Ruth Institute’s Latest Quiz Was…
What percentage of US children lives in households headed by same sex couples?
The correct answer was D. Less than 4 tenths of one percent, or .4%.
All these numbers come from combing information about gays and lesbians from Census Snapshot, US, 2007, 1 with information from the US Census Bureau, American Community Survey,2 describing the general population.
As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 of the U.S.’s children are living in households headed by same-sex couples. According to the American Community Survey, there were a total of 73,131,688 persons under the age of 18 in the US in 2005. (Calculated by subtracting total number of persons over 18 (215,246,449 from total population of 288,378,137.) Dividing the 270,313 children in households headed by same sex couples by the total number of children under 18 in the US, yields a figure of .00369, which is
the less than 4 tenths of one percent figure given as the correct answer. This number is not reported by the pro-gay Williams Institute.
They do say that “20% of same-sex couples in the U.S. are raising children under the age of 18,” so if you had read their report, but not too carefully, you might have picked that 20% number, answer A.
You might have chosen 10%, since this is the figure given by Alfred Kinsey as the percentage of the population that is gay. However, this number has never been replicated in any large scale statistically representative sample of the population. The Williams Institute study shows that about 3% of the population is gay or lesbian. They do not report this percentage in this particular study, however. You
have to do some math: they report that there were roughly 8.8 million self-identified gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the US in 2005. And the overall population of the US in 2005 was roughly 288 million. Dividing gives 3% of the population is gay, lesbian or bisexual. By the way, this is roughly consistent with the results reported more recently by the Williams Institute.
Given that less than four tenths of one percent of children is being raised in same sex households, it hardly seems unkind to say that this represents an exceptional situation. The law might justly treat this as an exception.
1 Census Snapshot, US, by Adam P. Romero, Amanda K. Baumle, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Gary J. Gates, (Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA, 2007). The Williams Institute specializes in demographic and economic research on gay and lesbian populations.
2 American Community Survey, “General Demographic Characteristics, 2005”
Loading ...
How many gay families does there have to be before taking away their civil rights becomes wrong?
One small problem in the math:
Quote:
Presumably, all of the “self-identified gays, lesbians and bisexuals” are adults or at least teenagers. But I think that the 288 million figure you gave is for total population, including young children. A more accurate calculation would be to divide by the total number of adults in the U.S., rather than dividing by the total population of the U.S. The result should still be well below 10% though.
I wonder why it matters how many children are being raised by same-sex couples? Does a small enough number make it ok to render these children’s lives less secure by prohibiting their parents to marry? Is that the point?
Begs the question: how many children would have to be raised by same-sex couples before the anti-gay marriage people would grudgingly give in and let these kids have married parents?
@Vast Variety No one has taken away any civil right of homophiles. That is one of the biggest lies ever. Homophiles want special rights not afforded anyone else.
@Paul H Studies have been done around the world over the last few decades and the numbers from all consistently put the homophile population at about 2-3% of the population. It is the homosexualists and their lapdog media who want to make it appear to be a greater number.
@Sean Do you ever read the point of any article on this blog or do you just decide from the get-go to run a rabbit trail. The point was that children being raised by homophiles are an exception to the norm and should be seen that way, and not as something to force on children. Children’s lives are much less “secure” in a homophile household.
Hi Glenn,
I largely agree with you (though I would choose different words), but math is math. I don’t like seeing what appears to be bad math, even if it is used by people on “my side” of the argument.
Another way to see answer D is to look @ Massachusetts. Although SSM advocates are loud and demanding their numbers are vastly overrated. In MA which has had SSM since 2003, it turns out that less than 1% of the marriages are SSM.
Proponents of preserving man/woman marriage would LOVE to see children in SSM households being raised by both of their actual parents. In truth, the mother and father who created the child in the first place, owe it to the child to behave like adults, place their wants aside, and meet their child’s needs. SSM designs to deprive a child of one of his/her natural parents, without there being a reasonable justification for doing so.
