Quantcast
Family

Studies challenge widely held assumptions about same-sex parenting

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 9, 2012 11:21 p.m.

    If the best we can do is 'god has spoken, and that's how it is', then we've thrown the entire concept of religious freedom out. If that's the case, we've picked winners and losers. And I need you to lose.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2012 11:42 p.m.

    Allen said, as quoted in the article- "Often an area of research starts this way. The problem comes when you try to extrapolate what you find to the broader population. You cannot. It says absolutely nothing about the population of lesbian and gay parents, only about those particular ones."

    I frequently voice concern over everyone accepting the 'inductive leap' and take data from a sample and apply it to everyone- however, in this case there is something else to consider.

    Can we reasonably induce that because '10 gay couples' did this right or wrong, that all will? No, not really. However, we CAN reasonably deduce that 'because a gay agent is intentionally acting in dysfunction of our anatomical design to biologically multiply and replenish the Earth, their rebellion to the most basic law of the existence of mankind disqualifies them from being able to adequately parent.'

    Will they teach their children to be straight, gay, or 'do whatever you want?' In what universe does such relativism thrive or even survive? Adequate child development can't foster from a relativist parent teaching "forget the design of your body and reject ANY morality or philosophy that disagrees- just do whatever you want."

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 9, 2012 11:46 p.m.

    I noticed that the story focused a lot on the "biological" aspect - how does this translate into outcomes for children that are adopted or conceived with donor sperm or eggs? Does just one parent need to be biological or both?

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 10, 2012 12:14 a.m.

    VOR,

    Your statement that parents will teach kids to be gay, straight, etc. is ridiculous. First, we know that such thoughts and feelings are not taught; if they were I doubt the many LDS who have them would choose to continue having them... for some reason I don't think they relish or enjoy the hate and vilifying they suffer at the hands of bigots.

    For the record, we teach children from an early age what their gender is: blue is for boys, pink for girls; boys play with trucks, girls with dolls; boys play football, girls cheerlead, etc. Who's to say that these are appropriate? If a girl wants to wrestle or a boy participate in ballet, is it wrong? The answer should be no, but unfortunately society at large is still too bigoted to accept differences in what we have been told is the role of a boy or a girl.

    To summarize my point, to think that gay parents are teaching children to be gay just simply can't be proven, while the fact that straight, gay, etc. parents alike seem to continue to assign bigoted gender roles without much concern.

  • DistantThunder Vincentown, NJ
    June 10, 2012 1:19 a.m.

    Typically in a health,y functional loving home, children learn to IDENTIFY with the same sex parents, and learn to RELATE to the opposite sex parent. Changing this socialization process invites dysfunction.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    June 10, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    It is an interesting study and I appreciate the author of the study stating that he hopes it will not be used for political arguments. A couple of points - Just as same-sex couples show similar traits to single and step families, we need to bear in mind that this should not preclude same-sex couples from having families. In many cases, male and female, one partner is the biological parent of the child often conceived from a prior relationship. Certainly, like the single (in particular, widowed) and step parent families, these children belong with their parents, however that situation arose.

    Secondly, the social stigma factor may have been contributory (and was not analyzed, as mentioned). Given gay acceptance is relatively new, we should look at future studies in a generation or two and compare. This is similar to inter-racial marriages in the 1950's. Those, too, suffered social stigma then but, over time, mostly has improved. As society evolves, same-sex marriages and families should become as mainstream as inter-racial and inter-faith marriages are today. Let's see these studies in another 25 years.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    June 10, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    Once again public policy has been based upon wishful thinking and power politics (do it our way regardless of the facts or we'll publicly ridicule you)rather than the facts.

    We have 2,000 years and more of studying biological parent families. Many decades of tracking the effects of a single mother. We're only into the first generation of gay/lesbian "families". Yet our legislators bend to the pressure groups and do what they want rather than doing what is good.

    Now the preliminary evidence is coming out. Watch how it will be rationalized away rather than regarded. Watch how the authors of the study will be personally attacked for not speaking the politically correct dogma. Watch how "facts" and "evidence" will once again be shunted aside for political purposes.

    Even though there has never been any scientific evidence of a "gay gene" it hasn't stopped advocates of claiming "gay isn't a choice -- I was born this way." No evidence. Just conjecture.

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    June 10, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    Can a gay parent teach a child to be gay? Again, total lack of time-tested evidence is lacking so we can only refer to logic. If one is "born gay", then, no, one cannot be taught. BUT, there is no scientific evidence that gay is a biological condition. There is more evidence "effeminate" behavior is biological, though much is yet to be discovered -- too much to base any politics on it. But... to be effeminate is NOT the same as gay -- there is plenty of evidence of straight men who are effeminate and are constantly harassed by gay men trying to pick them up.

    So what if there is no evidence of a gay gene? Well, if there is no evidence as Time Magazine stated last year quoting leading scientists, then the only choice left is -- it is environmentally affected. Meaning, it is a choice and a learned behavior. If it is a learned behavior than a gay parent can influence, teach, a child to be gay.

    Facts are stubborn things.

  • OthersShoes SILVER SPRING, MD
    June 10, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    Its an interesting view into another study that exhibits bad science; I believe the study suggesting no bias against same-sex parents and this particular study are both poorly controlled. The fact of the matter is that there are far too many other power variables at play here, namely level of education and income of the parents. Its really too difficult to sample a novel concept and be able to draw comparisons against such a massive tradition as the nuclear family. Both studies are incredibly vulnerable into playing into their own biases.

    On the political side of this: studies (that are nearly irrefutable) consistently demonstrate the myriad problems of children whose parents have gone through divorce. Yet, divorce, which is also against biblical teachings, is still legal.

    My point is I suppose, that no matter what lens you peer into these issues with, there will always be a substantive argument from progressive's appealing for certain inalienable, civil rights. The use of religion against same-sex marriage will never be adequate if we are to believe that governmental institutions protect against religious biases.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    June 10, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    As long as America has religious freedom you can still act the way you think is best. However God has given us directions. And as it was stated by bribri86, if we obey we will always be right. There is more to life than this
    existance. We will never be sorry by doing what the Lord says.

  • Jared Average, SE
    June 10, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    ChuckGG, comparing same-sex marriages to inter-racial marriages is not valid. Yes, there was considerable stigma against inter-racial marriages (and there is still much of it all around the world from people of all races - this stigma has been stronger and weaker over time, depending on cultural values) but there is a fundamental difference in inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a fundamental shift in the definition of marriage. This shift should not be taken lightly. We know dual-parent households work - this has been the foundation of civilizations for thousands and thousands of years (I'm not ignoring the long history of polygyny throughout the world but there's a 200 word limit). You conclude from the study that "[the results] should not preclude same-sex couples from having families" - if that is true then the opposite is also true - the results should not encourage same-sex couple to have families because we don't know what the outcome will be 25 years down the road. Are we willing to see what happens when the foundation of society is changed? Frequent divorces have had large enough changes already; do we need more?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    June 10, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    Seems to me their are ample children raised by Hetero-sexual couples that are "bad apples." Seems like parenting style has just as much to do with who is raising the kids.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    Claudio,

    My statement about teaching was not 'about teaching' but 'about morality and relativism'. And holding that opinion is something that several philosophers have held and rationally argued for thousands of years. Call it what you like, but there is no logic in calling it ridiculous. This is the problem with relativism. Those who reject moral standards of any kind in favor of 'living the lifestyle' they want are favoring impulse over reason.

    Attraction is something we all have. I'm find certain types of blonde and brunette hair attractive. If I governed myself purely on my feelings, natural or not, I would sleep with every attractive person I could seduce. There is no morality in that! I say nothing about gay attraction, but only the human anatomical system that is biologically designed to function for multiplying and replenishing the Earth. People call my opinion bigotry, I call it reason- and reason that has worked fairly well for quite some time. Gay attraction is nothing to feel guilty for, but acting against the basic laws of humanity disqualifies not their ability, but their willingness to teach children true principles of governance and morality. They choose to be unfit 'parents'.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    June 10, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    Jared, I think the comparison between SSM and inter-racial marriage is fair. One of the points often lost with those who are against SSM is that these families already exist, and have existed, for generations. The only difference is that with secular SSM there would be legal recognition of SSM. However, whether SSM passes or fails nationally will little change the existence or number of these families. The only difference will be whether they gain all the legal rights now inherent in traditional marriage.

