Gay parents are at least as good as straight parents.

[Reverend Rick]

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.

What you are looking for is acceptance from people who are never going to give it to you. I don't know why you let certain people bother you so much. If you look at your words in this post, it is like you want to encourage dissenting opinions that truthfully really hurt your feelings.

I feel the same way when people want to tell me how to raise my children, so I understand the sentiment.

To address your OP, I believe Gay parents would most likely do a better job of raising children because they have something to prove.

 

[emiliano]

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.

The problem is that people that have views contrary to your statement would have a hard time trying to find reliable data, adoption by homosexual is a recent thing and the percentage of the population that are gay is so small, you could not find a good comparable data, so really I doubt that this is true and the fact that we don't know it is no proof that they are as good or worst, the data sample does not allows a comparison. The data sample of the straight parents would contain a greater number of failures because is a greater sample.

 

[Autodidact]

What you are looking for is acceptance from people who are never going to give it to you. I don't know why you let certain people bother you so much. If you look at your words in this post, it is like you want to encourage dissenting opinions that truthfully really hurt your feelings.

I feel the same way when people want to tell me how to raise my children, so I understand the sentiment.

To address your OP, I believe Gay parents would most likely do a better job of raising children because they have something to prove.

I'll tell you, Rick, it's this. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. They don't have a right to their own facts. I don't care whether they "accept" me or not--they can worry about whether I accept them. I care very much when people tell lies about me and my people. Saying, "I don't think gay people should have kids" is just their stupid, bigoted opinion. Saying, "kids do better in straight families" is a lie. It is a factual assertion that is not true. And when people tell lies about a group I belong to, it makes me angry, for good reason.

I am a Jew. Gentiles have been spreading ugly lies about Jews for centuries, and then oppressing, locking up, stealing from, killing us, because people believe those lies. I think the truth is important, and that spreading lies about other people is immoral and dangerous.

For example, in this case, decisions-makers, such as legislators and voters, will be considering important issues that affect children's welfare, because irresponsible people have spread this kind of disinformation. In Arkansas recently (IIRC I think it was Arkansas) voters prohibited gay adoption. Now there are some poor kids in Arkansas who will never have a family, because ignorant voters believed these lies. The truth matters.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem is that people that have views contrary to your statement would have a hard time trying to find reliable data,

They sure would, because the data shows that they are wrong. Therefore they can't find data to show they are right.

adoption by homosexual is a recent thing and the percentage of the population that are gay is so small, you could not find a good comparable data,

Really? Do you know this? Have you reviewed the research? Do you know how many families were used in the studies? How long the studies have been done? How many studies there are? I do. Would you like me to show you the many, high-quality, long-term studies that show exactly the opposite?

so really I doubt that this is true and the fact that we don't know it is no proof that they are as good or worst, the data sample does not allows a comparison.

Lets say you're right, even though you're not. Then the most any responsible person could say is that we don't know. You can't say, as someone here did, that all the respectable studies show that kids do better with straight parents, because they don't. They show the exact opposite.

The data sample of the straight parents would contain a greater number of failures because is a greater sample.

Doh. You don't seem to know the first thing about sociological research. You use identical sample sizes, and calculate percentages.

emiliano: Are you one of the people who made this false assertion? I don't remember.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

beside the fact that a son with lesbians doesn't have a clear role model

What of the single parents raising kids? Not all daughters have a mother role model, and not all sons have a father role model.
Myself, I didn't have a father or brother role model. My dad worked alot before my parents divorced, and I was raised by my mom. Being a teen, and throughout high school, I had to teach myself how to "be a man."
My niece doesn't really have a female role model, especially since her mom has turned out to be a complete failure as a parent. However, she acts as any other high school girl would act.

Theoretically it is possible, but anyone with actual experience being raised in this way would know that it is not true.

I have the experience, and know it IS true. My mom raised me, and I turned out to be very masculine. My mom being the only one to raise me did not however, cause my gender issues (as they have existed since I was very young.).
And anymore today, being a man just means you might shave your face, and being a woman means you can handle monthly issues and (hopefully) you take extra special care of yourself during a pregnancy. Both genders do much of the same stuff today. Both men and women work the same jobs, both can be a stay at home parent, both are equally capable of raising kids, and its becoming more and more common for men to wear make up and for woman to wear men's clothing. Biological differences are the only real differences. There are societal differences, but since those vary from place to place, they really can't be considered real. Especially today when more women are working, and more men are staying at home.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What you are looking for is acceptance from people who are never going to give it to you. I don't know why you let certain people bother you so much. If you look at your words in this post, it is like you want to encourage dissenting opinions that truthfully really hurt your feelings.

The black community fought pretty damn hard and gained the acceptance. Ghandi also fought and gained freedom for a nation. Why should the gay community not fight as well? People are more than capable of changing sides and forming new opinions and thoughts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

IOW, same-sex parents are inherently disadvantaged with regard to opposite-sex parents because they lack a characteristic that you say was lacking in your own opposite-sex-parented family?

Also, let's turn this around for a moment: so you say that a boy needs male role models and a girl needs female role models; wouldn't this imply that a boy raised by men or a girl raised by women would be even better off than a child raised in an opposite-sex-parented family?

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 emulated both my parents in different ways. Gender is not the sole defining characteristic of a person.

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.

Perhaps on average, but when we're talking about an individual family, the parents aren't going to be their genders' averages; they're going to have a combination of characteristics that put them at some point along a curve (if curves and averages are really the best way to talk about people and families).

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.

Every two-parent family will have two people who are similar in some ways and different in others that are available for a child to emulate. Normally, this works okay.

The problem is that people that have views contrary to your statement would have a hard time trying to find reliable data,

Ah. So you're saying then, that any claims that same-sex couples are at a disadvantage to opposite-sex couples in the raising of children are baseless assertions that aren't founded on valid data?

adoption by homosexual is a recent thing and the percentage of the population that are gay is so small, you could not find a good comparable data, so really I doubt that this is true and the fact that we don't know it is no proof that they are as good or worst, the data sample does not allows a comparison.

Based on your estimation, how large the sample size have to be before it would allow a valid comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex couples with regard to raising children? What confidence interval do you base your sample size on?

The data sample of the straight parents would contain a greater number of failures because is a greater sample.

If you're looking at every single straight couple with children. It would also contain a greater number of successes.

If you studied representative samples of each group of equal size (which is how studies of this nature would usually work), then your concern goes away. Your concern would also go away if you looked at population averages of some set of measures, rather than just "counting the misses", which I think is what you were implying would happen.

 

[Panda]

Just because you live with your father doesn't make him a good role model. I was much happier when it was only me, my mum and sister than I ever was when my Dad was there.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Parenting has nothing to do with sexual preference. Anyone who believes it does, is probably a bad parent.

 

[anders]

The question of same gender adoptions have been officially investigated in Sweden. Conclusions were that no negative effects from being raised in such families seemed to occur. It was pointed out that the children weren't significantly more harrassed in school, and tended to be more tolerant to minority views and behaviour. So, the law allowing same gender adoptions passed. No negative publicity in media, but a couple of heartwarming success stories.

As has been pointed out, parenthood isn't just a matter of happenstance to gay couples. They will have considered at quite a length what their responsibilitites will be, how to plan for the kid's (kids') future, and how to manage financially.

For anecdotical evidence on the comparison to single parent rearing, my father was a merchant navy captain. In those days, it meant that he most ot the time existed to me through exotic mail addresses. Not much of a "role model", whatever that means. But the constant letter writing gave me inputs, and combined with the positive attitude at home towards books and learning, the language skills that make the foundation of my line of work as well as my main spare time involvement.

