'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

... that is why we'll go on disagreeing.

Overall, I think that you are overly concerned. And... if you believe that your views must somehow lead to the 'control' of what other's liberties and freedoms must be, your views will right be opposed by other human beings. Reasonable people realize and understand that often attitudes and personal views can affect 'laws', so they have good reason to be highly critical of the kinds of things you are expressing in this thread.

Even so, if you have the values you do... then YOU must live by them, certainly it would be helpful if you didn't in any way impose the same on others. That won't work in the long run.

 

" same sex couples are fine with me. I just don't see the reasons they are given some rights, adoptions being one...." Are you serious? Obviously you are not fine with them. Be honest and stop trying to play both sides of the fence.

 

That refers to the study mentioned in the OP.

 

Well I think the current crisis in replication of social science studies means that none of these studies are worth anything. Try to replicate this study with different researchers and see what you get. However for the moment, it's a basis for a discussion. So to answer your question, yes, this is superficially credible, with the emphasis on superficiality. It's a very superficial study that had a conclusion and then performed a study to back it up. I already mentioned in this thread that I would like to see a follow up on the outcomes of these kids because what it actually studied, the children as children, doesn't tell you much, particularly when it was done as a phone survey of the parents. Would an honest researcher accept a parent's judgement of how their kids are doing?

The long term outcomes are what's important. Do these kids match the kids in straight married households in mental illness, education, criminal history, divorce, marriage? That's what you won't know for decades. In the meantime, we'll take the parent's word that the kids are great.

 

You people sound like you think that gay's and Lesbian's have only been having and raising children since Obergefell. That is nonsensical. Adoption by gays has always been way out ahead of support for marriage equality. My state of NJ was the first to allow joint adoption by same sex couples over 20 years ago. It is not and never was a problem or a big issue. I know because I worked in the adoption/ foster care/ child welfare field. You are trying to find a problem that does not exist. Get over it.

 

"You people..." Heh!

I'm trying to puzzle out what in the world your reply has to do with my comment. I can't figure it out.

 

Right "you people" You can't figure it out? Didn't you say something to the effect that it will be decades before we know the true effects of same sex parenting? It has been decades and no one has been able to show that there are any ill effects although the bigots keep trying . Case in point - that I previously posted here- was the pathetically failed attempt by the state of Michigan to show that children of gays do less well than others. They presented a bogus study and were kicked out of court with it.

 

I don't know anything about that study, but apparently, based on the link I posted previously, they are all bogus studies.

 

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage aren't "liberties and freedoms ". Used to be against the law for an unrelated man and woman to cohabitate without being married. No such laws existed for two people of the same sex.

 

This one is. Only looking at lesbian couples and only looking at intact relationships and ignoring any that have broken up.

 

Of course you don't know anything. You people only know what you want to know and only pay attention to what fits your narrow minded narrative. I'm sure that you never even bothered to click on the link to the 70+ peer reviewed studies, or to the Australian study that I posted.

 

Yeah, we know.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Duke University official is accused of offering his 5-year-old adopted son for sex on the Internet, according to the FBI and court documents in the case.
Frank M. Lombard, 42, was arrested last week at his home in Durham, North Carolina. During an Internet chat, Lombard allegedly offered the child to the person he was chatting with, who was a task force officer from Washington's Metropolitan Police, the FBI said in a statement.

The chat was initiated after a confidential source facing child pornography charges told authorities they had witnessed a man, allegedly Lombard, performing sex acts on a child over the Internet.

During the chat, according to the complaint filed against Lombard, he told the officer that he had performed multiple sex acts on the boy and that the officer could do the same if he came to Durham.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/30/duke.molestation.internet/

 

What's laughable is that you think this is some how a smear against all gays. Yet refuse to acknowledge the fact that half of all girls, adopted or not, are sexually abused in some way before they leave their teen years.

So no, going for the tired and true right wing tactic of comparing gays to sexual predators just doesn't work.

P.S. Where is this article does it say that Lombard is gay? Cause I didn't see it anywhere in there.

 

You are becoming increasingly bizarre and unhinged. WHAT the hell does this have to do with the topic? It is just another red herring.

 

"You people..." Heh!

