So, we need more gay people to have kids...

[Kadagar_AV]

Link in Swedish

So, a study that begun in the 80's show that children of the oh so horrible gays, the menace to society, yadda yadda seem to be great parents.

The study was made on Lesbians, and check-ups on the kids have been made when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old.

What was measured was things like depression, anxiety, violence and social ability, using the Child Behavior Checklist.

These children actually came out with, in average, BETTER results compared to children from heterosexual homes.

Must be rubbish being a redneck or American Taliban now, no? ;)

Reasons why these children are better off seem to be that their conception was very much planned, as contrary to how heterosexuals usually do it (broken condom on the prom anyone?)

Also, the horrible gays seem to be somewhat older and more mature when conceiving, all in all leading to a more stable home situation.

And as a PS: This study was made in the US, I would believe the results would have been even better in a more open minded country, where the assumption of this being a problem doesn't even exist to begin with (except among some backwater fringe groups).

*puts on my flameproof jacket*

[Beskar]

Or just allow homosexuals to adopt. Then those "oh so broken condom" incidents, end up with parents that love them.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's fairly obvious that people who really want to have kids will raise them better than the average.

[rory_20_uk]

Lesbians probably will have chosen to have children and to care for them. The hetro populace will have the dross who has them without thinking.

[Fragony]

Used to be against it but I grew up, got np with it anymore

[Gregoshi]

How is it that broken condom pregnancies never happen to gays? Is there a conspiracy against heterosexuals?

[Kadagar_AV]

Used to be against it but I grew up, got np with it anymore

*gasp!* I was hoping you would join in with the Talibans on this issue :)

Well done mate, not many people dare to challenge their own beliefs, and even less change them :)

[Kralizec]

Here's an article in English:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

[Kadagar_AV]

Here's an article in English:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

Thanks mate :)

[Fragony]

*gasp!* I was hoping you would join in with the Talibans on this issue :)

Well done mate, not many people dare to challenge their own beliefs, and even less change them :)

No believe or ideoligy involved I just thought it wasn't a very good idea, mom/dad thing, best for kid all that. Been shown wrong a few time (and never right)

[Vladimir]

Link in Swedish

So, a study that begun in the 80's show that children of the oh so horrible gays, the menace to society, yadda yadda seem to be great parents.

The study was made on Lesbians, and check-ups on the kids have been made when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old.

What was measured was things like depression, anxiety, violence and social ability, using the Child Behavior Checklist.

These children actually came out with, in average, BETTER results compared to children from heterosexual homes.

Must be rubbish being a redneck or American Taliban now, no? ;)

Reasons why these children are better off seem to be that their conception was very much planned, as contrary to how heterosexuals usually do it (broken condom on the prom anyone?)

Also, the horrible gays seem to be somewhat older and more mature when conceiving, all in all leading to a more stable home situation.

And as a PS: This study was made in the US, I would believe the results would have been even better in a more open minded country, where the assumption of this being a problem doesn't even exist to begin with (except among some backwater fringe groups).

*puts on my flameproof jacket*

So the issue is not that gays are better parents but that couples should wait until they are older and more mature before having children.

[spmetla]

I don't agree with their lifestyle but if they can raise kids and do a better job of it than average heterosexual couples then let them do so without any hindrance.

[Kadagar_AV]

So the issue is not that gays are better parents but that couples should wait until they are older and more mature before having children.

I guess you could read it like that. It is not what I myself would deem as the correct way of reading it, mind you, but I guess you could, in theory.

One would, perhaps, rather assume that this article very much argued against people arguing that gay people should not raise children.

If you re-read the article some, I think you might find that the question of age is more like a side note when you look at the picture at large.

[Fragony]

I don't agree with their lifestyle but if they can raise kids and do a better job of it than average heterosexual couples then let them do so without any hindrance.

There's a rub there, because being a homosexual still isn't easy, and having a kid pretty naturally has more meaning (acceptance) to them then it has with a normal couple, so I don't doubt they will be very loving parents or at least will avoid letting down. But how different will it be when it is normal when homosexuals raise kids, acceptance is no longer an issue, they are human beings after all and humans have flaws. Wouldn't it normalize, let's look again in 10 or 20 years.

[Beskar]

I guess you could read it like that. It is not what I myself would deem as the correct way of reading it, mind you, but I guess you could, in theory.

One would, perhaps, rather assume that this article very much argued against people arguing that gay people should not raise children.

If you re-read the article some, I think you might find that the question of age is more like a side note when you look at the picture at large.

It is two-fold really. Vladimir is completely correct in his point, that is pretty much the reason why they on average are better. As due to the very nature of being homosexual, you have to have a serious sit-down and talk about it and actively choose to have kids or raise a child as your own flesh on blood. Compared to you mentioning about the "oh so broken condom" incident. This statistics also show if that the homosexual parents are better than the average, then there is no reason to be against homosexual parents adopting, for example.

Though, I really dislike it when Lesbians for incidence, try to decieve people in having sex with them so they can have a child. They do this by basically going out to nightclubs, etc, flauting their booty, then having random sex with males, in attempts to get pregnant.

