Gay parents are at least as good as straight parents.

[Autodidact]

I'm really sick and tired of people around here slandering us gay parents, by saying that we do not do as good a job as straight parents. This thread is to give you a chance to bring forward your evidence that this is the case. Not your biased, bigoted, opinion, based on neither research not actual personal experience with gay families, but your quality, sound, unbiased research, using sound methodology, that shows this to be the case. I would also be interested in your personal experience with gay and lesbian families, as compared to straight families. I in my turn will be happy to do the same. When I get done showing you that the overwhelming evidence supports my assertion that gay parents do at least as good a job as straight parents, I hope never again to hear this slander from you lying bigots, casting dishonest aspersions on us hardworking gay parents. Go for it.

 

[Rin]

Can I just head off one attempt before it is brought up because I see this come up so very often.

If the evidence you bring to the table consists of studies done on single-parent families, please explain why the data may be better interpreted by the lack of a gender role as opposed to the lack of a parent. It seems pretty obvious to me that a child will have a harder life if they only have a single parent to look after them instead of two. Therefore, I cannot understand why this explanation is ignored in favour of an explanation involving gender roles.

 

[Autodidact]

Y'know, if I went around denigrating other people's parenting, and basically saying that their children would be better off with other parents, I would have the integrity to at least try to defend my statements, to make some effort to figure out they were true, but then, I'm a person of character and honesty, unlike those who slander us gay parents here at RF.

 

[Valjean]

As good as straight parents? -- Poppycock -- they're probably better!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it just ridiculous to think gay parents can't do as good as a job as straight. A parents love and child raising skills do not come from gender.

 

[Autodidact]

Seyorni makes a valid point, which I will expand on. A huge difference between gay and straight people is that gay people, as a rule, do not get pregnant by accident. Virtually every child born to or adopted by a gay couple is wanted and planned for. Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if every child were wanted and planned for?

When we do research, and compare intact, two-parent gay and straight families, we are actually biasing the research in favor of heterosexuals, because we are not including the 15-year old who was raped by her stepfather, the 19-year old mother of two by two different men, or even the 35 year old divorced mother of 3 who really didn't want any more kids, but got pregnant anyway. These are all common heterosexual scenarios, unheard of among homosexuals. If you just compare all the gay parents to all the straight parents, the gay parents on the whole do better than the straight parents, and this can be parsed out by counting how many heterosexual births are not to intact, two-parent, stable families, and then comparing how these kinds of child-rearing situations impact on kids. The answer is, negatively.

It's not that gay people are better, or even better parents per se, but just that homosexuality has the enormous advantage of not resulting in pregnancy, and therefore unwanted pregnancy.

And for all you abortion opponents, huge plus. No abortion. No birth control, really, either, other than heterosexual celibacy. So for all of you who also assert that homosexuality is a choice (and I think that for many women it is) it's a beneficial choice that everyone should consider.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm truly sorry that you have to defend yourself. Good parents are those who love their children, provide for their children and make decisions revolving their children that are in the best interest of their children. I agree with Shadow Wolf, gender and sexual orientation matters not.

 

[3.14]

beside the fact that a son with lesbians doesn't have a clear role model and that gay parants are more prone to harresment and intolerance i see no real problem

 

[Mike182]

beside the fact that a son with lesbians doesn't have a clear role model and that gay parants are more prone to harresment and intolerance i see no real problem

Firstly, extended family and close friends of the lesbian couple can more than adequately compensate for a lack of a male role model if there is a distinct need for one. Note of course that I only say if there is a distinct need for one, I don't think a lesbian couple, by virtue of being a lesbian couple, lack both masculine and feminine role models, which I personally think come second in the list of priorities for a child with a loving parent or parents on the top of the list... But yes, if there is a lack in a certain case, there are people on hand who are readily available for this to not be an issue. Same for a single male or female parent, they will have friends and family of the opposite gender to take on the position of a role model if it is required.

Secondly, I have not heard the claim that gay parents are more prone to harassment and intolerance, I would have thought the opposite given that gays in general tend to suffer harassment and intolerance when growing up and so actively try to avoid that in their adult lives. But please, prove me wrong and post some decent case studies showing your position in this instance to be the real case.

