Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 770 | Debunking the 'Kids Do Better with Gay Parents' Study

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

Starting point is 00:00:19 We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. A recent study circulating on social media seems to conclude that children of same-sex couples fare the same or even better than children of opposite sex couples. But is that really what the data in the study says? Who funded this study, by the way? How is it conducted?

Starting point is 00:00:55 And most importantly, what's the truth? truth. We're going to dig into all of that today on this episode of Relatable, which is brought to you by your friends at Go to Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley at checkout. That's Good Ranchers.com. Code All right. Before we get into the subjects that I told you that we're going to talk about at the top of the show, there are a few things that I want to say. One is administrative business a little bit in an announcement, a fun announcement. A fun announcement and then the two other things are just encouragement that I've been thinking about that I've been meaning to share with you that I will share and then we'll get into these stories. So

Starting point is 00:01:46 number one, first point of order is that we have a new studio that has been being built in just the other room that is absolutely amazing. I love it so much. I'm so excited for you guys to see it and we are going to show it to you next week. I've been in this temporary set, which has been great. I love the lighting. You guys like the background. It's been a great temporary set. But it is nothing like the amazing new set that we have. I am so, so, so excited about it. It's very different than the previous relatable set that we had. I think you guys are really going to like it. And so next week we will be in the new set and we will be having a really fun episode to celebrate that. We're going to be doing a giveaway with some products from some of

Starting point is 00:02:33 my awesome sponsors that you guys are going to love and we're going to do some other fun things as well. I might show you a little bit of the set this week on social media, maybe on the Ali's Shorts page, maybe on my Instagram page, I haven't decided yet. But next week, make sure that you tune into YouTube next week so that you can actually see it and not just listen to it on the listening side. I know the vast majority of you are listening to this, but go to YouTube next week. I think it'll be next Monday. There's a lot that we have to do before Monday to make sure that it's finished because I want all the things because it's not just, guys, just prepare your hearts and minds. It's not just that we are

Starting point is 00:03:14 getting a new studio. We're also going to have new opening music. Some of you are going to be sad about that because that little tune that's played at the beginning of Relatable has been a part of your life and a part of your daily routine and even your kids' life and daily routine for a long time. They recognize that little tune. So just prepare your heart and mind that that is going to change. Now, it might take a little bit to adjust to, but just bear with us. We're still actually trying to figure out what music we're going to play. That's like maybe the hardest part of this relatable refresh that we're going through is choosing the right music. But it's time for refresh. I love the branding that we have. I loved the set that we have. But, you know, we've been doing

Starting point is 00:03:54 relatable since 2018. We've had that set since, I think, 2020. So it's just time for a little update. And you guys are really going to like it. We're also going to. to have a new podcast cover. The relatable brand itself is now going to look different in a different font. I really, really love it. I think that you guys are going to like it too. And I'm really excited to show it to you. So next week, hopefully next Monday, we're going to have all this new stuff rolling out. We're also going to have new merch. I keep on remembering all of the new things that we're going to have. We've been working really hard for several months. Like since last fall, we've been working on all of this stuff. And so we're going to have new merch for you guys.

Starting point is 00:04:33 and like I said, a giveaway, it's going to be so fun. So next week is going to be a week of spring celebration and a spring refresh for relatable. Can you believe that we have been doing Relatable for five years? I think it's been five years March, March of 2018. It started out, I think, once a week. And then we went to two and then we went to three and then we've been doing four for quite a while, maybe since 2020. So thank you to those of you who. have been here since 2018. Wow, I can't believe that, honestly. And thank you to those of you who

Starting point is 00:05:10 have come along the way. And maybe you started and then you stopped and now you're back. I appreciate it. I appreciate all of you who share the show, who talk about the show, who have come to hear me speak, who have sent me encouraging messages and especially those of you who pray for me. This really is a community. I'm just so thankful. I'm so thankful to have been doing this for the last five years. And there will be many, many more. All right. Okay, so that was the first point of order. That's next week.

Starting point is 00:05:40 Stay tuned for that. Now, I want to give you two little points of encouragement. So the first one is a metaphor that I've been thinking about. Let's see if I can put these two encouragements together somehow and connect them. So I take a kind of workout class that is driven by the music. It is a bar class. And I used to teach this kind of bar class a few years ago right after I got married. And I love it.

Starting point is 00:06:12 I've been doing it off and on for about 10 years. Sometimes I was doing CrossFit. Sometimes I was doing cycling. Sometimes I was doing Orange Theory. But this is like the kind of exercise that I love. Sometimes I was doing nothing. Really, that's been over the past four years. I've kind of just fallen off the horse when it comes to exercise.

