Gay adoption is good for children

[Autodidact]

I don't know, the point of the sex talk always seemed to be about the possibility of getting pregnant. If that's no longer a threat, what purpose would there be to ahve the talk.

That may be because you see the purpose of sex as procreation. If you associate sex with love, it's more complicated, and there's more to talk about.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't believe your research just like you don't believe mine. Just because my research is done by people who are honest about being against gay adoption does not make it completely untrue. You can't prove your research is true. Just because a few scientists say so something is true does not make it true.

What makes it true is using good, solid, scientific methods. It's not the results, it's the methods. Science doesn't choose the results and then go and pick data to support it. It asks the question, formulates a good method for answering it, then accepts that answer, whether they like it or not. Your so-called "research" isn't research at all. As I said, you haven't cited a single study comparing gay to straight families. The research I cited was done by people who wanted to find out the answer, not people who had their answer set in advance. See the difference? It's not the outcome, it's the method. That's what makes it valid, and therefore credible.

I did some more research just out of curiousity.

Adult Children Speak Out About Same-Sex Parents

That's not research, it's an anecdote. Do you know the difference or want me to explain it?

It's stories like this auto, and I'm sure there is many others, that justify my opinion that a tradional family is more suited than a homosexual one.

Oh, I thought you said your opinion had no justification. Why are you sure there are many more? Don't you think if there were, "Free Republic" (a notorously cheesy and biased site) would have dug them up. Can you see the difference between "Free Republic" and The Hournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry?

Read the whole story, read all the parameters involved, put your bias aside. Anyone can pretend to be happy. I don't care about scientists, and I'm sure you do for obvious reasons, but this proves that having homosexual parents are more problematic. However, that's not to say the child can't be happy with them. There is exceptions to everything.

It doesn't prove anything except that one (if real, you never know with people like "Free Republic") young woman is unhappy with her upbringing. To be evidence, you have to compare say 100 such young women with 100 young women in straight families--do you see why? Then compare. Oh yeah, that's what the articles I cited did. But since you "don't care about scientists" you prefer to rely on single anecdotes that happen to support your view.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is one from a gay website, no bias there.

glbtq >> social sciences >> Children of GLBTQ Parents

From your site:

Since the 1970s, a growing body of scholarly literature assessing glbtq parenting has emerged. Most of this scholarship has been conducted within the disciplines of psychology, sociology, law, and medicine. Overall, this research refutes the charges commonly leveled by opponents of glbtq parenting that children are harmed by being reared by glbtq parents or same-sex couples and even the more benign suggestion that the optimum parenting model is a married heterosexual couple.

Surveying 23 empirical studies, which in total included 615 children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers, ranging in age from 18 months to 44 years, Anderssen, Amlie, and Ytterøy concluded that their review "did not reveal evidence that children of lesbian mothers differed from other children on emotional adjustment, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, or cognitive functioning."

For example, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz's 2001 review of 21 studies on the children of gay and lesbian parenting published from 1981 to 1998 suggests that children who grow up in families with same-sex parents or that accept homosexuality may, in fact, reveal particular strengths. They observed that children of lesbian mothers were less likely to adhere to or believe in traditional gender roles. Moreover, despite the difficulties they sometimes faced from the homophobia of peers, many children of glbtq parents ultimately developed strong identities based on their differences.

Hastings reached the same conclusion as other reputable researchers: children are not harmed by being reared by homosexual parents. His study even found that children might slightly benefit from this experience, because same-sex parents tend to share child-rearing and household responsibilities more equitably, thus creating a more harmonious household, and they are slightly more effective at socializing their children.

For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

And this helps your argument how?
The only problem I could find in the entire article was having to deal with other people's prejudice and discrimination. Maybe you should be working toward eliminating it?

Also note, my argument that a traditional family is better than a homosexual family, only qualifies if the parental parameters are equal. If a traditional family is abusive or anything, than yes, a homosexual is probably better. I know kids who have gotten beat up, critized, had to be counseled, all because they were gay.

Yes, but you haven't supported your argument under any circumstance.

I found research that matters.

Uh, sorry, no you didn't. You didn't find any research at all.

 

[Starfish]

Against my better judgement, I'm stepping back in.

