Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur. Few measures of the welfare of our rising generation are more disturbing than the recent report that 41 percent of all births in the United States were to women who were not married.20 Unmarried mothers have massive challenges, and the evidence is clear that their children are at a significant disadvantage when compared with children raised by married parents.21
Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating.22 Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages.23 For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.”24
And his references:
20. See Joyce A. Martin and others, “Births: Final Data for 2010,” National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 61, no. 1 (Aug. 2012), 10.
21. See William J. Doherty and others, Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (2002); W. Bradford Wilcox and others, Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. (2011).
22. See Martin, “Births: Final Data for 2010,” 10–11.
23. See Wilcox, Why Marriage Matters.
24. Douthat, “Gay Parents and the Marriage Debate.” The latest and most thorough study finds significant disadvantages reported by young adults with a parent who had same-sex relationships prior to the child’s turning age 18 (see Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research, vol. 41 [2012], 752–70).
I was talking with my boyfriend about conference last night and I pointed out Elder Oaks' tendency to have reams of footnotes, as if he's back in the courtroom.
Well, it's really... unfortunate that Elder Oaks based those comments and then cited the Regnerus study. Whereas a wide body of social science literature has studied the effects of parenting by same-sex couples or coparenting by a straight partner and a person in a same-sex relationship, the Regnerus study followed kids who had at least one parent who had engaged in at least one same-sex sexual relationship at any time during their first 18 years of life. It did not take into account the possible negative effects of dysfunctional relationships between the parents that possibly resulted from what was sometimes single episodes of cheating. It also did not address the effects of having a deeply closeted parent, or the effects of upheaval in the households where almost none of the parents were in actual committed relationships of any type, or at least their relationships (which were overwhelmingly heterosexual) were extremely flawed in almost all cases. Out of the hundreds of kids in this study, ONLY TWO lived in households with a same-sex couple full time. Less than one quarter of the kids who he put in the lesbian mom category lived with their mom and a female partner for three years or more, and less than two percent of the "my dad is gay but really a lot of them just did a dude that one time I'm aware of" kids lived with their dad and a male partner for at least three years. The fact that this study has been held up as evidence of any supposed shortcoming in the body of research that compares the children of committed heterosexual relationships to the children of committed homosexual relationships is laughable and, frankly, offensive, nevermind all of the study's scientific shortcomings or who funded it.
This makes me really sad. I'm glad that Elder Oaks gave this talk about supporting kids, as that's a passion of mine, and I'm glad that he talked about giving LGBT kids extra support, but this part makes me really sad. And my earlier question on this thread referred to the fact that none of my many LGBTQ friends or acquaintances expressed that this Conference did them any favors.
Anyway, end rant.
(edited to fix a word)
Last edited by TheBlackSheep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for responding, TBS. I knew about the issues with the funding, but wasn't aware of most of the rest of the issues you brought up, so I wanted to wait for someone who was more knowledgeable to respond before I jumped in with so little. But yeah, his "studies show" was based on exactly one study. That's kinda frustrating.
Also, to further clarify, when I mentioned my many LGBTQ friends/acquaintances, I specifically meant my still active/wish they could be active ones. The former Mormon ones felt the same way, and the other ones didn't much care this time around.
I recently read an article that was saying... basically since whether or not gay parents are "just as good" as heterosexual ones is such a politically charged issue, it's hard to research objectively. That said... I'd rather see a child with a happy family, no matter the composition, than in an unhappy one.
Whistler wrote:I recently read an article that was saying... basically since whether or not gay parents are "just as good" as heterosexual ones is such a politically charged issue, it's hard to research objectively. That said... I'd rather see a child with a happy family, no matter the composition, than in an unhappy one.
So, what if it turns out that children of interracial marriages are less happy than children of marriages within the same race?[1] Based on that, would you discourage interracial marriage? (If so, how far would you go to discourage it?) Or would you approach the issue from some other perspective?
(I'm not trying to pick on you, specifically, Whistler. I just think it's an interesting parallel, and your comment gave me the chance to look into the research.)
[1] In the few minutes I spent looking for data, I wasn't able to find research that specifically addressed children of interracial couples, but I did find research that found a higher level of psychological distress in the adults who were in interracial relationships, which I assume would have an effect on their children. Bratter, Jenifer L. and Karl Eschbach. "'What about the couple?' Interracial marriage and psychological distress." Social Science Research, Volume 35, Issue 4, December 2006, Pages 1025–1047
I actually think that Elder Oaks is becoming somewhat more welcoming than he was, say, three years ago, when he gave a talk which could be construed as "shun! shun the sinners!" (the attitude toward cohabitating straight couples was what I considered less than helpful). It's easy for me, from a place of heterosexual privilege, to say "well the Church is definitely liberalizing!" I can marry the person I love and am sexually attracted to with the community's full blessing. I used to discount a "change from within" approach, but with actual policy changes like the mission age change (which I think is pro-women), more leadership roles for sister missionaries, and a new curriculum which is shared across YM and YW, it's harder to say that there aren't baby steps to progressivism.
Basically, I can see a future for me in the Church, but totally, 100% understand why a gay or lesbian individual might not. (I don't think I would in their place.)
Marduk wrote:Pssh, Katya, Imogen and I are the happiest people you know.
I am pretty happy. And while I have had some issues with the whole "racial identity" thing (exacerbated by both parents being races/ethnicities that are HIGHLY looked down upon in our country), most of my issues stem from my parents being TOTALLY INSANE!!! Someone needs to give a talk on that: "How to Survive Your Total NUTJOB OUT OF CONTROL Parents Who Adore You."