    We could talk about the religious aspects of marriage but as secular marriage has nothing to do with sectarian marriage, it really is a moot point. Legal or not, churches may continue to refrain from performing SSMs. It's up to them.

    I also believe that you are implying something could/should be done to prevent SSM families or children being raised by SS couples. That ship has sailed. I would not worry about the "foundation of society" when the numbers of families are infinitesimal relative to straight families. SSM and families are a blip on the radar screen but still deserving of SSM legal protections.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 10, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    "So what if there is no evidence of a gay gene? Well, if there is no evidence as Time Magazine stated last year quoting leading scientists, then the only choice left is -- it is environmentally affected. Meaning, it is a choice and a learned behavior. "..so because no one had proved the earth was round until..it must have been flat for all those centuries.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 10, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    "So what if there is no evidence of a gay gene? Well, if there is no evidence as Time Magazine stated last year quoting leading scientists, then the only choice left is -- it is environmentally affected. Meaning, it is a choice and a learned behavior."

    As many as 16 different genes work together to determine your eye color. So are you saying that because there is no singular "eye color" gene that eye color is therefore not genetic? How absurd! Just because there isn't a singular "gay gene" does NOT mean that it can automatically be ruled to be not-genetic.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 10, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    If children did NOT do better in a traditional marriage that would be surprising. Based on thousands of years of human development we are probably hard-wired to develop social skills observing and participating in the yin-yang balance of a father and mother.

    Although I agree that marriage is important I cringe a little when someone says that marriage is the basis of civilization and this is something that has been going on for 5000 years. Marriage predates that. Stone-age societies that would be normally be labelled as 'uncivilized' also recognizing that fathers and mothers are equal partners that bring different benefits to the rearing of children.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 10, 2012 9:37 a.m.

    I have access to the journal and took the time to go through the articles and responses. I think the Deseret News' coverage would have been more accurate if they had quoted from pages 771–774 in which Dr. Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University states:

    "Some observers may believe that the findings from the Regnerus study have implications for issues such as child custody, adoption, and same-sex marriage. Readers should be cautious, however, before deriving policy implications from these findings."

    Dr. Amato goes on to say "Social science has produced a long list of parental characteristics that are statistically associated with children’s development and well-being, including personality traits, cognitive ability, education, earnings, mental health, child-rearing philosophies, and parenting skills. But we do not restrict the right to marry and raise children on the basis of any of these characteristics."

    Other than that I commend the Deseret News for trying at least to present the author's work honestly and accurately.

  • John Harrison Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    A number of factors stand out here that might affect the outcomes as much or more than the sexual inclinations of parents.

    One is that the comparison wasn't made to adopted children.

    Another is that poverty doesn't seem to be well controlled for from the welfare numbers.

    Most striking are the numbers on abuse. Being an abuse victim could be the causation of a number of these findings. Why are children of lesbian mothers so much more likely to be victims of abuse? Is this a sampling error? The way the data is presented masks if the parents did it, so it is hard to blame the parents.

    It will be interesting to see if the Deseret News gives as much attention to follow up studies that rip this one to shreds. I expect the soon after the raw data is published on Monday serious flaws will be found. But good for the authors for publishing their data. That is courageous.

  • aminahyaquin GALLIPOLIS FERRY, WV
    June 10, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    A variety of experiences need to be factored into any accurate study of children's outcomes with parenting being closely examine. The most important, in terms of outcomes, is if, and how early they were farmed out into factory farm daycares.

    There may well be a corollary between the fact that many traditional families have a stay at home parent, at least for the kids' earliest years, and the less than stellar outcomes of kids impacted by the abysmally shrinking age at which so many children are left in congregate care settings.

    That may be the common denominator between lesbian moms and single parents--a reliance on daycare, which is ultimately not optimal for the child in most cases. Rich parents have au pairs and governesses, and usually no other kids in the home but family, so socio-economic factors that add a layer of attention paid to a family's children are also important. Some poorer families have extended family that help, and the quality of that parenting can be superior. The children of gays are often bullied so this is also a factor.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 10, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    What a surprise! Studies validate what civlization has known for thousands of years. Traditional marriage and families are better for raising children. Everyone knows this. It is only those who want to indulge their unnatural urges that try to assert otherwise. There is NO evidence that "gayness" is genetic or biological. It is a learned behavior. This sort of behavior destroys civilizations. That is not speculation. It is history.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    I certainly appreciate and encourage this type of research. Looking at this from an LDS perspective, I would note that in 1832 the prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation indicating that both tobacco and alcoholic drinks should be avoided. Not long ago, tobacco companies were maintaining that there was no scientific evidence that tobacco use was harmful. Now, essentially everyone is on the stop smoking, stop chewing bandwagon for reasons that are now obvious.
    Regarding alcoholic drinks, I recently read an article in a national magazine indicating that there are approximately 20 million problem drinkers in the U.S. If we assume that each of those people negatively affect five other people (probably a conservative number), then about 1/3 of the U.S. population is negatively affected by alcohol consumption.
    I have seen tragic results of both alcohol and tobacco use in my own family.
    A recent statement from our LDS leaders indicates that homosexuality is a serious sin. Considering the above, I would boldly suggest that we take notice of that statement as we also consider the results of the research.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    As a clarification of my earlier post, I want to make it clear that I understand and accept the fact that the LDS church does not condemn homosexual feelings or desires. Acting on those feelings is a different matter.
    I personally have great empathy for people who have these feelings and desires. I simply suggest that acting on those desires is to be avoided, just as acting on a desire for intimacy with ANYONE but our husband or wife is to be avoided.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 10, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    ChuckGG, The comparison of same sex "marriage" to inter-racial marriage is absurd !An inter-racial marriage is a real marriage i.e. a union between a biological man and a biological woman.Racial differences are superficial and in no way prevent the normal biological production of healthy fertile children.They are likewise nothing new one need only look at the populations of places like Latin America and Sudan to see that such unions have been around for centuries if not millennia!

    Same sex "marriage"on the other hand is merely a recent invention and parody of real marriage.A person's biological gender is not a superficial trait like skin color or hair texture but a foundational determinant of who they are. Individuals of the same sex were not designed to become one and are completely incapable themselves of producing offspring of any sort.

  • bountifulmomofsix BOUNTIFUL, UT
    June 10, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    The statistics for LB children being touched in a sexual way by a parent and forced to have sex are heartbreaking! After scanning the statistics, I couldn't bring myself to read the article.

  • EvenLogic Smithfield, UT
    June 10, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    I was going to say a lot of stuff and erased it all in favor of just supporting what Utah Businessman said. Well put.

  • BlueEyesBrittany Paris, 00
    June 10, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    I was raised in an heterosexual famitly and i have suffered much because of the horrible things or lack of things that my dad, who was an heterosexual man, did.

    I also know homosexual men who are the sweetest people i have come across and i know many heterosexual men who are the worse people there are, so much so that just seeing them make me cringe inside. t ...... so i would never share your view that one person raised in a heterosexual family can find joy or less joy than one raised in a homosexual one..

    Sorry about this ....

    I have also met awfully nice men that any woman would want for a husband or children for a father ..... some of them were mormons...

    So dont ask me to condemn the homosexual on a wholescale because i never will

    Because i have sometimes received more love and kindness and human understanding from homosexuals than i have from heterosexual ...

    Just my point of view

  • BlueEyesBrittany Paris, 00
    June 10, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    So many children are abused in heterosexual families that i think if is really unfair and unrealistic to say that children raised in heterosexual families fare better than their counterparts who are raised in homosexual family.

    As a woman, i find being friends with homosexuals sometimes most safe than being friends with heterosexuals...

    Though some very good heterosexual men too ...

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    June 10, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    I think it is interesting that those who virulently discredit surveys do it simply because they don't agree with it. Of course the survey is not perfect, but it does go against widely held beliefs (outside of Utah at least) that kids of gay couples are just as well adjusted as kids of hetero couples.