Starting point is 00:06:31 But then I started going back to the. these bar classes sometime last fall. And I just absolutely love it. And one thing I love about it is that it is driven by music, by tempo. And so it's not that you're just doing these moves and there's music playing in the background, but actually as you are changing, as you're changing movements, as you're going into the next thing, you are doing it with the transition of the music. You're doing it to the beat of the music. And a really good teacher, a really good instructor, integral to the quality of the class. And one thing, I think the primary thing that makes a good instructor is the ability to stay on the beat of the music, to hear the music, to be so in tune

Starting point is 00:07:18 with the beat with the rhythm that they are instructing the class to change movements at the right time. That in addition to all of the different things that a teacher does. And so it's difficult to teach these classes because you have to have a talent beyond. just being fit. But not all teachers have that musical ability, which means that sometimes the classes can be chaotic. When someone is at the front of the class who is supposed to be leading the class on tempo, on beat, and they themselves are offbeat, that means the entirety of the class is going to be offbeat. And that means in this particular kind of exercise, that it's going to be chaos, It's going to be chaos.

Starting point is 00:08:01 And there are going to be different people going to different times. And that's not how this workout is supposed to go. It's supposed to be driven by the beat of the music. And yet, if you have someone who is telling you to do something on the wrong beat or change the wrong time and everyone in the class might be following that wrong beat or that wrong instruction, that wrong teacher, and you yourself can hear the music. You hear the beat of the music. You know when you're supposed to change.

Starting point is 00:08:29 It can be really difficult to stay on beat. And yet, I think the quality, the excellence of the class, the uniqueness of this kind of exercise is found in actually staying on beat. So I will find myself sometimes just because I used to take this kind of class. And thankfully because of my dear mother, I do have some kind of musical ability somewhere in my brain. I really try to stay on beat even sometimes when everyone is offbeat. And is that not?

Starting point is 00:08:59 Is that not? Also, how we try to live our lives as we talk about being a sort of human salmon that is constantly trying to swim upstream as everyone else is just going with the flow. And what you have to do in those classes is you have to close your eyes. You have to ignore what everyone else is doing. Sometimes you even have to ignore what the person that you're supposed to be trusting to teach you is saying, and you have to hear the music. You have to remember what is true. You have to make sure that you are staying on beat even when everyone else is wrong. And that is what is required, certainly in today's culture, really throughout history when it comes to Christians standing out in the world. But when everyone else is doing one thing, no matter how difficult it might be to do the right thing, no matter how much you may be standing out, no matter how difficult it may be, no matter how much it may be, no matter how much, no matter how much focus it may take, it is absolutely worth closing your eyes and listening to the music.

Starting point is 00:10:06 And in my metaphor, it's probably an imperfect metaphor in a lot of different ways, but staying true to what God's word says, staying true to the Holy Spirit's convictions, to what we know is true, even when everyone else is either completely off or just a little bit off, is our task as a Christian. And sometimes that's easy to do. Sometimes that's difficult to do. Sometimes the beat is easy to hear. Sometimes it's more difficult to hear.

Starting point is 00:10:35 But sanctification, part of that process is getting better and better at not just listening to the music, but staying on beat with the music, understanding the rhythm and then also applying it to your life. Even when it seems like everyone around you, even the people that you're listening to that have influence over you, just don't. get it. I think we felt like that a lot over the past few years as women, as we've seen the places that we have gone for inspiration and encouragement like Instagram completely erupt in things like a false social justice ideology. And even the Christians that we know and love and want to listen

Starting point is 00:11:16 to are slightly off when it comes to their theology surrounding political, moral, cultural issues. And we can feel gaslit into thinking, well, maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't hear the music. And yet, our task is then to go back to the word of God, to compare not only what they are saying, but also what we are saying and what we think to what he says, because God's rhythm is always right. And as long as our focus is staying on beat with him, this is turning into a very cheesy metaphor, then we can rest assured that we are doing the right thing. And we will do that in foul, or we will do that fallible. we will do that imperfectly, but isn't that our task? So I think about that a lot when I am in

Starting point is 00:12:04 these bar classes and sometimes things are just wild and are, and my job is to stay focused. And that's our job in life, especially in the Christian life as well. So just a reminder for you in my lengthy metaphor. And then another piece of encouragement, I'm not really sure how to connect this, although this is just another aspect of the Christian life is finding peace and trusting God and resting in what he says. And one of you sent me on this excerpt from a sermon from Charles Spurgeon that I just really like. We talk a lot about the sovereignty of God and why it is so important to trust him and why it is so important to remember that even in this political and cultural chaos that we find ourselves in, that he is not surprised. He is not shocked. He is not

