A New Study is a Shock for the Right Wing

[ydoaPs]

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents). Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children.

 

 

Will somebody think of the children?!

[John Cuthber]

This won't trouble the Right wing- they don't listen to research.

[Ten oz]

I think anyone who actually wants to be a parent has an advantage over those who don't. LGBT parents are considerably less likely to accidentally become pregnant and have a child they are not ready for. So most LGBT parents enter into parenting better prepared.

 

......and yes, the GOP will be outraged.

[Ophiolite]

This may provide a partial explanation for the survival of genes influencing homosexual orientation that otherwise has seemed mildly puzzling.

[Phi for All]

While you may get conservatives on both sides of the aisle to take another look at same-sex marriage, I think it's the religious voters (Dem and Rep) that are going to massively ignore these findings.

[Delbert]

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents). Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children.

 

 

Will somebody think of the children?!

According to my understanding of biology and doubtless placing myself in great danger of being labelled as something (jerk you appear to label some), straight parents - as you characterise them - are essential.

 

I'll endanger myself a tad further. I can recall a news report whereby a homosexual couple had decided to become parents by having a child. I'm sorry, but at least one of them must be a stepparent and not a parent.

[dimreepr]

According to my understanding of biology and doubtless placing myself in great danger of being labelled as something (jerk you appear to label some), straight parents - as you characterise them - are essential.

 

I'll endanger myself a tad further. I can recall a news report whereby a homosexual couple had decided to become parents by having a child. I'm sorry, but at least one of them must be a stepparent and not a parent.

 

 

 

Having grown up with a less than caring mother I really don’t see a biological connection as being essential; what a child needs is a good caring balance, a father with breast’s or a mother with a penis seems irrelevant to that balance.

[Delbert]

 

 

 

Having grown up with a less than caring mother I really don’t see a biological connection as being essential; what a child needs is a good caring balance, a father with breast’s or a mother with a penis seems irrelevant to that balance.

"What a child needs is a good caring balance" - who on earth would question that? You then go on and appear to draw some conclusion that a homosexual or lesbian relationship would be more able provide such. Apparently implying the outrageous conclusion that a heterosexual relationship would be less able to provide such. I'm sorry, but that's a terribly biased indictment. And what's more, said relationship you're apparently elevating to the heights of perfect family harmony, is nothing more than a parent and stepparent or two stepparents. In other words, there is at least a third person involved in such a relationship, which you don't appear to have mentioned at all - there may even be four people involved.

 

Anyway, I can relate to you that my stepmother disowned me upon the early death of my father. Presumably she felt no connection because there was no biological connection. In other words, whilst my father was alive it was all a charade which fooled everybody. So, if my experience is anything to go by, a parent and stepparent (which is the relationship you appear to be enthusing about) only works whilst they are both together. Separation or departure by the biological parent (if there is one) may well result in rejection of child or children.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Delbert

[Ophiolite]

So, if my experience is anything to go by, a parent and stepparent (which is the relationship you appear to be enthusing about) only works whilst they are both together. Separation or departure by the biological parent (if there is one) may well result in rejection of child or children.

Painful as your experience was it is not anything to go by. It is anecdotal. We can find other anecdotes where the step-parent provided superior parenting to the parent, where neither provided adequate parenting, and all shades and combinations you can think of. Anecdotal evidence does not count on a science forum. Nothing in dimreepr's posts suggests that homosexual parents would provide superior parenting. Indeed, he seems to make it very clear that the parenting will be independent of the sexual orientation of the parents.

 

He uses anecdote to illustrate an exception to what might be thought of as a rule. You use to establish a rule. That simply won't fly.

[dimreepr]

Painful as your experience was it is not anything to go by. It is anecdotal. We can find other anecdotes where the step-parent provided superior parenting to the parent, where neither provided adequate parenting, and all shades and combinations you can think of. Anecdotal evidence does not count on a science forum. Nothing in dimreepr's posts suggests that homosexual parents would provide superior parenting. Indeed, he seems to make it very clear that the parenting will be independent of the sexual orientation of the parents.

 

He uses anecdote to illustrate an exception to what might be thought of as a rule. You use to establish a rule. That simply won't fly.

 

Exactly, all I can add to this is a +1.

[Delbert]

It is anecdotal.

I understand anecdotal to be hearsay. In contrast, I reported fact. If I reported something I had heard I would agree with you.

 

Anyway, trying to return to the subject. For me even the title (Shock for right wing) seems nothing more than trying to score points - not scientific, I would've thought. Taking an elevated position to criticise others they think have taken an elevated position. Reminds me of someone who said: I can't stand stuck-up people! That's assuming there's some connection between parental gender arrangements and the political right wing (I assume that's what right wing refers)? I'd be interested to know what it is?