Why are you so angry? I've already conceded that this study is a good place for a discussion. Why are you suddenly regarding this study as gospel when you earlier just trashed another study as bogus? I think for you, the definition of bogus study and good study is what fits into your ideological box. I like the scientific method, but I realize that doesn't speak to your identity.

 

Do you realize this is a policy statement? Not the conclusion of any study. And what an absurd statement in that last sentence. To declare as fact that there is no advantage to married biological parent raising their own children that wouldn't be duplicated if two married gays were in their place.

 

No. But evidently you believe it is.

 

Its an example of what you speak of when you said "Adoption by gays has always been way out ahead", from years before gay marriage was legalized in North Carolina.

 

So then you understand that the actions of some are in no way relevant in talking about gays adopting children.

Which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place.

Oh and by the way, gay marriage has been legal for nearly a year now. Ready to admit that your arguments against it were baseless? Or that the states rights arguments were baseless?

 

Bovine excrement! It's an example of one pervert and has nothing to do with gay parenting or gay adoption. It's just another instance of your desperate attempts to smear gays

 

So what if it's a policy statement? It's a policy statement that is logical. It states that all children -the children of gays and straights alike- are equally valuable and deserve the same advantages. There is nothing absurd about it. YOU are being absurd as always. You are grasping at straws while avoiding the real issue....the quality and outcomes of parenting by gay couples vs. straight couples.

You completely ignored the challenge that I issued to you- To come up with just one study that shows that children od married gay couples do less well, in any way than the children of married straight couples. Fortunately, I have not been holding my breath since I didn't expect much from you.

 

I'm not angry. I'm just disgusted with the ignorance and foolishness being displayed here. And I don't accept anything as gospel. However, some studies have a lot more validity than others and when you put together 70+ peer reviewed studies- which you still have not read-that demonstrate the veracity of my position, there has got to be something to it.

In addition, if you had read the Michigan study-the study that was trashed by the author's own school among many others- you would see why I do not accept it either. I had posted an analysis that explains exactly how the methodology was fatally flawed and the conclusion manipulated. You accuse me of coming to the conclusion that I want, but that is exactly what you are doing, but with out actually reviewing the data as I have.

 

More than half of that time was also spent seeing that same-sex marriage wasn't the sky-is-falling threat it was foolishly accused of being in the states that had legalized same-sex marriage. Indoctrination is nothing compared to real world with-your-own-eyes evidence. If same-sex marriage was a threat to families and the terrible evil a small minority want to indoctrinate us to believe, we would have evidence of that. And the amount of that evidence would have been growing as more states legalized it.

So essentially, you guys had nothing to your arguments before states started legalized it, and now you have less than nothing because the evidence from the states that did isn't showing the terrible effects you tried to indoctrinate us to expect.

In science, when your hypothesis fails to make accurate or useful predictions or account for what is being observed, it means there's something wrong with your hypothesis. It means your technique is flawed, or flat out wrong. It means that if the workings of your hypothesis don't check out, neither do the conclusions you based on them.

The hot air isn't even hot any more man, it's luke-warm at best. It's like day-old soup that sat out at this point. You are two steps away from those "enlightened" individuals trying to tell us the Earth is flat.

 

First; It's not me trying to change social feelings with regards to what has been deviant behavior.

Second; Most advocating for open acceptance of "change", IMO have no knowledge of what they advocate for, only that they want THEIR own views to be accepted...basically what you are saying about me.

With regards to "Gay Sex" and I've said this before, I don't oppose the actual act, only that any idea of it being traditional, normal or any other equal to historic human value is nonsense. Aside from the obvious hygiene problems involved, most all the planets societies frown on the practice.

What I object to is this insistence that gays are born gay and can't be changed which is just not true. Humans are born with no sexual desires...period. They form desires, no less than any other trait, like appetites or what entertainment they prefer. Not all is from other people, family or friends, but most certainly is. Anyway by a certain age 8-12, as puberty occurs, what's right, wrong, acceptable and so on, has been established to a large degree. All these things change through the lifetime for other reasons, but for 98% of humans, those basic values learned early on, guide the process.

 

Most all law is a limitation to some fence, using your words. For instance, even killing another human can in the end be legal or illegal. In the case of gay activity, in the US it's not illegal, where on most the planet, it's illegal and some societies, punishment is death.