Same-Sex Marriage -- Why Supporting It Is Good For Children

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Having married parents is good for children. That's why the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) thinks that same-sex couples should be able to marry.

In a policy statement just issued, that's exactly what they said. It's going to put the AAP in the middle of controversy--but it was the right thing to do for children.

There are currently almost 2 million children being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States. And you know what? They are fine. There is simply no evidence to suggest that it's bad for children in any way to be raised by same-sex couples. They don't have more emotional or social or any other problems than other children. For many of these couples, parenthood is something that they have chosen very deliberately and do with real commitment--and that is exactly what children need.

Whatever anyone's beliefs are about parenting and same-sex marriage, we need to pay attention to the research. And research shows that what makes a difference in the well-being of children is the quality of the relationship they have with their parents, the quality of the relationship between their parents (or the significant adults in their lives) and the availability of resources, both social and economic.

That's what matters, according to study after study. The sexual orientation of the parents just doesn't.

And here's the thing: marriage makes all of that more likely. As the policy statement says, marriage strengthens relationships and families. It brings 2 extended families together. Married couples have more financial and social resources. Married people tend to be healthier both physically and emotionally and less likely to do risky things. And marriage brings legal rights and responsibilities that are important--sometimes crucial, such as the right to make medical decisions.

This is about families. All children deserve to be raised in a secure, stable family that can give them the love, nurturing and resources they need. Marriage--not civil union or something else shy of marriage--helps give children all those things. Marriage supports families.

The AAP is hardly a hotbed of liberals. It is a huge organization with people from all sorts of different personal and political backgrounds. They don't make policy statements unless they are absolutely sure that the scientific evidence supports them--and they only make policy statements that they think are really important for the health and well-being of children.

This is really important. It's important for the 2 million children being raised by gay and lesbian parents. It's important for the thousands of children in foster care who need loving families. It's important for us as a society to do everything we can to support families--not just some families, the ones that look like us or that we agree with, but all families.

Because our children live in all sorts of families. And our children are our future.

http://www.boston.co...r_children.html

http://stitcher.com/...hp?eid=22374593

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just ran across this story on CNN. I bet we will soon hear how this little boy would have been better off had he not been found.

New York (CNN) -- The idea for getting married was partly Kevin's idea.

The 11-year-old also thought it would be neat if daddy and papa tied the knot on the same day the couple met 15-years earlier on a softball field.

So Peter Mercurio -- papa -- and Daniel Stewart -- daddy -- started planning.

"I was walking Kevin to school one morning," Mercurio said, explaining to his son that he did not know yet who would conduct the ceremony, or where. And he said, 'Don't judges perform ceremonies? Why don't you try to contact the judge who finalized my adoption?' I said that was a great idea."

In Manhattan Family Court last July, with a few friends and family present, the state affirmed what the three guys had known instinctively for a long time: they were a family.

Their story comes as the U.S. Supreme Court gets ready to debate on Tuesday and Wednesday the issue of same-sex marriage -- the legalities, the politics, the social implications.

It is a personal narrative, though no less important -- than trying to figure out the meaning of the Constitution and the limits of "equal protection."

A day old and abandoned

"I found a baby!" Stewart's voice was frantic, and the echoes from the A/C/E subway station on Eighth Avenue only added to the initial confusion. "I said I had called 911, but I didn't think they believed me."

"I told him I didn't believe it either," said Mercurio.

But he rushed to the scene and to a remote area behind the turnstiles. There, wrapped in a dark sweatshirt, lying quietly, was a brown-skinned, day-old infant. Abandoned.

They could have walked away, but they stayed.

Authorities soon arrived and took the child, naming him Daniel Ace Doe -- for the man who found him, the subway line, and the sad anonymity.

The story made news.

A few months later, Stewart was called to testify in family court about.

The judge dropped a bombshell: "Would you be interested in adopting this baby?"

The answer was an immediate yes.

But Stewart privately knew it would not be easy. His partner at first wanted to go slowly, or not at all.