    Still (and excuse the side note), I believe all kids should have full legal rights whether the parents are straight, gay, or even in a polygamous relationship.

  • EvenLogic Smithfield, UT
    June 10, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    BlueEyes- You just made a perfect example expressed in the journal of "convenience" or "snowball" studies.

  • aminahyaquin GALLIPOLIS FERRY, WV
    June 10, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    What strikes me as suspicious is the "explaining away" of how two parents who are gay and male, look like better parents that heterosexual couples. I find this likely to be true, and the fact that the researchers could not seem to find sufficient numbers of gay male parenting couples to study is just plain odd, in my opinion.
    Do more gay men couples than lesbian couples have a partner in the home, just like more traditional families do? From the strata of gay male couples with whom i am familiar, the longevity of their relationships most often surpasses that of my straight friends, families and acquaintances. So stability would be likely to be a factor of strength in gay male relationships, and that i think is something that can be seen when one looks at the very large numbers of gay male(and some lesbian) couples in New York City and elsewhere who brilliantly, lovingly and bravely parented AIDS children with almost incandescent love, during the epidemic's 100% fatality period in the 1990s

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    A voice of Reason:
    [However, we CAN reasonably deduce that 'because a gay agent is intentionally acting in dysfunction of our anatomical design to biologically multiply and replenish the Earth, their rebellion to the most basic law of the existence of mankind disqualifies them from being able to adequately parent.']

    No. This is probably the single most asinine comment on this thread, all the more because it attempts to pass itself off as intelligent.

    To put it simply, you're saying that because they don't breed they can't be expected raise children?

    In which case, your comment has no basis in reality. Stop trying to use rhetoric to pass off your dogma as "reason".

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    So we're comparing lesbian mother (single parent who may or may not be dating/co-habiting/in relationship) with two parent households? Seems like a not totally equivalent comparison.

    Either way even if the study is right and kids do better in "intact mixed-gender parent households" does it matter? Children of divorced parents do worse on average. Should I have been taken away from my parents because they got divorced? Children of poor parents do worse on average. Should we oppose poor people having kids? Children of black parents do worse on average. Should we oppose black people having kids? Why is it okay to apply this standard to only one group?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 10, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    This whole discussion seems very convaluted and nonsensical. If we know the basic parental behaviors that seem to porduce healthy happy children, then why don't they just study single sex parents that display those characteristics and see if their children are as likely to be healthy and happy as herotsexual parents. If not, then gayness may have some bearing, if so then, unhealthy children from same sex couples are being affected by indiviual skills and not sexual orientation, and that is a much bigger issue (you don't need, any training or license to be a parent).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    A voice of Reason:
    [However, we CAN reasonably deduce that 'because a gay agent is intentionally acting in dysfunction of our anatomical design to biologically multiply and replenish the Earth, their rebellion to the most basic law of the existence of mankind disqualifies them from being able to adequately parent.']

    I don't know about you, but I don't measure the worth of my life in terms of how much sex I have or how many kids I have (probably a good thing since I have none of either haha). Besides, we have 7 billion people, we really don't need more multiplying. Havent' we seen all those articles here about water in this state? Goodness, we're having issues with half a bad year following one of the best years; what're we going to do when it's 30 years in the future, Utah has at least another half a million people, other states want more water, and we end up with two bad years in a row after an average year?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    On account of people complaining about bias- It may appear to be biased to only show data promoting traditional marriage. But that is no less logical than if I were biased in only showing data promoting happiness.

    On account of the use of this data- Some say we shouldn't argue policy off of incomplete data, but this is a rejection of an objective truth we all know- There is no such thing as complete data.

    Those who reject religion argue that only secular arguments be allowed- arguments based on incomplete observations of the picture of life. However, the observable universe is in a state of never-ending flux. I see one thing today, you see something else in the same place tomorrow. It's irrational that the anti-religious only want objective observations to govern us. Why? Because objective observations account for a small fraction of the human experience compared to subjective experiences.

    This is why democracy should welcome all opinions including those about subjective religious experiences. The problem is that relativists reject anyone else's experience and any objective observations made by those who disagree. Relativism only favors being a law unto one's self.

  • vdubbin' Ogden, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    From reading the comments here I am terrified that the demographics of Utah are changing. There was a time when there was never any question as to whether or not "normal" (and I use that phrase intentionally over "traditional" or "heterosexual") parents were better suited to raise children. Now, it looks as though we are evenly split on the subject. Heaven forbid Utah turn into another California or New York, where we go out of our way to include and even champion deviancy at the cost of the things we once held to be absolutely true...

  • Al Thepal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    I am not surprised at all about the results of this study and I dare say it will always be this way. Same gender parents is unnatural. It is not the way God intended His children to be raised while in their mortal life. Even if you don't believe in God, it was most definitely not the way nature intended either.

    The best way for a child to be raised is with both biological parents staying together. Other studies have shown that it is even better if the parents are married. It seems like common sense to me, but sadly many don't see it. Unfortunately in this imperfect world not everyone gets to be raised by both or even one of their biological parents. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to decrease the frequency of the less effective ways children are raised (including being raised by same gender parents).

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    June 10, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    The control group for the study was "intact biological families". I didn't grow up in one of those, and yet my parents weren't gay. Anecdotally, I have two separate friends who were partly raised by homosexual parents and their partners. However, those children were the actual biological children of of the parents. In both cases the homosexual parents were priorly married in a Mormon heterosexual marriage, had children, and later split. If this is representative of the kind of family that makes up the population for the homosexual study group, then I think it is fair to say that there are more variables at play than just "homosexual parents".

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    Mukkake,

    I didn't say that because they don't breed, but because they WON'T breed. I clarified this for you, yet you resort to labeling my words as asinine instead of producing a counter-argument based in reason.

    If a man lost the function of his arm, as a member of my family did- they could still easily be qualified to be a virtuous teacher of the telos of the human body. However, if a man with a completely functional body decided to never use it, never lift a finger, never exercise their designed abilities- then it more than reasonable to claim that their rejection of their own design disqualifies them from teaching others about the telos of their own body. I'd even question such a persons mental health for making such a blunt rejection of the reality given them.

    Some couples choose not to procreate. I still believe in multiplying and replenishing the Earth, so I do not justify them either, neither life-long celibacy- But that doesn't disprove that the state we govern or society or morality isn't required to accept them. Even then, their parenting qualifications are not in question, gays are.

  • AggieScientist Logan, UT
    June 10, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    It seems to me that the researcher compared apples and oranges: adult children from "Intact Biological Families" are compared with adult children from “Families that Have Mothers or Fathers Who Have Had at Least One Gay Romance of Indeterminate Length.”

    Why is this a problem? Here is an example: If I were to conduct a study of adults who were raised in two different religions would it be fair to compare children who were raised in Catholic households, that were Catholic for the entirety of their childhoods, with children who were raised in households that may have been, even for the briefest time, members of the LDS Church?

    You would probably say that was unfair. That the proper comparison would be between children raised in a Catholic home for the entirety of their childhood with children who were raised in an LDS household for the entirety of their childhood.

    Unfortunately, this study in largely invalidated because it makes an unfair comparison.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    June 10, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    With as many dead-beat parents as there are out in the world today, including the majority of those coming from "traditional" marriages, any gay couple who volunterily takes on the enormous task of raising a child, gets a big God Bless You from me.

    The world could use many more couples just like them.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 10, 2012 4:15 p.m.

    Re:atl134

    Good points

    Studies show more children die in homes where there are firearms. Should we prohibit gun owners from raising children?

    The study provides no answers really. Obviously more research needs to be done. But it is safe to say, there are plenty of dysfunctional, damaged adults and children who were raised by heterosexual parents.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 10, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    What is the meaning of "takes a Village" to raise a child?

    Let's think a little bit:

    What if a child have a set of parents of the same sex. Parents who provide material, emotional and spiritual support.

    What if another child have a set of parents of the opposite sex. Parents who provide material, emotional and spiritual support.

    These two children go to the same school, frequent the same church, let say the LDS church. Live in the same neighborhood.