The fallacy of “begging the question” occurs in the above statement. It bypasses the question of whether or not its a civil right and conveniently “presumes” it to be such.
Also, its right to disapprove mal-adaptive behavior no matter how many “families” practice it.
And so, the original question actually contained two fallacies. There was the fallacy of “begging the question,” along with the fallacy that right and wrong is based on a numerical formula.
These same-sex couples have all deliberately chosen not to marry, and to live in a relationship that is not marriage. Which is fine, really — it’s a free country.
Nothing is stopping them from marrying, just like everyone else. Well, nothing aside from their own bias against the opposite sex, apparently. Which is fine, really — it’s a free country. Nobody is forcing anyone to marry, and nobody is being prevented from marrying if they want to.
A recent Gallup poll showed that Americans believe 25% of the population is gay or lesbian, roughly an order of magnitude greater than the generally accepted best estimates.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx).
“These same-sex couples have all deliberately chosen not to marry, and to live in a relationship that is not marriage. Which is fine, really — it’s a free country.”
Nothing is stopping Jews from going to church on Sunday like everybody else. If they choose a different path, that’s their fault, isn’t it? Nothing is stopping left-handed people from learning to use their right hands as their predominant hand. So we should probably pass a law to make them use their right hands to say, sign their names. People should have to follow the inclinations of the majority….it’s only natural!
The above link in post#12 shows how effective the homosexual lie is. They have conned gullible people into believing that 1 out of 4 people are homosexual. It is not even close. A best guess estimate would be around 2-3%.
Look at the states with SSM. Less than 1% of the marriages are an SSM marriage.
@Sean More red herrings, Sean. All of your examples are morally neutral. SSM is not morally neutral.
Dr. Morse said: “Less than four tenths of a percent (that’s .4%) of American children live with same sex couples. Such a small number of people can be handled through exceptions to existing law, rather than changing the law of marriage for everyone.”
Excellent point (“Such a small number of people can be handled through exceptions to existing law, rather than changing the law of marriage for everyone.”)
I think that can be extended a bit further to say, “Such a small number of people can be handled through “other legal options,” rather than changing the law at all.”
Or, “Such a small number can be handled just like cohabiting men women with children are handled rather than changing the law of marriage for everyone”.
Must we call cohabiting men and women “married” for the sake of their children?
Additionally, and this my own take on this, since this is about mal-adaptive behavior on the part of the parents it should not be publically approved even though its permitted under privacy protections.
Compare it to cigarette smoking. People are allowed to smoke in their homes but we don’t want a public policy that recommends it to children.
And so, even if there was no practical solution through creating exceptions or in existing law, maladaptive behavior permitted as a private matter shoud not be approved by public policy.
“Must we call cohabiting men and women “married” for the sake of their children?”
No but all couples raising children should be allowed to get married, in order to create more secure family environments for those children, and to diminish the concerns of those children that their families aren’t “normal” and their parents aren’t liked by society.
So what? 89% of us think we’re above-average drivers and 73% of us think we have a chance of rising above the middle class.
@John Noe
That’s only your opinion. Back in the day, being left-handed was a sign of the Devil, and left-handed children had their left-handedness beat out of them. As we moved on from that, we shall move on from our ill-informed denigration of homosexuality.
@Sean
“No but all couples raising children should be allowed to get married”
Really? I know a father who lives with his son to help him raise his kids after his wife walked out on the family. For all intents and purposes, they are raising the kids together. Should the father and son be allowed to marry “in order to create more secure family environments for those children, and to diminish the concerns of those children that their families aren’t “normal”” ?
@Sean But to be married you must meet one particular qualification – members of the opposite sex. That is one of those facts you want to ignore and skirt around and claim isn’t equal, yada, yada, yada.
@Glenn E. Chatfield Glenn, not even opposite sex couples are allowed to marry if they are siblings, or a mother and son.
