A New Study is a Shock for the Right Wing

[Ten oz]

 

@ 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?..

Speaking as a united states citizen; Full recognition of Gay marriage with full and equal rights in all states would provide couples with more rights and protections which would help with the adoption process and be helpful to raising children.

[John Cuthber]

@ JohnC,

 

The OP said this,

 

 

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

 

So

 

 

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

 

You said,

 

 

 

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

 

 

@ 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,

 

 

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,

 

 

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?..

Re."Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest."

Do you really not think that figures like these are derived from averages?

 

Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data (β = 2.93, 95% CI = 0.35 to 5.52, P = .03; β = 5.60, 95% CI = 2.69 to 8.52, P = <.001; and β = 6.01, 95% CI = 2.84 to 9.17, P = <.001 respectively). There were no significant differences between the two groups for all other scale scores. Physical activity, mental health, and family cohesion were all negatively associated with increased stigma (β = -3.03, 95% CI = -5.86 to -0.21, P = .04; β = -10.45, 95% CI = -18.48 to -2.42, P = .01; and β = -9.82, 95% CI = -17.86 to -1.78, P = .02 respectively) and the presence of emotional symptoms was positively associated with increased stigma (β =0.94, 95% CI = 0.08 to 1.81, P = .03).

 

Or are you complaining that he only included a link to the original report, rather than the whole text of it.

You could easily have looked it up .

 

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

Yes it did.

It's just that

1 you don't seem to have understood it and

2 you don't seem to have realised how easy it is to look things up.

 

 

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

 

Oh yes you did.

Specifically you said "Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays?"

[barfbag]

@ Johnc,

 

Re."Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest."

Do you really not think that figures like these are derived from averages?

 

 

No you're confused.

 

When I said, "This author" I was referring to the Author of the OP. The OP makes blank statements based on a falsified (if we consider the comparison of eager parents with good jobs, good criminal records, and likely well off or at least home owners with an average set of parents) survey. So yes that Author made no mention of averages.

 

Thanks for pointing out that the quoted article also made no mention of averages though.

 

ALSO.

 

"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.

 

 

Really? How do you interpret this quote then? The OP said

 

it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents).

 

 

 

I interpret that to mean, "It turns out Gay parents are (in fact), better than straight parents".

 

So what do you even mean there is no claim gay parents are better. He basically said if you compare gay and straight parents it turns out the gay couple is better at parenting. How else can you interpret the above quote?

 

 

"Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays?" vs "gays will come and take our children"

 

I think there is a difference between giving something away voluntarily and having it forced upon you. That is how I interpret the separate meanings..

 

This OP article is ridiculous and I'm surprising you are arguing in its favour.

 

- Gay parents must meet stringent adoption guidelines that include background checks, criminal history, occupations, home ownership and must be convincing to the agency as potential parents.

 

- They are being directly compared against heterosexual parents who could very well have conceived an unwanted child in a drunken stupor after a night drinking.

 

Is comparing these two subsets fair? Is it fair enough to "Shock the Right Wing"? I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think it is worthy of consideration.

Edited July 20, 2014 by barfbag

[swansont]

@ Swanson,

 

 

History is not the discussion.

 

Context should always be part of 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.

Huh? How does that make the results inaccurate? That's an explanation for the difference.

 

 

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.

- Gay parents must meet stringent adoption guidelines that include background checks, criminal history, occupations, home ownership and must be convincing to the agency as potential parents.

 

- They are being directly compared against heterosexual parents who could very well have conceived an unwanted child in a drunken stupor after a night drinking.

 

Is comparing these two subsets fair? Is it fair enough to "Shock the Right Wing"? I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think it is worthy of consideration.

If you had looked at the study you might have noted that a large majority of the children were not adopted.

 

Most children were the biological child of the index parent or of the index parent’s partner (408, 82%)

[barfbag]

@ Swansont,

 

Huh? How does that make the results inaccurate? That's an explanation for the difference

 

 

The results are not accurate if they use a group that is predetermined to be better or good parents against a group that can have children without predetermination.

 

Do you think this "survey" is fair and that it is "Shocking" to the right wing? Really?

 

Most children were the biological child of the index parent or of the index parent’s partner (408, 82%)

 

 

So now we are talking about gays that

 

a) Are heterosexual enough to engage in straight sex to get pregnant.

b) Have had a court decide they are a better parent than their spouse and awarded custody

c) Paid for a surrogate or had themselves artificially inseminated to get pregnant.