Starting point is 00:12:52 worried. He's not a God who comes in later and cleans up the mask. But he is a God who is sovereign over all of it, whose victory is absolutely sure. And I love how Charles Spurgeon puts this. I mean, people were such more, so much more frank and straightforward back in the day than we are today. We have to put a million caveats on what we say. We have to nuance it a million times to where we're not really saying anything at all. We're so concerned with our tone. We're so concerned with hurting people's feelings that we don't actually say anything of substance. And yet Charles Spurgeon wasn't concerned about that. And I think that's why we find so much refreshment and so much encouragement from his word. So here's what Charles Spurgeon has to say in one

Starting point is 00:13:33 of his sermons about anxiety. Are you afraid for the infinite Jehovah that his purposes may fail? Shame on you. Your anxiety dishonors God. Shall omnipotence be defeated? Rest patiently. God's purpose will be accomplished. His kingdom will come. His chosen will be saved. In Christ shall see the travail of his soul. Take the sweet sleep which God gives to his beloved, the sleep of perfect confidence, such as Jesus slept in the hinder part of the ship when it was tossed with tempest. The cause of God was never in jeopardy and never will be. The seed sown is ensured by omnipotence and must produce its harvest. That's from farm sermons, Charles Spurgeon. I'm sure that's something that you can look up online and find for yourself. The seed stone is insured by

Starting point is 00:14:23 omnipotence and must produce its harvest. I think that's important for us to remember at all times, but especially as we are facing all of the geopolitical threats that we are today, certainly the moral collapse of our nation as we are analyzing almost on a daily basis on this show that God is not taken aback. He's not thrown off by anything. Omnipotence cannot be defeated. And praise God for that. Who wouldn't want to be the child of an omnipotent father? And yet that is what we are because of Christ. All right, before we get into the craziness of our day. Hey, this is Steve Day.

Starting point is 00:15:03 If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's

Starting point is 00:15:25 unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Okay, so a lot of you have been sending me some headlines, Instagram posts, and tweets about this new study that came out January 11, 2023. And for some reason, it just started circulating in the media earlier. this month, a little bit late last month. It's a gay parenting analysis. And it was published in BMJ Global Health. And it basically concluded that kids of gay parents, two moms, two dads,

Starting point is 00:16:19 actually fare the same or fair better than kids who are raised by a mom or a dad. So here's what the results say in this study. The quantitative synthesis results suggested that sexual minority families may perform better in children's psychological adjustment and parent-child relationship than heterosexual families. Most of the family outcomes are similar between sexual minority and heterosexual families and sexual minority families have even better outcomes in some domains. Relevant social risk factors of poor family outcomes included stigma and discrimination, poor social support and marital status, etc.

Starting point is 00:16:57 The next step is to integrate multiple aspects of support, and multi-level interventions to reduce the adverse effects on family outcomes with a long-term goal of influencing policy and lawmaking for better services to individuals, families, communities, and schools. And so you probably saw several headlines. There was Forbes, kids raised by same-sex parents fare the same as or better than kids of straight couples research finds. And in this Forbes article, they say that this is possibly because they are more tolerant. These families are more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing towards younger children than heterosexual parents, adding that exploring gender and sexual identity may actually enhance children's ability to succeed and thrive in a range

Starting point is 00:17:38 of context. And then you have daily male. Children of same-sex parent families are less likely to be straight than adults. Research claims. And, you know, some would say that this is a good thing. Again, probably attributed they would say to the diversity and open-mindedness of these families. the guardian children of same-sex couples fare at least as well as in other families, says this study. Many other outlets have done write-ups on this analysis. They just kind of summarized the findings, the Hill, the Times. As I said, there were a lot of social media posts about this. And so let's look at this study.

Starting point is 00:18:17 Let's see who conducted this study. Let's see what the methodology is. And let's see if there are any opposing points to this. Now, let me say before I start, no matter what a study says, like as a Christian, we believe, I believe in Genesis 1.27. I believe that God is good. I believe that God is sovereign. I believe that God is better than me, that he is wiser than me. And he created the family, as we see so clearly in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible. Genesis 1.27, God made them in his image male and female. He

Starting point is 00:18:47 created them. So we see right there, God's definition of gender, which is the same thing as sex. we don't see any kind of category that separates gender from sex, that you can be, that you can identify as something other than what you biologically are. And we also see his creation of the family. We see his creation of marriage right there. It is very clear. And it's not just that verse, as we've talked about very many times, the alliteration that I came up with probably almost five years ago at this point, but that we've talked about and that we have cited our references for the, creation, the definition of marriage and gender. But marriage between one man and one woman is rooted in creation as we see in Genesis 1. It's reiterated throughout scripture. For example, 10 commandments, honor

