MarginOfError

It is never inappropriate to notify leaders of a position you would be interested in filling. It is only wrong to expect that you will be asked if you volunteer

It is never inappropriate to notify leaders of a position you would be interested in filling. It is only wrong to expect that you will be asked if you volunteer

My observations will be quite different as I don't participate in LDS scouting, nor do I live in a dense LDS population.
 
The youth in my troop and in my area greeted the news of the policy change with a shrug (why is this an issue?) and a question (why aren't homosexual adults allowed?).  In the discussions I've had with the parents of our scouts, the boys just don't see it as an issue.  
 
We did have a discussion among ourselves about how to make guard against sexual activity on campouts.  As a general rule, we will always try to have at least three boys in a tent, and if we have to put two boys in a tent, we will always put two boys of similar age.  By the time the boys are 14, they are usually confident enough to stand up for themselves, and so it's the younger boys we try to keep an eye on.  But that doesn't apply to just sexual advances. That applies to all forms of hazing.  We simply try to avoid allowing the opportunity for a power imbalance between the boys sharing a tent.  We've never discussed it with the boys, and so far as we know, they aren't aware that we have any such policies.  In general, they choose to tent with their friends in their patrols who are usually of similar age anyway.
 
Amazingly, the boys in boy-led program seem to have worked it out for themselves without adult intervention.

I suppose you're right that you don't "have to" acknowledge that the Book of Mormon is historically biased in the same way you don't have to acknowledge the commutative law of addition. The penalty for doing so, however, is that the beliefs and conclusions you draw based on that assumption are likely to fall apart under scrutiny.
The point though is that a missionary requiring that a potential convert believe the Book of Mormon is 100% true is setting an unreasonable standard (and illustrating his own naïveté).
The Book of Mormon could be a complete work of fiction, and so long as it was divinely inspired, I would continue to use my 'useful model' analogy.

Because, objectively speaking, it is.  It was written almost entirely by two people (Nephi and Mormon) who had deep motivation to frame the actions of themselves and their people in terms of God's involvement.  Nephi's record frames the acquisition of the brass plates and the murder of Laban as commands from God, but never really addresses the fact that these were legitimate crimes.  Thus, there is historical bias in the record* 
 
Again, with Nephi, there's never any mention of the fact that Laman was literally robbed of property that, according to the customs of the time, probably should have belonged to him (namely, the brass plates, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, etc).  Nephi stole these (wisely, sure) in the midst of his departure.  But a critical reading of the Nephi's records leaves the impression that Laman and Lemuel and legitimate complaints with Nephi that never really get presented.
 
For Mormon's part, with very few exceptions, the Lamanites are nearly always the unprovoked aggressors of any conflict.  The nature of humanity indicates this is very unlikely, and so it seems the history is probably whitewashed.  The only times the Lamanites are not the aggressors is when they are "righteous," or a part of the Church of God.
 
So yes, the Book of Mormon has a clear historical bias.  But that's okay, because it isn't a document that purports to be a complete history.  It's a religious history, and I'm not aware of any place in the record where anyone claims it is intended to be an unbiased record.  
 
So back to the point, it seems silly to me to expect that a person should have to accept the Book of Mormon as 100% truth when it almost certainly is not.
 
To put it in statistical terms: "All models are wrong.  Some models are useful."  I would classify the Book or Mormon as useful.
 
 
 
* Note: I'm not saying he shouldn't have done those things, just pointing out that the record is in fact biased.

Jamie, to be clear, I am a baptized and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I identify as 'not Mormon' because, generally speaking, I find Mormons annoying.  
 
That's partly cultural and partly me being a jerk.

Jamie, to be clear, I am a baptized and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I identify as 'not Mormon' because, generally speaking, I find Mormons annoying.  
 
That's partly cultural and partly me being a jerk.

It is never inappropriate to notify leaders of a position you would be interested in filling. It is only wrong to expect that you will be asked if you volunteer

It is never inappropriate to notify leaders of a position you would be interested in filling. It is only wrong to expect that you will be asked if you volunteer

Just for awareness, heart disease is the leading cause of death because the heart is usually the first organ to fail in old age.  Additionally, all deaths that do not have a clear cause are classified as cardiac deaths, meaning the person died because the heart stopped pumping blood.  This is true for people of all weights.  It has very little to do with diet and exercise and more to do with how we define death.
 