 

You haven't the monopoly of anything.

 

I don't know why I'm replying to all this, as it seems to me a discussion about nothing. Children have been living with a combinations of stepparents, parents or foster parents for a very long time. And to infer that there's something special if the gender of said parent and stepparent (or stepparents) happen to be the same is making an issue where there's no issue. And to label biological parents as somehow deficient in raising a child is an outrageous conclusion.

[ydoaPs]

That's assuming there's some connection between parental gender arrangements and the political right wing (I assume that's what right wing refers)? I'd be interested to know what it is?

Ah, yes, you're correct. The right wing hasn't been trying to keep homosexuals from adopting in the US. Oh, wait.

[Delta1212]

I understand anecdotal to be hearsay. In contrast, I reported fact. If I reported something I had heard I would agree with you.

Anecdotal is not equivalent to hearsay. Anecdotal evidence is evidence based on limited personal experience rather than a generalized study.

 

I can factually state that every time I have had shrimp at a diner more than 20 miles from the ocean, it has made me ill. That is anecdotal evidence about the quality of diner shrimp because it is my personal experience. Unless I sample and compare data from a wide number of people at a variety of diners in different locations and compare how frequently people get sick, or even better directly test the shrimp at diners in different locations for bacteria (after is has been cooked) then my personal experience, even though it happened to me and is not something I heard about, is not scientific evidence. It is anecdotal.

 

Edit: The problem with anecdotal evidence is, essentially, that each of us is a single data point. We cannot say "It happened to me, therefore it is generally true that."

Edited July 19, 2014 by Delta1212

[Delbert]

Anecdotal is not equivalent to hearsay. Anecdotal evidence is evidence based on limited personal experience rather than a generalized study.

We're probably going off topic here, but what I conveyed is documented and therefore not just experience. And what's more, how far do we go with experience? For example, I perform an experiment and I convey the results; is that hearsay? Because as far as I can see, that's what you are saying.

 

But returning to the subject. In addition to what I've tried to suggest, it seems to me the particular section of society that seem to be claiming a monopoly on better parental care, are, from what I've heard on the media, at the same time also apparently on the bandwagon of equality. And yet at the same time they appear from this topic to imply things are not equal. Indeed, cannot ever be equal as a consequence of their biological connection to the child, and therefore are inferior in bringing up a child compared to other parental arrangements. Outrageous pomposity.

[John Cuthber]

A single observation, no matter by whom, nor how well documented is an anecdote.

As such it carries a lot less weight than a study that looks at many observations.

[barfbag]

@ OP,

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents). Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children.


Will somebody think of the children?!

 

How are we supposed to "think of the Children" as you suggest?

 

Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays? Your point is not clear. Gays where I live have all these rights already so I'm not understanding the point.

I doubt any gay couple are better parents than my wife (a teacher) and myself. Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average. Average of 500 children is not proof that gays are better than straights as parents everywhere, so your quote is fallacious.

You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one isbetter than the other based upon this article.

Does your "survey" represent all cultures?

I have no problem with gay parents and I believe this is becoming an accepted way of life. We even see Gay parenting shown vividly on television in shows such as "Sean saves the World, and "Modern Family". I know this is not proof of growing tolerance, but television has often reflected bigotry. Ask Bruce Lee or Nichelle Nichol who were among the first ethnic actors.

Edited July 20, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

 

 

"Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average."

Nope, it's based on two averages average straight and average gay.

You and your wife may differ from that average without affecting the validity of the statement.

 

"You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one is better than the other based upon this article."

Nor did anyone suggest that one should.

So what was the point of that?Was it a failed attempt a at strawman?

[swansont]

@ OP,

 

How are we supposed to "think of the Children" as you suggest?

 

Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays? Your point is not clear. Gays where I live have all these rights already so I'm not understanding the point.

 

I doubt any gay couple are better parents than my wife (a teacher) and myself. Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average. Average of 500 children is not proof that gays are better than straights as parents everywhere, so your quote is fallacious.

 

You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one isbetter than the other based upon this article.

 

 

I strongly suspect the context is the canard used by the anti-marriage-equality crowd as justification for denying them the right to marry and adopt or have children. And not some argument that runs counter to statistics of distributions.

[dimreepr]

@ OP,

 

How are we supposed to "think of the Children" as you suggest?

 

Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays? Your point is not clear. Gays where I live have all these rights already so I'm not understanding the point.

 

I doubt any gay couple are better parents than my wife (a teacher) and myself. Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average. Average of 500 children is not proof that gays are better than straights as parents everywhere, so your quote is fallacious.

 

You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one isbetter than the other based upon this article.

 

Does your "survey" represent all cultures?