On the contrary, I absorbed many facets that I think have been appreciated by not only my female partners/friends through the years, like being well acquainted with kitchen work - and knowing how demanding household chores can be. The fact that I haven't built a house with my own hands or considered a careeer in pro football wouldn't have been any different if I had had a run of the mill regularily appearing at home male "role model". I'm just more into gardening and cooking than into any brute force activities.

 

[Autodidact]

One of my main points is that anecdotes are not evidence, or at best are very weak evidence. Although if you like that form of evidence, I'll tell you all about the many outstanding lesbian parents I know, not to mention my own amazing accomplished excellent grown daughter. But rather than our individual childhoods, I think it's more valuable to look at the RESEARCH, which is what people who make these disparaging claims about others don't bother to do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of my main points is that anecdotes are not evidence, or at best are very weak evidence.

I agree. Statistically speaking, you need a sample size of three before you can even calculate a standard deviation... i.e. the measure of how accurate you are. A sample size of one is so inaccurate that its inaccuracy is literally immeasurable!

 

[emiliano]

They sure would, because the data shows that they are wrong. Therefore they can't find data to show they are right.Really? Do you know this? Have you reviewed the research? Do you know how many families were used in the studies? How long the studies have been done? How many studies there are? I do. Would you like me to show you the many, high-quality, long-term studies that show exactly the opposite? Lets say you're right, even though you're not. Then the most any responsible person could say is that we don't know. You can't say, as someone here did, that all the respectable studies show that kids do better with straight parents, because they don't. They show the exact opposite. Doh. You don't seem to know the first thing about sociological research. You use identical sample sizes, and calculate percentages.
emiliano: Are you one of the people who made this false assertion? I don't remember.

I can't remember ever given an opinion on gay couples adoption or parenting skills.
Wow! Interesting thread, let see what we can get out of this, Autodidact, yes please I would like to see the researches that you said you have, if these researches could help us to know: for how long a time adoption by gay couples have been permitted in the US? Would be great. Since in the majority of cases homosexuality (attraction to same sex: sexual attraction to, and sexual relations with, members of the same sex) consider that the comparison must be between adopted children, those adopted by straight couples to those adopted by gays, this meaning those that have sex with someone of the same sex and that you must grant met that no offspring can come out of such activities. What the ratio is would be of interest as well.

 

[madhatter85]

No, they never will be because no matter how hard you try, the child will be lacking in understanding that they would get from having a normal family with a mother and a father.

 

[dawny0826]

No, they never will be because no matter how hard you try, the child will be lacking in understanding that they would get from having a normal family with a mother and a father.

She's requesting evidence to support this claim.

Have you ever met a child that was raised by gay parents that didn't function normally? Seriously, are there statistics that suggest that children raised by same sex couples are less likely to succeed, less likely to grow up to be good, happy and productive people? Your religious views on the matter are one thing but the OPer is seeking evidence either by personal account or otherwise.

I've never met a child raised by gay parents but I've read many articles of the struggles and triumphs of gay couples. And I followed the adoption story of a gay couple. One of the men was my co-worker's cousin. They've kept a website to document their struggles and joys and the love and care they display for their daughter is just as real and valid as the love my husband and I have for our children. She was so loved and wanted before she was even born and I think they had an even greater appreciation of the precious gift which is parenthood because they fought so hard to get there.

I know that what my children need more than anything is love, nurturing and guidance. If they have this foundation, evidence supports that they will thrive. Why would this be any different for the children of same sex couples?

 

[emiliano]

IOW, same-sex parents are inherently disadvantaged with regard to opposite-sex parents because they lack a characteristic that you say was lacking in your own opposite-sex-parented family?

Also, let's turn this around for a moment: so you say that a boy needs male role models and a girl needs female role models; wouldn't this imply that a boy raised by men or a girl raised by women would be even better off than a child raised in an opposite-sex-parented family?


I emulated both my parents in different ways. Gender is not the sole defining characteristic of a person.