In this thread I have been accused of imposing my religious beliefs on others. I have expressed my beliefs here. Is that an imposition? Shouldn't be, as these forums are here to express our opinions and beliefs, as we debate and discuss.
The only way I have actually imposed my beliefs upon anyone is through my vote to maintain traditional marriage. Just as I "impose my beliefs" in any election. Other than that, I haven't imposed anything upon anyone. I have never suggested to anyone that they adopt my beliefs or religion, anymore than anyone else here regardless of the subject.

I have said over and over that I don't doubt than many gay-parented families are strong, functional, and producing successful children. I have also maintained that fatherless homes are referring to single-parent homes, statistically. Two parents are important.

What I have tried to get across, is that men and women are different, emotionally. And the exposure to both, with all the differences, is healthy for children. I believe in the value of a child growing up with the exposure and experience up close that there are good, loving people of both sexes in this world. This opinion does not come from my religious background. It comes from living life.

Your premise seems to be that, beyond producing a sperm and an egg, gender is totally unimportant. I believe gender is important. Therefore, I believe fathers are important. Yes, there are horrendous fathers out there, I am talking about loving fathers.

A TV program aired recently where a panel of adults were interviewed, all born as a result of artificial insemination. These people were not in favor of it. They felt a lack of identity, lack of roots, and most of them felt like products of science. Many of them made efforts to find their bio-father. I'm not saying I disagree with A.I., but we adults sometimes don't realize that the babies we bring into this world will grow up to be people with feelings, opinions, and deep emotional needs.

Bottom line: the point of this thread concerns gay adoption. My opinion is that if there is a choice between a traditional husband/wife home and a gay couple home for a child, the preference should go towards the traditional home first. This is my opinion, not my religion, and I am not imposing it upon anyone by expressing it.

 

[rheff78]

Against my better judgement, I'm stepping back in.

In this thread I have been accused of imposing my religious beliefs on others. I have expressed my beliefs here. Is that an imposition? Shouldn't be, as these forums are here to express our opinions and beliefs, as we debate and discuss.
The only way I have actually imposed my beliefs upon anyone is through my vote to maintain traditional marriage. Just as I "impose my beliefs" in any election. Other than that, I haven't imposed anything upon anyone. I have never suggested to anyone that they adopt my beliefs or religion, anymore than anyone else here regardless of the subject.

I have said over and over that I don't doubt than many gay-parented families are strong, functional, and producing successful children. I have also maintained that fatherless homes are referring to single-parent homes, statistically. Two parents are important.

What I have tried to get across, is that men and women are different, emotionally. And the exposure to both, with all the differences, is healthy for children. I believe in the value of a child growing up with the exposure and experience up close that there are good, loving people of both sexes in this world. This opinion does not come from my religious background. It comes from living life.

Your premise seems to be that, beyond producing a sperm and an egg, gender is totally unimportant. I believe gender is important. Therefore, I believe fathers are important. Yes, there are horrendous fathers out there, I am talking about loving fathers.

A TV program aired recently where a panel of adults were interviewed, all born as a result of artificial insemination. These people were not in favor of it. They felt a lack of identity, lack of roots, and most of them felt like products of science. Many of them made efforts to find their bio-father. I'm not saying I disagree with A.I., but we adults sometimes don't realize that the babies we bring into this world will grow up to be people with feelings, opinions, and deep emotional needs.

Bottom line: the point of this thread concerns gay adoption. My opinion is that if there is a choice between a traditional husband/wife home and a gay couple home for a child, the preference should go towards the traditional home first. This is my opinion, not my religion, and I am not imposing it upon anyone by expressing it.

Good job, Frubals. Be careful, if you don't agree with Auto, she assumes you are completely wrong and need to see the error of your ways.

 

[zookeeper]

Well said Starfish!!

 

[Smoke]

Bottom line: the point of this thread concerns gay adoption. My opinion is that if there is a choice between a traditional husband/wife home and a gay couple home for a child, the preference should go towards the traditional home first. This is my opinion, not my religion, and I am not imposing it upon anyone by expressing it.

That is the bottom line. You have a personal opinion that is unsupported by any objective data whatsoever, and you intend to cling to that unsupported opinion regardless of any facts that might come your way. That's your prerogative.