Starting point is 00:19:36 your father and mother. Those are not arbitrary placements right there. Honor your father and mother. That's just a reiteration of God's definition of marriage and the family. So it's rooted in creation. It's reiterated throughout scripture. It's repeated by Jesus himself. And you'll hear a lot. Well, Jesus never talked about a homosexuality. He never talked about those things. Look, as Christians, we don't just look at, well, what did God specifically talk about so we can see if it's really bad? Okay, Jesus also didn't specifically mention gang rape. Does that mean that he approves of that? That's a silly argument. What we see in Matthew 19, 4 through 5 is that Jesus very explicitly defines what marriage is between one man and one woman. A man shall leave his mother and father and hold

Starting point is 00:20:26 fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Plus Jesus is God. So everything that God says throughout the Old Testament, Jesus says too. So even without Matthew 194 through five, yes, Jesus agrees with Genesis 1 27 because as we read in John 1, Jesus is God. He was God and was with God in the beginning. So rooted in creation reiterated throughout scripture, repeated by Jesus himself, representative of Christ in the church. We read that in Ephesians 5, at the end of Ephesians 5, that the husband is to be like Christ in sacrificing himself for his bride, which represents the church. And so we see that those are very specific, very purposeful designations, very gender-specific designations that can't be just replaced.

Starting point is 00:21:18 They can't be switched around. That actually the male-female marriage is representative of the gospel itself. Christ in the church. Wow, that's eternal and spiritual significance beyond what our earthly minds can even understand, which leads to the fifth R, which is reflective of the gospel. So because it's representative of Christ in the church, it's reflective of the gospel. So it's a huge deal. This is why when you see people compromise on the definition of marriage and definition of gender who claim to be Christians, the rest of their theology eventually false.

Starting point is 00:21:51 That's why you've seen the trajectory of someone like Jen Hatmaker. Okay. So she starts with questioning this and then just believing that she is more loving, that she is wiser than God, that she knows better than God did in the beginning, rejecting the definition of marriage that is perfectly clear throughout scripture. and then she has slowly but surely actually pretty quickly but surely also given in on all of pretty much all of the basic tenets of Christianity this is how it goes it's not just because they're just these obscure verses in leviticus even though it would be fine if they were but they're much more than that actually and so when you get rid of the definition of marriage which is so central to Christianity because it represents Christ in the church

Starting point is 00:22:38 that's why eventually the rest of your theological foundation also crumbles. So I say all that to say that as a Christian, I will always believe in the definition of marriage because I know that God knows better than me. And so it doesn't matter what a study says about the outcomes of kids. That is what my foundation is. Now, I also don't believe that science is ever going to disprove God. And so I am always going to be skeptical of studies like this. But I also understand that, yes, that's God's definition of marriage.

Starting point is 00:23:13 But I also understand that two women can be excellent moms, that two men may be excellent dads. Like, I don't think just because you are a lesbian or you are gay, that you are a bad dad or a bad mom. In fact, I know same-sex couples who love their kids very much and would do absolutely anything. for their kids. That's really not what this is about. The point is, not only does God define marriage one way, and he's the creator of all of this, so he gets to define it. He always knows best. But the other point is that even amazing moms can't be a dad. Even amazing dads can't be a mom. And because the genders are different, because they complement one another, because they bring something unique to the table, even if two moms can be great moms, even if two dads can be great dads,

Starting point is 00:24:03 They can't ever be a complete parental unit because they can't compliment each other the way that men and women naturally, innately do. Dads bring different things to the table. Moms bring different things to the table. That's why fatherlessness has a different effect on children in society than motherlessness does. Because we're unique. We're different. We know that. And some people who acknowledge that there's a difference in men and women when they talk about the transgender debate don't acknowledge that when it comes to

Starting point is 00:24:33 what is typically referred to as same-sex marriage. And I sometimes use that term, but really marriage is defined by God and it can't be same-sex. So very often I'll say same-sex unions. They will reject that reality when it comes to these same-sex unions. That really saying that two men can do the same job as a man and a woman when it comes to parenting is no less absurd than saying a man can become a woman. it's actually the same underlying idea. It's the same concept that men and women are interchangeable.