    Do we expect these two children to grow with the same self confidence and outlook to life?

    The result may be different, not because of the parents but because of the cultural gap outside the home.

    As always I am surprised of those in this paper who claim to know God. However, they preach doom, fear and destruction.

    My heavenly father, the one I met through the LDS Church is a God of love, not limited by fears or the bigotry of men. He loves all his children and wants for all of them to be happy.

    Many, many of them find Happiness in a same sex relationship who is blessed by God directly in their homes.

  • my slc Newport Beach, CA
    June 10, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    Utah Businessman:

    I am legally married in California, 2008. Six states (CT, IA, MA, NH, NY, and VT) plus the DC also recognize legal gay marriage. Over 35% of Americans live in states that recognize gay marriage or strong civil unions.

    This issue is not going to go away. It will happen in out life times, and much sooner (3-5 years) I believe.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2012 5:34 p.m.

    The study said that the differences might be due to societal bigotry. Logical. Also, the lack of committed relationships. If gays were allowed marriage, they would have stronger/committed families. Let's help these kids by strengthening their families through marriage.

    This was front page news due to the DN's war against SSM. Too bad the kids of SS families suffer colatteral damage from this. DN needs to remember that gays will always have kids so whether or not SS families are equally good doesn't matter. As stated, kids from uneducated homes or where English isn't spoken likewise fare poorer. The Christ-like thing is to help those kids who need help to thrive rather than denying them the legal protections they and their parents need.

    The DN forgets that marriage isn't about having kids. If it was, the elderly, the infertile/sterile and death row inmates would be denied marriage. If raising kids in less than ideal environments disqualify couples from marriage, then the poor, those with limited English skills, the uneducated, etc...should likewise be excluded.

    I wish people would be logically consistent and more Christ-like on this topic.

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    June 10, 2012 7:26 p.m.

    I'm amazed sometimes at some of the research I see being done out there, presumably on the public's dime, to reach conclusions that we all already know. Let me guess next you are going to write an article about research done showing single parent children have different experiences from two parent children.

    The conclusions of this research are NOT what is being debated in the same sex arena. The question is whether in spite of these conclusions same sex couple should be allowed to adopt and raise children. Divorced parents, single parents, parents on welfare, immigrant parents (legal or illegal), city parents, rural parents, double income parents, etc., all raise children differently (generally speaking) from each other, yet we have been able to come to the conclusion that it is still ok for all of these groups to raise children.

    If you want to do some worthwhile research, compare the differences between single parent homes and gay parent homes and see which is "better" for the child. Since it's the latter, should we then not allow single parents to exist???

  • Swedish reader Stockholm, Sweden
    June 11, 2012 6:03 a.m.

    The only (more or less) fair comparison would be between children raised their entire childhood by their biological parents in an intact relationship (without problems such as abuse), children raised their entire childhood by same sex parents in an intact relationship (without the abovementioned problems) and children raised their entire childhood by adoptive parents in an intact relationship (without the abovementioned problems). All these children would have stability, and the only factors that could affect them differently would be a) whether their parents are their biological parents and b) whether their parents are straight or gay. I'd be interested to know the result - and I'd be aware that individual personalities in parents and children could still affect the outcome. Still, this study shows an interesting tendency that should be further investigated.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    June 11, 2012 7:09 a.m.

    The problem with this study is that it presents statistical information that runs contrary to many prevailing opinion makers.

  • qapilot Orem, UT
    June 11, 2012 7:11 a.m.

    There is so much yet to be learned about the science of all of this. However, there are some obvious truths one does not need a scholarly study to discover that are being ignored by the media:

    Men and women are different. That's just how it is. Children thrive on those differences. Two gay male fathers cannot provide for a daughter what a woman can: a mother! How can a man, even a gay man, possibly help a girl through the unique feelings girls and women experience? Through her first period? How can a lesbian couple possibly fill a girl's early biological need for acceptance and love from a male (her father)? Boys, likewise, need a mother to provide compassion and nurturing, and a father to encourage independence and show him what it means to be a man. Men and women, despite best intentions and great capacity for love, cannot substitute for each other. To dismiss the unique value of a mother or a father is the height of arrogance. Parenting is not an individual pursuit. It is an amazing partnership where the pair is greater than the sum of its parts.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 11, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    Consider this scenario. There are two families who live next door to each other. Both families have three children of similar ages.

    The children in the first house have friends over all the time. Children from the neighborhood and school flock to this house to play in the yard, watch movies with the kids, and sometimes even have dinner. The kids all seem to have plenty of friends, and the adults in the neighborhood seem to love and respect this family.

    The children in the second house, however, don't seem to have many friends. If they do spend time with other kids, it's usually not at their house. The neighborhood kids, in fact, aren't allowed to play at that house because the parents are homosexual. The other parents don't want their children to play in a home where something like that happens.

    What environmental factors could play into the children's emotional and social development in this story?

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 11, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    Liberals say "I told you so" when studies support their opinion. When it doesn't... they question the integrity of the info... even when the study is conducted under the same level of standards or higher than the studies they loved.

    I don't really care what studies say. You can look at numbers all day, but if you don't go outside you won't see the world very clearly. I know from first hand experience that homosexuality is a sin, is wrong, and damages lives. And if you think I'm ignorant just cause I ignore numbers, think about the fact that tomorrow another guy with numbers will say the opposite thing, and the next day the opposite again.

    Marriage is between a guys and gals. That's the way God made it. That's what we owe children.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 11, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    @RockOn;

    Yes, facts ARE a stubborn thing. In the relatively few years that scientists have been studying genes, out of over 2 BILLION, they've found the funcationality of a handful. Just because they haven't identified a "gay gene" or combination of genes yet, doesn't mean they won't. They have MILLIONS of genes to analyze yet. There's a FACT you conveniently ignore.

    @Abinadis friend;

    You will ONLY "always be right" by obedience to god IF your god is real; otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

    @VOR;

    I'm NOT rejecting "moral standards". I'm rejecting YOUR version of "moral standards".

    All;

    Traditionally, over all these 1000's of years you're discussing; the "family" model included THE ENTIRE CLAN, not just a mommy and a daddy.

    @Utah Businessman:

    Anybody who claims to have "great empathy" for gays, and then expects them to live celibate, sterile lives, is lying to themselves; they have no empathy.

  • 5 Orem, UT
    June 11, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    According to a study by a Jewish Rabbi and a Protestant Minister the only time in the history of the earth that civil authority of a culture sanctioned and supported gay unions was prior to the flood. Most societies have tolerated it, most notably the Romans and Greeks, but they didn't formally sanction and support it. The authors of the sudy postulate that was the reason God determined that children born at that time had no chance to choose right from wrong, therefore God destroyed civilization and started over.Do we face a similar fate, that is total distruction of our society by some catastrophic means?

  • georgeman Kearns, UT
    June 11, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    I remember when there were studies being done about single parent families and how that would affect children growing up. Single parents were all over the media showing how well adjusted their kids were, and how one parent can do jsut as well as two. Now after many decades of one parent running out on another and divorce becomming commonplace, we are seeing the consequences of single parenting.

    If history teaches us one thing, it is that we make choices now that we think are okay, but the outcomes won't be realized until we are too deep into it to change back.

    When the taboos of the past become commonplace, the taboos of the future will be what was commonplace in the past.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 11, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    @5;

    So the flood was the fault of "the gays"? Good grief, and I thought people couldn't possibly be any more ignorant than they currently are.

    ---
    There are numerous studies that show that children of same-sex couples are as well adjusted as children of heterosexual couples. Where are the notations for these studies DN? They don't fit your agenda so you ignore them completely.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 11, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    I am well-aware that many of you do NOT believe in prophets and apostles. I cannot and will not force you to believe as I do. My point is that you would do well to begin to believe. Truly, the fate of the human race depends on that belief and obedience. I know I'm not being strictly scientific about it, but I have have seen enough of the *substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen* (see Hebrews 11:1) to be really concerned for humankind (us). I urge you to accept the testimonies of Prophets and Apostles; both in your own personal lives and as a society. They are true.