"My first reaction when I heard: 'Are you insane? How could you say yes without consulting me?'" said Mercurio, laughing at the memory.

The couple had been together three years but their careers as an aspiring playwright and social worker took precedence at the time.

Becoming parents and strengthening their bond was never discussed.

"I saw this opportunity here, this gift to be parents to this child. And how could we not say yes to that opportunity?" Stewart said told CNN Justice Correspondent Joe Johns. "It seemed like it was divine intervention -- it was meant to be."

Mercurio agreed.

"I think a lot of my initial response to Danny -- saying we were not ready to do this -- was all fear-based. And once I got over that, a calm set in. And you know, we went about methodically, preparing our lives for a child."

Crib and blankets just before Christmas

It was a mad scramble to get ready, parenting classes, crib, diapers, and blankets. Then just days before Christmas, they were told the baby would be transferred to their care.

"Our paternal instincts took over and it became a natural thing of how to take care of him," Mercurio said.

They took their son home on a snowy day, riding the same C train where they found him.

As blessed as they felt, the couple knew there would be challenges.

When they first held the boy -- whom they soon renamed Kevin -- at the foster home they found him guarded.

"In fact when we saw him he didn't blink. His eyes were just wide open and his arms were very stiff and tightly crossed across his chest," said Mercurio.

"So we got him in this condition and we thought we just need to love this kid immediately," added Stewart. "So we played with him and build up his trust in parents. Build up his trust in adults -- that he could be cared for, nurtured, and loved. So we showered him with love and touch. Didn't take long. He loosened up."

CNN is not identifying Kevin by his last name or his picture, to protect his privacy. But he knows the story of his discovery.

A quiet family life

Mercurio and Stewart created an illustrated child's storybook, dramatizing the events-- from the subway to meeting his new family.

"One day he asked me: Dad is the story about me?" said Stewart.

"I was very happy," said Kevin.

He likes sports, his school, and his friends.

The family went back to the dark underground station. They were all a little nervous about how Kevin would react.

"I think that was important for him to see and know that because now he has a connection," said Stewart. "I mean it's not just something abstract. He really has seen, and knows, and understands. And he has taking a lot of pride in that spot. That's his station. That's his place. This is where we became a family."

Stewart and Mercurio are not activists. They live, quiet lives in Manhattan and like all parents, find joy and occasional frustration in raising a soon-to-be teenager.

"You know sometimes in life you have to say yes," Mercurio said. "And we said 'yes' to becoming this baby's parents and it was the best 'yes' decision we have ever made in our lives."

Stewart said the story speaks to a core of humanity.

"I mean, deep down when you strip away all those layers, all those labels, we're all human beings and were all connected by certain things that we need in our lives -- love," he said.

[Danno 1,228]

Now why not share with us what percentage of Pediatric Doctors belong to this political/ medical group?

Very small percent (just like the AMA).

Now lets look at a glimpse of reality and see just how well Children who are now adults but experienced this type of house hold.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-suggests-risks-from-same-sex-parenting/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas Prof Mark Regnerus Vindicated After Conducting Gay Study

AUSTIN, Texas (BP) -- The University of Texas at Austin has cleared sociology professor Mark Regnerus of academic misconduct after he was excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents' homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children.

Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.

They also are more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

As a result, a gay-activist blogger accused Regnerus of academic fraud, demanding in July that the university release all his research material and emails with fellow sociologists.

"Disagreeing with a study's conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct."

-- David Hacker of Alliance Defending Freedom

Administrators conducted an exhaustive pre-investigation to determine whether a more comprehensive one would be necessary -- including hiring a consultant who formerly ran the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the process.

After sequestering all of Regnerus's correspondence and conducting both written and oral interviews with him and his accuser, Scott Rosensweig, UT-Austin research integrity officer Robert Peterson wrote in an Aug. 24 memorandum to administrators, "None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth ... were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.

"Since no evidence was provided to indicate that the behavior at issue rose to a level of scientific misconduct, no formal investigation is warranted," Peterson wrote.

Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family's director of family formation studies, said Regnerus went to great lengths to make sure his study was well-designed and executed, including soliciting input from other sociologists with whom he has ideological differences.

"Basically," Stanton said of Rosensweig, "this guy was crying, 'Fire!' and they didn't even find any smoke.

"The university has essentially concluded there is not even the slightest whiff of credibility" to the accusations, Stanton said. "That surprises none of us, because Mark is not an activist scholar, and that is very clear in the research that he did."

David Hacker, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, agreed, saying that America's universities "should always serve as truth-seeking, free marketplaces of ideas."

"Disagreeing with a study's conclusions is not grounds for allegations of scientific misconduct; therefore, we are not surprised that those accusations were found to be baseless," Hacker said. "We agree with the UT-Austin inquiry's conclusion that the academy is the appropriate place for debate about this study."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/prof-who-did-gay-parenting-study-vindicated

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I bet we will soon hear how this little boy would have been better off had he not been found.

I knew it!

[Danno 1,228]

I knew it!

Here,I think you left this in another thread..

[Darnell 8,479]

Same-Sex Marriage -- Why Supporting It Is Good For Children

I think it's Super Duper, For Canada !!!

USA? Not so much, if at all.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Now why not share with us what percentage of Pediatric Doctors belong to this political/ medical group?

Very small percent (just like the AMA).

Now lets look at a glimpse of reality and see just how well Children who are now adults but experienced this type of house hold.

So you cite one study done by a right-leaning social scientist against 60 studies sampled by the AAP, 57 of which supported same sex married parenting. Okay.

The study in the box you produced has been highly criticized for its lack of rigor. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-blood/201206/flawed-study-gay-parenting-roundup-recent-media-coverage-and-critiques A parent need have had only one homosexual experience in their life to be deemed "homosexual." That simply isn't the truth, no more than if a gay person had straight sexual experiences in their lifetime that would somehow make them straight. Nope.

Washington Times, just... lol.

Last time I checked, the AAP was not a "political/medical" group. Their membership numbers 60,000: http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-facts/Pages/AAP-Facts.aspx#Membership

The number of pediatricians in the US in 2009 (the last time this was measured) was 58,194. http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/departments-and-divisions/department-of-education/Pages/Division-of-Workforce-and-Medical-Education-Policy.aspx

So I guess the percentage of pediatricians and those in related fields (pediatric surgeons, etc.) who are members of the AAP is probably pretty high.

LOGICMAGIC

Same-Sex Marriage -- Why Supporting It Is Good For Children

I think it's Super Duper, For Canada !!!

USA? Not so much, if at all.

Is your citation for this, "Because I Think So"?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

So you cite one study done by a right-leaning social scientist against 60 studies sampled by the AAP, 57 of which supported same sex married parenting. Okay.

The studies don't matter to either of you.. If those 57 studies had said just the opposite you would still support gay marriage, it would not change your view in the slightest.

....and really they shouldn't matter. If I choose to shack up with a girlfriend and she has kids that is our business. I don't want society making laws about how I live my private life based on a study of what is good for me or my kids.

Since saying anything besides "I love gay people" has gotten me accused of wanting to murder all gays/lesbians recently let me say now: I don't agree with restricting any two people to form a union that any other two people can choose to form. I don't support it because it is "good for the children" and I would not stop supporting it because studies showed it was bad for children.

[Danno 1,228]

So you cite one study done by a right-leaning social scientist against 60 studies sampled by the AAP, 57 of which supported same sex married parenting. Okay.

The study in the box you produced has been highly criticized for its lack of rigor. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-blood/201206/flawed-study-gay-parenting-roundup-recent-media-coverage-and-critiques A parent need have had only one homosexual experience in their life to be deemed "homosexual." That simply isn't the truth, no more than if a gay person had straight sexual experiences in their lifetime that would somehow make them straight. Nope.

Sure you mentioned some studies ...and they are out there but when you dig into them you find their methodology sux. As it is a small minority to research they typically will take out ads in... you guessed it gay publications or locate people through gey-pride parades, which would be similar to getting gun control opinions at rifle ranges or the like.