 

[Functionless]

People are just afraid that if kids have gay parents that they will "decide" to be gay too.

 

[Makaveli]

I think a boy needs a male role model to show him how to be a man, and a girl needs a female role model to show her how to be a woman; both of these are not provided for in a lesbian and a gay relationship respectively. The point that extended family and friends can step in is invalid, they're not going to be there 24/7 like an actual parent would. Theoretically it is possible, but anyone with actual experience being raised in this way would know that it is not true.

I was raised by a single mother, my father lived 300 miles north, and I only saw him once a month, if that. One of my uncles tried to give me some positive male nurturing, but he lived even farther away and I saw him even less. I was forced to turn to stereotypical male role models in the media, from which I eventually weeded out what was good and what was bad.

Now, I'm not asserting that gay parents are bad parents, so before you reverse bigots out there decide that my opinion must be censored hear me out. If a gay family can provide a loving, nurturing environment for their child, then that's a good family. It would be far superior to a single parent akin to what I had, or a dysfunctional heterosexual family. That being said, I believe it is imperative that a child be exposed to both genders to create a balanced world view. If one partner in a homosexual relationship is more masculine or more feminine than the other, that will only distort things more, not compensate.

Again, I'm not denigrating the parenting of gay couples. I know a lesbian family that does a superb job of raising their daughter; I just don't believe that having one gender missing is the ideal situation for a child to grow up in.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Unfortunately, many heterosexual couples do not provide good male or female role models either. Especially when there is some gender-questioning going on with the daughter or son.

Are the role models arbitrary anyway? Or is there a set, permanent gender model one must follow or...or what?

 

[MoonWater]

I understand the importance of having good role models, but what does gender have anything to do with that? Makiaveli you do know that the whole idea of "learning to be a 'man'/'woman'" is just based on stereotypical gender roles right? Besides following your logic riverwolf and I shouldn't have kids if we get married because we might "complicate the issue" due to the fact that I'm a "masculine" woman and he's a "femenine" man. Do you feel the river and I would just confuse our children and make things worse for them because we don't fit into prescribed gender roles?

 

[Autodidact]

Should I conclude that the research does not support the assertions I've seen certain posters make here, that the optimum parenting situation is a married, heterosexual family? Does anyone need me to post the ample, lengthy, quality research to the contrary?

 

[Makaveli]

Unfortunately, many heterosexual couples do not provide good male or female role models either. Especially when there is some gender-questioning going on with the daughter or son.

Are the role models arbitrary anyway? Or is there a set, permanent gender model one must follow or...or what?

Yes, which is a point I do make in my last post. I think if you take a loving homosexual family, and contrast it with a loving heterosexual family, the child would be in a more ideal situation with the heterosexual family because they will gain a balanced world view. There's a reason it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Again, this isn't a denigration of homosexual parenting, only an assertion that a man and a woman provides balance while a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, does not.

Gender models are not arbitrary in my opinion, they just need to be there at all. Namely, if a man is feminine or a woman is masculine, it's fine if the child gets balance in that regard, or even if they're both neutral, there's a very distinct line as to who the child should emulate.

I understand the importance of having good role models, but what does gender have anything to do with that? Makiaveli you do know that the whole idea of "learning to be a 'man'/'woman'" is just based on stereotypical gender roles right? Besides following your logic riverwolf and I shouldn't have kids if we get married because we might "complicate the issue" due to the fact that I'm a "masculine" woman and he's a "femenine" man. Do you feel the river and I would just confuse our children and make things worse for them because we don't fit into prescribed gender roles?

Men and women are different not only physically but mentally as well; our brains are wired differently, which is why we act differently. I don't believe it's based as much on stereotypical gender roles, as the fact that men and women tend to act in a certain way contrary to each other, which is why those roles formulated in the first place. They both have a grain of truth.