  • Cate SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 11, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    In my many years of teaching, I have had the opportunity to work with a number of same-sex parents, as well as various other parenting situations, such as a child being raised by a grandparent alone . I have found the same loving commitment and caring from almost all of these unconventional parents as I have found among traditional parents. As a teacher, I have observed that good parenting depends very much on the character and commitment of the parents, and not on their sexual orientation. We welcome gay couples in our church at HUCC, and have found them to wonderful additions to our faith community. These articles in the DN, which seem to have an agenda, seem to be in the face of great parents right in our community who are doing a great job, and their wonderful children. These families matter to me just as much as the many other families of our neigborhoods and communities. I have seen close up the good work of same-sex couples at both school and church.

  • aminahyaquin GALLIPOLIS FERRY, WV
    June 11, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    IMO, irrespective of parental gender, until we examine the CONVERGENCE of risk factors for children, do more to make daycare SMALL and better settings, stop encouraging the parents of very young children to work, help families support themselves on a single ordinary wage instead of needing to work multiple jobs to provide "success" almost exclusively measured by money in this newly hyper-materialistic society, kids will not be best started.

    Our culture used to inculcate happiness through family and friends as the primary extrinsic motivators (and God) and the intrinsic motivators of being a decent and capable, responsible individual who cares for others and helps community (replaced now by the desire to make money at any cost in any way no matter who is hurt, and bribing ones children with fancy material crap); until we reward content of character instead of wealth as displayed via celebrity entitlement, than i personally think the outcomes for far too many precious children will be tawdry and shabby no matter what they self-report.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 11, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    @very concerned;

    Again I say: Good Grief!

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    June 11, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    @ Ranch Hand
    "Anybody who claims to have "great empathy" for gays, and then expects them to live celibate, sterile lives, is lying to themselves; they have no empathy"

    So, are you saying that, if someone has a great desire to have intimicy with my wife and he is not allowed to do that, then I expect him to "live a celibate, sterile life"? Of course, we both know the answer to that is "no"; we expect him to find another way to be fulfilled. My belief is that so-called "gays" are in basically the same situation. Just as the man who might feel a strong desire to have intimicy with my wife needs to find another way to be fulfilled, I believe that "gays" (at least the vast majority of them), through controlling their same-sex urges, can find much more fulfillment in normal, heterosexual relationships than they could in following their "same-sex" urges. I also recognize that ititially that may be very difficult, just as many things that I need to do are also difficult, but the extra effort eventually bears "sweet fruit".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 11, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    I wonder....

    Just how many Gay people were raised by Hetero-sexuals?

    Somehow - I think that study would clearly show Hetero-sexuals raise kids to be gay.

    You can twist numbers and studies to fit any agenda.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    June 11, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    The literature on the influence of same sex parenting on children will continue to shake out over the next several years. There may be studies that find "differences". That should hardly be surprising. It will also be less than surprising that studies find that many forms of "parenting" result in worse outcomes than same-sex marriages.

    None of these can possibly be used to support a continued ban on same sex marriage. The law cannot be used to discriminate against "sub-optimal" forms of relationships, behaviors, or human rights.

    I mean, after all, it is still legal to be a member of the Republican Party, and we have evidence that only "sub-optimal" people choose that political affiliation (see "Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact" by Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri, 2011).

  • Vegas Las Vegas, NV
    June 11, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    An interesting statistic:

    - 26% of American adolescents report being subject to physical abuse by one or both parents
    - 0% (yes zero) of American adolescents raised by lesbian parents report being physically abused.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 11, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    @Utah Businessman;

    Since you've never been gay, your comment that we can " fulfillment in normal, heterosexual relationships..." is completely irrational. Anyway, WHY SHOULD WE!

    Your comparison to someone wanting to have sexual intercourse with YOUR wife is also inappropriate. We AREN'T LUSTING AFTER SOMEONE ELSE'S SPOUSE. We desire marriage to the person WE love, not the one you love.

    You've just demonstrated with your comment that you truly have NO EMPATHY for gays. None whatsoever and you're kidding yourself (I'm being kind here) when you tell yourself otherwise.

    I'll tell you something. I spent 30+ years trying to "find fulfillment in a heterosexual manner". It DOES NOT WORK! I've LIVED it, you haven't. I have EXPERIENCE in this area, you do not. And it's truly evil to try to pawn us off on some poor heterosexual woman.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 11:57 a.m.

    @A voice of Reason: " However, we CAN reasonably deduce that 'because a gay agent is intentionally acting in dysfunction of our anatomical design to biologically multiply and replenish the Earth, their rebellion to the most basic law of the existence of mankind disqualifies them from being able to adequately parent.'"

    Basically, I agree with your statement. However, gay agents will vehemently deny that their slant on sexuality is dysfunctional. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that they are acting contrary to their anatomical design. But, they believe the way they are is the way god made them and they can do little or nothing about it.

    My own view is that god had nothing to do with how they are. How 'they are is basically how they were raised (treated) in their formative years. Treated either by their parents or neighborhood 'friends' or both.

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    @RanchHand,

    "Just because they haven't identified a "gay gene" or combination of genes yet, doesn't mean they won't."

    Nor does it mean they will.

    "I'm NOT rejecting "moral standards". I'm rejecting YOUR version of "moral standards"

    And I'm rejecting your version.

    Unless your stance is to get marriage out of government altogether or to accept any form of marriage (including incest and self-marriage), your stance is to establish your own moral standard into the government.

    Again, I'm rejecting your moral standards.

    "Anybody who claims to have "great empathy" for gays, and then expects them to live celibate, sterile lives, is lying to themselves; they have no empathy"

    So without sex you can't be happy? Saying I can't feel for someone because I have a moral belief is about as ridiculous as anything I've ever heard. That wouldn't last very long in a real debate.

    "I have EXPERIENCE in this area, you do not."

    So LDS therapists have no experience? No good standing members once practiced gay acts? No, the truth is that each of your posts increasingly proves (being kind here) your arguments are ones that are irrational.

  • Neanderthal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    @Claudio: "For the record, we teach children from an early age what their gender is: blue is for boys, pink for girls; boys play with trucks, girls with dolls; boys play football, girls cheer lead, etc."

    I agree with your comment. above. I don't know so much about blue and pint but, for sure, boys need to do boy things and girls, girl things. There may be some underlying tendencies for same sex attraction, but emphasis on boy/girl activities goes a long way to redirecting such tendencies.

    I know couple who gave their boy a doll for xmas... and he turned out to be gay. Could that have played a role? I don't know for sure, but I think so.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    I don't need a study to tell me that kids ought to have a mom AND a dad. Furthermore if some study says otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

  • KellyWSmith Sparks, NV
    June 11, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    There are many people who are suffering from "same gender attraction," but it doesn't mean that they have to act on those feelings and temptations. It doesn't mean that they were "born that way." It means that they have a weakness that affects them and someone is putting ideas or thoughts into their heads that this is who they are and to go ahead and "do it".

    This post goes into a lot more detail about these afflictions: kellywsmith com

    We don't need to just drop all morals and wishes of those who wish to do evil. How in the world can raising a child in a "same-sex" household be good for them? How can it be normal? How can it develop proper settings of ethics, morals or what is right and wrong?

    As much as I love all people and want the best for everyone, there is a time when tough decisions need to be made and that which is right needs to be stood up for.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:24 p.m.

    A study, conducted by Grey Matter Research (formerly Ellison Research) of Phoenix, Arizona among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.

    The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:

    · Co-habitation before marriage (18%)

    · Pornography (17%)

    · Morality not being taught in schools (14%)

    · Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)

    · Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)

    · Parental drug use/abuse (11%)

    · Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%)

    · Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)

    · Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children (6%)

    · Adultery (5%)

    · Poor schools or quality of education (4%)

    · Teen pregnancy (2%)

    · Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%)

    · The expense of child care (1%)

    · Other issues (12%)

    SSM didn't even make the top 20. We're focusing on the wrong things.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    June 11, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    @KellyWSmith,

    "It means that they have a weakness that affects them and someone is putting ideas or thoughts into their heads that this is who they are and to go ahead and "do it".