 

For them to be a gay couple then the partner would also need to be in want of children in the relationship in some cases or they would not date a single parent or someone who is having a child.

 

Again this would appear to be a group that is wanting children, and not all heterosexual pregnancies are wanted to varying degrees.

 

Yet still with 8% of the couples adopting as a gay couple and still subjected to a battery of requirements before adoption can be considered.

 

Not a fair comparison.

Edited July 20, 2014 by barfbag

[swansont]

 

Not a fair comparison.

 

Neither is a 100m race between me and Usain Bolt, but that doesn't mean the result would be "inaccurate". Yeah, he won, but it's not fair cuz he's faster, man.

[barfbag]

@ Swansont,

 

This is my final post on the subject because it is getting off topic.

 

Neither is a 100m race between me and Usain Bolt, but that doesn't mean the result would be "inaccurate". Yeah, he won, but it's not fair cuz he's faster, man.

 

 

 

How is a foot race not fair when no cheating is involved. Using that new logic no race in history is fair as someone will always be faster.

 

I stand by the idea that comparing straight parents whom can often become parents by accident or against their wishes against gay parents who for the most part have entered into parenthood by choice (how could it be otherwise for most part) is unfair.

 

Now you are suggesting that a fair race is not fair if one of the competitors is faster....

 

I cannot argue with such "logic".

[iNow]

It's tIme to stop the feedings...

[Acme]

It's tIme to stop the feedings...

May I suggest a purge in the appropriate container?

[barfbag]

May I suggest a purge in the appropriate container?

 

 

 

Exactly!

I agree this thread is based on a ridiculous survey and should be classified as trash. The survey is not a fair comparison and might even promote reverse Bigotry. It should have been put in the trash a page ago (imho) .

Edited July 21, 2014 by barfbag

[MigL]

Isn't that always the problem with these 'surveys' or 'studies'. Failiure to isolate extraneous variables leads to results which are dubious or inconclusive at best.

 

If I remove my 'politically correct blinders', I can see barfbag's point of view and maintain that the best parents are the ones who provide an environment where their kids feel loved, are nurtured and helped in their intellectual and emotional developement. This is of course independant of their sexual orientation.

 

By the way, I consider myself conservative ( fiscally, not so much socially ) and am therefore 'right wing' ( who comes up with these labels ? )

[Delbert]

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.

I'm sorry, but you forgot to mention the third or possibly forth individual involved - a homosexual couple cannot produce a child, one or both are not parents, they are stepparents. And as for care, what they have to go through in caring for a child is no different or more difficult than a heterosexual couple.

 

And as for this obsession about gender arrangements, elevated to the point of something particular or special, it is nothing of the sort. They consist of either parent and stepparent or two stepparents, which might even be viewed as foster parents. And I believe there are laws about foster parenting.

[swansont]

@ Swansont,

 

This is my final post on the subject because it is getting off topic.

 

 

 

How is a foot race not fair when no cheating is involved. Using that new logic no race in history is fair as someone will always be faster.

 

You have this exactly backwards. I was doing an analogue of a proof by contradiction. Two test subjects or populations may not end up being equal, because one is faster, or is better-suited toward the result being measured. Someone who thinks that a faster person beating a slower one is unfair is the one who has mischaracterized fairness.

 

You obviously recognize the contradiction, but have come to the wrong conclusion.

 

 

I stand by the idea that comparing straight parents whom can often become parents by accident or against their wishes against gay parents who for the most part have entered into parenthood by choice (how could it be otherwise for most part) is unfair.

 

Now you are suggesting that a fair race is not fair if one of the competitors is faster....

 

I cannot argue with such "logic".

 

As above, I am suggesting the opposite. I am suggesting that you <gasp> are wrong!

 

How is having it more difficult to become unwilling parents cheating? That trait makes them better parents, overall. i.e. it's what makes them faster, in the example.

 

If I remove my 'politically correct blinders', I can see barfbag's point of view and maintain that the best parents are the ones who provide an environment where their kids feel loved, are nurtured and helped in their intellectual and emotional developement. This is of course independant of their sexual orientation.

But if sexual orientation, via some mechanism, helps shape the population of potential parents, then you can get the results in the study.