My logic requires pre-requisites to be valid, namely the fact that there be two women or two men, not a woman and a man (I'm assuming you're both heterosexual, but correct me if I'm wrong and I apologize if I am). If there are two women or two men, with one acting masculine and the other feminine, the child will be confused as to who they will emulate since there isn't a very clear delineation. Can you understand where I'm coming from here? If there are two different people with two different roles in the house, the child will emulate one of them, but if there are two similar people with two different roles, it would confuse them.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

beside the fact that a son with lesbians doesn't have a clear role model and that gay parants are more prone to harresment and intolerance i see no real problem

There is this REALLY hot (that's beside the point ) guy in my class and he and his 2 brothers were raised by lesbians. Fun fact: he's married to the really hot woman who sits next to him in class.

Sooooo...really, none of this BS matters. I don't think of it as gay parents or straight parents..they're just friggin parents!

 

[MoonWater]

Yes, which is a point I do make in my last post. I think if you take a loving homosexual family, and contrast it with a loving heterosexual family, the child would be in a more ideal situation with the heterosexual family because they will gain a balanced world view. There's a reason it takes a man and a woman to make a child. Again, this isn't a denigration of homosexual parenting, only an assertion that a man and a woman provides balance while a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, does not.

Gender models are not arbitrary in my opinion, they just need to be there at all. Namely, if a man is feminine or a woman is masculine, it's fine if the child gets balance in that regard, or even if they're both neutral, there's a very distinct line as to who the child should emulate.

If it's not about gender role then what the heck does the sex have to do with it? How could the child get confused about who to emulate simply because both his parents have the same genitalia

Men and women are different not only physically but mentally as well; our brains are wired differently, which is why we act differently. I don't believe it's based as much on stereotypical gender roles, as the fact that men and women tend to act in a certain way contrary to each other, which is why those roles formulated in the first place. They both have a grain of truth.

If that were so true then you wouldn't have masculine women and femenine men in the first place. Seriously, if our differences are dependant upon our brain structure, basically dependant on our biology, how would it be possible for women to act like men and men to act like women

My logic requires pre-requisites to be valid, namely the fact that there be two women or two men, not a woman and a man (I'm assuming you're both heterosexual, but correct me if I'm wrong and I apologize if I am). If there are two women or two men, with one acting masculine and the other feminine, the child will be confused as to who they will emulate since there isn't a very clear delineation. Can you understand where I'm coming from here? If there are two different people with two different roles in the house, the child will emulate one of them, but if there are two similar people with two different roles, it would confuse them.

yeah cause each individual in a same sex couple is EXACTLY alike:sarcastic. Honestly why would the genitalia of the parents make any difference? How could having two parents of the same gender confuse the child or make it harder for them to choose who to emulate? I'm not understanding your reasoning behind this.

 

[Makaveli]

If you read what i was trying to say is that there has to be a gender role the child can emulate; it could be anything at all, but it has to be connected to that gender.
If there is no man or no woman in the house, it's going to be difficult for said child to create a clear conception of that gender. Straight men and straight women base what they look for in wives and husbands based on their mothers and fathers respectively; there absolutely must be a positive male and female role model for a child, and yes, genitalia does factor into this. You cannot seriously expect a child to gain conceptions of masculine and feminine from two of the same vessel, they won't know what to look for when they're older. It's absurd to think otherwise. Nature designed a certain familial unit to exist, man and woman, to give a child the requisite balance it would need to thrive in the world. You can rationalize it all you want, but gay people will never give their children that balance. I know I certainly didn't have a conception of what a man should be, when I was a kid being raised by a single mom.

The nature versus nurture debate persists. There are always going to be variances in a sex, but it cannot be denied that there are basic physiological differences that differentiate one sex from another.

Children don't think in abstract terms, they don't have the mental capacity to do so until they mature further. They understand large differences, not subtle ones.
Let X represent a woman, and let Y represent a man. If there are two XX in one house, and these two adopt a child, that child is going to see two roles and one gender, and its simple mind will have trouble categorizing things. This is equally applicable for a YY relationship.

Am I making myself clear? I hope so, because I am not in the mood to write out the same argument thrice.

