• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Very interesting. Obviously mom & dad combines both male + female perspective in how to raising a child. Same sex couples cannot do so.

Enlightening how having both mom & dad makes such a big difference for the child's future success and well-being.

A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
by Mark Regnerus

A new academic study based on the Canadian census suggests that a married mom and dad matter for children. Children of same-sex coupled households do not fare as well.

A study published last week in the journal Review of the Economics of the Household—analyzing data from a very large, population-based sample—reveals that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as the children of married, opposite-sex couples. And gender matters, too: girls are more apt to struggle than boys, with daughters of gay parents displaying dramatically low graduation rates.

Unlike US-based studies, this one evaluates a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census, where same-sex couples have had access to all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and to marriage since 2005.

. . . the study is able to compare—side by side—the young-adult children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, as well as children growing up in single-parent homes and other types of households. Three key findings stood out to Allen:

children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.

Employing regression models and series of control variables, Allen concludes that the substandard performance cannot be attributed to lower school attendance or the more modest education of gay or lesbian parents. Indeed, same-sex parents were characterized by higher levels of education, and their children were more likely to be enrolled in school than even those of married, opposite-sex couples. And yet their children are notably more likely to lag in finishing their own schooling.

The same is true of the young-adult children of common law parents, as well as single mothers and single fathers, highlighting how little—when you lean on large, high-quality samples—the data have actually changed over the past few decades. The intact, married mother-and-father household remains the gold standard for children’s progress through school. What is surprising in the Canadian data is the revelation that lesbian couples’ children fared worse, on average, than even those of single parents.

The truly unique aspect of Allen’s study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of same-sex households on children. He writes:

the particular gender mix of a same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child graduation. Consider the case of girls. . . . Regardless of the controls and whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.

Thus although the children of same-sex couples fare worse overall, the disparity is unequally shared, but is instead based on the combination of the gender of child and gender of parents. Boys fare better—that is, they’re more likely to have finished high school—in gay households than in lesbian households. For girls, the opposite is true. Thus the study undermines not only claims about “no differences” but also assertions that moms and dads are interchangeable. They’re not.

Every study has its limitations, and this one does too. It is unable to track the household history of children. Nor is it able to establish the circumstances of the birth of the children whose education is evaluated—that is, were they the product of a heterosexual union, adopted, or born via surrogate or assisted reproductive technology? Finally, the census did not distinguish between married and common law gay and lesbian couples. But couples they are.

Indeed, its limitations are modest in comparison to its remarkable and unique strengths—a rigorous and thorough analysis of a massive, nationally-representative dataset from a country whose government has long affirmed same-sex couples and parenting. It is as close to an ideal test as we’ve seen yet.

Might the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association have been too confident and quick to declare “no differences” in such a new arena of study, one marked by the consistent reliance upon small or nonrandom “convenience” samples? Perhaps. Maybe a married mom and dad do matter, after all.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10996/
 
After reading the actual paper, it turns out that the OP is 100% wrong
1) This study does not distinguish between adopted and non-adopted children. Guess who has more adopted children, heteros or homos? Now Guess which set of children have a significantly higher IQ, adopted or non-adopted?
2) This does not distinguish between disabled and non-disabled children. The adopted children of homosexuals are more than twice as likely to be disabled.
3) The findings show that homosexual men with boys have children that are over 60% more likely to graduate high-school than married heterosexual couples. They also significantly out-paced hetro-sexual common-law couples and single parents

Statistically and scientifically speaking, this research is total bunk.


Same sex couples cannot do so.
Pure ignorance.

There are masculine women and there are feminine men. Would you deny happiness or subject an orphan to a lack of any parents because the married man and women were of equal masculinity/femininity?

Clearly if everything ONLY exists in black and white as you assume it does then this will never happen: but in the real world people are different and your statement requires us to hold pure ignorance of that fact.
 
Last edited:
My Mom and Dad are both married. Mom married a beautiful woman and Dad married a really great guy.

Love 'em all to death.
 
There are masculine women and there are feminine men. Would you deny happiness or subject an orphan to a lack of any parents because the married man and women were of equal masculinity/femininity?

Clearly if everything ONLY exists in black and white as you assume it does then this will never happen: but in the real world people are different and your statement requires us to hold pure ignorance of that fact.

Strawman. Also false equivalence.

Masculine women < > men. Feminine men < > women.

It reflect badly on you when you ignore the main point of post and use of ad hominem based on false equivalence and strawman.
 
Looks like Allen's study is yet another example of how so much money gets wasted on stupid studies.
 
Strawman. Also false equivalence.

Again, this requires that we hold some metaphysical assumption that something about having external genitalia changes who we are fundamentally. Again, this requires pure ignorance of the fact that women can be more manly than some men and men can be more womanly than some women.

Taking the 'average' and applying it to everyone in a group is the definition of stereotyping.


Here's a quote from the study:
"There are a higher number of visible minority children for gay households (28 % compared to 13 % for common law couples), and a higher number of disabled children (13 % compared to 6 % for opposite sex married parents)."

and they found exactly the opposite of your point in this case:

"boys in gay homes are 61 % more likely to graduate compared to boys in opposite sex married homes."

If the theory that it takes a mom and a dad to raise a child properly is correct then it should be un-possible that to gay men could raise a boy better (despite that boy being more than twice as likely to have a disability!)~!

If anything this study supports homosexual marriage and says that gay men do a better job of raising boys than anyone else!

Also: single mothers, single fathers, and common law marriages all fared worse for these boys AND disability was not entered as a control.

But before you make ANY hay out of these findings; the percent of the variance explained by the entire model was only 20%: so it turns out that, as in most sociology and psychology studies, the findings dance on the head of a pin.

It is WELL established that adopted children fair worse than the general population, guess what they DIDN'T control for?
 