Perhaps on average, but when we're talking about an individual family, the parents aren't going to be their genders' averages; they're going to have a combination of characteristics that put them at some point along a curve (if curves and averages are really the best way to talk about people and families).


Every two-parent family will have two people who are similar in some ways and different in others that are available for a child to emulate. Normally, this works okay.


Ah. So you're saying then, that any claims that same-sex couples are at a disadvantage to opposite-sex couples in the raising of children are baseless assertions that aren't founded on valid data?


Based on your estimation, how large the sample size have to be before it would allow a valid comparison between same-sex and opposite-sex couples with regard to raising children? What confidence interval do you base your sample size on?


If you're looking at every single straight couple with children. It would also contain a greater number of successes.

If you studied representative samples of each group of equal size (which is how studies of this nature would usually work), then your concern goes away. Your concern would also go away if you looked at population averages of some set of measures, rather than just "counting the misses", which I think is what you were implying would happen.

Oh God, I thought that I was clear on this, there is no reliable data and I stated that the reason is that this is a new thing, I mean people wanting to marry another of same sex, wanting to adopt, how long this has been on? How many people can we find is such position in the US? Yes at present we just don’t know, but it seems that there are no intention of allowing this marriages and find out, that is the will of the majority. So we just don’t know, if this are not marriages how can they adopt? You are still hang up on the equality thing, all married couples can adopt if they meet the requirement, no one is disadvantaged. It was clear that this issue was resolved the only marriage that is accepted in the Us is between a man and a woman, and adoption is only permitted to married couples that meet the requirements, and one of them is that they would be able to be a role model. A girl from her adopted mother and a boy from his adopted father. That’s the way it is.
To get an equal number of parent for the sample, we need first to find gay couples that are legally married and have adopted children, that would be a hard task in the US, don’t you think?

 

[darkendless]

No, they never will be because no matter how hard you try, the child will be lacking in understanding that they would get from having a normal family with a mother and a father.

SO you like many others are under the impression that a man and a woman make a superior parenting team?
My cousin in England shares a room with a male (he's straight) and his room mates 7 year old son. The mother of the child died when the child was just 3. Given this situation shouldn't you and all your biblical support condemn such a living arrangement because the boy has no female influence?
If so, without using the bible is this reasonable? What would you suggest as an alternative?

 

[emiliano]

Just because you live with your father doesn't make him a good role model. I was much happier when it was only me, my mum and sister than I ever was when my Dad was there.

Does this mean that you modelled your life to your mother and sister? and what does this entails?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, they never will be because no matter how hard you try, the child will be lacking in understanding that they would get from having a normal family with a mother and a father.

What such understanding will the child lack? Sweden couldn't find anything that would negatively effect the child's life.

Does this mean that you modelled your life to your mother and sister? and what does this entails?

It could simply mean that, just because the child has a father to live with, doesn't mean they are a good role model. The same can also be said of a mother.

I also want evidence to show good parenting depends upon the gender of the parents.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Unless I have missed them whilst skimming through, I believe the studies you speak of concerning the effectiveness of same sex parenting are yet to be produced? If you could actually present them for me to look at, I feel this discussion could be much more productive.

As it stands, I do think that it would be logical to find that your average same-sex parents do a better job than your average heterosexual parents. This is for the very reasons that have already been presented: -
- It is harder for same-sex couples to adopt, and thus for a same sex couple to obtain children they have to be of a higher standard than their heterosexual 'competitors' (for want of a better term).
- Since it is impossible for same-sex couples to conceive together naturally without assistance, they will not have children by accident, and thus the child will be more likely to be brought up in a stable environment, as opposed to a heterosexual couple who might have children at entirely the wrong time.

Thus I would say the average performance of same-sex parents is kept artificially high when placed into comparison with heterosexual parenting. I do not see how a decent comparison can be reasonably or easily made.

Which is why I want to review your studies.