LGBTQ+ Rights and America

"Researchers at the University of Melbourne, led by Simon Crouch, surveyed 315 gay parents with a total of 500 children, up to age 17. Kids from gay-headed families scored 6 percent better, on average, than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion, Crouch and his team reported in the journal BMC Public Health. On other health measures, there was no difference between children of gay and straight parents"

Six percent is negligible. Also they should limit this to Australian couples since that is the only nationality they asked.

The full study is here.

"Two decades of research from Northern Europe and the United States suggests that the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex attracted parents is no different when compared to children from other family backgrounds, particularly in relation to social and emotional development and educational outcomes [4-6]."

Apparently they wished to discover what "no difference" really meant.

But the way they did it was just asking the parents!

"The study, named the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS), was conducted throughout Australia using a confidential cross-sectional survey to collect data between May and December 2012. Strategies were employed to contact same-sex attracted parents who both identified with the gay and lesbian community, and those who were less engaged [35]. The survey was available to complete online and in paper form. Data was collected from index parents who self-identified as being same-sex attracted, were residing in Australia, and were over the age of 18 years. Parents reported information for all children under the age of 18 years. The convenience sample was recruited using online and traditional recruitment techniques, accessing same-sex attracted parents through news media, community events and community groups."

This isn't very reliable. They didn't even take into consideration actual children's remarks. They just hoped the parents were telling the truth and asked them to answer. Also appealing to parents who are active in LGBT movements is misleading as well. You're going for the most passionate and therefore the most bias towards their cause.

These should not be your only group.

edited 12th Jul '14 7:19:24 PM by Gabrael

It's not sounding like "gay people make better parents" so much as "if becoming a parent is made more difficult, a lot of the inadequate or irresponsible parents will be weeded out". If anything, that's an argument for making it harder for heterosexual couples to have children, rather than easier for homosexual couples, but we're a long way off from that being a viable public policy.

Believe me, as a single bisexual mom I would love to have better social support and respect. But I need it based on actual scientific concerns and studies that actually ask the children themselves, not some mutual back slapping.

Where in the world did you come up with that?

From the facts

From the study itself on where these kids came from:

"Most children were the biological child of the index parent or of the index parent’s partner (408, 82%), with few children being fostered or adopted (15, 3%). More than two thirds of the children were born in the context of the current same-sex relationship (347, 69%), although a notable number of children were born in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or when the parent was single (69, 14% and 33, 7% respectively). Four hundred and sixty-four (93%) children had parents who were currently in a relationship."

"Socio-demographically, the parent sample has a high level of education and income, relative to population median income [47], and normative samples. While there is evidence to suggest that maternal education in particular is related to improved child health [50] it is not clear how this translates to same-sex families where the relationship between gender roles and parenting is less clear [30]. This difference in education and income must be considered however when viewing these results, even having adjusted for disparities in statistical analyses. Higher relative income in same-sex families is not surprising however, given that there is often a need to engage in costly and complex medical procedures in order to create a family where the parents are same-sex attracted. Children with male index parents are more commonly born through surrogacy arrangements. However, with commercial surrogacy illegal throughout Australia, and altruistic surrogacy poorly established, these arrangements often take place overseas, and thus parents with lower incomes may be less likely to avail this method. This situation also explains the number of children with a male index parent who were born in the US and India, two of the more commonly accessed territories for this process. Further, despite the fact that Australia is yet to have legislated to ensure marriage equality it appears that family transitions in our sample of same-sex parent families are similar to the general population. For our sample over two thirds of children were born in the context of their parents’ current relationship compared with 65-81% of children, depending on the age of the youngest child, for all families in Australia (2006-7) [51]."

Basically, these were the rich parents who could choose an international surrogate or some equivalent thereof to give them children. So that means they could be older, but nothing in the study talks about the ages of these parents. They only say there was a significant portion that was in a higher income bracket and had education past high school.

In the original article linked, they claimed that because gay parents had to wait to adopt, etc. whatever that was a contribution. However, that just isn't validated by this study.

Again, due to Australia's strict surrogacy laws and what not, this study has a specific context that doesn't translate well outside of the country.

Smarminess and single clause responses aren't terribly helpful, thanks.

So families with the will (i.e., they want to take care of children so they adopt or use other methods such as surrogate mothers) and resources and time given a steady life situation would be better equipped to be good parents. I'm not sure what's controversial about that. When we still have a situation in the developed world and even worse in the developing world with certain communities making useless teaching methods their primary goal while at the same time limiting or restricting proper teaching methods and available forms of contraceptives, not to mention constricting the availability of the dreaded "a" word, leading inevitably to "accidental" or "unwanted" children, why should we not applaud caregivers who want to be caregivers?

Well here is the problem, based on the numbers from the study I posted above, we don't know how these kids came in or if they weren't accidents. A fair percentage came from heterosexual relationships held previously and for all we know those conceived within a homosexual relationship could have been a surrogate or it could have been one partner getting it on with a guy.

The study also keeps referring to lesbians with little exception to gay men, however they aren't showing exactly how many male couples were asked compared to how many female couples were asked. So there are all sorts of holes in these numbers. This site says I have the full study but it's asinine how short it is, the references don't make sense, and you can drive a truck through their supposed methodology.

Basically, this is a problematic source to try and use to further respect for homosexual parents.

Again, there is nothing wrong with trying to spread the awareness that gays are deserving parents, but you need to use sources that won't accidentally undermine your cause.

