Same Sex Parents (moms) - 0% Child Abuse

[HoosierGuy]

This new study says there is 0% child abuse when kids are raised by two gay moms.

0% of Kids Raised by Lesbians Abused

LOS ANGELES - There is a virtually zero-percent rate of physical or sexual abuse of children raised by lesbians, according to a 24-year study of American lesbian families at UCLA.

In the study 78 teens were asked about abuse. They all said there was no abuse at all.

The study finds none of the 78 teens in the study report having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. That zero percent rate compares to a 26 percent rate of reported physical abuse and 8.3 percent rate of sexual abuse in American adolescents altogether.

[HoosierGuy]

I wonder what the abuse rate is with gay male parents and kids.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hardly surprising; the vast majority of reported physical/sexual abuse is perpetrated by males.

[NeuroTypical]

It makes perfect sense to me, that if most parental physical/sexual abuse comes from males, then families made of two mommies would have much lower rates.

Of course, if UCLA wished to forward truth instead of producing pro-gay propaganda, they'd look into the rates of abuse for families with two daddies as well. Something makes perfect sense for me there too - but I'm thinking the world doesn't wanna hear it.

LM

[Gwen]

there is a lot of missing information there. not sure i trust the source either.

i participated in a survey once looking at teen sex and drug use, this was in high school. after answering the questions i was told if i answered truthfully that i shouldn't bother to participate in those types of surveys anymore. the reason was i was a "good mormon girl" so all my answers on drinking, smoking, sex, etc were no and never. i was told when such surveys are done they throw out the extremes on either end on the assumption that the participant was lying. "keeps the results more accurate" so my survey was going to be thrown out and not considered in the results, i wasted my time.

i might be more likely to listen to their findings if they said significantly less abuse in this home over that home but 0%.... smells fishy.

[MarginOfError]

there is a lot of missing information there. not sure i trust the source either.

i participated in a survey once looking at teen sex and drug use, this was in high school. after answering the questions i was told if i answered truthfully that i shouldn't bother to participate in those types of surveys anymore. the reason was i was a "good mormon girl" so all my answers on drinking, smoking, sex, etc were no and never. i was told when such surveys are done they throw out the extremes on either end on the assumption that the participant was lying. "keeps the results more accurate" so my survey was going to be thrown out and not considered in the results, i wasted my time.

Sounds like a pretty crappy statistician to me.

i might be more likely to listen to their findings if they said significantly less abuse in this home over that home but 0%.... smells fishy.

I actually would expect a really low rate of abuse among homosexual male parents. The majority of abusers may be male, but the majority of abusers also self-identify as heterosexual (even among those who molest young males). Openly homosexual males aren't often found to be abusers.

Also, in cases where the child is adopted, the parents get screened. So unless the study includes only biologically born children, you've already introduced a selection bias.

In any case, trying to read this study as "homosexuals make better parents" is fairly ludicrous. People living openly homosexual lives are also more likely to oppose corporal punishment, be in favor of constructive criticism and discussion, and advocate non-violence in general. A classic case of the correlation vs. causation schism.

[goodfeeling_]

lol 70 people are part of this amazing statistic???

[WindRiver]

I would say that the moral / spiritual abuse of having an innocent child being raised in such an amoral environment is just as horrible as physical abuse and could possibly be worse in an eternal perspective. The child is being taught Lucifer's perverted version of parents and family and the damage could have eternal consequences. The same would apply to non married "parents" of opposite gender.

Edited November 11, 2010 by WindRiver

[MarginOfError]

I would say that the moral / spiritual abuse of having an innocent child being raised in such an amoral environment is far worse than any physical abuse. The child is being taught Lucifer's version of parents and the damage can have eternal consequences. The same would apply to non married "parents" of opposite gender.

So you're saying it's better for a child to be raised in a home where a child is beaten and abused than to be raised in a home where two loving parents of the same gender care for the child?