This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate problems with people obeying some aspects of the word of wisdom.  But do keep in mind that proper diet and lifestyle habits are an immensely complex and individualized balance that involve personal body chemistry, self control, chronic conditions, and even choices of hobbies.  Very few bishops are qualified to evaluate all of those dimensions on every individual in their stewardship, and any that are qualified are likely to be physicians and nutritionists professionally; to bring that professional perspective into their ecclesiastical responsibilities is rife with professional ethical questions.  This is why bishops are only expected to evaluate external, binary states of obedience regarding drug and alcohol use.  
 
More importantly, a good bishop isn't going to sit upon the throne of judgment for every member that comes into his office.  A good bishop is going to teach and inspire each member to judge him or herself.  I won't complain if you want to get on bishops' cases for doing a poor job of that.  But if you think the slovenly and gluttonous are getting free passes into the temple, you need to find a way to communicate that to the slovenly and gluttonous.  But if you want it to have any kind of impact, you'll need to find a better way to share those feelings than what you've done here.  In this thread, you've come across as judgmental and arrogant.  If you want to be effective in conveying your message, you'll need to learn to be compassionate and genuinely concerned for the spiritual and physical well being of those around you.

Just for awareness, heart disease is the leading cause of death because the heart is usually the first organ to fail in old age.  Additionally, all deaths that do not have a clear cause are classified as cardiac deaths, meaning the person died because the heart stopped pumping blood.  This is true for people of all weights.  It has very little to do with diet and exercise and more to do with how we define death.
 
This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate problems with people obeying some aspects of the word of wisdom.  But do keep in mind that proper diet and lifestyle habits are an immensely complex and individualized balance that involve personal body chemistry, self control, chronic conditions, and even choices of hobbies.  Very few bishops are qualified to evaluate all of those dimensions on every individual in their stewardship, and any that are qualified are likely to be physicians and nutritionists professionally; to bring that professional perspective into their ecclesiastical responsibilities is rife with professional ethical questions.  This is why bishops are only expected to evaluate external, binary states of obedience regarding drug and alcohol use.  
 
More importantly, a good bishop isn't going to sit upon the throne of judgment for every member that comes into his office.  A good bishop is going to teach and inspire each member to judge him or herself.  I won't complain if you want to get on bishops' cases for doing a poor job of that.  But if you think the slovenly and gluttonous are getting free passes into the temple, you need to find a way to communicate that to the slovenly and gluttonous.  But if you want it to have any kind of impact, you'll need to find a better way to share those feelings than what you've done here.  In this thread, you've come across as judgmental and arrogant.  If you want to be effective in conveying your message, you'll need to learn to be compassionate and genuinely concerned for the spiritual and physical well being of those around you.

Just for awareness, heart disease is the leading cause of death because the heart is usually the first organ to fail in old age.  Additionally, all deaths that do not have a clear cause are classified as cardiac deaths, meaning the person died because the heart stopped pumping blood.  This is true for people of all weights.  It has very little to do with diet and exercise and more to do with how we define death.
 
This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate problems with people obeying some aspects of the word of wisdom.  But do keep in mind that proper diet and lifestyle habits are an immensely complex and individualized balance that involve personal body chemistry, self control, chronic conditions, and even choices of hobbies.  Very few bishops are qualified to evaluate all of those dimensions on every individual in their stewardship, and any that are qualified are likely to be physicians and nutritionists professionally; to bring that professional perspective into their ecclesiastical responsibilities is rife with professional ethical questions.  This is why bishops are only expected to evaluate external, binary states of obedience regarding drug and alcohol use.  
 
More importantly, a good bishop isn't going to sit upon the throne of judgment for every member that comes into his office.  A good bishop is going to teach and inspire each member to judge him or herself.  I won't complain if you want to get on bishops' cases for doing a poor job of that.  But if you think the slovenly and gluttonous are getting free passes into the temple, you need to find a way to communicate that to the slovenly and gluttonous.  But if you want it to have any kind of impact, you'll need to find a better way to share those feelings than what you've done here.  In this thread, you've come across as judgmental and arrogant.  If you want to be effective in conveying your message, you'll need to learn to be compassionate and genuinely concerned for the spiritual and physical well being of those around you.

