Gay Parenting

[PanzerJaeger]

I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.

Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.

No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.

Here's a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.

Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[6][12]

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[5][6][7] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[6] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[8][9][10][7][11] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[7][12][22][8]

Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.[23] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[8] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[24] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[27] the National Association of Social Workers,[28] the Child Welfare League of America,[29] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[30] and Canadian Psychological Association.[31]

[Beirut]

No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.

And that is twisted.

Here's a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And that is twisted.



I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

I see there is no point talking to you any more. Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.

[Beirut]

I see there is no point talking to you any more.

As you wish.

Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.

Indeed, believing little kids are better off with a mother and a father, what a horrible absurdity! I must be some kind of a monster.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

Enough with these new-fangled crackpot medical ideas! Give me a good old-fashioned, common sense leeching, or give me nothing.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.

It's not really an intellectual position I would stake out for myself, but as long as your common sense doesn't interfere with the fact based system that has allowed millions of children to avoid being passed around foster homes, group homes, and Child Protective Services and instead enjoy a supportive family, then I suppose there's no harm in it. Common sense is generational.

[Beirut]

There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

Common sense is generational.

Some is, and some is for all time. Like the common sense I mentioned above.

[ajaxfetish]

It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Or alternatively, maybe there's actual evidence supporting the idea that working, responsible, non-criminal behavior is beneficial, and others would agree with you on this issue while at the same time disagreeing on the fitness of gay couples to raise children.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

Denying the legitimacy of same-sex parenting also has nothing to do with 'responsibility' and 'good conduct' either, despite your ridiculous equivocation.

The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research. May I suggest that you bring some verifiable facts with you next time as this isn't working for you.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well some points from the study...

"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."

Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?

"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Bad again.

Interesting. I read both points as positives. I don't see the value in raising boys to be lecherous, aggressive, and uncaring and girls to be socially conditioned to accept the double standard. I suppose gender roles are subjective.

Here are some other points:

o It is more common for both lesbian moms to be employed, to earn similar incomes and to cut back on their hours of paid work in order to nurture young children. Some research indicates that egalitarian parenting contributes to child well-being, Stacey said.

o Same-sex couples proved better at managing disagreements and anger than did comparable heterosexual married couples. Research suggests that parental conflict may be one of the most significant sources of difficulty for children, Stacey said.

Now, I could spin these two points to argue that gay parents are actually better than straight ones, but it is probably better to look at the broader conclusion.

According to the study:

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

I don't know what the 'typical dynamics' of a heterosexual relationship are, but the study suggests same-sex parenting yields well adjusted children with no noticeable relationship dysfunction.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Go get 'em, Panzer!


Both the mayor of Paris and of Berlin are very openly gay, have been for a decade now. Times have changed. This one we are winning.


(although the gay mayor of Paris is most unpopular with the you-know-who, one of whom tried to butcher him with a knife in broad daylight, loudly shouting homosexuals needed to die )

[Crazed Rabbit]

There are two important points to me:

One, that there is a shortage of parents of any type adopting kids.

Two, the gender of the parents seems to matter less than the fitness of the parents.

However, I still oppose forcing any religious orphanages to allow gay couples to adopt kids.

CR

[Beirut]

The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research.

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?



This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?



This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

This is inane.

orgahs: Juices can be healthy and substitute for water in human diet.
beirut: Never in my life have I seen people claim that people aren't best served by drinking water! everyone knows you have to drink water to live, how silly!

[Andres]

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?



This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

Nobody said homo's are better suited for parenthood than hetero's

People merely said that there's no difference and that sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to being fit for parenthood.

You've been obtuse for this entire thread now.

[Andres]

One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.

[PanzerJaeger]

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

I understand now that the problem is one of comprehension and not belief.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.


Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:



1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father

[Ironside]

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?



This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

You are aware that one of the big fundamental things in science is that it can prove common sense wrong? Otherwise it would always be about how large the expected outcome would be.

Continents moving? Hah, that would be as silly as we're constantly moving more than 100.000 km/h. Or that electrons can create wave interference with itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

Wanting a child to have parents is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Unfortunately common sense doesn't teach them to argue well :(

Well some points from the study...

"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."

Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?

"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Bad again.

Kids need the one mum/dad dynamic because unless they really can catch the gayness from homosexual parents, they will need to learn the typical dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (for the love of God, don't start going on about generalisations because 1% of couples differ from the norm) for later in life. If its a boy they need the male rolemodel, if its a girl the female.

Your article already shows that changing this dynamic does have a big influence on the kids.

Yes, when I read this I thought "well, this is exactly the thing they are going to complain about". But fact is you can substitute "liberal" for lesbian and get the same result here. No duh, gay couples aren't conservative and traditional.