@Deb
That’s getting to the point! No, a father and son shouldn’t be allowed to marry even if they are raising children together, because it would be unethical for them to conceive offspring together and marriage should always approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together.
@Emma
I’m don’t know what you are referring to in your remark about John’s opinion.
There are certainly superstitions in every culture that melt before the sun of truth, but not everything, in even the most benighted culture, that is considered bad is actually good or morally neutral.
@Emma
I’m don’t know what you are referring to in your remark about John’s opinion.
There are certainly superstitions in every culture that melt before the sun of truth, but not everything that is considered bad, in even the most benighted culture, is actually good or morally neutral.
Editor: please use this instead of my previous comment. Thank you
My point was that “non-marriage” should not be legally called “marriage” just so kids can feel “normal.” Your response reduces to that because it would use law to designate a relationship as “marriage” that should be not be called “marriage.”
Your response contains many more flaws, as well.
First, the effective approach for stopping ridicule is to teach students the golden rule and apply school discipline if needed. Is the lack of having “married parents” perceived as being “ridiculed” or is it “having same sex parents?” If its “having same sex parents,” then “marriage” will not remove the perceived reason for the ridicule. Research also shows that gays continue to perceive social rejection even in countries like the Netherlands where same sex marrige has been legalized for many years. If same sex marriage has not resolved perceived rejection there, it seems unlikely to do so here.
Second, a same sex marriage law would create a less moral enviroment around children, meaning less security for all children. A gay marriage law would be a slap to traditional moral values. If government doesn’t respect traditional moral virtues why should children respect them? And why should children respect the moral instructions of parents in general?Can a society prevent ridicule by undermining public morality? Are the children of gay parents safer in a less moral environment?
Third, since a gay marriage law would erode public acceptance of traditional sexual morality, it would resul in less marriage between men and women and more cohabitation. In the long run, a gay marriage law means even greater numbers of children without the security of married parents.
Fourth, same sex marriage law has contributed to an increase in polygamy and social anarchy in Europe, and that can hardly be good for the long term security of children.
See Polygamy all over the place, and First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands
I will pause here. More points could be effectively made like
(a) it endangers children to indoctrinate them with a whitewashed version of homosexuality,
(b) using law to force acceptance of a homsexual behavior is an oppressive use of government and law
(c) a same sex marriage law would approve a maldaptive sexual behavior and the law should not approve maladaptive behavior to children.
—
Here are some other ideas that occured to me that might be useful:
– What if nudists with children wanted a public law that approves nudism in
public places so their children will not be ridiculed at school for having
an “abnormal” family?
– What if prostitutes want a law that approves prostitution so their
children won’t be ridiculed at school for it?
– Since when does maladaptive behavior by a kid’s parents justify a law to
approve the parents’ behavior?
– Where is the responsibility of the parents to keep their sex life
discreet so it won’t be a problem for their children at school?
An excellent point Deb. I think it also confirms that “having unmarried parents” or even same sex guardians is not the reason for any perceived ridicule.
Rather, its the same sex “behavior” of a kid’s parents that would be the reason, not the lack of being married.
“Should the father and son be allowed to marry “in order to create more secure family environments for those children, and to diminish the concerns of those children that their families aren’t “normal”” ?”
Probably not: close relatives are already bound together by natural kinship, that is, biology. There’s no need to create a bond through law, where none existed before. For unrelated persons to create a kinship bond, though, there needs to be a formal process in place. That process is called “marriage.”
@John Howard “Glenn, not even opposite sex couples are allowed to marry if they are siblings, or a mother and son”
I know that, John. That’s part of the point. But even if they were allowed to marry, at least they are compatible biologically!
All of your points in post #26 were great except for the one on nudists. They already have public places as their are beaches set aside for clothing optional use. Families use these beaches and they are already considered normal people and families in society. Bringing children to the beach is considered normal and it is no different here.