 

Barfbag's position is that this is an unfair comparison. I wouldn't be surprised to find that these kind of results correlate with income as well, for a variety of reasons. If such data existed, would it be "unfair" to point that out?

[Delta1212]

I think the major takeaway here is that it is better for children to live in a household with more wealth that actually desires to care for them rather than a lower income household and/or one that isn't prepared for them, and that this fact does not change based on the sexual orientation of the parents, in contradiction of several GOP talking points over the last few years.

[dimreepr]

I'm sorry, but you forgot to mention the third or possibly forth individual involved - a homosexual couple cannot produce a child, one or both are not parents, they are stepparents. And as for care, what they have to go through in caring for a child is no different or more difficult than a heterosexual couple.

 

And as for this obsession about gender arrangements, elevated to the point of something particular or special, it is nothing of the sort. They consist of either parent and stepparent or two stepparents, which might even be viewed as foster parents. And I believe there are laws about foster parenting.

 

 

Your background, however sad, doesn’t automatically mean stepparent = bad parent. I hated my step-dad initially and made it perfectly clear to him, just how much I resented his existence, but he didn’t stop caring; a man I have come to admire.

 

It strikes me that some of the poster’s in this thread should look up the word tolerance and understand it doesn’t mean you have to like whatever it is you unreasonably hate.

[Fuzzwood]

I'm sorry, but you forgot to mention the third or possibly forth individual involved - a homosexual couple cannot produce a child, one or both are not parents, they are stepparents. And as for care, what they have to go through in caring for a child is no different or more difficult than a heterosexual couple.

 

And as for this obsession about gender arrangements, elevated to the point of something particular or special, it is nothing of the sort. They consist of either parent and stepparent or two stepparents, which might even be viewed as foster parents. And I believe there are laws about foster parenting.

It is nothing special indeed. So why are people pretending that it is?

[barfbag]

This thread is picking up again so I will make an effort to be clear.

 

Let's first look at group A. The Gay Parents.

 

To become a gay parent...

 

A) Their child comes from a surrogate: If this gay couple is willing to spend over $50 000 for artificial insemination coupled with hiring a womens womb for 9 months then chances are being parents ids fulfilling a life long dream of theirs. There is also a chance that they are wealthy or at least have two good male incomes to afford this method. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

 

B) Their child comes from a previous relationship: In some case Gays have had straight relationships in their past where a child has resulted. In this instance there is no difference between the gay parent and straight parent, however for a gay a partner to date them they would need to be willing to become a step parent and is choosing to become a parent. You could also factor in that in some of these cases courts have decided that the custodial parent is better (but only in some cases). So in this situation we have at least 1 gay parent choosing to enter a relationship involving parenting.

 

C) Adoption: For any couple to adopt a child there are many hurdles to cross. The couple must have a nice home, stable and above average income, pleasant personalities, and no criminal records or history of serious mental disorders. These rough guidelines apply to any adopting couples, and it would be even harder for a gay couple even in this day and age. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

 

There is also the possibility of a child resulting from an affair or other less common scenarios and in the cases of males raising the baby (Male-Male couple) then they must want it and the female of the affair mist not want it or is deemed unfit by courts. In a female-female relationship in dealing with a child from an affair then there may be some equal animosity/ambivalence towards parenting as in some straight relationships.

 

D) Female-Female gays getting sperm from donor: This is a very planned pregnancy if it requires seeking sperm, so one or both partners is extremely in want of a child. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

 

So if we look at A,B,C,D above the Gay parents are for the most part eager to be parents and in some cases (mostly Male-male) are very well off. There can be no doubt that most of them went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

 

These are all well known and documented modern family types. It would at the very least seem much harder on average (especially in male-male couples) for them to have an unwanted pregnancy. (although still possible).

 

 

So...

 

Is it really fair to compare the above groups parenting skills against a child that was conceived by an 18 year old in the back seat of car by an unwed couple who marries for the sake of the child?

 

I know not all children were conceived in the back seat of a car, but I want to be clear that unwanted and unplanned pregnancies can occur in straight relationships a lot more frequently than in a female-female or male-male relationship. Unless cheating or rape is involved it is impossible for the gay couples to have an unwanted pregnancy.

 

So who is the better parent?