    This post goes into a lot more detail about these afflictions: kellywsmith com

    We don't need to just drop all morals and wishes of those who wish to do evil. How in the world can raising a child in a "same-sex" household be good for them? How can it be normal? How can it develop proper settings of ethics, morals or what is right and wrong?

    As much as I love all people and want the best for everyone, there is a time when tough decisions need to be made and that which is right needs to be stood up for."

    So gays are evil, not normal, unethical, immoral, and don't know right from wrong.

    Kelly, you are a sad sad man and I hope you learn to open your eyes to the good in people before judging them.

    Can't imagine the things you said about blacks in the 60's and 70's. Whose next on your religious target list?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    @Neanderthal
    "I agree with your comment. above. I don't know so much about blue and pint but, for sure, boys need to do boy things and girls, girl things. There may be some underlying tendencies for same sex attraction, but emphasis on boy/girl activities goes a long way to redirecting such tendencies."

    Appropriate username. Now as for this matter... no. The answer is no. What are "boy things" and "girl things"? Products of a mindset that isn't always consistent. It actually used to be near the beginning of the 20th century that pink/red was the boys color and blue was a girls color. There's photos of FDR as a kid wearing what would clearly nowadays be considered feminine attire. If a son wants to be in ballet classes goodness just let him. It's not going to make him gay or mean that he's gay. It's okay for a guy to not like football or guns or cars, heck I'm like that and I'm straight.

  • georgeman Kearns, UT
    June 11, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    @Cate

    I too have been a teacher for many years and I have seen the opposite of what you have said. I had one of my first grade girls engage in inappropriate behaviors with other first grade girls, just because that is what she said she saw her mommies do. She eventually had to be expelled from the school over these bahaviors. This girl is now 16 and is very gender confused. I have seen her a time or two as she has come back to visit me. She recently told me she wishes she had been born into a "normal family". Her exact words.

    In the same school I had a little boy in my class who came from a family with same sex parents. He too was very gender confused and eventually committed suicide when he was in his early teens. While I agree that not all kids of same gender parents have these issues, and some of hetero parents have them also, I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if they had hetero parents.

  • KellyWSmith Sparks, NV
    June 11, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    @LValfre
    "So gays are evil, not normal, unethical, immoral, and don't know right from wrong.
    Kelly, you are a sad sad man and I hope you learn to open your eyes to the good in people before judging them.
    Can't imagine the things you said about blacks in the 60's and 70's. Whose next on your religious target list?""

    I am not a sad man, but very happy with a wonderful family and 5 great children. I don't have any religion on my "target list" nor did I (or will I) say negative things about blacks in the 60's. I am speaking out and standing up for what is right. I am not bowing to the current wave of pressure from those who have chosen a way of life that is not according to God's will. If there is anything left that is immoral in todays' society, its choosing to be gay. I still love all, but cannot sit by and watch our country go down the drain of political correctness.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    June 11, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    Let's not forget homosexuals are born from heterosexuals. They're our seed, our blood, our love. They deserve every ounce of freedom available to anyone else.

    Depending on how you look at it, some would say it's a mental disorder. Would you ostracize a mentally handicapped person the way you do homosexuals? Or are you picking and choosing who to hate?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 11, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    @KellyWSmith;

    And I'm not going to sit back and watch you shove your religious bigotry down the throats of those who don't happen to follow your fictional "god".

    If there is anything left in our society that is immoral, it is bigotry. Bigotry is evil, KellyWSmith. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil. Take a good long look in the mirror if you want to see true "evil". It'll be the face staring back at you.

    Fortunately for the rest of us, the Constitution guarantees that we are free to follow the religion of our choice, or none at all. Judge not that ye be not judged, for with the same measure that ye judge, you'll be judged. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (would you like us to curtail your liberty and freedom? I didn't think so). You can't even follow your own god's rules, why should we?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 11, 2012 1:54 p.m.

    The article suggests that we cannot draw any sorts of conclusions from this study that would affect public policy decisions, but I think there is one policy decision that should be made, and that is to make no decision to change traditional marriage.

    In other words, previous calls for redefining marriage to allow same-gender couples to marry were based on research that is contradicted here. This points out something I have long said: the results of same-gender parenting (and by association, marriage) will only become evident over time; it is dangerous to make a decision in favor of such a far-reaching societal change based on preliminary data, especially when the data are cast in doubt by later studies.

  • TheRealU HERRIMAN, UT
    June 11, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    Utah Businessman said: "So, are you saying that, if someone has a great desire to have intimicy with my wife and he is not allowed to do that, then I expect him to "live a celibate, sterile life" Of course, we both know the answer to that is we expect him to find another way to be fulfilled. My belief is that so-called "gays" are in basically the same situation"

    In the same situation, except for the part where these "so-called gays" are BOTH desiring to be with the other. Let me help you out with your analogy, it should read: "if someone has a great desire to be with my wife, and she has a great desire to be with him, and I do not allow it...well then I am single again."

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    June 11, 2012 2:13 p.m.

    @L Valfre
    "Depending on how you look at it, some would say it's a mental disorder. Would you ostracize a mentally handicapped person the way you do homosexuals? Or are you picking and choosing who to hate?"

    Why, when we disapprove of what someone does, we are so often accused of "hating" them? I have never hated anyone in my life, but I have certainly seen many people do things that I disapproved of. Sadly, many of those people have "reaped" what they have "sown"--a brother-in-law who thought it was great to have a bottle of whiskey availabe, then became an alcoholic. My sister never stopped loving him--went to AA meetings with him, etc., but finally drink destroyed his marriage and, a few years later, ended his life prematurely. Another brother-in-law was a heavy smoker as a young man and died at 32 of lung cancer, leaving a widow and two small children. These were fine men whom I (and many others) loved, but their unwise habits were their undoing.

    @ Ranch Hand
    You are probably a fine man also--I beg your forgiveness if my remarks have caused you pain.

  • Neanderthal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    @atl134:

    "Appropriate username."

    Was there same-sex Neanderthal's back in the day? I doubt it.

    "What are "boy things" and "girl things"?"

    Boy's things: footballs, baseballs/bats, fishing poles, pocket knives, pet toads, model airplanes, play swords and guns, etc.

    Girl's things: dresses, lipstick, combs, curled hair, frilly dresses, dolls & doll clothes, toy purses, tea sets, etc.

    "Products of a mindset that isn't always consistent."

    Yeah, but mostly consistent.

    "It actually used to be near the beginning of the 20th century that pink/red was the boys color and blue was a girls color."

    No problem. What matters is what's considered feminine/masculine and to not mix the two. If a pocket knife is considered feminine and tea sets masculine, there would be no problem provided it was perceived that way by society... and consistent.

    "There's photos of FDR as a kid wearing what would clearly nowadays be considered feminine attire."

    But he was not considered 'cross dressed' in the day. My spouses father had curled hair in his youth. Didn't effect him.

    "If a son wants to be in ballet classes goodness just let him."

    Ballet is not considered only feminine.

  • KellyWSmith Sparks, NV
    June 11, 2012 4:55 p.m.

    @Ranch

    Immorality is "licentiousness, profligacy or promiscuity, an immoral act," but that does not cover Bigotry, even though it is not a desirable trait. There are lots of evils in the world today, more than ever before but they include many more things than bigotry.

    When I look in the mirror, I see someone who has been trying all his life to do the right things and has failed many times, but I have also felt the Love of God poured out without measure and want everyone else to feel those same things. I know how it works.

    God is a God of Justice and Love, neither can be ignored or denied. By ignoring the truths about the deceptions that those who have chosen to be "gay" live under, they will suffer from that justice at some future day, whether in this life or the next. "Wickedness never was happiness." I am trying to help them. I am trying to show that they don't have to remain in this lie, they can access that Loving attribute of God and overcome that which cannot bring eternal happiness.

    It may not be easy to overcome, but its worth it.

  • Doctor Tucson, AZ
    June 11, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    Think about this: because there is no evidence there is a gay gene there is not one. How many times have I read in these comments; Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in regards to proofs of the BOM. Think about your logic. lastly, how many children of gays were adopted and had bad experiences beforing being nurtured in a gay home?