However, I wonder what you'd think if I were to argue at great length, and without any facts whatsoever to back me up, in defense of a completely subjective opinion that bringing children up as Catholics is infinitely superior to bringing children up as Mormons, that Mormons should only be allowed to bring up children if there are no Catholics willing to bring them up, and that Mormons who insist on having families are self-indulgent people who don't take the time to consider the best interests of the children.

Would you think that I was a thoughtful person with a perfectly valid opinion, or would you think that I was an irrational crank with something against Mormons?

 

[Starfish]

That is the bottom line. You have a personal opinion that is unsupported by any objective data whatsoever, and you intend to cling to that unsupported opinion regardless of any facts that might come your way. That's your prerogative.

However, I wonder what you'd think if I were to argue at great length, and without any facts whatsoever to back me up, in defense of a completely subjective opinion that bringing children up as Catholics is infinitely superior to bringing children up as Mormons, that Mormons should only be allowed to bring up children if there are no Catholics willing to bring them up, and that Mormons who insist on having families are self-indulgent people who don't take the time to consider the best interests of the children.

Would you think that I was a thoughtful person with a perfectly valid opinion, or would you think that I was an irrational crank with something against Mormons?

And here it goes again.

 

[McBell]

And here it goes again.

Here WHAT goes again?

Seems to me that his Catholic vs. Mormon analogy is right on the money.

What do you see wrong with it?

 

[yossarian22]

Here WHAT goes again?

Seems to me that his Catholic vs. Mormon analogy is right on the money.

What do you see wrong with it?

Its too relatable.

 

[Autodidact]

Against my better judgement, I'm stepping back in.

In this thread I have been accused of imposing my religious beliefs on others. I have expressed my beliefs here. Is that an imposition?

Go back and look at the specific posts. I believe you were accused of this, IIRC, when you were saying that you thought that gay adoption was not a good thing because of your religious beliefs. Expecting other people to behave a certain way because of your religious beliefs would, in fact, be imposing your religious beliefs on others.

What I have tried to get across, is that men and women are different, emotionally. And the exposure to both, with all the differences, is healthy for children. I believe in the value of a child growing up with the exposure and experience up close that there are good, loving people of both sexes in this world. This opinion does not come from my religious background. It comes from living life.

Your premise seems to be that, beyond producing a sperm and an egg, gender is totally unimportant. I believe gender is important. Therefore, I believe fathers are important. Yes, there are horrendous fathers out there, I am talking about loving fathers.

I wouldn't say that gender is totally unimportant, just not that darned important.

It's true, the world can be divided up into two groups, male and female, and each of those groups, generally speaking, on the average, has some traits in common as compared to the other. But in my word, the world can be divided up into various groups, such as athletic and sedentary, artistic and non, musical and not, extroverted and introverted, etc., etc. So any two (or more) people are going to offer some traits and not others. I don't at all see gender as being so much more important than these other traits.

Bottom line: the point of this thread concerns gay adoption. My opinion is that if there is a choice between a traditional husband/wife home and a gay couple home for a child, the preference should go towards the traditional home first. This is my opinion, not my religion, and I am not imposing it upon anyone by expressing it.

Believe me, we know that's your opinion. We also know why:
1. Your religious beliefs.
2. You think it's important that a child have one parent of each gender.

1. is irrelevant to anyone but you and those who share your beliefs. And what I'm saying is that 2. is false, and has been shown to be false by the research.

 

[kdrier]

However, I wonder what you'd think if I were to argue at great length, and without any facts whatsoever to back me up, in defense of a completely subjective opinion that bringing children up as Catholics is infinitely superior to bringing children up as Mormons, that Mormons should only be allowed to bring up children if there are no Catholics willing to bring them up, and that Mormons who insist on having families are self-indulgent people who don't take the time to consider the best interests of the children.

You're comparing apples and oranges, sure they are both fruits, but they have many differences. Children can be taught a certain religion, but at the end of the day, they have the choice to choose their religion and beliefs as they see fit, it can't be forced upon them. I was raised christian, but I my beliefs changed. When a child is adopted or artificially insemination by a homosexual couple, they can't change their parents are homosexal, and the fact they don't have a father or mother, no matter how much they may or may not disagree with it. In the situation of adopting children and artificial insemination, the whole "choice" factor is nonexistant.

 

[Autodidact]

And here it goes again.

How about answering his question? After all, Mormons are in the minority. In fact, they're religiously abnormal. And, especially outside of Utah, their children are likely to be teased and scorned. Should Mormons be allowed to adopt?

 

[rheff78]

How about answering his question? After all, Mormons are in the minority. In fact, they're religiously abnormal. And, especially outside of Utah, their children are likely to be teased and scorned. Should Mormons be allowed to adopt?

How about you stick to the OP? Bottom line: the question was asked of an opinion. Starfish has given hers and you berate her for it? If you don't want to know people's opinion then don't ask for it. Or maybe the thread should be re-titled "Let me tell you the reasons why gay adoption is better for children than your poor mis-guided beliefs"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bottom line: the point of this thread concerns gay adoption. My opinion is that if there is a choice between a traditional husband/wife home and a gay couple home for a child, the preference should go towards the traditional home first. This is my opinion, not my religion, and I am not imposing it upon anyone by expressing it.

Not merely by expressing it, no, but you are advocating that your belief be imposed on others. You can tell by the fact that you are suggesting an action (i.e. preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents for adoption), and used the general "a gay couple" (which, I take it, doesn't even include you) rather than the specific "me, and me alone".

 

[tomspug]

Considering that there is sufficient evidence that when children are raised by single parents, the lack of a "father" figure or a "mother" figure has a significant impact on the child's identity. If a child has two mommies, will a girl or boy suffer due to a lack of a "father" figure? Well, one thing's for certain, the whole concept of God "the Father" would make no sense to that kid.

 

[Autodidact]

How about you stick to the OP? Bottom line: the question was asked of an opinion. Starfish has given hers and you berate her for it? If you don't want to know people's opinion then don't ask for it. Or maybe the thread should be re-titled "Let me tell you the reasons why gay adoption is better for children than your poor mis-guided beliefs"

It is relevant to the OP. It's a rhetorical device called a hypothetical, used to focus attention on the key issues. I don't berate; I disagree. This is a debate forum, not a public opinion poll. The purpose of the forum is to debate issues, such as gay adoption, by presenting and arguing opinions on both sides. So the correct title is, "Let me tell you the reasons why gay adoption is good for children, while you tell me the reasons why it isn't." Did you just want to state your opinions, and have the other side say, "That's nice?"

 

[McBell]

How about you stick to the OP? Bottom line: the question was asked of an opinion. Starfish has given hers and you berate her for it? If you don't want to know people's opinion then don't ask for it. Or maybe the thread should be re-titled "Let me tell you the reasons why gay adoption is better for children than your poor mis-guided beliefs"

Actually, she is sticking to the OP:

This doesn't seem like the best forum but couldn't find one more suitable. I would like to discuss the assertion that permitting gay and lesbian people to adopt is beneficial to children. Would anyone care to argue the other side?

She clearly stated:

"Would anyone care to argue the other side?"
​

 

[Autodidact]

Considering that there is sufficient evidence that when children are raised by single parents, the lack of a "father" figure or a "mother" figure has a significant impact on the child's identity. If a child has two mommies, will a girl or boy suffer due to a lack of a "father" figure?

Yes, that's the question. Here's an idea, let's read the studies, and find out the answer.

Well, one thing's for certain, the whole concept of God "the Father" would make no sense to that kid.

Yet another advantage to gay adoption. Joking, actually, do you think my kids don't know what a father is? It's not like they live in an iso-tank.

 

[tomspug]

Yes, that's the question. Here's an idea, let's read the studies, and find out the answer. Yet another advantage to gay adoption. Joking, actually, do you think my kids don't know what a father is? It's not like they live in an iso-tank.

I have a friend whose father left his family that seriously struggles with the "Father" concept in the Trinity. He can relate to Jesus and the Spirit, but he has absolutely no positive attributes in his mind attached to the concept of father.

Similarly, a child that never had a daddy (a symbol of protection and strength) might be able to understand that OTHER children had fathers but not be able to project that concept on themselves. Is it really possible for a woman to completely fill the role of a father?