 

If I said straight people were better parents it would make me a Bigot. I think the Survey is claiming the reverse which is reverse bigotry.

 

If I were conducting this survey I could surely get any result I wanted by manipulating who I allowed into it.

 

Anyways. My position...

 

NOTE FUZZWOOD for first pointing this out in the thread.

 

My position is that Gays parents are most frequently parents by choice and in male-male cases often well off enough to pass adoption requirements or pay for surrogacy.

 

Straight couples don't even need to have a decent IQ to become parents. (IQ can relate to income potential noted above with some male male couples).

 

I do not think it is a fair comparison. This has been the same stance I have had, but I am trying to be clear.

 

There should be better controls in place.

 

- For every adopted child by a gay couple in the survey they should at least use one adopted child by a straight couple (although bias might still make the adoption agencies triple check the gay couple).

 

- For every gay couple with one step parent there should be a straight couple with one step parent.

 

- For every gay parent awarded custody by a court should be weighed against a straight parent who was awarded custody by a court.

 

Things like this would make the survey a little more fair than directly comparing vastly different families.

 

You cannot say they are better parents simply because they are gay even if on average. Even if a survey were produced where the results were less orchestrated, it would still only be a sampling of 500 children and the survey would vary as you approached couples of varying cultures or just different couples.

 

This survey did not just compare gays vs straights as parents they are also comparing wealth, occupations, criminal backgrounds, and so much more. This is why I still maintain it is not a fair survey.

[swansont]

 

So if we look at A,B,C,D above the Gay parents are for the most part eager to be parents and in some cases (mostly Male-male) are very well off. There can be no doubt that most of them went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

 

These are all well known and documented modern family types. It would at the very least seem much harder on average (especially in male-male couples) for them to have an unwanted pregnancy. (although still possible).

 

 

So what might you conclude about their expected parenting ability/attitudes, should one measure it and compare it to the population at large?

[Delbert]

 

 

Your background, however sad, doesn’t automatically mean stepparent = bad parent. I hated my step-dad initially and made it perfectly clear to him, just how much I resented his existence, but he didn’t stop caring; a man I have come to admire.

I don't think I ever made any suggestion or inference about my stepparent being a bad parent. My stepparent had no biological connection to me, her only connection was through marriage. And that disappeared as a consequence of my father's death. I infer no blame or criticism, I just stated the facts. My only view is that that was a consequence of nature. Watch any wildlife program - we are no different, i.e. the lion cubs killed by the new lion after the death or other disappearance of the previous male lion. I'm not suggesting we go as far as killing, but the driving force is going to be there - we are no different. The relationship to a child by one or more stepparents will doubtless work, but if they split for whatever reason the situation may be different. Doubtless that remark will cause some upset, but as the driving force that makes us to anything, nature will prevail.

[barfbag]

@ SwansonT,

 

So what might you conclude about their expected parenting ability/attitudes, should one measure it and compare it to the population at large?

 

 

It would be like giving the same math exam to both University Graduates and bums on the street. Some bums would do well and might be math experts, but we should expect the academia crowd to do better. This does not mean the academia crowd has more IQ than the bums, but it does mean they are trained and more eager for the subject.

 

Note: Although I did not see how your race analogy fit before it now makes sense. I suppose it is like comparing running abilities with someone who has trained and likes running against an average joe. I admit when I am wrong.

 

My last post explained my position, but comparing those who want to parent and "train for it" (running analogy) against average joes is most always going to see the trained one win.

 

The ability to parent though is not related to being gay whatsoever in this survey. The desires to be a good parent are strong in these padawan. The desires in Straight couples (who on occasion have unwanted pregnancy's) are not clearly as strong.

 

THE BELOW STATEMENT IS GENERALIZATION AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE 100% FACTUAL (although I'd wager someone will quote it as me saying it as fact)

 

In a nutshell we are comparing the parenting abilities of those who want children against those who are ambivalent about it.

 

I do not trust the subset of straight parents used. I am sure I can find straight parents who are as eager and well trained as the gay parenting populace. Then it would be a fair comparison. It is letting in the bad parents which would more likely fall in the straight parent category because of stated unwanted pregnancies and such that ruins the comparisons fairness.

 

I think it would be easier to find bad straight parents because gays more often need to jump through many hoops to parent. You seem to think this means straight parents are worse, but I think those (weeds) bad parents should not even be in the comparison. I think they should be an entirely different category.

