Researchers Say Children of Lesbian Parents Have Fewer Behavior Problems

[LiberalNation]

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20100607/kids-of-lesbian-parents-are-well-adjusted?page=2

June 7, 2010 -- Children raised by lesbian parents develop into psychologically healthy teens and have fewer behavior problems than their peers, according to the latest report on a long-running study that began in 1986.

''Contrary to assertions from people opposed to same-sex parenting, we found that the 17-year-olds scored higher in psychological adjustment in areas of competency and lower in problem behaviors than the normative age-matched sample of kids raised in traditional families with a mom and a dad," says researcher Nanette Gartrell, MD, the Williams distinguished scholar at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

Gartrell's report, published in Pediatrics, is the latest in a series from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), which enrolled 154 prospective lesbian mothers between 1986 and 1992. Researchers followed them and their children as they conceived through donor insemination. Most (140) were either birth mothers or co-mothers, but 14 were single moms from the start.

The retention rate of the study is high, with 93% of the original participants, or 78 families, still enrolled, Gartrell says.

More than 270,000 U.S. children were living in households headed by same-sex couples in 2005, according to Gartrell, and nearly twice that number had a single gay or lesbian parent.

For the latest report, Gartrell and her colleague, Henny Bos, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, looked at 78 teens from 77 families; one family did not complete all the survey data.

The teens, average age 17, completed questionnaires. The moms were interviewed and completed lengthy checklists about their children's activities, social life, school and academic performance, and overall competence.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, to start, I have no issue with same sex couple having kids, adopting 'em, whatever. However, 77 families is not a broad enough group for research. They should have saved up to go over a much larger number, at least a 1,000 to provide greater diversity in the findings.

[KarlMarx]

This is just another attempt at normalizing homosexuality. Sorry. Now straight couples can't rear children... and that is how Nature intended it. Instead gays, especially women, can out raise us straights and men should not be in the picture at all. Right... kids growing up without fathers.... seems to me that has been done before with disastrous consequences....

Many people assume that researchers go about these studies with a totally non-biased approach. Oftentimes, that is not the case. One has to be wary of who was funding this study. Where comes the money, there goes the conclusion.

Among the sponsors of this study. The Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association (http://www.glma.org/), Uncommon Legacy Foundation, The Horizon Foundation. All have ties to the gay community.

If the public took the time to find out just who was behind this, they would see it for what is truly is..... This study is nothing more than gay propaganda.

[HogTrash]

I can believe this to some extent because I would imagine the lesbian couples are most likely a bit older than the traditional parents which brings a more mature element to their parenting skills along with financial stability.

But I would imagine the study more than likely attempts to attribute the results to homosexuality alone...All information from the left should be taken with a grain of salt...Not following this simple rule is how we got into this mess.

[darin]

what a crock of horseshit.

[LiberalNation]

not a perfect study, but it blows gays can't raise kids well out of the water. We desearve adoption rights. two financially stables lesbians are better than foster care anyday.

[KarlMarx]

not a perfect study, but it blows gays can't raise kids well out of the water. We desearve adoption rights. two financially stables lesbians are better than foster care anyday.

and the data for this study was reviewed for validity by a group of the researhers' peers?

Crickets in the background......

Here is a good example of how conservatives have their work cut out for them. We have lost the culture and we must find ways of getting it back. The Left controls the media and academia and are thus in a position to brainwash people into their way of thinking.

A landslide election in our favor this November will not fix this... we must take a much longer view. That is exactly what the Left did decades ago.

[krisy]

This is just another attempt at normalizing homosexuality. Sorry. Now straight couples can't rear children... and that is how Nature intended it. Instead gays, especially women, can out raise us straights and men should not be in the picture at all. Right... kids growing up without fathers.... seems to me that has been done before with disastrous consequences....

Many people assume that researchers go about these studies with a totally non-biased approach. Oftentimes, that is not the case. One has to be wary of who was funding this study. Where comes the money, there goes the conclusion.

Among the sponsors of this study. The Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association (http://www.glma.org/), Uncommon Legacy Foundation, The Horizon Foundation. All have ties to the gay community.

If the public took the time to find out just who was behind this, they would see it for what is truly is..... This study is nothing more than gay propaganda.

You couldn't be more right.

Also,as dragon said,77 or 78 families is certainly not enough for a good accurate finding. NO ONE will convince me that being raised by two gay people is better than a mother and a father.

[HogTrash]

not a perfect study, but it blows gays can't raise kids well out of the water. We desearve adoption rights. two financially stables lesbians are better than foster care anyday.A major problem with gays raising children is besides being homosexuals, chances are they're also liberals.

Imagine how bad that screws a childs brain up for the first 25 to 30 years of life?! :eek:

[DragonStryk72]

You couldn't be more right.

Also,as dragon said,77 or 78 families is certainly not enough for a good accurate finding. NO ONE will convince me that being raised by two gay people is better than a mother and a father.

Other problem is that there is no comparative group (i.e. a equivalent number of straight families). It is entirely based on whether the kids developed complexes or not, which isn't really a solid test.

Still backing the point that gays and lesbians can raise kids just fine, but they should have done a bigger research group. This will get torn into all too easily.