Starting point is 00:25:10 Men and women are not interchangeable. Biology tells us that and of course the Bible tells us that too. So I just wanted to premise all of this that even if I didn't have problems with the methodology of the study and the conclusions that it came to, like I would still believe the same thing because it's not only about outcomes. It's also about origin. It's not only about how did these kids fare because I believe that there are plenty of kids. who end up fine in life, who have two dads or two moms,

Starting point is 00:25:36 that doesn't mean that there wasn't a missing piece in their life. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to know their mother and father. And that doesn't mean that it's morally right either. It just doesn't. So I just wanted to premise it that way. But also, in addition, this study has a lot of problems. So the first red flag for me is that this is a study that was conducted So it was conducted by 10 scholars at the School of Nursing, Guangxi Medical University in China,

Starting point is 00:26:10 and one Chinese scholar at Duke University School of Nursing. This is funded partially by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, an innovation product of Guangxi graduate education. Now, the National Natural Science Foundation is run by the Chinese Communist Party. And if you know anything about so-called LGBTQ rights in China, they're few and far between. It's very culturally, socially stigmatized, homosexuality is certainly transgenderism. They actually have a lot more common sense restrictions around transitioning, like minors transitioning.

Starting point is 00:26:45 It's certainly not allowed. You have to be over the age of 20. But there are a variety of restrictions that China has. Like, yes, same-sex private sexual activity is legal, but you can't have any gay themes in media, including on social media. There are no anti-discrimination laws in China when it comes to employment, when it comes to people who call themselves gay.

Starting point is 00:27:09 There's no anti-discrimination laws in education. And so it is very stigmatized. There was actually a poll in China, and I'm not sure how exactly this was conducted so you can take it with a grain of salt. But as of 2010, 80 to 90% of men who called themselves gay were married to women. And so the traditional natural family,

Starting point is 00:27:30 China is upheld as the ideal. And homosexuality, certainly so-called transgenderism is not something that is protected by law at all. And this is a place, by the way, that does not have free speech. It doesn't have freedom of religion. It doesn't have freedom of protection. It doesn't have a First Amendment in the Constitution the way that we do. So the fact that an organization that is run by the Chinese Communist Party, which has done everything but fully outlaw, LGBT, BDQ activity and identities in China, which regularly censors those themes in Chinese media and social media. That is a little bit questionable to me.

Starting point is 00:28:12 Like, I certainly don't think that this Chinese Communist Party run institution is funding this study because they're brave, because they're standing up to the CCP. Like, you know that the dictator of China just was. was unanimously reelected, quote unquote. Again, not because he's done a great job. Like we've seen the footage from China, how people were dying in their homes because of the lockdowns. But this is because these people are afraid to be murdered by him and by his cronies. So the fact that this is being funded by the Chinese Communist Party makes me think that this is actually China doing what it has been doing for a very long time, which is sewing propaganda in confusion

Starting point is 00:28:59 in the United States and the West. I mean, that's what they do with racial propaganda after George Floyd. They were putting out all kinds of messages about how America is racist and how we treat black people. I mean, this is at the same time that they were literally evicting Africans from their apartments and not letting them in to their restaurants during COVID because they said that they were the main carriers of COVID, which wasn't true. And so China does this a lot.

Starting point is 00:29:23 They actually so a lot of confusion and they push a lot of left-wing ideas through propaganda in the United States, even as they do not uphold those same values. And I think, I don't think it's necessarily because they want to be on the left side. I think it's because it stokes this culture war and it stokes this division. I mean, Soviet Russia was doing the same thing in the early 20th century in America. They actually still do the same thing today when it comes to climate policy because it helps them oil-wise. So that's my first red flag, that this is funded by the Chinese Communist Party who is not friendly to LGBTQ issues at all. And the fact that they not only say, hey, this is great for kids to have gay parents,

Starting point is 00:30:07 but also that they go on to say that, oh, we should be pushing this policy-wise. And we know that they're not doing that in China. Again, we should all be asking, well, what's the real motivation behind this? So the methodology was a systematic review and meta-analysis. So they didn't do any original research themselves, which that does. doesn't in itself make us skeptical about it. There are many meta-analyses out there that are fine, but they're just consolidating and re-analyzing the data from previous studies completed on the subject. So the analysis is based on 34 studies from countries where same-sex relationships are

Starting point is 00:30:47 legal, according to the U.S., U.S., U.K., parts of Europe, the team analyzed data from 16 of those studies. So let me read you these results again. The quantitative synthesis results suggested that sexual minority families may perform better in children's psychological adjustment and parent-child relationship than heterosexual families. Now that, if you listen closely, is different than what you are hearing in a lot of headlines and what you're seeing in a lot of tweets, that, well, kids with gay parents, they have the same outcomes in life. And they have the same, they have the same benefits or even better benefits than kids who have both a mom and a dad. But that's not even exactly what this study shows. I don't think the results in the conclusion that are