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.

I thought this post was about World of Warcraft.... I'll be going now

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.

The rich pay enough, the middle/upper middle class gets soaked, and the poor to low-middle class get kid-glove treatment.  That being said, it's probably a stretch to insist that the tithe is what God intended that secular governments use as a model for taxation. 

Just for awareness, heart disease is the leading cause of death because the heart is usually the first organ to fail in old age.  Additionally, all deaths that do not have a clear cause are classified as cardiac deaths, meaning the person died because the heart stopped pumping blood.  This is true for people of all weights.  It has very little to do with diet and exercise and more to do with how we define death.
 
This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate problems with people obeying some aspects of the word of wisdom.  But do keep in mind that proper diet and lifestyle habits are an immensely complex and individualized balance that involve personal body chemistry, self control, chronic conditions, and even choices of hobbies.  Very few bishops are qualified to evaluate all of those dimensions on every individual in their stewardship, and any that are qualified are likely to be physicians and nutritionists professionally; to bring that professional perspective into their ecclesiastical responsibilities is rife with professional ethical questions.  This is why bishops are only expected to evaluate external, binary states of obedience regarding drug and alcohol use.  
 
More importantly, a good bishop isn't going to sit upon the throne of judgment for every member that comes into his office.  A good bishop is going to teach and inspire each member to judge him or herself.  I won't complain if you want to get on bishops' cases for doing a poor job of that.  But if you think the slovenly and gluttonous are getting free passes into the temple, you need to find a way to communicate that to the slovenly and gluttonous.  But if you want it to have any kind of impact, you'll need to find a better way to share those feelings than what you've done here.  In this thread, you've come across as judgmental and arrogant.  If you want to be effective in conveying your message, you'll need to learn to be compassionate and genuinely concerned for the spiritual and physical well being of those around you.

There are a couple things I will add to this conversation.
 
The more unpleasant item is that there is an aspect of 'leadership roulette' to church discipline.  Some bishops and stake presidents take a harder stance than others.  That's an inevitable consequence of having a volunteer clergy (and a clergy that is very poorly trained, compared to other religions).  I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, but the volunteer clergy model does have its downsides.
 
It's also important to note that formal discipline has, as I understand it, been in decline for a couple of decades now.  A pragmatic view of the practice shows that, since most people who are excommunicated struggle to return because of social stigmas, it may at times be in the best interest of the individual to employ other disciplinary measures in hopes of maintaining a functional relationship with the individual.  This isn't always possible, but it seems to be preferred these days.  There seems to be an emphasis on excommunication being used with unrepentant sinners and probationary measures used with repentant sinners.  The actual decisions will vary from person to person and priesthood leader to priesthood leader (see 'leadership roulette').
 
Lastly, keep in mind that the Church has very strict policies of confidentiality regarding disciplinary hearings.  The Church also acknowledges that this opens them up to enormous criticism about how these hearings are portrayed by those who are subject to discipline.  But the Church, by and large, will not make public any details about these events unless the person disciplined makes them public first.  Even then, it is very rare that these statements are put into writing.
 
What I would try to emphasize is that, yes, at times is disparity and unfairness in how Church leaders mete out discipline.  It isn't always fair, and it may not always even be right.  But it is important to also judge if the individuals receiving discipline and the leaders assigning discipline are genuinely trying their best to do what's right.  As long as people's hearts are in the right place, we can work around the actions.  If the hearts are in the wrong place, we have much bigger problems than the actions.

There are a couple things I will add to this conversation.
 
The more unpleasant item is that there is an aspect of 'leadership roulette' to church discipline.  Some bishops and stake presidents take a harder stance than others.  That's an inevitable consequence of having a volunteer clergy (and a clergy that is very poorly trained, compared to other religions).  I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, but the volunteer clergy model does have its downsides.
 
