Thread: Study: Youngsters of 'gay households' negatively affected

Originally Posted by Makedde

The study is flawed. They compared kids raised by straight parents to kids raised by gay parents, BUT - the gay parents may have been married to someone of the opposite sex already, and they didn't use the gay kids raised by gay couples in a long term relationship. In short, they compared long term relationships involving children with short term gay relationships. Its a biased study.

Not only that, but the highlight of the results were comparing them to children raised by biological parents:

"reveal "numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents""

Well duh, no kidding. I don't think anyone ever challenged the fact that, on average, children are far better off when they are raised by their own biological parents. Hardly a revolutionary study. The only reality we face is that children do not always have the choice to be raised by their biological parents, so the question is how children raised by heterosexual (non-biological) parents fare compared to children raise by homosexual (non-biological) parents.

The question of causation is also important, where we know through correlation that children raised by their biological parents fare better, but we don't necessarily know the causation. For example, if a child is switched at birth, and the parents and child never find out, would that child fare better worse? Probably the same.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

onenewsnow???? That's like citing Murdoch for an unbiased view of Fox.

So you have nothing

Originally Posted by ptif219

So you have nothing

A study that compares children of parents, one or both of happened to have same-sex relations once, regardless of anything else about them. Where both parents are divorced, or never married, where the child could be in a highly unstable situation with partners coming and going, being bounced between custodial parents and who knows whatever other scenarios that tend to be more common in non-married situations that get clumped together in this category. Where gay & lesbian couples in long-term relationships make only a subset of the population in this category, and have children that by-default tend to come from divorce or adoption scenarios which will be inherently disadvantaged.... regardless of the orientation of the parents.

Compared to the biological children of parents who were stable and married all their lives from at least the point of birth of the child in question.

And the study finds a difference in the two categories... shocking.

The study does demonstrate the fact that I don't think anyone disputes.... that the environment from long-term stable homes that tends to be the product of biological familie if never-divorced parents provides a good environment for children. But what it doesn't do is offer a fair comparison of similar homes, or even begin to address the question of causation.

Well this is no surprise. The ideal household environment for a child has both a mother and a father.
Still, better than being raised by a dysfunctional adoption system.

Originally Posted by ptif219

It seems children raised by gays have more problems than those raised by heterosexual couple.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...spx?id=1614682

Alright, let's say that this study is the most honest, well done study ever done and proves undeniably that gay parents are not as good as straight parents. So what? What are we going to do about it? Make it illegal for gays and lesbians to adopt children? We shouldn't stop there. We should start doing studies on all social groups and make it illegal for those groups to adopt children. Hmm... if a study shows that African-Americans don't make as good as parents as white parents, maybe we should not allow African-Americans to adopt. I'm sure that Christians make better parents than Muslims or Atheists, they should be banned from adopting too. Hell, I'm sure one day a study will show that Democrats make better parents than Republicans. Should we ban Republicans from the adoption process?

I must have a little Libertarian in me because I'm thinking that maybe the only one that should be banned from the adoption process is the government.

Originally Posted by ptif219

It seems children raised by gays have more problems than those raised by heterosexual couple.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...spx?id=1614682

I believe that - I believe it's helpful for young men to have a strong male role model in their lives - that isn't possible if they're raised by 2 lesbian women.

In all honesty, if I could choose to be raised as a kid by:

1. 2 gay men

2. 2 lesbian women

3. A mother and father

I'd of course pick the mother and father.

Originally Posted by ptif219

It seems children raised by gays have more problems than those raised by heterosexual couple.http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...spx?id=1614682

Gay Parents Harmful to Children's Mental Health? Not So Says Florida
2 Million Kids Raised By Gay Couples Are Put at Risk by Anti-Gay Laws

"Several professional organizations have made statements in defense of adoption by same-sex couples. The American Psychological Association has supported adoption by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays while noting there is no evidence that their parenting causes harm.[11][12][13] The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting same-sex adoption, stating that lack of formal recognition can cause health-care disparities for children of same-sex parents.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

Also:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/abou...ientation.page
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/gay-marriage.pdf
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/index.aspx

Originally Posted by SpaceCricket79

I believe that - I believe it's helpful for young men to have a strong male role model in their lives - that isn't possible if they're raised by 2 lesbian women.

In all honesty, if I could choose to be raised as a kid by:

1. 2 gay men

2. 2 lesbian women

3. A mother and father

I'd of course pick the mother and father.

What you "believe" is really irrelevant to reality. Unless you have some scientific proof your little "fact" is nothing but opinionated bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Originally Posted by DarkDaimon

Alright, let's say that this study is the most honest, well done study ever done and proves undeniably that gay parents are not as good as straight parents. So what? What are we going to do about it? Make it illegal for gays and lesbians to adopt children? We shouldn't stop there. We should start doing studies on all social groups and make it illegal for those groups to adopt children. Hmm... if a study shows that African-Americans don't make as good as parents as white parents, maybe we should not allow African-Americans to adopt. I'm sure that Christians make better parents than Muslims or Atheists, they should be banned from adopting too. Hell, I'm sure one day a study will show that Democrats make better parents than Republicans. Should we ban Republicans from the adoption process?

I must have a little Libertarian in me because I'm thinking that maybe the only one that should be banned from the adoption process is the government.

The more interesting question isn't necessarily which groups do better, but rather why.... and what can be done to help.

Mixed-race children were thought to be disadvantaged as well, not because they were mixed race, but because of the stigma they faced as a mixed-race kid. It would be improper to assume that being mixed-race was the cause of the disadvantages, and it would be even more inappropriate to try and prevent mixed-race kids to begin with.... it's the stigma that's the problem.

The response to such matters should not be to rub it in people's faces to try and make them feel inferior, ban, stigmatize and discriminate... likely only making the problem worse. Further study is necessary to understand causation, and the most likely and practical solutions. Not knee-jerk responses.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

The more interesting question isn't necessarily which groups do better, but rather why.... and what can be done to help.

Mixed-race children were thought to be disadvantaged as well, not because they were mixed race, but because of the stigma they faced as a mixed-race kid. It would be improper to assume that being mixed-race was the cause of the disadvantages, and it would be even more inappropriate to try and prevent mixed-race kids to begin with.... it's the stigma that's the problem.

The response to such matters should not be to rub it in people's faces to try and make them feel inferior, ban, stigmatize and discriminate... likely only making the problem worse. Further study is necessary to understand causation, and the most likely and practical solutions. Not knee-jerk responses.

Excellent point. Even better, how bad does a relationship have to be to deprive people of parenting rights? Clearly not all homosexuals are bad parents and not all heterosexuals are good parents, even if a lot of both have good or bad qualities. So passing discriminatory laws is not justified, let alone capable of being done.