Starting point is 00:31:30 put at the end of this study or is actually even supported by a lot of the things that were found. And certainly the tweets and the headlines supporting this study aren't really correlated to a lot of the results that were found, which is very common. Like you see that even with the CDC with masking with David Zwig found that the conclusion, the summary of the study didn't actually match the data that was in the study. And it kind of seems the same here. So if you look at the different categories that they studied to see whether kids are faring better or worse among straight or heterosexual couples, here's what they found. So they looked at children's psychological adjustment. They found that in tiny stratified age groups,

Starting point is 00:32:13 no significant difference was detected between kids of straight couples and kids of gay couples. Two of the five studies, though, that covered this topic that they analyzed, found that children with gay parents suffered more emotional problems than kids with traditional parents. Children's physical health, they found that studies found that children in cohabitating households. So I guess it doesn't matter the orientation of the couple, have poorer health outcomes than children and married households. Of course, we knew that. It is just much less stable. It causes a lot more anxiety for the child. Marriage is the greatest stabilizer and source of security and protection for a child. One study showed that children with lesbian parents had significantly worse physical health. So again, go back to that

Starting point is 00:33:00 results conclusion. That's why they specifically cited psychological health because on some of these things, the score actually isn't very good. Children's gender role behavior, they found sons of lesbian parents showed less traditionally masculine tendencies than sons of heterosexual or gay male parents. Children's gender identity and sexual orientation, they found that kids in gay households were much less likely to be heterosexual. I mean, is that a good thing? Obviously, like I would say no. I would say it's because they were confused very early about gender roles and about what it looks like to be a male or female.

Starting point is 00:33:36 Children's education outcomes, children and gay households have lower graduation rates and worse educational attainment than kids in traditional households. The study found kids and gay households were also more likely to repeat grades than kids in traditional households. Parents mental health, there is no significant difference found. Parenting stress, no significance difference found, I believe that. I believe that to an extent. I believe that to an extent. I do believe that for like having a husband, a man in the house actually reduces just my stress a lot because there are certain things that I cannot do physically that my husband can do. And that just I don't have to focus on certain things because I know my husband is going to take care of it. Whereas another woman simply physically wouldn't be able to protect us in the same way. And so my level of stress would be higher because my responsibilities would be more.

Starting point is 00:34:23 parent child relationships. The studies showed gay households had higher levels of parent child relationship quality, including higher levels of warmth, greater amounts of interaction, more supportive behavior. I would say that's really, really hard to figure out in a study. Couple relationship satisfaction. Married couples are happier than cohabitating couples. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Family functioning results were inconclusive social support. The author said that the only difference in social support was that gay and lesbian parents face quote unquote homophobic discrimination. Again, I think really hard to quantify. A quote from the allegedly non-biased article, sexual minorities historically have faced more rigorous scrutiny than

Starting point is 00:35:06 heterosexuals regarding their rights to become parents. I think that that's actually probably true because I think science tells us that I mean, every child has a mother and father. Every child has a mother and father somewhere out there, whether it's sperm donor or egg donor, every child was made by a man and a woman, a mom, and a dad. And so we are purposely disrupting that natural formation, that natural process to try to meet the whims of adults. I think that that does deserve scrutiny. Whenever we go from what's natural to what's possible for the sake of cultural or

Starting point is 00:35:43 political change, then we should be skeptical. We should be asking questions. And so the proposed actions that these authors have, have. They say that we need legislation and policy that is better supporting these same-sex couples. They say that the only reason why some same-sex couples are actually, their kids aren't doing as well as male-female couples is because they face, you know, different kinds of social hurdles. They don't talk about the innate differences between man and woman. So, again, what their findings were don't actually support the, what they're.

Starting point is 00:36:22 they summarize as the results and as the conclusions. They push for, you know, more inclusive policy, more inclusive representation in media. Again, things that the Chinese Communist Party are not doing. They're not doing. And then we've got some really big problems with not just the results, but also the findings and what they summarize and also the methodology. And I'll get into that in just one second. All right. So there are a few problems. One, that the methodology was off, and then two, that the conclusions are not supported by many other studies that these researchers selectively excluded from their studies. And so our researcher on this show, she's an academic researcher. And so when she looks through this study, she saw a lot of problems.

