

      Delete
    3. Oh Brian give it a rest . As if the numerous of studies used by homosexual activists are not biased also. In fact their have been studies showing the flawed method of how studies have been used in collecting data . Including grants from pro homosexual organizations to conduct the study.

      The fact is you belive that gender is not important in a family raising chjildren . Or you believe possibly the consequences are not destructive in the long run . I suggest it is impossible to prove your point as of yet with any kind of accurate measurment . For one it has not been till recently that such data was available to be collected with legimate sampling methods , many families because of the discrimination nvolved of homosexuals did not volunteer the information to be measured . I would also suggest the fact we have reached the point where so many kids have a great chance of being born in this country by unweded Mothers far out weighs the consequences of gay parents , that is my personal "opinion". But considering the same secularized religion of all relationships are equal regardless of gender or marriage liscense is causing much harm to the children of this country . The poverty levels of children suggest my view has merit considering the common denominator is single parents for children in poverty . The same morality that supports homosexual marriage , perhaps not measurable but the culture that supports your views also should be held accountable for suggesting unwed parents is as moral as wedded parents . My point is you condemn morality as a basis for marriage , suggesting morality is subjective . Much misery to chuildren , including poverty is because of subjective morality and the data proves that .

      The variables involved are also almost impossible to measure as it is with children from brojken homes . . For one many children have been hurt emotionaly from the original break up of the Mother and father , so it certain ways suggesting homosexuals are already starting families from a broken familyb relation of another couple that they were part of possibly . Not fair to homosexual parents either .

      Take the religion out of it I agree , the liberal spin also . To suggest a Mom and Dad is just one more choice of many equal choices , well I will pretend you were kidding .

      Mick

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous-Mick - You're making a lot of arguments about things I haven't said, so I won't respond to them. I posted the full citations, cleared up some omissions in the original reporting, and included the response from the academic whose work was being critiqued.

      Wild claims by anonymous posters that aren't the topic of the research being discussed deserve to have Occam's razor applied to them. If their hypothesis were true, there would be a rolling epidemic of gender confusion in single parent families over the last few decades. I don't see it in the literature - and I looked for it. Ergo, the hypothesis is not proved.

      If anonymous can produce credible peer reviewed studies that document confusion about what sex children believe they are, and that control for all other factors (including the key socio-economic factors that Rosenfeld includes in his original model, but that Allen et al. removed because it didn't fit the outcome they wanted) leaving only the gender of their parents as the cause, I'll be happy to take a look at them.

      Delete
  4. Gary, why do you let people say such blasphamy? Atheists just don't get that God doesn't want them to be homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The above people don't want to understand that marriage was and is instituted by God. It matters not one iota what types of "marriage" man institutes, it matters not one iota how many cry 'it's my right', it matters not one iota how many false prophets say it's o.k..

    What matters are the eternal ramifications of our conduct and how we lead others astray by said conduct. Children are being taught that this abomination is normal. Make no mistake, the wages of sin are death, calling death life is the tactic of Satan. It's his most seductive lie...."you will not surely die".

    We've been dying ever since.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having the right to live by the tenets of your religious beliefs is freedom, forcing others who don't share your religious beliefs to live by them is theocracy and oppression.

      Delete
  6. How the kids do in this world isn't the problem the truth is they will rot in hell because of there parents and that's not fair.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Having the right to live by the tenets of your religious beliefs is freedom, forcing others who don't share your religious beliefs to live by them is theocracy and oppression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being forced to live with gay pedophiles isn't oppression? You will be judged.

      Delete
    2. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up the gay variant of the blood-libel. Traditionally used by anti-semites to justify their cruelty and oppression of the Jewish people, it was deployed continually on the Preserve Marriage Washington Facebook page during the Referendum 74 campaign.

      What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof (*). (* Especially when the source is anonymous, and offers no credible peer reviewed research to support their claim.) That said, the actual data is more useful than such uncivil libel, so here is some for you to consider.

      In fact, the vast majority of child sexual abusers are adults who identify as heterosexual, and the vast majority of them are male:

      "In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community."
      (Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals? - Carole Jenny, Thomas A. Roesler, Kimberly L. Poyer - PEDIATRICS Vol. 94 No. 1 July 1, 1994 pp. 41-44)"

      One commentary on the study noted: "Although the retrospective study design and the charged nature of the topic leave room for argument, this study suggests that a child is much likelier to be sexually abused by a heterosexual family member or friend than by a homosexual. [...]" — RA Dershewitz
      Published in Journal Watch General Medicine July 19, 1994

      From a review of the relevant scientific literature conducted in the Psychology Department of the University of California Davis:

      "Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

      'Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).'

      In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

      This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. inPediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994)."

      Blood-Libeling an entire group of people in this fashion is oppressive and unchristian. Doing so anonymously is craven.

      In light of the research and the epidemic of sexual abuse in many religious organizations, I can't be the only person who sees this finger-pointing by a group of deeply religious people, and largely heterosexual men, as an example of classic projection with an enormous dollop of irony on the side.

      Delete
    3. You're studies are wrong because we all know what God says about homosexuals. One day you will pay for all of eternity for questioning the Word of God and defending gays.

      Delete
  8. Gary,

    Evidently you are doing a great job, I consider it a compliment. The proof being that you have attained consistent detractors who appear to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to disuade your readership with "fine sounding arguments" that endeavor to twist the truth. Oh, how Paul goes straight to the heart of it...

    My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
    Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
    Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. - Colossians

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Oshtru & Brian don't know is their wasting their time. No amount of evidence can convince us against the Truth about gays and the harm they do to everyone.

      Delete
    2. Correcting falsehoods is not a waste of time. You want to say your sect doesn't like gays, that's great - that's your first amendment right. But using flawed secular opinion pieces to justify those religious beliefs, that is something I will point out.

      Be pure in your bias - if your sect doesn't support same sex parents because of some religious rationalization or another then just say so - that's all you need do. But don't present gossip as fact or rationalize faith with falsehoods - it will never work out the way you want.

      Delete
    3. I agree, correcting falehoods is not a waste of time. The falsehood is believing you can call evil good and teach that to the young and think you won't be called to task for it. That's something I will point out

      It doesn't matter what any SECT says, it matters what God says in His Word. It's an abomination now and forever will be.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    4. Craig, and you know that I think you are the one engaging in these activities, you who are usurping tasks that are God's alone, and that it is your path that puts you at risk. But we've had that discussion many times, I have no more pearls to cast in this regard.

      That's why I just correct the secular based errors because the reasonable faithful they will wonder - "how can lies lead us to salvation? How can those who twist secular facts be trusted as sources of spiritual truth?"

      Allen and his cronies are simply twisting an ernest study to try and demonize a group, just as the Pharisee of old did with those they wanted to disenfranchise. We have multiple examples of what Christ thought of such deceits, my hope is that those willing to accept His Grace will see such efforts for what they are and seek guidance from better sources.

      Delete
    5. The only source of spiritual truth is God's word and he has much to say about sexuality, both its purpose and the proper conditions for its use. No secular based "facts" can counteract that. I only point out what God's word says, not my opinion. That's what I'm called to do, it's called polemics.

      That's a pearl that I shall continue to cast, whether you consider me a pig or not. I forgive you and will continue to pray for you.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.