It's also important to note that formal discipline has, as I understand it, been in decline for a couple of decades now.  A pragmatic view of the practice shows that, since most people who are excommunicated struggle to return because of social stigmas, it may at times be in the best interest of the individual to employ other disciplinary measures in hopes of maintaining a functional relationship with the individual.  This isn't always possible, but it seems to be preferred these days.  There seems to be an emphasis on excommunication being used with unrepentant sinners and probationary measures used with repentant sinners.  The actual decisions will vary from person to person and priesthood leader to priesthood leader (see 'leadership roulette').
 
Lastly, keep in mind that the Church has very strict policies of confidentiality regarding disciplinary hearings.  The Church also acknowledges that this opens them up to enormous criticism about how these hearings are portrayed by those who are subject to discipline.  But the Church, by and large, will not make public any details about these events unless the person disciplined makes them public first.  Even then, it is very rare that these statements are put into writing.
 
What I would try to emphasize is that, yes, at times is disparity and unfairness in how Church leaders mete out discipline.  It isn't always fair, and it may not always even be right.  But it is important to also judge if the individuals receiving discipline and the leaders assigning discipline are genuinely trying their best to do what's right.  As long as people's hearts are in the right place, we can work around the actions.  If the hearts are in the wrong place, we have much bigger problems than the actions.

I intend to begin my next talk along the lines of:
 
"Those of you who know me are aware that I can be a bit of a loose cannon.  You also know that I have an introvert's love of public speaking.  So my goal today is to make sure that I am never asked to speak in this ward again."
 
The humor is that those three sentences aren't at all related.  I'll never be asked to speak in this ward again because I'm moving out of state in a month.  But probably only a third of the ward knows that.

I intend to begin my next talk along the lines of:
 
"Those of you who know me are aware that I can be a bit of a loose cannon.  You also know that I have an introvert's love of public speaking.  So my goal today is to make sure that I am never asked to speak in this ward again."
 
The humor is that those three sentences aren't at all related.  I'll never be asked to speak in this ward again because I'm moving out of state in a month.  But probably only a third of the ward knows that.

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.

This is the best analysis I've seen on this topic to date.  It isn't perfect, but it uses appropriate statistical methodology and I'll trust that it shows the best representation of the nuances of the available data.
 
It also opens a few more questions for me that I think, when answered, would make a definitive case either for or against same sex marriage.  Yes, that's right...this study could be the genesis of the strongest case for same sex marriage we've had yet.
 
My first question is about why parental psychological stress isn't included in the model.  In the univariable descriptions, the psychological burden of same sex parents tended to be higher.  Why?  Does the parental stress carry over to the children?  We've seen studies about children and daycare and found that children who were in daycare and had parents who wanted to work fared just as well as children at home with a parent that did not want to work.  Conversely, children at home with parents who wanted to work fared just as poorly as children in daycare with parents that wanted to be home.  The moral of the story was that happy parents raise happy children.  This should be addressed in the research in question.
 
My second question would be: do these trends hold constant over time?  The survey in question has been in place since 1957, and the current analysis only uses from 1997 to 2013.  I think it would be interesting to take data from 1985 to 2013 and look at how the risk changes in either 5 year or 10 year increments.  If the risk is declining with time, it could suggest a number of possible scenarios, such as destigmatization reducing the psychological strain.
 
And my third curiosity deals with the variability of these estimates.  It's huge.  The confidence interval for the risk ratio associated with same sex parenting over two biological parents goes from 1.01 to 2.2.  That's the kind of interval I see in studies with about 60 subjects, and this claims 84,000.  This usually means that there is enormous variability within the groups.  My guess is that this would go back to the cumulative stress burden within the families.
 
One more question I would want to see addressed: how do children of biological parents compare to children of same sex parents who adopted in early infancy?  Particularly among same sex couples with no history of divorce.  Does allowing people to express themselves as they wish early in life result in better parenting.  It's really another take on happy parents, happy children.  I am interested in this because while the risk of same sex parented children is dramatically different than the risk of biologically parented children, the distinction gets a lot less clear when you compare to opposite sex step parents, single parents, and opposite sex cohabitating couples.  
 
This really is quality research.  But it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.  The answers to those questions, I suspect, will make the best objective case either for or against same sex marriage, and I'm really not sure how it will play out.