[Gwen]

I would say that the moral / spiritual abuse of having an innocent child being raised in such an amoral environment is just as horrible as physical abuse and could possibly be worse in an eternal perspective. The child is being taught Lucifer's perverted version of parents and family and the damage could have eternal consequences. The same would apply to non married "parents" of opposite gender.

which set of parents are under the greater eternal condemnation?

parents A are a gay couple who tries their best to teach basic wholesome principles of right and wrong. honesty, work ethic, think for yourself, good character, kindness to others, respecting others for who they are, etc. they try to live the principles themselves and do a decent job of it. the kids grow up happy, well adjusted, accepting of others, and are open to hear other's views because of that. possibly being very prepared to one day listen to the missionaries with an open mind.

parents b are a couple that is active in the church and have been sealed. they teach all the same principles in the home that couple a does, all the things the church says we should be/do. but they are not good examples of it. they teach we should love and accept others but then they make snide and bigoted comments. they teach work ethic but then they only work for others in the name of service, they will put on a roof for the neighbor while their own roof is leaking on their child at night. so the kids grow up with a low self esteem and generally afraid of life. they see the hypocrisy of the parents and what they claim to live from the church and it makes them feel sick. as soon as they are old enough they leave home and disconnect from the church and are probably not open to ever consider going back to that way of life that made them so unhappy.

[hordak]

Hey MOE. You're the stat man. Is it fair/common to compare such a small sample group to a larger one?

90% of my ward is in the military. Compared with .1% (stat made up on spot) of all US citizens.

This indicates Mormons are more likely to join the service?

I don't doubt it is less, since they cannot have kids unless they truly want them but comparing such a small group to everyone doesn't seem right.

[prisonchaplain]

There's such an incredible amount of self-selection and forethought that goes into two women who choose to openly live together as Lesbians, and then to defy social mores, by raising a child together, that it does not surprise me much that there is no child abuse reported. Now if 70,000 couples raised those children in a society that did not look twice at such arrangements, then the rate of abuse might be closer to whatever is the normal rate for female parents.

[Dravin]

Also, in cases where the child is adopted, the parents get screened. So unless the study includes only biologically born children, you've already introduced a selection bias.

The first thing that popped into my mind was this. Someone who has to adopt has to make a conscious choice (or someone in a monogamous homosexual relationship who conceives by various methods) to have children. Where as heterosexual couples (or even a single parent) can have a child when they'd rather not have one (and while there is abortion not everyone who would rather not have a child is willing to abort and obviously those who are willing select themselves out of the "had a child I didn't want or plan on" crowd) So I wonder how much having a group that more heavily selects for active choice against a group that includes active choice and accident is influencing the results.

Of course my underlying assumption, that children who are actively conceived as opposed to those who are accidently or nonideally conceived are more likely to be abused, is something I don't have any data for.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Dravin

[GaySaint]

Something makes perfect sense for me there too - but I'm thinking the world doesn't wanna hear it.

LM

I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to here. I think PC's last comment makes a lot of sense, and would expect the same to be true of gay males as well (in that, as they have to prepare a lot more for a child, the instances of abuse would be lower than the general male population until that preparation is no longer required. Then it would probably equal out to the same level of abuse amoung men in general). Do you not agree?

[MarginOfError]

Hey MOE. You're the stat man. Is it fair/common to compare such a small sample group to a larger one?

90% of my ward is in the military. Compared with .1% (stat made up on spot) of all US citizens.

This indicates Mormons are more likely to join the service?

I don't doubt it is less, since they cannot have kids unless they truly want them but comparing such a small group to everyone doesn't seem right.

No. But that doesn't invalidate a descriptive study. If you try to make inferences on those descriptions, however, you get into trouble.

It's perfectly accurate to say that there was a 0% abuse rate in this sample, and to extrapolate that into saying abuse rates are low in lesbian parents. But there is no basis for comparison between this sample and the general population, mostly because of all the selection biases already discussed.

[prisonchaplain]

A rabbi was once asked why he does not eat shrimp. Is it the high cholestrol? Unhealthy fats? High rate of dangerous micro-organisms? He responded negatively to all such suggestions. "Then why?" the questioned repeated.

"Because God said no."

At the end of the day, this is the reason most oppose gay marriage and adoption. We believe God said no. And, increasingly, younger post-moderns are responding, "So?" Others are looking back to scriptures and trying to discern how much of the opposition was specific to same-sex attraction, and how much was due to other reasons (idolatry, lack of consent, etc.) I could be wrong, but those of us who want to keep marriage traditional may find that the science is not going to help us out--nor the sociology.

[Wingnut]

A rabbi was once asked why he does not eat shrimp. Is it the high cholestrol? Unhealthy fats? High rate of dangerous micro-organisms? He responded negatively to all such suggestions. "Then why?" the questioned repeated.

"Because God said no."

Man, why does that work for the rabbi and shrimp, but not for the Mormon and coffee? It's not the caffeine, it's not the tannins, it's not the heat. It's because God said no.