 

I have no problem with gay parents and I believe this is becoming an accepted way of life. We even see Gay parenting shown vividly on television in shows such as "Sean saves the World, and "Modern Family". I know this is not proof of growing tolerance, but television has often reflected bigotry. Ask Bruce Lee or Nichelle Nichol who were among the first ethnic actors.

 

 

 

It seems very clear to me, in this study, however limited in scope suggests lesbians are better parents.

 

Why is that a problem?

 

I would much rather have been parented by a ‘gay’ caring couple in a loving environment than a broken ‘heterosexual’ relationship with an absent father and an uncaring mother.

 

It doesn’t suggest a straight couple can’t be good parents, so why assume it does?

[Phi for All]

Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays? Your point is not clear. Gays where I live have all these rights already so I'm not understanding the point.

 

This seems like some pretty willful obfuscation here. You don't get his point so you vault to "Straight people give their kids to gays"?! Perhaps this right here is most of the problem with objections to gay parenting, so many people who refuse to look at it without torturing definitions and misreading intent.

 

The study clearly shows that gay parenting doesn't pose the risks many people fear it does, and you want that to mean a gay couple is coming by later to take your kids. Where does this kind of absurdity help anyone understand anything about this issue?

[Fuzzwood]

Some people seem to overlook an important fact here. With heterosexual couples a child is relatively easy conceived to the point of it even being an accident. Homosexual couples have to go through a lot to be able to care for a child in the long run and thus had the possibility to put a lot of thought into this matter.

[Ten oz]

In the name of religion society doesn't mind parents home schooling kid with their own beliefs, living on compounds, using prayer over medicine, and a laundry list of other nonsense. We have a growing movement in this country of parents who aren't vaccinating their children and society is fine with it. Parents rights and all that. Yet somehow parents being gay is of concern? Do as you will in the name of Allah or Jesus but society draws the line at same sex parenting.....smh

[barfbag]

@ JohnC,

 

The OP said this,

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents).

 

 

 

Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest. Anybody that reads this could assume Gay parents are better.

 

So

 

So what was the point of that?

 

 

My point illustrates the OP is drawing assumptions that have nothing to do with averages.

 

You said,

 

Nope, it's based on two averages average straight and average gay.

 

 

 

Had the OP used your logic I would have no problem, but stated as it was it was erroneous.

 

I strongly suspect the context is the canard used by the anti-marriage-equality crowd as justification for denying them the right to marry and adopt.

 

 

@ Swansont,

 

Yes. That sounds like a good guess. Guessing at the point of the OP is what we are left with when trying to understand the phrase "Think of the chiildren?"

 

@ Phi for all,

 

The study clearly shows that gay parenting doesn't pose the risks many people fear it does, and you want that to mean a gay couple is coming by later to take your kids.

 

 

I am Pro gay marriage and designed a Gaymarriage website to help couples find Churches or government locations that provide marriage services in my Country along with procedures.

 

I am against anyone that issues a blanket statement declaring "gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents)" which no matter how you want to paint it is what the OP has done.

 

Coupling a false statement with the phrase "Think of the children" does not reveal the intent of the OP except to blur facts.

 

I never came close to suggesting gays will come and take our children as you are hinting at.

 

 

@ Fuzzwood,

 

Some people seem to overlook an important fact here. With heterosexual couples a child is relatively easy conceived to the point of it even being an accident. Homosexual couples have to go through a lot to be able to care for a child in the long run and thus had the possibility to put a lot of thought into this matter.

 

 

Exactly the sort of things that distort surveys like the one in OP. They are directly comparing normal parents against a group who have fought harder battles (in many cases, not all).

 

Best point so far in my opinion.

 

@ Ten Oz,

 

Gay marriage and Gay adoption is common most everywhere in the free world no matter what their religious beliefs are. What more can be done here?..

Edited July 20, 2014 by barfbag

[swansont]

 

@ Swansont,

 

Yes. That sounds like a good guess. Guessing at the point of the OP is what we are left with when trying to understand the phrase "Think of the chiildren?"

 

Yeah, jumping into commentary on societal sticking points without being aware of the history is indeed dicey. Why ask for clarification when you can jump in like Rambo without a jockstrap?

[barfbag]

@ Swanson,

 

commentary on societal sticking points without being aware of the history

 

 

History is not the discussion. This survey does not give accurate results (see post 21) yet the OP is passing it off as present day fact so "shocking" that the right wing is shocked by it.

 

As has been said before. Gay parents have much more rigorous standards to meet in regards to Health, Occupation, Criminal Records, and so forth than is necessary for heterosexual teens to be parents after a drunken prom.

 

For this survey to be even a little fair they should weigh the children of adopted children of gays solely against adopted kids of straights, and even that would not be 100% fair because some bias might exist in the agencies responsible for adoptions.