Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tisme]

http://www.ippf.org/

IPPF is funded through a mix of institutional and individual donations. Institutions include governments, non-governmental organizations, multilateral agencies, corporations, trusts and foundations. The Federation also benefits enormously from funds donated by individuals via bequests, trusts, annuities and regular giving.

 

[basilio]

Children raised by same-sex parents do as well as their peers, study shows
Comprehensive review in Medical Journal of Australia concludes main threat to same-sex parented children is discrimination

Shares
1252

Anne Davies

@annefdavies

Sunday 22 October 2017 18.01 BST

As the marriage equality vote draws toward its close, a comprehensive study published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows children raised in same-sex-parented families do as well as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.

The review of three decades of peer-reviewed research by Melbourne Children’s found children raised in same-sex-parented families did as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers.

The study’s findings will undercut one of the arguments that have been used by the No campaign: that children need both a mother and a father to flourish.

The study’s authors said their work aimed to put an end to the misinformation about children of same-sex couples and pointed out that the results had been replicated across independent studies in Australia and internationally.

Titled The Kids are OK: it is Discrimination Not Same-Sex Parents that Harms Children, the report comes as the postal survey voting period enters its final days. Votes must be received by the Australian Bureau of Statistics by November 7 and outcome will be announced on November 15. So far polling has indicated that the Yes campaign is headed for a convincing win.


Among the studies reviewed were the 2017 public policy research portal at Columbia Law School, which reviewed 79 studies investigating the wellbeing of children raised by gay or lesbian parents; a 2014 American Sociological Association review of more than 40 studies, which concluded that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as other children across a number of wellbeing measures; and the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ 2013 review of the Australian and international research, which showed there was no evidence of harm.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows

 

[SirRumpole]

As the marriage equality vote draws toward its close, a comprehensive study published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows children raised in same-sex-parented families do as well as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.

Funny how a lot of those children are coming out against same sex parenting now that they have grown up and are realising what they missed out on.

 

[basilio]

Funny how a lot of those children are coming out against same sex parenting now that they have grown up and are realising what they missed out on.

So your preferance is to accept x number of children who say they are now unhappy with their same sex parents versus 130 odd studies across many thousands of childen and families around the world?

Sounds like you know what answer you want and examples that support that view are the only ones you are interested in recognising.

 

[SirRumpole]

So your preferance is to accept x number of children who say they are now unhappy with their same sex parents versus 130 odd studies across many thousands of childen and families around the world?

Sounds like you know what answer you want and examples that support that view are the only ones you are interested in recognising.

I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.

Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?

What was the sample size ?

Were the subjects volunteers only ? (this would lead to a biased sample as only those who thought they could pass would volunteer).

Did the researchers have an interest in the results ?

I have seen some studies which were blatantly biased, conducted by gays and with leading questions intended to get the desired results.

 

[wayneL]

I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.

Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?

What was the sample size ?

Were the subjects volunteers only ? (this would lead to a biased sample as only those who thought they could pass would volunteer).

Did the researchers have an interest in the results ?

I have seen some studies which were blatantly biased, conducted by gays and with leading questions intended to get the desired results.

Exactly, typical soft science, grant and agenda driven BS.

The parameters are so socially malleable you can design studies to give any desired conclusion.

 

[grah33]

No I haven't been to any Arab countries nor have any intention to, but my original point was homosexuality is equally unacceptable to Islam as it is to Christianity. Groups that violate the faith can break the rules but they can't change them. It's a pity when you think about it...

Pious followers don't see it like that. To them that wouldn't make sense. It would be like trying to convince Jesus C that his morals need changing. And even the people who break them (both lay people and clergy) often do so thinking they're still good morals worth following.

Also, It's more the other way around, at least in other countries. They're smashing up the smaller churches, forcing them to marry gays. Eventually they'll go for the bigger one – catholic - as well. It will not be easy, as it's hardwired in the christian faith to consciously object no matter what, and to even go prison if need be. For example a doctor who has faith wouldn't perform an abortion, even if the State required him to. Or a faith person in a religious school wouldn't teach homosexual sex education. And a good number would also yield to the pressure (as happens in communism). The ones who resist become heroes later on in history...

I think money will have a big play in this too, which is unfortunate, but becoming the norm.

 

[basilio]

I have my doubts about all these studies. Until the methodology is disclosed I think they are suspect.

Were they double blind studies (with a control group where the researchers were not aware who were the gay couples and who were straight) ?

What was the sample size ?

Were the subjects volunteers only ? (this would lead to a biased sample as only those who thought they could pass would volunteer).

Did the researchers have an interest in the results ?

I have seen some studies which were blatantly biased, conducted by gays and with leading questions intended to get the desired results.

It's certainly critically important to be careful about accepting the validity of medical studies for all the reasons you have indicated Rumpy.

So on that basis there should be great confidence in the overall result given that:

1) The reviews encompassed 129 plus peer reviewed studies all of which found children in same sex families fared as well as other children across a number of well being measures

2) The reviews were conducted by three separate organisations. A 2017 public policy research portal at Columbia Law Schoo of 79 studies , a 2014 American Sociological Association review of more than 40 studies and the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ 2013 review of the Australian and international research.

Now there were examples of studies which were questioned by the researchers because of poor methodology.

"The researchers said that studies reporting poor outcomes had been widely criticised for their methodological limitations. For example the widely quoted Regnerus study compared adults raised by a gay or lesbian parent in any family configuration with adults who were raised in stable, heterosexual, two-parent family environments, which may have distorted the outcomes."

So yes, if one decides to create unequal criteria for the two family groups then there will be differences in outcome. Trouble is of course such studies have no acceptable scientific basis.