Starting point is 00:37:18 And here's what she said. She said the methodology is a systematic review, meaning they look at previously completed research and combine it or compare it. And this can be problematic if, like the researchers in this article, the researchers only select articles that. favor their desired findings. And that's actually what we found that they chose the articles that they were going to analyze and then include in their study based on the titles. And so a lot of the titles are going to be indicative of whether the study concludes something positive or negative about certain kinds of couples. And so that's how they decided to include certain studies. And so even with that, actually, their findings were not overwhelmingly positive. And yet, again,

Starting point is 00:37:59 and they decided to say that their results were something that actually contradicted a lot of their findings. So the articles for systematic review were only eligible for this analysis if they were conducted in the country after the legalization of marriage. So that indicates a positive bias towards what's typically referred to as gay marriage. If you look in the United States, after Obergefell was decided in 2015, that is when the, that's when public thought, public opinion on gay marriage. dramatically changed towards positivity. The two primary researchers picked the articles based on titles, which in research articles are almost always indicative of the findings of the article. And so, again, they just kind of went through and they picked ones that sounded good.

Starting point is 00:38:43 This is not in any way academic or objective research. The researchers are openly advocating also for what they refer to as gay marriage. We advocate among policymakers, communities, schools, families, and individuals for better awareness of family outcomes of sexual minorities. More research is needed to learn more about how communities around the world can support positive development among all children of sexual minority parents and how legal and policy contexts affect their lives and their children. The study says the analysis was not exact or detailed. Since the different, that's number three. Since the different studies have different measures or types of study, they could not adequately be compared and had to be synthesized or

Starting point is 00:39:25 aggregated, which tarnishes the reliability of your data. For example, the six studies used in the parent-child relationship section use 28 different types of measurement of different factors, such as express warmth, amount of interaction, criticism, and level of battle, quote, unquote. The 12 studies that measured children's psychological adjustment used 23 different measures, only a few of which were standard child psychology measures. The method of aggregation by the researchers for this article is not explained. And then number four, the number of studies looked at of the one,

Starting point is 00:39:55 thousand one hundred ninety four topically relevant studies of the researchers found only 34 were used for analysis only 16 were used for meta analysis again chosen by the titles of the article the use of children most of these studies were conducted in the u.s which of course is very glorifying of what's called gay marriage according to the department of health and human services who set regulations for performing any research on humans there are very specific parameters for researching children that cause bias parental permission is required which is a I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but obviously a parent is not going to give permission if they feel if their child is not a good indication of what gay parenting looks like. The child's assent can be waived if the Institutional Review Board decides the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit that is important to the health or well-being of the children.

Starting point is 00:40:46 That's really as much guidance as is given. And then other countries where research was concluded, UK, Australia, the Netherlands have similar requirements. and allowances. And so all of this coming together is going to skew the, skew the results of a study and make it really difficult to find an objective, comprehensive review. And then we also have, we also have different studies that actually contradict what they say were the results of this meta-analysis that kids are actually faring the same or better. If you look at, for example, all the research that's been conducted and analyzed by them before us. It's a child's rights organization that was started by one of my favorite guests, which is

Starting point is 00:41:30 Katie Faust. She says this on the website, most studies proclaiming that kids with same-sex parents fare no different than children of heterosexual parents are methodologically flawed. Participants were aware that the purpose was to investigate same-sex parenting. This is one of the reasons. Thus, the respondents may have aimed at producing the desired results. participants were often recruited through friends or through advocacy organizations, most surveyed parental perception rather than the children's actual outcomes, which of course,

Starting point is 00:42:00 is true. And if a child is in the room, which is typically the case when they are answering these questions, they're in the room with the parent, and that is also going to skew what they say. On average, samples of fewer than 40 children of parents in the same-sex relationship, virtually guaranteed findings showing no statistically significant difference between the group. for some of the reasons that we just listed. And then we have this study by Walter Schum. He has professor of family studies at Kansas State University.

Starting point is 00:42:29 And he did a study called Same Sex Parente Research in September of 2018, where he reviewed over 300 national, statewide, and transnational studies regarding academic performance, socio behavioral health, gender role behavior on topics like sexual abuse and family stability. He doesn't just analyze the conclusions of all the studies. He actually reanalyzes the data of the data of. every single study. And actually, he found that of the 330 studies that he looked at, only 80 gave, quote, unquote, positive scores to gay couples. So in some of the studies that he looks at, he found a

Starting point is 00:43:02 Canadian study from 2013 that found that children of gay and lesbian couples are also about 65% as likely to have graduated from high school, as are the children of married opposite sex couples. This is a study by Douglas W. Allen, and it's titled High School Graduation Rates Among Children of Same Sex households. And we can link these studies, by the way, in the description of this episode, so you can find for yourself. A 1996 study of 174 Australian children found that married heterosexual couples offered the best environment for a child's social and educational development, followed by

Starting point is 00:43:40 cohabitating heterosexual couples. And lastly, by homosexual couples, that's very harsh. This is by Dr. Sotirios Serentacos. He is a professor of social sciences in Australia, a 2007 study by Abby E. Goldberg of 37 adults. It's very small sample size, but raised by gay parents found that 42% of the subjects had challenges trusting other people. Dr. Goldberg is a professor of psychology, a 2009 study of 68 women raised by gay fathers and 68 women raised by straight fathers found that the women with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas.