As far as their children being ridiculed at school, that is up to them. One will notice that the nudists do not try and shove nudism down the throats of other peoples children in the public schools. That is what is beautifull about their normal lifestyle. So normal that one does not need to ram it down your children’s throat at the public schools. No need to convert your children.
I was thinking of “public places” as “all” public places, like at grocery stores etc.
All arguments against marriage equality are red herrings. There is not now nor has there ever been one marriage construct that, taking history into account, supercedes any other. ALL constructs have undergone revision and, most recently, for the better. Thousands of gay couples are now legally married. Thousands are members of a civil union (marriage by any other name). Thousands of children (gay and straight) are members of a gay family. The one construct, so anxiously touted by those in fear of “tradition”, is the assumed prerequisite that marriage must be between a male and female. The other construct, touted by these same traditionalists, is that marriage has one, and only one, purpose: to produce children. Both of these assumptions are not true today and nothing can change that. Diversity is important to the health of a civilization and change is continuous. Some responders to this post will, inevitably throw out the “man marrying dog” mentality. It’s peurile and a waste in an intelligent conversation. And now, the next reference will be to “cultural elitism”. Red herrings have only one purpose: to throw of logic.
@Rich
Not all change is good, and not all civilizations withstand those changes.
The point is that we don’t let them procreate offspring together, because it woudl be an unethical situation. Yes, they are “compatible biologically” in the sense that they could procreate offspring together without a lab having to create gametes for them, but they are not compatible in the sense that they are approved and allowed to procreate offspring. It is illegal for them to procreate offspring, they would go to jail. That’s not just “part of the point” that is the whole point. All couples that we allow and approve to procreate offspring, we allow to marry, and all couples that we don’t, we don’t. That holds up for same-sex couples too: We shouldn’t allow or approve of them procreating offspring together.
@Rich
“There is not now nor has there ever been one marriage construct that, taking history into account, supercedes any other. ALL constructs have undergone revision and, most recently, for the better. ”
Actually that’s wrong, there has been a constant throughout history: ALL marriages have always been allowed to conceive offspring together. There has never been a single marriage that was prohibited from conceiving offspring together. I’ve been through all the objections: China still allows ONE offspring, incarcerated prisoners are allowed to if they are ever able to escape or be released, infertile first cousins are not prohibited, etc. The fact is that in every culture, throughout history, marriage has always meant that the society has considered the couple having children with each other and APPROVED. There have been billions of couples that society has not approved of offspring, and they have never been allowed to marry. That’s been absolutely synonymous: being allowed to marry means being allowed to conceive offspring, being prohibited means being prohibited, and vice versa: being prohibited from sex or offspring means not being allowed to marry, being allowed means being allowed to marry.
We should not strip conception rights from marriage, or give conception rights to same-sex couples. We should not equate a same-sex couple’s right to conceive offspring with a married couple’s. Everyone has a right to reproduce offspring, but only with someone of the other sex.
There are still legal benefits that come from marriage. A brother and sister are pretty much legal strangers. They may be kin, but they don’t inherit each other’s property unless there are no other kin, they can’t claim each other as dependents on taxes, they don’t automatically become parents of each other’s children, etc. And marriage doesn’t intermingle their own blood, a mother-in-law is not a mother, they don’t become siblings, etc.
To post #32 It is your argument that is a red herring and full of lies, deceits, and fraud. It is your side that has no logic.
The poster argues that marriage today is no longer man/woman and that procreation is not relevant. That would only be true if that argument was used as justification to eliminate the government marriage license and the government benefits that come with it. Benefits bestowed by government on society as incentives to create male/female marrigages and to create offspring.
The poster ignores this reality and uses the diversity argument. Notice how the SSM advocates trash traditional marriage and say producing children is to be assumed to be not true today. However they still want the government goodies which were created based on the assumption of producing children.
His argument is total deception and will always be until such time as they acknowledge that governmental recognition of the relationship is not needed because the purposes of marriage have changed.