[Kadagar_AV]

It is two-fold really. Vladimir is completely correct in his point, that is pretty much the reason why they on average are better. As due to the very nature of being homosexual, you have to have a serious sit-down and talk about it and actively choose to have kids or raise a child as your own flesh on blood. Compared to you mentioning about the "oh so broken condom" incident. This statistics also show if that the homosexual parents are better than the average, then there is no reason to be against homosexual parents adopting, for example.

Though, I really dislike it when Lesbians for incidence, try to decieve people in having sex with them so they can have a child. They do this by basically going out to nightclubs, etc, flauting their booty, then having random sex with males, in attempts to get pregnant.

Indeed. That is just horrible. Having one girl to unmentionable stuff while the other simultaneously do unmentionable stuff... Yuck yuck yuck!

Smart guys of course bring a condom when playing "hide the Willie" with strangers :)
*or at the very least do an air assault instead of trying to get his forces behind the enemy lines*


As to Vladimirs point... As much as he was right about the side note, he missed the larger topic at hand, that there is nothing saying homosexuals would be worse parents. Dont get me wrong, I know you got it :)

[Beskar]

Indeed. That is just horrible. Having one girl to unmentionable stuff while the other simultaneously do unmentionable stuff... Yuck yuck yuck!

Smart guys of course bring a condom when playing "hide the Willie" with strangers :)
*or at the very least do an air assault instead of trying to get his forces behind the enemy lines*

You successfully left me in a bemused state on whether you are attempting to do a joke with me, or trying to do a joke at my expense.

Though, you forget the lines like "I am on the pill." or they supply a broken condom.

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

[Kadagar_AV]

You successfully left me in a bemused state on whether you are attempting to do a joke with me, or trying to do a joke at my expense.

Though, you forget the lines like "I am on the pill." or they supply a broken condom.

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

Why could it not just have been a joke, without it being personal? :)

And as to the common quotes, smart guys bring their own condom, and attach it themselves. I know I do.
*except this one time with this polish girl who were extremely dexterous with her tongue and lips, making the process of rubbering up quite a joy*

[PanzerJaeger]

Haven't had it happened personally to myself, but I know quite a number of incidents where both straight and lesbians have done this.

You know of quite a few incidents of guys being decieved into concieving children with lesbians? I didn't know it was such a problem.

[Vladimir]

*except this one time with this polish girl who were extremely dexterous with her tongue and lips, making the process of rubbering up quite a joy*

Eww. Don't need to hear about Kadagar getting "rubbered up." Just admit the impaler is right. I got that name for a reason, you know.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

[Kadagar_AV]

Eww. Don't need to hear about Kadagar getting "rubbered up." Just admit the impaler is right. I got that name for a reason, you know.

I of course talked about her skills in making balloon animals out of rubber. With her mouth. Dont share your filthy imagination!! ;)

And very much right you are, I do NOT want to mess with the impaler ;)



Side note: interesting to see how long it took for the thread to divulge in lesbian fantasies. I am of course part to blame! We seriously need more girls on this board :/

[Kadagar_AV]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

[Fragony]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

SF is right, at least I agree with him so he must be right, these numbers are pretty meaningless because there isn't a level playing field.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That wasn't the thrust of the English language piece. I admit to getting only 10-15% of the Swedish version, so I can't comment there.

As to equal levels/values:

It is a hallmark of laboratory research that, in order to make a claim of causality, the research design must eliminate other possible sources that explain the observed differences in the dependent variable under examination so as to isolate the independent variable as the source of said differences. This ideal is rarely perfectly achieved, but does stand as the model for research. Correlational data can point out independent variables that MAY prove to have causal implications, but of itself can only assert that certain variables correlate with one another and that there is some relationship between them. That relationship may or may not be directly causal.

If the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant to the psychological health and development of a child, that would tend to support your position. Prima facie, that would seem to be the case given these results. Certainly in issue worthy of further study.

"religious or arcane" moral beliefs?

Did you mean "archaic" as in out-dated or old-fashioned? "Arcane" refers to something that is magical, mysterious, or requires some kind of secret knowledge. Public morality can't be any of those.

[TinCow]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

[Fragony]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

At least award me a silver for saying exactly the same

[Beskar]

You know of quite a few incidents of guys being decieved into concieving children with lesbians? I didn't know it was such a problem.

Well, both lesbians and heterosexual females who felt like they wanted children. I oppose it due to the morality of it.

It is a rare problem, but I know a couple of people who has had it happen to them. One of them was a distant non-blood related cousin, to make his situation worse, something like 12 guys had to be DNA tested to determine the father.

[Kadagar_AV]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.

I can of course agree that the inequality diminishes the results somewhat, however, please do remember that you weight this against the Redneck/Taliban idea of "them gays should not have kids".

Against that argument, this research should have some sort of value, no?

So again, an absolute GOLD STAR for noticing that the research is not that easy to use in a comparative way. However, looking at the larger picture at hand, I hope you will concede that this research at the very much ripped the Talibans of their claim?

Or am I being silly here?

PS: Archaic, not arcane... Thanks for correcting me, tricky business this language thing :(