[Elphaba]

I have no idea how statistically significant this is, but not all children raised by gay parents were planned in the same manner a gay couple plans it. Many of them were conceived in a previous marriage to someone of the opposite sex. So, they would not be included in those groups where the gay parent had to be pre-approved, or who took special efforts to have the child beyond what most straight couples do.

I also don't get the animosity over this study. It was conducted by a reputable organization over a span of 24 years. I also find it questionable that not one teenager admitted to having been abused--it's literally impossible that there is not at least one lesbian on the planet who abuses her child. But even if some of the teenagers lied, the number is still incredibly low, and thus, noteworthy.

As far as a study about male gay parenting, whether this organization conducts one or not does not negate the findings of this one. Studies purposely keep the parameters as slim as possible to ensure credible results. There's nothing wrong with that.

Discovering a population that does not abuse its children is a good thing. If it weren't a gay population, I suspect most here would agree and be trying to figure out how to emulate it--or even comparing current Mormon parenting practices to it, given the strong, and laudable emphasis the Church places on good parenting.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Discovering a population that does not abuse its children is a good thing. If it weren't a gay population, I suspect most here would agree and be trying to figure out how to emulate it--or even comparing current Mormon parenting practices to it, given the strong, and laudable emphasis the Church places on good parenting.

Elphaba

Not sure the emulating part is an option.

[GaySaint]

PC: I'm sure it's possible to emulate the preparation, and the desire for a family, and the stability =)

I don't think the RELATIONSHIP has anything to do with it, honestly. The relationship happened to RESULT in the preparation, desire, and stability, but the preparation, desire, and stability is not DEPENDENT on the relationship.

I also have to admit that I find the part about the female children of these couples being more likely to experiment with members of the same-sex and identifying as having a more fluid sexuality interesting (and you all thought I would leave that part conveniently out of the discussion, lol). Since I don't have much experience with female sexuality I can't really comment on why I think this is...

[NeuroTypical]

I think PC's last comment makes a lot of sense, and would expect the same to be true of gay males as well (in that, as they have to prepare a lot more for a child, the instances of abuse would be lower than the general male population until that preparation is no longer required. Then it would probably equal out to the same level of abuse amoung men in general). Do you not agree?

Since we're dealing with what we'd expect to see if we looked at a sample, no, I don't agree, for various reasons.

But since both our expectations come from our attempts to understand human behavior and the human heart, we're both just guessing at this point. As I said, I'd like to see the study done.

I'm certainly up to altering my worldview when seeing statistics that imply something else is going on.

LM

[GaySaint]

LM: I'm just curious as to your worldview. Are you saying that it would be your guess that gay men would abuse their children more than the general population?

I'm not trying to argue or change your worldview, I'm just wondering what in your worldview would make you think that.

It might apply and it might not, but the rate of domestic violence in general in same-gender relationships (regardless of whether they are lesbian or gay) is about 25%, roughly the same as the rate of domestic violence against heterosexual women in opposite-gendered couples. (Domestic Violence in Gay Relationships).

[Just_A_Guy]

Given that most kids of gay couples (AFAIK) were conceived via a previous straight relationship, and given that when a (straight) couple breaks up the kids usually go with Mom--it does make some degree of sense to focus primarily on the child-rearing skills of gay females.

Of course, if the study is then used to imply that gays generally are better parents than straights, or more virtuous, or what-have-you: sure, the problems with that are obvious.

[GaySaint]

JAG: I would hope the study isn't used to "prove" that gay parents are better than straight parents, etc, but I can see why it would be used to suggest that gay parents aren't WORSE than straight parents, LESS virtuous, etc. I think the problems with such claims are also equally obvious.

But it is silly to compare pearls to swine (I hate seeing the "perfect gay couple" compared to the "abusive straight couple" or the "sinful gay couple" compared to the "righteous mormon couple"). Let's compare good gay couples to good straight couples, and admit that the children in both are likely to experience a loving, accepting, home with parents who teach them values and morals (although it would be fair to admit that some of those values and morals may differ slightly, just as they would with a child raised in a good catholic home verses a good christian home).

[ADoyle90815]

One thing I've seen with studies is that the majority of abusers, including those that abuse boys tend to be males who are heterosexual, often they're married to a woman. I still find it hard to believe that this study claimed that there were no allegations of abuse, as it's not always the parents who abuse children, often it's someone else known to the child, such as another family member, coach, babysitter, family friend, etc. The point is, while someone might not be abused by lesbian parents, they could be abused by someone else.