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 11, 2012 6:07 p.m.

    Where are the results for children raised by married same sex couples? Oh, I forgot that is evil, illegal and the source of all our problems. I'm very suspicious of this study that denigrates lesbian mothers. There is no logical reason for the higher incidence of "bad" behavior from adult children of lesbian mothers. Further research indicates that Elsiever, the publisher of this study has been accused of many things including, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs. This may be a study the Elseiver feels has potential to generate revenue.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 11, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    @Kellywsmith: To hate someone for being born is supreme bigotry. The greatest evils of the last century were done in the name of furthering the chosen people. If you really are sincere about loving God then stop lying about choosing to be gay. When did you choose? when you were made Deacon did the bishop ask you if you wanted to be straight or gay?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 11, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    I don't know if this comment will published or not. But here it goes.

    Businessman, Georgeman, Neanderthal, VOR, and others who like to claim SS being a choice, or who just believe that glbt people can change their tendencies.

    I would like to offer you a challenge in the name of science:

    1. Think about what it means to be gay in your society
    2. Please observe people of the same sex and think about falling in love with one of them.
    3. You may like to imagine having a passionate sexual experience
    4. Since you think sexual orientation is a choice, you may like actually try having sex with somebody of your same sex. No permanent damage since this is reversible.

    I wouldn't expect for you to be able to go further than step number 2 because is not your nature.

    I just would like for you not to condemn or judge things that you clearly do not understand,
    you may like to read a book such as "The Sexual Spectrum Why We're All Different" by Olive Skene Johnson, Ph.D.
    Peace to you and hope you are able to give peace to everybody else.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    June 11, 2012 7:29 p.m.

    @Neanderthal

    My brother asked for a doll and a dress for Christmas one year. He got both. He is now the happily married (to a woman) father of four children. Giving a little boy a doll doesn't turn them into gays.

    That being said, I do believe it is supremely unfair to kids to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, intentionally denying them one gender of parent or another. I believe gay fathers can learn to braid little girls hair and can do well at tea parties. I know moms can play catch with their sons. But what the children might be missing out on is far more subtle that these outward gender specific activities. They are mission out on the interaction between their father and mother, a healthy heterosexual relationship being modeled to them daily. I wonder if there is some insecurity from eventually realizing their parents could never create a biological child.

    I think it's messing with kids minds to place them in these homes. I do think it's OK to place severely mentally handicapped children with homosexuals. The most important thing for them is love and proper care. They will never marry anyway.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    June 11, 2012 10:39 p.m.

    I know the first place I am going to for an impartial study about gay parenting is a church-owned newspaper.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    June 11, 2012 10:41 p.m.

    Many gay people have been so brutalized for who they are, that it does affect their parenting and their children's well being. Unfortunately, some people will consider these results a victory.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 12, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    Maybe we can't agree that a person is biologically homosexual, but at least we should agree a person can have a psychologically-homosexual attraction. His/her attraction should not be disputed. As such, psychology should not be taken lightly and certainly there is little doubt that the psychology of the parent (i.e. standards, religion, politics, norms, sexual orientation, etc.) influences the raising of a child. In other words, the studies that say there are no statistically significant differences between kids raised by different types of parenting psychology don't represent reality. To say otherwise, is to defend the absurd statement that parenting doesn't really matter. Anyone buy that?

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    June 12, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    What a truly stupid article that leaves so many more questions than any scientific facts..... Every piece of his research is questioned and does not give any concrete evidence! Why this was allowed to be published is beyond me?

  • Ilovethejjs medford, MA
    June 12, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    Gee,if in the garden of Eden were placed Adam and Steve, none of us would be here. Hmmmmm, now that's a thought.

  • Brian H. Provo, UT
    June 12, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    If being gay is a choice, why on earth would someone choose to live with the stigma of being gay, especially in a conservative LDS community? You really think that a young person would choose that kind of life if there wasn't something internal driving them to identify as gay? Sexual orientation is absolutely not something you can teach a child. Gay kids are born to straight parents - are you giving the parents credit (or should I say "blaming") for that too?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 12, 2012 3:05 p.m.

    @my slc

    "I am legally married in California, 2008. Six states (CT, IA, MA, NH, NY, and VT) plus the DC also recognize legal gay marriage. Over 35% of Americans live in states that recognize gay marriage or strong civil unions.

    This issue is not going to go away. It will happen in out life times, and much sooner (3-5 years) I believe."

    I think it will be more like Blue States will legalize gay marriage and Red States will not. It will reflect on the political leanings of the states. Legalizing gay marriage as a Federal mandate would clearly be a violation of the 10th Amendment

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    The study did not compare children of two lesbians to mixed-gender parent households, they compared children of a woman who at some point was in a lesbian relationship. So this could be all sorts of different possibilities. Could be a lesbian couple, could be a single parent who has dated a woman at some point, or any other sort of thing.

    @zoar63
    "Legalizing gay marriage as a Federal mandate would clearly be a violation of the 10th Amendment"

    Nope. Loving vs Virginia got rid of interracial marriage nationwide despite South Carolina keeping a ban of it on the books until the early 90s.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

  • Freedom-In-Danger WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 12, 2012 5:12 p.m.

    @Ranch, Calling an act a sin doesn't mean I'm calling someone evil.

    Sure, I might think a practicing homosexual is a sinner. I also know that I am a sinner and so is everyone else. Believing we're all sinners isn't pessimistic Good people can and do sin. KellyWSmith talked of a God of love, not one of hate.

    He shared an empathetic and loving attitude. Whether you agree his beliefs or not, he was kind and you repaid his kindness with calling him evil.

    Well if you are allowed to call others evil then I think I should be able to call you a sinner for saying it. At least sins can be forgiven.

    You aren't God and you don't have his authority to judge others. But to quote a commandment to not judge right after judging someone means that not only are you refusing to accept the teachings of kindness but you willingly do it while knowing its wrong. At least forgiveness is still within reach.

    I don't care whether you believe that or not. But with all due respect, you have practically pronounced yourself to be the real bigot here.

  • my slc Newport Beach, CA
    June 12, 2012 5:17 p.m.

    zoar63

    I think the 10th amendment with the state sovereignty is great. But...

    The 14th amendment with it's due process, which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness trumps it.

    As soon as your marriage, drivers license, etc are in question or put to a vote you may be a big believer in the 14th. Just saying.

  • Amazed Bountiful, UT
    June 12, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    They interviewed a "whole" 3000 people in this "study"? I'm supposed to give some sort of far reaching credibility to someone's "conclusions" based upon the same number of people that were in attendance at my daughter's high school graduation? I think not; moreso, another "let's back into the numbers" so that my preconcieved opinions can show up on the internet, effort. I read this article will hit my personal delete button because it was a waste of time.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    June 13, 2012 6:54 a.m.

    Every human is the product of a male and female. Regardless of the confusion that ensues after birth, there's a genetic advantage to having one's biological parents involved in the rearing of the child. Ironically in our age and understanding of genetic health history, there's even more impetus for children to be raised by their biological parents, when possible--yet socially the opposite trend is occuring.

    This is a great study because it focuses on child development first. Clearly there are advantages to certain family models, which are being proven. It's within the interest of all civil society to understand these advantages and take steps necessary to encourage the ideals.

    If we know the best way to do something, but continue to take the worst path, we're only asking to be replaced by a society or nation that chooses to take the more biologically optimal option.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 13, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    @ Born that way

    In general terms what you describe is an ideal situation with which most if not all would agree. However, this is not a black or white situation. There is plenty of gray around it.

    Reality show us that there are many children who become 18 ears old in foster care and have no family to call home.

    Same sex people as most people want to to have posterity. What is wrong with that?

    This article as many DN readers and others, attempt to put blame for the stigma and problems that children of SS couples face on the parents. I don't deny that there may be some SS couples who may be dysfunctional parents. (I never met one)

    The stigma and frustration that children from SS couples face is not from the home in which they are raised. Bigotry, ignorance lack of acceptance and tolerance , misconceptions from outside the home, all contribute to harm the self worth of any individual.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 13, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    Article quote: "Among other things, they reported lower income levels, poorer mental and physical health and more troubled current romantic relationships. The study found 25 differences across 40 measures."