Last edited:
I think there is a distinct difference when you hold your own child in your own arms for the first time. The unconditional love of a mother and a father knows no bounds or rival. I dont doubt that gays can be just as loving people as non gay people. It is different to be pregnant for 9 months or live with a pregnant woman for that matter. It takes real love, commitment, and understanding. It is a child not a burden or an entitlement from the government.
 
I think there is a distinct difference when you hold your own child in your own arms for the first time. The unconditional love of a mother and a father knows no bounds or rival. I dont doubt that gays can be just as loving people as non gay people. It is different to be pregnant for 9 months or live with a pregnant woman for that matter. It takes real love, commitment, and understanding. It is a child not a burden or an entitlement from the government.

That's a lovely story about the beauty of motherhood.

But it has nothing to do with the OP, as far as I can tell?
 
Pray to Jesus doesn't like homosexual relationships. We get it. Don't date the same sex buddy. Either that or stop being ignorant and posting this drivel.
 
Dixicrat, you are assuming that our body doesn't affect our perception of the world. You are wrong in that assumption.
 
Last edited:
Liar. How about you stop posting fiction about me.

I don't know about you, but if someone made a claim about my views that I thought was a total fabrication, I'm fairly sure I could find a post I had previously written that quite clearly shows that their claim isn't true. That seems more constructive and argument-ending response than "oh, you're such a liar!".



/ thread
 
Last edited:
The study just hand waves away that it didn't control for adoption. The study also didn't control for married vs cohabitation.

This study is useless as an analysis of whether gay couples should be allow to adopt.

It is also useless overall, as it was impossible within the study period for a child to be born to a gay married couple and then progress through high school. Those kids would be at most 8 years old today. The study would have included a large portion of those kids in the hetero group (kids born to married parents), and I believe this group would have the highest graduation rates of any of the hetero groups.

This study does not compare two comparable groups.
 
When I see a thread like this I do a quick google search. It took less than 5 seconds to realize that the OP was just trying to spout an anti-homosexual agenda rather than discuss the merits of the actual study. As has already been pointed out the study was flawed and what the OP thinks it points out the author denies.

OP if you have strong anti-homosexual feelings then so be it but realize the problem is with you and not them.
 
The second word in the article also raises flags.



A man/woman can not raise a child properly without being married 😕

What does Married have to do with the equation other than imply a non-gay agenda.
The study had an answer and was looking for data to backup that answer.
 
The study just hand waves away that it didn't control for adoption. The study also didn't control for married vs cohabitation.

This study is useless as an analysis of whether gay couples should be allow to adopt.

It is also useless overall, as it was impossible within the study period for a child to be born to a gay married couple and then progress through high school. Those kids would be at most 8 years old today. The study would have included a large portion of those kids in the hetero group (kids born to married parents), and I believe this group would have the highest graduation rates of any of the hetero groups.

This study does not compare two comparable groups.

I agree. There's a lot of problems with this study. TO me, this is the most obvious one.
 
Last edited:
Is this the most obvious mistake of the study?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I may have worded my final statement poorly.

More clearly I could have said "The study compared two groups that had wildly different compositions, and made evaluations based on one of the differences without controlling for the others."

And this would be the most obvious mistake of any study that did the same thing, not just this one.

I think a study like this could have merit (though I don't think the conclusions are necessarily important for determining law) if the proper groups were compared.

One of the biggest debates around gay married is whether married gay couples adopting kids has a positive or negative impact on their lives. We should be able to find 3 groups to compare:

In different age bands (birth years from 90-94, 95-99, 00-05)
A: Newly married couples who adopted kids past 2005
B: Newly married gay couples who adopted kids past 2005
C: Kids of the same age who were not adopted

And compare where there were in their adoptive year to where they are now. Things like school outcomes is a reasonable measure of success, but the study would have to control for extraneous factors that impact the chosen measure of success (such as disabilities, country of origin, parental income, etc.)

That could actually give us some useful information. I think it's likely that Group B fares far better than Group C, but the differences between Groups A and B can still provide information that can help people tackle the challenges involved in raising adopted kids, or point researchers in the direction that more qualitative analysis should be done to determine more specific challenges that can help adoptive parents be successful.
 
As others have said, this "study" doesn't control for nearly enough factors as to make this study meaningful. There are glaringly-obvious omissions that I feel the study didn't take into account because doing so would prove counter to their final argument.

But to the layman watching the news headlines or reading a small news article on the study, the fact that there was a "study" done that says homosexual couples are worse at parenting is probably enough to convince them that such couples are not effective. They may even go so far as to cite this study in a debate. Deeply flawed "studies" such as this can thus be damaging even without having any merit and without even having been read.

I have yet to hear the OP rebut the points of past posters based on the content of the study. I would like to hear the OP or someone defend the study's lack of these critical control groups.
 
OP is presently unable to defend due to an extended vacation for breaking the rules of the Discussion Club

EK
Admin
 
The methodology is irrelevant. It could never have been worth anything. May as well study whether parents who wear hats a lot might have children with lower graduation rates. If they do, then how do we know whether it's because of the hat wearing or some other reason. And if it's definitely the hat wearing then do we ban hat wearers from marrying? Ban hat wearers from adopting?

What's the point of this? Anti same-sex marriage or just anti gay adoption? No, you can't marry who you love, or can but can't raise children, because studies show that children of gay parents don't graduate as often? Should minorities also not be allowed to raise children? Don't they have lower graduation rates than white kids? What about poor people? Assume the OP's results are 100% reliable and accurate. What then?

You don't see same sex parents arguing for more of their kind based on silly studies (which probably exist) purporting to show that children of same-sex couples are more successful than opposite sex parents.

Seems like a pointless study and discussion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top