Starting point is 00:44:23 They were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy. They were less able to trust and depend on others. They experienced more anxiety and relationships. In 2012, study found that children and same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers living in married to biological parent households on two academic outcomes. That is a 2010 study by someone named Dr. Dan. Pottor. 2012 study found that young adult children of parents who had same-sex relationships before

Starting point is 00:44:53 the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems. And then he, we have another study from 2015 that found that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was more than twice as prevalent among children with same-sex parents than in the general population. And then on the then-before-us website, they have seven. several studies that I don't have time to get into right now that actually talk, again, about some of the adverse experiences and conclusions of real data-driven studies on children who are in

Starting point is 00:45:31 homosexual outcomes. Very often, it's a lot of instability, very often. It's a lot of emotional turbulence. And again, it might not be necessarily because they are bad moms or bad dads. Obviously, we know that there are straight couples that are bad parents that cause a lot of emotional turbulence. But the fact is, is that kids need and deserve a mother and father. There are different things that they bring to the table. And so there's always going to be something missing there. And then, of course, when we look at the commercial surrogacy industry, when we look at sperm donation, when we look at egg donation, that is now making up a large percentage of the

Starting point is 00:46:08 children of gay couples. You are actually talking about creating a child to purposely take them away from their mother or father, which is absolutely unethical. Okay, we can talk about adoption. That's a different conversation. But children still, no matter what, deserve a mother and a father. And the fact of the matter is, there's actually a lot of research showing adverse outcomes for kids who are not given the ability, not given the opportunity to be raised with a mother

Starting point is 00:46:35 and father. And again, it is simply because men and women don't bring the same thing to the table. Katie Faust, who started them before us, was raised by a mom and a stepmom. And she loves her stepmom. And she knew that her moms loved her. So it's not about that. It's not about an inability to love. It's not about an inability to parent a child or to be a good influence.

Starting point is 00:47:04 It is about recognizing gender differences. It's about recognizing how science has created families, how God, HUD has created science to then create families. And it is about honoring that. It is about honoring nature. It is about honoring our creation. It is about honoring the need of children for both a mother and a father to care for them. And any study that is methodologically flawed, that is basically lying in its results,

Starting point is 00:47:36 should obviously be looked at skeptically. So just be careful when you see the memes going around. when you see the Instagram post, you see the infographics, you just need to dig into the data yourself. There's a lot more actually that we could talk about. There's a lot more studies that very often have been memory holds, not because they're not true, but because they're no longer politically correct, that refute this idea that kids just need love. We've talked about on the show with Dr. Brad Wilcox, the family diversity theory, which is a debunked theory that says kids just need love.

Starting point is 00:48:10 They just need adults to love them. They just need people to take care of them. It doesn't matter who. It doesn't matter if they're part of some polycule, polyamorous threesome relationship where they have two moms and a dad or whatever it is or two dads or two moms. That's just not true. Kids need a mother and a father. Some moms are bad moms.

Starting point is 00:48:31 Some dads are bad dads. That's absolutely true. But in general, if we're looking at the most stable source of security and protection for a child, the ideal is a mother and father. And I believe that every policy should be encouraging that. For the sake of kids, it's not about us as adults. It's not about our whims. It's not about our cultural and political changes.

Starting point is 00:48:54 It is about what is best for children. What is best for children is to be raised by a present and loving mom and dad. And no amount of CCP-funded research is ever going to change that. All right, guys. it's all we've got for today. Reminder. Reminder. We've got new set, new stuff next week. It's going to be super fun. You're going to love it. I'm going to love it. It's going to be great. If you love this show, please share it with your friends. Leave us a five-star review wherever you listen. Make sure you subscribe on YouTube as well. And again, thanks so much for sticking around all this time.

Starting point is 00:49:41 On Relatable, we will be back tomorrow with more. Hey, this is Steve Daste. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

Starting point is 00:50:08 We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 770 | Debunking the 'Kids Do Better with Gay Parents' Study

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.