This isn't an asset. And beginning an article with "Damn right my child is better than yours" is disgustingly belligerent and is just begging for you to be ripped into. This study also doesn't really address gay single parents, which isn't helpful at all either.

The "Damn straight" was an opinion article with flaunting snark I think you give too much credence to. In any case, this should be the key point anyone should take out of the study:

When fighting for civil rights, you have to use your snark carefully.

Again, if myself being a bisexual single mother can find so many things wrong with this study, imagine what someone who was opposed to gay rights and gay parenthood could do with it. Especially with the provocation of "Damn right!"

Again, this study is completely WEAK SAUCE!

Your summary from the Advocate is in no way supported by this particular study.

There wasn't a break down of financial contributions or parental responsibilities. There isn't any commentary or numbers on what sort of gender roles the children live under. There isn't anything at all to support anything people are saying about it.

That's poor science. I don't know about the laws in Australia, but if this was an American study, they would have to release all their stats, release the demographic break downs, and even the survey itself.

This is shit evidence. The only thing it can do is say that more study needs to be done. That's it.

Then you're willing to say sod it and throw red meat to the lions, I suppose?

And it's not my summary, it's the study's summary, so calm the hell down.

edited 12th Jul '14 10:13:58 PM by chi_mangetsu

Chi, I've not gone through it with a comb... but, even a quick look has me questioning the methodology. Let alone that error rate. <_<

For a study like this, that seems artificially low to me. -_- (My social science statistical senses are tingling: they'd like the data wholesale to run through my own selection of tools, because a few things are wonky.) Somebody is massaging somewhere, or I'm a cabbage.

Weak evidence is sometimes worse than no evidence at all when it comes to debate. -_-

edited 12th Jul '14 10:19:21 PM by Euodiachloris

Here's a response you're sure to adore. Check the comments in the second one. They're... interesting if nothing else.

Funny you should mention the twat...

edited 12th Jul '14 10:24:47 PM by chi_mangetsu

I'm sorry if I came across as a smartass earlier, but people before you ever posted that question explained this and did so better than I can. The facts show that the study, and especially the Advocate article's conclusions, are flimsy, and you don't want to use flimsy evidence. From what I understand this study isn't all that much better than the Regnerus study that homophobes love to cite and has been debunked pretty thoroughly.

It's cute, I'll say that. And, yes: it's a somewhat better-designed study. But, that's like saying "it's rather better to get singed than walk away with second degree burns".

edited 12th Jul '14 10:29:43 PM by Euodiachloris

That's a really obnoxious debate tactic. Being in favor of LGBT rights doesn't oblige you to defend every study or argument made in support of that position even if they are flawed. That kind of "with-me-or-against-me" thinking is extremely silly. Dangerous, too, when taken to extremes.

As Gabrael said:

Pointing out the Melbourne study is weak is not the same as being complicit in the stigmatization of gay parents, and making innuendos to that effect is a scummy thing to do.

edited 13th Jul '14 4:21:52 AM by Achaemenid

Given that there just are not that many same-sex families in comparison to heterosexual families makes it extraordinary circumstances, so tearing a flawed study to pieces, tossing it into the air like confetti and rolling in it without even conceding the possibility that kids of same-sex couples might at least be as happy as other kids is just tossing red meat to right-wingers looking for any excuse to discredit those couples (see Regnerus). It's patting yourself on the back for destroying a study then tossing the body out the back for your enemies to dance around like Bernie.

Nevermind, I should stay out of this shit

edited 13th Jul '14 1:50:03 PM by Sixthhokage1

Counterpoint: Supporting flawed or inaccurate studies (if this one isn't reliable) just gives bigots more ammo/undermines the whole movement when info is released disproving the study or it's methods. Plus it's just bad science and rather unethical.

edited 13th Jul '14 2:00:00 PM by Rationalinsanity

Rallying around a flawed study is even more harmful, since it puts the movements' intellectual foundation on a bad footing. It suits homophobes far more to have the LGBT movement nail its colors to a shaky mast than it does for that movement to exercise some intellectual rigor. You seem to be saying that, because there are LGBT parents in difficult situations (incidentally, Gabrael is one), then people should back every study that says nice things about them, regardless of how flawed they are.

The great strength that the LGBT movement has had - both in court and in the general public - is that opponents have struggled to find any arguments against that aren't based on religion or tradition. The LGBT movement can say its arguments are grounded in reality. How long could it do that if we adopted your attitude?

edited 13th Jul '14 2:02:15 PM by Achaemenid

Just because one study is crap doesn't mean any of the other's are crap:

Here is one from Stanford tracing educational progress with census data

Here is the actual study

Another article that mentions several studies done, but doesn't link to the sources. It wouldn't be hard to dig them out on your own though, they give enough data to back track.

Another study done by Wiley and published in several respected psych journals

Another study that included both one and two parent families of all orientations However you'll still have to find the original study elsewhere.

And this is just what's available online without even looking. A college library will have many more sources and even studies that have been challenged and recreated, that sort of thing.

I'd rather say "It's a flawed study and needs more rigorous work done, but it shows promise". Scapel v. hatchet.

You can gold plate a turd but you're still going to have a turd.

There's nothing wrong with throwing something out and starting off fresh else-wise. That's how science get's done.

How does that make any difference when the opposition gives fuckall about science?

edited 13th Jul '14 2:38:34 PM by chi_mangetsu

They care about science when it gives them an advantage. Do not hand them ammunition.