Now obviously if ask kids, even in abusive homes "how ya doin" their survey response might not be a clear picture.

What is unique about this in-depth study is they focused on kids into adulthood to see how well they developed socially and other wise.

If your heartburn is that my link happened to go to the Washington times.... let me know it was of course in many publications and if a different link will help I of course will oblige.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sure you mentioned some studies ...and they are out there but when you dig into them you find their methodology sux. As it is a small minority to research they typically will take out ads in... you guessed it gay publications or locate people through gey-pride parades, which would be similar to getting gun control opinions at rifle ranges or the like.

Now obviously if ask kids, even in abusive homes "how ya doin" their survey response might not be a clear picture.

What is unique about this in-depth study is they focused on kids into adulthood to see how well they developed socially and other wise.

If your heartburn is that my link happened to go to the Washington times.... let me know it was of course in many publications and if a different link will help I of course will oblige.

Danno's one bogus study (which the author has said himself was more for political point-scoring than anything else): A+ #1 YAY

57 studies endorsed by the AAP: worthless

Got it.

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

I think if you had stated that marriage benefits children here in Denmark, a lot of people would be jumping on you. It is so very common here to have children and live together without ever being married. It is stable if that is what the couple chooses it to be, marriage is just a piece of paper.

I feel that this statement from the AAP cuts hard against unmarried couples raising children and does nothing to argue in favor of gay marriage.

If a gay couple is going to raise children the stability and benefit towards those children exists whether they are married or not. Perhaps the only thing this article should have pointed out is some of the legal benefits that they might receive, otherwise it is simply a false use of statistics.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's your operating principle, Danno. We all know that. Pointing it out time and again is not required.

We hold this truth to be self evident:

Danno = No Facts

[Danno 1,228]

I think if you had stated that marriage benefits children here in Denmark, a lot of people would be jumping on you. It is so very common here to have children and live together without ever being married. It is stable if that is what the couple chooses it to be, marriage is just a piece of paper.

I feel that this statement from the AAP cuts hard against unmarried couples raising children and does nothing to argue in favor of gay marriage.

If a gay couple is going to raise children the stability and benefit towards those children exists whether they are married or not. Perhaps the only thing this article should have pointed out is some of the legal benefits that they might receive, otherwise it is simply a false use of statistics.

Your post fails the basic logic test, to suggest that "marriage is just a piece of paper" indicates immaturity in knowing the facts. (And you seem to be under (HMS) Hippy Mindset syndrome.

If it is just a piece of paper.... Daym thing must be magic or something because kids do remarkably better when raised by stable environments... and thats what Marriage does better than anything else.

Sure we could find a few very committed people who are shacking-up for life but typically thats not the case and we know children do better in Stable homes raised by their mother and father.

Come on folks this is not complicated stuff.... a couple who can not even be committed to each other enough to marry is typically not as "collectively" committed to the children they produce......

as are people who marry.... and while Marriages fail regularly, it is still the best model we have.

Even when marriages fail the couple is more committed to being in the child's life and providing the best connection possible under the the unfortunate circumstance.

It would seem compelling Statistics are meaningless to you, if that is the case then, carry-on.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Danno

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

Your post fails the basic logic test, to suggest that "marriage is just a piece of paper" indicates immaturity in knowing the facts. (And you seem to be under (HMS) Hippy Mindset syndrome.

If it is just a piece of paper.... Daym thing must be magic or something because kids do remarkably better when raised by stable environments... and thats what Marriage does better than anything else.

And you fail the basic logic of the thought that perhaps those who are committed and interested in stability tend to get married.

Marriage does not in itself equate to stability, but is more an indicator of a stable relationship. See the difference?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If it is just a piece of paper.... Daym thing must be magic or something because kids do remarkably better when raised by stable environments... and thats what Marriage does better than anything else.

So it would then stand to reason that allowing same sex couples to marry would be beneficial for the children raised in same sex relationship households.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog