Gay adoption is good for children

[rheff78]

Look, the difference is, there will always be gay people saying how their rigths on being abused. Roli is right. Gay people have an agenda. That is that look at us, look what we can do, blah, blah, blah. They will push their open sexuality on the kid, who in turn will interpret that to be normal behavior when they get older. There is something wrong with this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well homie, you won't convince me nor most of the population that a homosexual family is just as suited for a child than a traditional family. the fact that it's even an argument makes me giggle inside.

It doesn't make me giggle. This is a serious issue that actually has effects on people's lives.

and for the record bud, How about you try actually reading all the links instead of just looking where they came from, there is more than just one.

I had a quick look - do you have a guide to what those little code symbols mean after each paragraph?

One of the books cited is available at the Toronto Reference Library. If I have the opportunity either this Saturday or next, I'll see if I can check the page you linked to against what's actually in the source material.

Of course people that researched that a traditional family is more suited than a homosexual one is because they disagreed with it, just as the people who supported it are the same people who found it to be "equal". No matter what kind of smoke you try blowing that's the fact of the matter.

The whole point of scientific research is that the researcher puts aside any initial prejudices or biases and draws his or her conclusions from the data. Any study where the outcome is predetermined is not scientific, and is not reasonable support for a position on public policy.

The "study" that you've cited has been found lacking in this regard. If you have specific objections to any studies on the other side, then please let us know what they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look, the difference is, there will always be gay people saying how their rigths on being abused. Roli is right. Gay people have an agenda. That is that look at us, look what we can do, blah, blah, blah. They will push their open sexuality on the kid, who in turn will interpret that to be normal behavior when they get older. There is something wrong with this.

Yes, there's something wrong with this: it's a mischaracterization.

Replace "gay" with "religious" and this may give you an idea of some of the problems with your statement.

 

[rheff78]

But I'm not. That's what I'm saying. Obviously you can't be convinced in a religious way, so I don't even try. Look, if nature had meant two guys to care for a child there would be a way for them have a child NATURALLY. The same with two women. Yea, they can get pregnant, but through artificial means or by a previous marriage. The point is, if you wanted to raise a child, have one of your own, if you are a straight couple and can't do this, then they have every right to adopt. A gay couple HAS NO WAY OF HAVING CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN. Bottom line.

 

[Autodidact]

Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

"Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families."

I don't care what what your scientists say, I want what is best for the kids, and what THEY think. And I'm sure your family is different, but there is exceptions to everything.

k: I said this earlier in the thread, but you might have missed it. Paul Cameron is not a bona fide researcher; he's a liar.

In 1983, the American Psychological Association decided to drop Cameron from membership for non-cooperation with an ethics investigation, although by his own account he had resigned from the organization the previous year. His work has been repudiated for alleged misrepresentation of data by the American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association.

In 1986 the American Sociological Association, following a report from its Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology,[21] passed a resolution condemning Dr. Cameron for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[22] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".

[wiki] That is: he lies.
Cameron is only seeking to further his anti-gay agenda, not learn the truth.

The issue is not whether children have problems; all children have problems. The issue is whether they have more problems than children of heterosexual parents. This is the kind of distortion that Cameron has been condemned for.

How about some research from a bona fide researcher who is not out to demonize a minority group?

 

[rheff78]

Jees, it seems that any research we would get that puts you in a negative light, you would see them as demonizing. Kind of in a no win situation.

 

[Autodidact]

Examining the Research on Homosexual Parenting

"There is a larger body of scientific literature showing children need a mother and father for proper socialization."

The article you cite is outdated. The summaries quoted are from 2001; there has been considerable research since then.
The summary I gave you outlined the difficulties, challenges, and problems with existing studies. Maybe you didn't bother reading it?
Focus on the Family is a political organization with an agenda. What you need is stuff from neutral groups, such as research or research summaries for the APA, AMA, AAP, and so forth, or published in peer-reviewed journals, not biased lies from known liars like Focus on the Family.
Your statement trades on one of the main ways these groups lie. They compare intact, married, heterosexual, families to single and divorced moms, and use the results to claim that children with fathers are better off. Obviously, and I'm sure you'll agree, what we need is to compare intact, married, heterosexual families to intact homosexual families, and see if there are any measurable differences. There aren't. That's what the research shows.

I've stated my opinion, told it was based on my common sense, your ONLY argument is I don't have some kind of support, so I'll find some for my view on the topic, that s hould help eleviate any question of justification.

That was my main criticism so far. If you think about it, it's kind of an important one.
Well,nothing like making your conclusion first, then going to find data to support it. May I suggest that a more common sense view would be to look at the data, then form your conclusion?

"American Sociological Review study reports 64 percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex relationships. Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing.[SIZE=-2]9"[/SIZE]

Good for them!

"There is an absolute mountain of social science research showing that children who are raised with their married mother and father do far better in every measure of well-being than children who grow up in any other family situation"

This is a lie. What they are saying is that intact families do better than broken families. It has nothing to do with gay families, and they know it. The fact that they are trying to confuse divorced straight families with intact gay families is how you know they're liars.

I feel like I'm in some proper english class again on an opinionated forum, eh.

You will find that it's customary on most internet debate boards to expect posters to substantiate their opinions.

"
According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid. "

And how about the other several dozen studies not included?

So the best you can do is to say that we don't know either way? In that case, whose opinion carries more weight, yours, based on no direct knowledge, or mine, based on my first-hand knowledge of dozens of gay and lesbian families, including my own?
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2004_mar_apr/article_1.html

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - SAME-SEX PARENTING IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN

I suggest that you read your link. It's not research--it's a policy statement by a right-wign women's group, citing the same kinds of lies and distortions, such as a policy study by the policy director of a California branch of focus on the Family. Sorry, that's not research; it's not even facts. It's two things: (1) opinion, like yours. (2) lies.

You know, I'd rather talk and discuss like regular adults, than go buck wild on google and gather all kinds of research, but obviously you people can't consider something like that, alas.

You consider information and knowledge immature?

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that in a democracy there are certain rights that must be safeguarded, even if there comes a time when the majority would take away those rights. That's the role of the US Constitution. We rule by majority, but only where it would not violate the constitution. There are also mechanisms to change the constitution, but it requires a very strong majority. I believe children should be adopted out to a father and a mother. I believe those parents can belong to any religion. It would be wrong to deny adoption or take children away from a family based on their religion . But, it's not wrong to deny an adoption to a gay couple. This may sound like an arbitrary distinction to some people, but to me it is what makes sense. I can't separate my religious beliefs from my view of policy in all cases. I believe it is fundamentally dangerous to our society and strikes at the foundation of the world community to tamper with the God inspired family in this way. This is why I feel public policy is in order. If one thinks there is no danger to the child or society, then I see why they would feel that my policy idea is bad. But, I don't see it that way.

Right. Other people's prejudices are bad; your prejudices are good. Please don't try to say that you're advocating for what's best for children. You're advocating against what has actually been shown to be best for children, so that you can impose your religious beliefs on others. Meanwhile, real children languish in real foster care so people like you can feel righteous.

 

[Autodidact]

Yup, just like your research is done by pro-gays and people that support it.

Nope. You're just making stuff up. The research is done by qualified, published, reputable, mainstream sociologists and psychologists. Read it.
There's a difference. Paul Cameron is a discredited liar. The research I cited is not.

If my research is invalid, so is yours.

Nope, you're wrong. Your research is invalid, and the research indicating the opposite is not.
Neither Cameron nor anyone else has any sound research indicating that the children of lesbian or gay parents in intact families do any worse than children of intact heterosexual families. Go ahead, look for it--it's not there. That's because they don't.

Read the kids friggin stories man, I don't care if they are prejudice or not, they are probably prejudice because they disagree with it so much because they worry about the welfare of the kids. Just like me.

What stories? Do you want the stories of mine and my friend's children?

and yup, it will destroy civilization, all it due time. Thanks by the way.

I agree. Prejudice is dangerous. Stamp it out now before it destroys civilization.

 

[Autodidact]

I pretty much agree with everything you said,especially how easily sensitive and volatile some gays are, but add that it seems to me more of an agrressive agenda and attempt to assemilate children into the relationship so as to assert to the world "we told you so" .
It certainly appears to be more of an accomplishment and mile stone to the gay agenda than it is a regard for the children, at least what I have seen. Not that they are all like that, but the pride to be gay and be right and to receive every right hetro's have prevails as more of the agenda.
I could be wrong ,but that what I think>

I know. Those awful gay people, expecting to enjoy equal rights like that! Who do they think they are! And don't get me started on those darn nigras!

 

[w00t]

Teaching children to be bigoted against gays is BAD!

 

[Autodidact]

Well homie, you won't convince me nor most of the population that a homosexual family is just as suited for a child than a traditional family. the fact that it's even an argument makes me giggle inside.

and for the record bud, How about you try actually reading all the links instead of just looking where they came from, there is more than just one. Of course people that researched that a traditional family is more suited than a homosexual one is because they disagreed with it, just as the people who supported it are the same people who found it to be "equal". No matter what kind of smoke you try blowing that's the fact of the matter.

Don't know much about science, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

Look, the difference is, there will always be gay people saying how their rigths on being abused. Roli is right. Gay people have an agenda. That is that look at us, look what we can do, blah, blah, blah. They will push their open sexuality on the kid, who in turn will interpret that to be normal behavior when they get older. There is something wrong with this.

What is that agenda? Equal rights? "push their open sexuality on the kid?" Are you alleging that gay parents are sexually inappropriate with their children? What do you base that on? Or is your problem that gay parents act like straight parents? Gay behavior is normal behavior--for a gay person.

 

[kdrier]

I don't agree with homosexual anything, I don't think they are all there, based on the ones I've talked to and the ones I've had discussions with, not sure it's lack of logic or common sense, but something just is not right, at least compared to all the heterosexual people I know. They are all on some kind of mission, and are out for blood to prove something, I guess that they are equal, not sure what it is, but it's real annoying. Problem is that a majority of the population believe in some form of christianity, and we all know religions like itself condone such behavior. We've come to accept it though.

I accept adoption by gays. I think a traditional family is better, I think having a mother and father is important to any child for what I feel are obvious reasons, that is with the assumption that the paraments are equal. All I'm saying is a father figure is important, I'm not saying it's impossible to raise a child without one, but it will definitely will help.

Children who have an active father figure have fewer psychological and behavioral problems

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Children who have an active father figure have fewer psychological and behavioral problems

So children who have two active father figures should be even better off, right?

 

[rheff78]

I know. Those awful gay people, expecting to enjoy equal rights like that! Who do they think they are! And don't get me started on those darn nigras!

So now people that don't support gay adoption are racists too?

 

[Autodidact]

But I'm not. That's what I'm saying. Obviously you can't be convinced in a religious way, so I don't even try. Look, if nature had meant two guys to care for a child there would be a way for them have a child NATURALLY. The same with two women. Yea, they can get pregnant, but through artificial means or by a previous marriage. The point is, if you wanted to raise a child, have one of your own, if you are a straight couple and can't do this, then they have every right to adopt. A gay couple HAS NO WAY OF HAVING CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN. Bottom line.

It sounds like you don't care about what's good for kids, just whether someone's sex is reproductive or not.

So your position is that infertile couples should not be allowed to adopt?

 

[kdrier]

So children who have two active father figures should be even better off, right?

Sorry, but no. They are equally important. that is why a man and a women are suppose to have a child together, it's a law of nature, not of god, not of the government, but nature. Mother and father figure will optimize the success in the development of a child.

I'm not saying you homosexuals can't raise a kid okay, don't get the wrong impression. I'm saying a traditional family is better suited given the parameters are equal, no more, no less.

 

[Autodidact]

Jees, it seems that any research we would get that puts you in a negative light, you would see them as demonizing. Kind of in a no win situation.

No, it's not that, it's that Cameron has been caught lying, which is why the APA kicked him out. He distorts data. For example, you will frequently catch him saying that the research shows that fathers are important, and then cites research comparing two parent families to one parent families, with neither group being gay families. Can you see why that research is irrelevant, and only a liar would cite it?

 

[kdrier]

you will frequently catch him saying that the research shows that fathers are important

Fathers are important.

Children who have an active father figure have fewer psychological and behavioral problems