[KarlMarx]

Other problem is that there is no comparative group (i.e. a equivalent number of straight families). It is entirely based on whether the kids developed complexes or not, which isn't really a solid test.

Still backing the point that gays and lesbians can raise kids just fine, but they should have done a bigger research group. This will get torn into all too easily.
Good point.... there was no control group... Scientific Method 101 dictates that, too.

The study was funded by gay advocacy groups... hello? Doesn't it seem coincidental that the researchers came to a conclusion that agrees with their patrons? Also, it is not likely that the data was reviewed by an objective group of peer researchers....

If the conclusions were, in fact, valid then logic dictates that the results would also be reproducable, i.e. if you took another sample of lesbian couples that had kids and compared them to a control group of kids raised by straight parents and compared the two groups to a sample of kids taken from the general population... then you'd have some sound research

Also, what are their definition of "well adjusted"???? Well adjusted meaning that they haven't spent time in jail, they held down jobs, were happily married and had kids?

or....

well adjusted in that they did not suffer from "homophobia" and were in touch with their sexuality and don't see anything wrong with wearing a pink tutu to work?

[CSM]

"The teens, average age 17, completed questionnaires. The moms were interviewed and completed lengthy checklists about their children's activities, social life, school and academic performance, and overall competence."


Well, sounds like a really objective way of gathering the data to me. Of course, mommy would NEVER slant the results, especially knowing who was conducting the "experiment".

As was said so well in a previos post:

What a load of horse pucky!

[LiberalNation]

survey is an accepted research method and used in many studies. It's basically the only way to study social past behavior.

[CSM]

survey is an accepted research method and used in many studies. It's basically the only way to study social past behavior.

Still horse pucky.

I perform experimentation and research for living. While surveys are indeed an accepted research method, it is understood that surveys are by their very nature, subjective and proof of nothing. There needs to be more corraborative data collected in conjunction with the survey before any conclusion can be formulated. Further, checklists (as were used in the study) can (and usually are) constructed in such a manner that leads to predetermined results. True research seldom entails the use "checklists" for that reason.

Lets face it, the tv ad says that 9 out of 10 dentists say the brand X will make your teeth whiter! IF that were really true, why would anyone use anything else? You and I both know why.

[DragonStryk72]

survey is an accepted research method and used in many studies. It's basically the only way to study social past behavior.

Again, this I am not arguing. The questionnaires could be well done, but my point that it gets torn to shreds easily is being born out in this very thread. I think it's good work the group is doing, trying to dispel bullshit, but they jumped the gun, and their good intentions could end up setting them back.

They need to go back, and expand the experiment, get at least I'd said 1,000 lesbian family units, alongside 1,000 traditional couples, and actually, I would also say 1,000 gay couples along with that (No reason to be sexist with it). These numbers do exist within the gay & lesbian community, and I also think that many would jump on board with the testing. As to the surveys, I would think it would be a better idea to go ahead and do full psych workups on those involved, the better to legitimize the findings. Keep the psychiatrists doing as 3rd party, and bam, you're all set with a pretty much argument proof set of results.

[darin]

...starting with 'parents' who are so broken psychologically and emotionally that they practice the sexual habits they do ruins the sample base in the first place.

Take mentally/spiritually/emotionally broken people and give them children...and the kids will be broken too.

[DragonStryk72]

...starting with 'parents' who are so broken psychologically and emotionally that they practice the sexual habits they do ruins the sample base in the first place.

Take mentally/spiritually/emotionally broken people and give them children...and the kids will be broken too.

So then you advocate shrinks determine each parent's state of mental well-being, cause there are more than enough mentally spiritually and emotionally broken heteros out there as well. To say that shrinks get to decide who gets to be a parent or not, set on those premises is a sure way to watch all American freedoms die.

Homosexuals are not spiritually, mentally or emotionally broken any more than heteros are spiritually, mentally or emotionally broken. Yes, they're different, but that does not mean they are broken. You are still stuck in a horribly outmoded frame of mind in this field, and that forces to push false judgments upon them.

By doing so, the people who might otherwise be willing to listen to your other points, such as smaller government, more freedom, lower taxes and lower government spending, but because the republicans keep throwing up a hate topic like this, instead of simply keeping their misgivings to themselves, and focusing on the positive, you lose not only gays and lesbians who would otherwise likely back your point, but you automatically lose all of the their friends, most of their families, and all those who simply believe hate, in any form, is wrong.

[darin]

I advocate people with illnesses to seek help. I advocate people who are obviously broken to get the help they need - AND society encouraging and supporting them as they seek and receive treatment.

[DragonStryk72]

I advocate people with illnesses to seek help. I advocate people who are obviously broken to get the help they need - AND society encouraging and supporting them as they seek and receive treatment.

Again, though, they are not broken or ill. Even animals in the wild have gay streaks, it happens. And if it is a naturally occurring event to every creature on the planet, then the abnormality would be it not occurring in humans. It is a reality, and there are enough children in need of good homes in this world that if these folks can give them one, that's good enough for me.

It is not a big deal, and yes, I have issue with people who change their whole personality out when they come out of the closet. It's obvious that's not how they really are, and I cannot stand that fake as lisp that some take. It has little to do with them being gay, and more to do with my nagging intolerance for posers of any kind.