 

[SirRumpole]

For example the widely quoted Regnerus study compared adults raised by a gay or lesbian parent in any family configuration with adults who were raised in stable, heterosexual, two-parent family environments, which may have distorted the outcomes."

So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?

 

[Value Collector]

Pious followers don't see it like that. To them that wouldn't make sense. It would be like trying to convince Jesus C that his morals need changing. And even the people who break them (both lay people and clergy) often do so thinking they're still good morals worth following.

.

Given that there is over 10,000 denominations Christianity and an equal number of islam, and they all believe different things and have different moral teachings.
I think you will find religions have a long history of changing the rules to suit themselves as they go along.

 

[Value Collector]

So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?

If you are comparing a range of different SS family models, against only one type of heterosexual family the results won't be valid, its a form of cherry picking.

For example if you are excluding the Heterosexual families that are divorced, widowed, estranged or have fly in fly out parents etc etc, and only include those that are "stable" while you are including the SS divorced, widowed, estranged or fly in fly out etc, the results will be flawed.

Any negative correlation seen against the SS families, might not be due to the SS side of things but because of the divorces, deaths, estranged family, etc etc. Which would have also showed up if those factors were not excluded from the Heterosexual side.

 

[Logique]

ABC Q&A covering it tonight 23 October

 

[basilio]

So what is wrong with comparing SS families with the "norm" ie stable, heterosexual, two parent families ?

Really ? How about considering the reverse proposition.

A study of 100 long term stable SS relationships with children versus 100 other relationships with children. But these other relationships encompass single parents, divorced parents, unhappy parents, happy families - the whole spectrum of life as we well know it..

Would you be happy with that study ? Or would it seem unfairly biased in favour of the 100 long term stable SS relationships?

The point of a valid study is keeping the study and control groups as equal as possible with the exception of a single variable. The other 129 studies appeared to do that and came up with equal social, emotional and educational outcomes for childrens. The outlier studies chose to use groups with significant differences in composition.

 

[SirRumpole]

The point of a valid study is keeping the study and control groups as equal as possible with the exception of a single variable. The other 129 studies appeared to do that and came up with equal social, emotional and educational outcomes for childrens. The outlier studies chose to use groups with significant differences in composition.

Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household.

If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual, biological families which are the largest societal group.

 

[Tisme]

Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household.

If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual, biological families which are the largest societal group.

Agreed. Just by people calling it "Gold Standard" in itself tell us we should aspire to the best, not the makedo fallback which brings with it a massive increase in the likelihood of mental and physical abuse, regardless of the gender .

At the moment homosexuals are on their best behaviour to present the best possible case, but even then two women I know really well have had to jettison their make believe husbands with vaginas to protect their biological child from the hysteria, thrown objects and jealousies that seem to invariably erupt on a routine basis. I don't hold out much hope for the third woman who is a family friend also shy of men.

Of course the usual crowd will deny and make excuses for black people in 1930 deep south USA as reason to persevere with the social experiment.

 

[Tisme]

ABC Q&A covering it tonight 23 October

Of course it is. Basic marketing dictates post purchase reinforcement of the purchase decision is vital for continued repeat and word of mouth sales. In this instance a large % of the late majority have been sold a "bill of goods", just as they are likely (pareto percentage) to do when the early adopter phase has passed..

ABC has just got to be an incubator and hatchery for homosexuality given it's in the acting business and a public service. It's in their DNA,

 

[Value Collector]

Well I'm afraid that is a cop out, because the one variable that is never the same in a SS family is that the children will not have two biological parents in the household.

If you want to compare SS with mixed heterosexual families (ie different biological parents), fine that is one outcome, but you can't say that the results then compare with stable, heterosexual , biological families which are the largest societal group.

If you want to prove a link between better upbringings and stable biological families, then you have to isolate as many variables as possible.

you would have to compare "Stable biological families" with "Stable non biological families" only then could you prove that the "Biological relation" element is an important factor.

then if you want to test the SS part.

You would have to compare "stable heterosexual families" with "stable SS families"

if you mix in other family models to one side alone, it gives flawed results, because you don't know where the differences in outcomes are coming from, e.g. is it because of the SSM or just because of the divorces etc.

 

[Tisme]

vs

 

[basilio]

By the way folks you do realise the question survey is about allowing same sex marriages ?

Same sex families are now a given. Same sex couples can and do adopt, foster, and have children. In fact because of that situation there are now hundeds of studies across tens of thousands of gay families that show children raised in this environment are as healthy and balanced as children raised in other family situations. Rejecting the evidence doesn't invalidate the conclusions.

So as far as I can see all this dribble about Same Sex families not being as good for children as the "Gold Standard" is just just a wrong headed attack on these families.

I suppose the logical conclusion of the argument is that children should only be brought up with a "Gold Standard" family. That takes us into all sorts of interesting places doesn't it ? Abolishing the single parents pension ? Taking children away from homes with only one parent perhaps ? Or maybe just having Social Security keep a watchful eye on children in such situations?

And what do we do with the dreaded "de factos "? Are they another "Non Gold Standard" relationship that the State and Church should take an interest in ?

Really there is 50 years of legislations you would have to unwind to get back to the Iconic "Gold Standard/plated" era. And you know what ? It is still a myth .

 

[SirRumpole]

I suppose the logical conclusion of the argument is that children should only be brought up with a "Gold Standard" family. That takes us into all sorts of interesting places doesn't it ? Abolishing the single parents pension ? Taking children away from homes with only one parent perhaps ? Or maybe just having Social Security keep a watchful eye on children in such situations?

Whatever you say about less than Gold Standard, the normal family has children with both their biological parents in the family.

Genetic connection is the strongest biological ties that children have with their parents and vice versa.

Children of others can be loved, but it's not the same. If you can't see that then there is no point trying to explain it, but deep down I think that you and the vast majority of people know that blood is thicker than water.