    And that came from the 'Mormon bastion' of Latter-day Saint thinking, the University of Texas at Austin, so I'm sure that holds weight with the pro-homosexual community, right, guys?

    Answer: no, sadly it won't.

    I'll go one further: the reason, which the study didn't address, as to WHY this occurs, is because it is virtually impossible to achieve "good" from a "bad" foundation.

    The older I get the more I literally thank God for my mom and dad, who raised me right.

  • gemstate marxist Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 6:31 p.m.

    @ Born That Way (and others)
    "there's a genetic advantage to having one's biological parents involved in the rearing of the child."
    "Clearly there are advantages to certain family models, which are being proven."

    There's actually no conclusive evidence at all about any advantages of living with one's own biological parents. There is way too much selection bias for any study to "prove" that the two-married-biological-parent household is any more beneficial than other family forms. Advantages are just a byproduct of other factors. Family structure is spurious.

    The problem is that the people that are most likely to be high earners are also more likely to marry, remain married, have stable family lives, etc. Advantages follow for this group, certainly, but they are due almost entirely to factors OTHER THAN family structure.

    Pick up a copy of the "Journal of Marriage and Family" or the "American Journal of Sociology" and look for authors Smock, Cherlin, Gibson-Davis, McLanahan. They're the top of the field. You'll quickly see that most of the "evidence" in support of traditional family structures is based on seriously flawed research.

  • gemstate marxist Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    @ Amazed

    "They interviewed a "whole" 3000 people in this "study"? I'm supposed to give some sort of far reaching credibility to someone's "conclusions" based upon the same number of people that were in attendance at my daughter's high school graduation?"

    Hahahahahahaha!!
    Actually, as long as the 3000 people were selected completely at random from the population, you'll get more accurate results than if you tried to interview everyone in the United States and accidentally missed a few. The purpose of drawing samples is precisely so that you CAN generalize and give "far reaching credibility" to the conclusions. I bet your daughter learned this in high school, maybe she could explain it to you. Don't dis science just because you don't like the results.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 13, 2012 10:57 p.m.

    @Ranch Hand:
    I agree that bigoty is evil but that comes about because I believe in moral absolutes. However, last week you said that morality is relative. This week you said that bigotry is evil. Is morailty an absolute, or is it relative? If it is relative did you mean to simply say that it is bad manners?

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2012 11:19 p.m.

    Pagan
    Salt Lake City, UT
    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10
    --------------

    A value statement, not a correct conclusion based on good science. But congrats on your Google proficiency.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 14, 2012 6:02 p.m.

    The paper is fundamentally flawed and intentionally misleading. It doesn't even measure what it claims to be measuring. Most of the children examined in the paper were not being raised by parents in a committed same-sex relationship (only about 1% were); whereas the other children in the study were being raised in two-parent homes with straight parents for their full childhood. One of the respondents supposedly a child of a 'same-sex relationship' by Regnerus weak definition (as having a parent that had a same-sex encounter) was the child of a divorced woman who had a lesbian relationship after the "child" was already an adult.

  • TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UT
    June 14, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    I see the issue of SSM not so much as what is right for the couple and their children, which can always be debated. For me, this issue is about religious freedom, and our rights under the 1st Amendment.

    Freedom to refrain from performing a marriage that contradicts writings which I consider to be sacred.

    Freedom to speak my opinion in a public forum w/o being terminated by my employer.

    Freedom to to screen out leaders of my youth organization that live in a relationship which contradicts what I have taught my children.

    Freedom to send my children to school with the knowledge that they will not be taught principles contrary to my core beliefs.

    Freedom to live according to my conscience as a medical provider w/o losing my license.

    Freedom to operate a business in accordance with my religion w/o being fined or picketed.

    I am a Freedom Fighter!

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 14, 2012 9:59 p.m.

    TheWalker, let's go through your "freedoms" one by one..

    1. A religion cannot be forced to perform any marriage. Religion is a protected class, yet no Catholic could ever successfully sue to be married in an LDS Temple.

    2. The first amendment protects you from government imposition only. Your employer can fire you if you identify yourself as an employee and say something that your employer might decide is harmful to their image or is harassing to other employees or customers.

    3. If you have a private youth organization, it is your right to determine your membership / leaders. However, you are not shielded from criticism or boycotts. Free speech is not a one way street.

    4. The first amendment does not shield you or your kids from things you may find offensive.

    5. As part of having a medical license, you are expected to treat all patients with equal care. You cannot pick and choose who you will serve. Would you like someone to deny you healthcare because of your religion?

    6. If your actions/inaction as a licensed business violate the law, you can be fined. Picketing/boycotts are free speech.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 15, 2012 5:06 a.m.

    DamO:

    You are right. But you are not addressing TheWalker's points. A student studying counseling was removed from a counseling program because she felt it would be violation of her principles to counsel a gay person about their gay relationship.

    It is fine that religions won't be required to marry two people of the same gender. (But then what happens if the law becomes that only individuals have rights and not organizations?) But what happens if teachers are required to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral against their freedom of conscience? Should a wedding photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding?

    Some people want to blindly make laws that are going to exclude whole segments of our society and that is a very definite movement away from an open, diverse, liberal society.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 15, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    I did address TheWalker's points.

    Now yours:

    The student that was removed from the counseling program was removed because it's not a counselor's job to inject their own morality into that doctor/patient relationship. They are licensed based on requirements that are set by their professional organization. If she could not meet those requirements, she didn't qualify for the license.

    Religions have First Amendment protection. That's solid and is not going to change. You ignore my example that religions already have protection to pick and choose who they marry.

    A public teacher teaches curriculum set by the state. They don't get to pick and choose what they teach. And as a government employee, they have a duty to be neutral.

    If a wedding photographer advertises a public service in a State where their condition to have a business license requires them to not discriminate based on protected classes, then they face the consequences of not providing that service equally.

    Your last sentence is actually true, but you're looking at it backwards.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi
    It is fine that religions won't be required to marry two people of the same gender. (But then what happens if the law becomes that only individuals have rights and not organizations?) But what happens if teachers are required to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral against their freedom of conscience? Should a wedding photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding?

    KJK
    Then the Church will do what it does elsewhere, have members marry at City Hall and then have a non-legally binding temple ceremony. Since the sealing isn't leaglly recognized, there is no standing for gays to sue to obtain it.

    Teachers already teach things contrary to our subjective morals - evolution for example. We LDS aren't to rely on schools to teach our morals. That is the job of parents, seminary and church. Whose morals are the schools supposed to teach?

    Being libertarian, I believe that people should be able to discriminate regarding whom they serve in their business. The law doesn't say that though. Would you OK with the photographer refusing to photgraph an LDS wedding or would you claim persecution?

  • Larry Lawton Wan Chai, Hong Kong
    June 16, 2012 12:23 a.m.

    I sincerely hope Mark Regnerus has taken steps to protect himself and his family. I'm concerned about the fate of those who break with conventional wisdon now-a-days. Remember what happened to those who supported Prop 8 in California? We are near the time when freedon of speech protects only those who are politically correct.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    What happened in CA? no one was fired. Some quit their jobs, but no one got fired for their vote. That's illegal. I know of no jailings, fines or lawsuits over anyone getting fired for how they voted on Prop.8 or anything else. Some boycotts were held, but boycotts are a form of free speech and free association. Opponents of SSM boycotted Disney World when they had a "Gay Day".

    I find it ironic that you claim that your rights are endangered when you seem to have no reservation about voting to take away the rights of others which prop.8 did. Scripture prohibits us from using religion as an excuse to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4).

    You should be more concerned about how we harmed others than the false allegations of how others have harmed us.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    June 17, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    almost all of the information we have been given about homosexuality has been filtered by activists and altered by those who have little concern for traditional families or our country. Their primary goal is to push their agenda and they have pressured and tried to intimidate any group or person that they think stands in the way, including APA Presidents, religions and Obama (successfully) and they have also employed many people to Misinform us in comment sctions. Read narth for more info. On their manipulation of information and read crafting gay children for more info on media control