Is it Rare for Someone's Biogical Parents to Stay Together?

[Ming]

You made a strawman and crushed it with gusto. Good job, Ming. You go, boy.

In your dreams... you tried to use that stat to prove your point, and it didn't. You failed.
You have YET to PROVE it's rare... and all the evidence is against you. You are the one that is wrong.

Again... what I posted was correct. But if you want to keep laughing at the truth, that's your problem.

Nice try...

[Al B. Sure!]

Explain this one to me:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/Krivickas-Lofquist%20PAA%202011.pdf

The tables are at the bottom.

79.5% of same-sex married couples with children in the household contain biological children, compared to only 11.1% step or adopted. 64.2% of same-sex unmarried couples contain biological children.

How is that possible? Almost 80% of gay married households with children have biological children? I thought adoption was the most common way for gay couples to have kids? And they obviously can't be the biological offspring of BOTH parents.

Something is screwy with the census. Maybe they're asking only about the relation of the head of household to the children and step-families are getting way under-reported as a result? Maybe non-biological children are being claimed as biological in significant numbers?

[Ming]

Nearly 45 million (61 percent) of the nation's 73 million children younger than 18 lived with their biological mother and father in 2004 regardless of the parents' marital status, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released today.

Of these children, 42.7 million lived with both parents who were married to each other.

42.7 MILLION... not very rare.

[Al B. Sure!]

Look at what I just posted regarding homosexual households. Something is screwy with the census.

Maybe they're asking only about the relation of the head of household to the children and step-families are getting way under-reported as a result? Maybe non-biological children are being claimed as biological in significant numbers?

[Ming]

Maybe you are just wrong

The stats prove you are wrong... it's NOT RARE at all.

[loinburger]

Does anybody have a link to the thread where Speer said that adultery should be a criminal offense? The search function sucks.

[Al B. Sure!]

Again...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/Krivickas-Lofquist%20PAA%202011.pdf

Scroll to table 1 and you'll see 79.5% of same-sex married couples with children in the household contain biological children, compared to only 11.1% step or adopted. 64.2% of same-sex unmarried couples contain biological children.

How is that possible? Almost 80% of gay married households with children have biological children? I thought adoption was the most common way for gay couples to have kids? And they obviously can't be the biological offspring of BOTH parents.

Something is screwy with the census. Maybe they're asking only about the relation of the head of household to the children and step-families are getting way under-reported as a result? Maybe non-biological children are being claimed as biological in significant numbers?

[Ming]

Again:
Nearly 45 million (61 percent) of the nation's 73 million children younger than 18 lived with their biological mother and father in 2004 regardless of the parents' marital status, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released today.

Of these children, 42.7 million lived with both parents who were married to each other.

You are wrong... It's NOT RARE.

Please feel free to post some actual numbers showing that your bad assumption is correct. Remember, you think it's RARE.
The census data shows that you aren't even close. It proves just the opposite.

[Al B. Sure!]

5.5% of American children living in step-families is so obviously incorrect. I don't believe those census numbers.

I'm posting evidence that the census is under-reporting entire classes of families. How is it that gay couples with children overwhelmingly contain biological children? Not only is that impossible for both parents to be biological but how many even contain 1 biological parent of the kids? Only 11% are adoptions or step?

[Ming]

Then please post ANY statistics you can find that actually PROVES that you are correct.
Oh, that's right, you can't, because you are simply wrong.

Even if the census is not totally correct... it claimed 61% live with both of their real parents.
That's a far cry away from RARE

[Al B. Sure!]

Then please post ANY statistics you can find that actually PROVES that you are correct.
Oh, that's right, you can't, because you are simply wrong.

I've given evidence that the census data is underreporting.

Can ANYONE explain the discrepancy in homosexual households?

[Wezil]

Your problem is with the use of the word "rare".

[Ming]

Strawman...

Please post ANY information that actually proves it's rare.

61%... even if you want to attack the data... plus or minus even 20%, it's not even close to being RARE

You are WRONG!

[Al B. Sure!]

Strawman...

Please post ANY information that actually proves it's rare.

61%... even if you want to attack the data... plus or minus even 20%, it's not even close to being RARE

You are WRONG!

Rare compared to 1950's America? Yes.

[Wezil]

Is that an African or European swallow?