 

[Makaveli]

Instead of continuing this vein of discussion when I already agree with the OP that gay people are just as capable as anyone of being good parents, I will start a new thread on whether they provide balance or not.

 

[MoonWater]

If you read what i was trying to say is that there has to be a gender role the child can emulate; it could be anything at all, but it has to be connected to that gender.

Why? I can understand why a child MIGHT need someone to emulate(though I highly doubt it's a need) but why must that emulation apply to a gender role? Why does it have to be connected to gneder?

If there is no man or no woman in the house, it's going to be difficult for said child to create a clear conception of that gender.

Again, why? And why can't other people outside the home help him or her create this conception?

Straight men and straight women base what they look for in wives and husbands based on their mothers and fathers respectively;

sometimes but not always. For instance my father is the main bread-winner in my family but I'm not really looking for a man who will also be the main bread-winner, just someone who will pull equal weight.

there absolutely must be a positive male and female role model for a child, and yes, genitalia does factor into this.

why and why?

You cannot seriously expect a child to gain conceptions of masculine and feminine from two of the same vessel,

And that makes it worse(for a child to not gain those concepts)? Personally I think it would be better if we DIDN'T have these "conceptions of masculine and femenine". it would rid ourselves of the stereotypes that only serve to divide us further

they won't know what to look for when they're older.

I think you gravely underestimate children

It's absurd to think otherwise.

How so?

Nature designed a certain familial unit to exist, man and woman, to give a child the requisite balance it would need to thrive in the world. You can rationalize it all you want, but gay people will never give their children that balance. I know I certainly didn't have a conception of what a man should be, when I was a kid being raised by a single mom.

define "what a man 'should' be". and aside from that you do know your comparing apples to oranges right? Your experience is with a single parent, only one person in the house to care for you and your saying that that is what it would be like for a child with two parents of the same gender. But that's not a fair comparison because your applying what happened in a scenario with one parent to scenarios that have two parents of the same gender. Your saying that children with two parents of one gender will have the same difficulties you did as a child with ONE parent of one gender. Do you see how that is not a good comparison from which to draw a conclusion?

The nature versus nurture debate persists.

yup, and research has shown that nurture tends to have a greater influence on us than nature.

There are always going to be variances in a sex, but it cannot be denied that there are basic physiological differences that differentiate one sex from another.

we're not denying that there are differences. And it's only natural that a child with same sex parents will have a different upbringing from someone with opposite sex parents. What I want to know is why you feel these differences would make a child worse off or why these differences would negatively affect the child.

Children don't think in abstract terms, they don't have the mental capacity to do so until they mature further. They understand large differences, not subtle ones.

maybe when they're little, but once they reach middle to high school years the subtle differences and thinking in the abstract develop. I'd say by high school that's no longer an issue if not sooner.

Let X represent a woman, and let Y represent a man. If there are two XX in one house, and these two adopt a child, that child is going to see two roles and one gender, and its simple mind will have trouble categorizing things. This is equally applicable for a YY relationship.

oh really? how about this: "blond haired mommy does this, brown haired mommy does that." There categorized. but seriously, Why would the child have trouble categorizing things simply because of it's parents gender? Are you saying that it won't be able to categorize a dog as animal and a tree as a plant just because his parents have the same gender? Or are you talking more specifically about gender roles and classifying those gender roles? In which case, why do you feel we need to classify gender roles at all? I understand the need for roles but why based on gender? Why/how would the child be negatively affected by not being exposed to gender roles? Personally I would see it as a plus as it would mean the child could be more flexible being who they are and want to be and not feel constrained to one role or another simply because they have certain genitalia.

Am I making myself clear? I hope so, because I am not in the mood to write out the same argument thrice.

Well maybe instead of writing out the same argument over and over you should explain your reasoning behind your position. I'd honestly like to know why figure things would be as you say they would be. Also do you have any studies that back up these claims of yours. Studies that compare intact two parent opposite sex households to intact two parent same sex households? Cause you do know that we can't draw accurate conclusions on something like this comparing single parent homes to two parent same sex homes right?