 

Wealth also should not be a part of it, but as pointed out in my last post many gay parents (especially male-male) have been able to afford semination/surrogacy or had enough wealth to be considered a stable home environment.

 

It is like you are concluding that because Gays are in many cases wealthy they are better at being parents. There is a logic to it, but it is not fair unless you weighed in straight parents of equal wealth.

[swansont]

@ SwansonT,

 

 

It would be like giving the same math exam to both University Graduates and bums on the street. Some bums would do well and might be math experts, but we should expect the academia crowd to do better. This does not mean the academia crowd has more IQ than the bums, but it does mean they are trained and more eager for the subject.

But these are not generally seen as IQ tests, they are subject matter tests. So only an uninformed person would likely draw this conclusion. The rest would probably not be at all surprised. The university graduates would actually know more about math, so the results are to be expected, but there is nothing unfair about the assessment.

 

Note: Although I did not see how your race analogy fit before it now makes sense. I suppose it is like comparing running abilities with someone who has trained and likes running against an average joe. I admit when I am wrong.

Good. Glad to hear it.

 

 

The ability to parent though is not related to being gay whatsoever in this survey.

It is not being claimed that being gay makes you a better parent. The study is saying that gay parents are better than average. Those two statements are not equivalent.

 

 

[barfbag]

@ Swansont,

 

The university graduates would actually know more about math, so the results are to be expected, but there is nothing unfair about the assessment.

 

 

Yes. Which brings us full circle to the claims of the OP. The OP and title of this thread claim that the results are "SHOCKING".

 

It seems we both agree that if you stack the deck with trained runners/mathletes/wannabe parents the results should be exactly what is expected. In other words you could have told the person the results of the "study" before they even did a "study". The study is meaningless and to the results are what we would expect.

 

That is not in any way "Shocking".

 

The OP further goes on to say (in essence) that gay parents are better than straight parents without even mentioning averages, to which we reply "Not in all cases".

 

The OP leaves us with the Phrase "Think of the children". Ten oz says that might mean political changes in his country, but there was no clear point, and after the first two errors (blanket statement and "shocking") I was less inclined to guess.

 

I think the "contest" would be better (less predictable) if it was like a beauty contest where only the good specimens could participate, because it is true that most bad parents would fit into the straight parent categories and pull down their average.

 

I understand your point though. It is less a matter of stacking the deck as of letting the misfits of group b taint the results.

 

This should almost be a Math Thread topic because we are getting deeper into statistical analysis/confounding variables and the like.

Edited July 21, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

OK lets link it up into that full circle.

Here's one of the assertions from the OP

"gay parents are great for children"

 

and here's another

"Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children."

Now, here's what conservapedia says about it

"it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."

 

So, it looks like, at least those Right wingers who read and write conservapedia, are in for a shock.

 

"The OP leaves us with the Phrase "Think of the children". Ten oz says that might mean political changes in his country, but there was no clear point, and after the first two errors (blanket statement and "shocking") I was less inclined to guess."

 

I'm not sure what your justification is for failing to look up something which you didn't understand before reading nonsense into it, but, just to clarify things

 

Among other things it's a Simpsons quote.

 

Did you really get that wound up by a joke?

Or did you grasp the alternative (plausible) ironic interpretation

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

Edited July 21, 2014 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

One should note the prominent mention of the "Right Wing" in the title of the thread. i.e. the folks to whom facts and science don't seem to matter, and instead drew their "conclusion" from ideology. That context is crucial. As for the rest, I refer you to John Cuthber's response.

[barfbag]

@ Swansont,

 

While I understand your argument. The other response you are listing (JohnC) seems overly disappointing. It is more like a collection of misquoted, out of context, unrelated words construed to look mildly on topic.

 

I'm sure conservapedia (never heard of it and I am not looking it up) is supporting whatever his views are, but was it authored by a monkey or does it have similar criteria to Wikipedia (name similarity and all). The entire Simpsons reference was also bewildering, were they talking about gay parenting? There is no context. The Simpsons has run a long time, and you could likely find many interesting quotes, but are they relevant or on topic? I could post the first word of that video on youtube and claim I was talking about the IBM motto. What does the Simpsons video have to do with the price of tea in China?

Edited July 21, 2014 by barfbag