FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should heterosexual adoption be banned?





Bondings
In arguments about gay adoption, opponents have always claimed that children deserve and need a traditional mother and father and that hence gay adoption should be banned.

However a recent study actually found the opposite; namely that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

Quote:
"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.


Hence I think that children should deserve at least 2 mothers and that one father and one mother are just not enough.

So what do you think, should heterosexual adoption be banned? I mean, just think about the children, don't they deserve the best?
missdixy
I read this earlier and wasn't at all surprised at the results, really. Hopefully this kind of research will help the gay adoption and gay marriage movements forward. I wonder if the same kind of study is being conducted in gay households, and whether the results would be the same for gay men as they were for lesbian women.

Bondings wrote:
should heterosexual adoption be banned? I mean, just think about the children, don't they deserve the best?


Just because these children raised in lesbian households were found to be doing better, on average, it doesn't necessarily mean that children in heterosexual households were doing bad. Yes, our children do deserve the best, but does that mean you're going to deny adoption to middle class families and only allow upper class families, simply because they have the best finances to provide the child with a better life? No. Similarly, I don't think that heterosexual adoption shouldn't be banned. I don't think this research really has the evidence to try to pursue that, though, but rather, what it does is show to people that hey, maybe gay/lesbian adoption isn't such a bad thing! Wink
Bikerman
It does nicely point up the dual standards that critics of homosexuals wanting to adopt like to use. They are happy to use scientific research so long as it supports their point. When it doesn't ... we'll, let us see if anyone would care to comment Smile
Bondings
missdixy wrote:
Bondings wrote:
should heterosexual adoption be banned? I mean, just think about the children, don't they deserve the best?


Just because these children raised in lesbian households were found to be doing better, on average, it doesn't necessarily mean that children in heterosexual households were doing bad. Yes, our children do deserve the best, but does that mean you're going to deny adoption to middle class families and only allow upper class families, simply because they have the best finances to provide the child with a better life? No. Similarly, I don't think that heterosexual adoption shouldn't be banned. I don't think this research really has the evidence to try to pursue that, though, but rather, what it does is show to people that hey, maybe gay/lesbian adoption isn't such a bad thing! Wink

Indeed. I was being sarcastic, by the way. Of course I didn't mean it for real. The "think about the children" part is used a lot as an emotional outcry to try to justify any logical fallacies of what is being said/defended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_%28politics%29
Bikerman
Yep, quite a catch of informal logical fallacies rely on this type of approach.
Springing straight to mind are Argumentum ad misericordiam , Argumentum ad baculum , our old friend the hasty generalisation, our other old friend the 'ad populum' but in a different guise to normal - this being the circumstantial rather than the abusive..
I think that covers the main ones (I'm currently writing some pages for my site on fallacies)
Here's the best source : http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
goutha
Bondings wrote:
children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.


I think this is an example of another extreme point of view. Nature created men and women to give birth and rase children. I'm not sure that 2 moms or 2 dads are better than a standard 1 mom 1 dad couple.

While I'm not against gay adoption, I question the authenticity of the cited study.
Bondings
goutha wrote:
Bondings wrote:
children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.


I think this is an example of another extreme point of view. Nature created men and women to give birth and rase children. I'm not sure that 2 moms or 2 dads are better than a standard 1 mom 1 dad couple.

While I'm not against gay adoption, I question the authenticity of the cited study.

There is actually a very good reason explaining this.

Gay couples that adopted children (which are usually lesbian couples) or had them created by artificial insemination had a very strong child wish and were usually older and more financially stable than the average couple having a child. They also didn't have any 'accidents' resulting in unplanned children which they have a hard time to support financially or dedicate a lot of time to (like if you have several jobs).

Under these circumstances it isn't hard to do better than the average and I hence doubt it's related to the sexuality of the couple raising the children. I was just trying to show that the arguments made by gay adoption opponents can be actually used against them, if used vigorously.
Xanify
I pretty much agree with Bondings on this issue.

That said, maybe a better comparison would be to compare children of lesbian couples to children of couples who used IVF/adoption/donors/etc to have them. That way you get a sample of people who all really, really wanted that kid.
Bondings
Xanify wrote:
I pretty much agree with Bondings on this issue.

That said, maybe a better comparison would be to compare children of lesbian couples to children of couples who used IVF/adoption/donors/etc to have them. That way you get a sample of people who all really, really wanted that kid.

Indeed, that should make it a better comparison.

However I'm not really fond of all those comparison/studies being used to restrict certain types of raising children.

First of all, they measure some characteristics which aren't a complete measurement of how good a child is raised. Besides, there is no absolute good and bad raising, especially if you take differences in morality into account. If you see someone (major) smoking a joint, does that mean he/she is badly raised? Some people would say yes, others no. The same with sex before marriage.

Secondly, even if some type of raising a child gives worse results, like more % ending up in jail, I still think there is nothing wrong with that unless the children were emotionally/physically abused. Parents should be able to raise their children however they wish unless the children are abused.
Bikerman
goutha wrote:
Bondings wrote:
children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.


I think this is an example of another extreme point of view. Nature created men and women to give birth and rase children. I'm not sure that 2 moms or 2 dads are better than a standard 1 mom 1 dad couple.

While I'm not against gay adoption, I question the authenticity of the cited study.

Based on what? If you question something simply because you disagree with it, you aren't really questioning the study at all. To question it you must have some grounds to believe it is wrong - either bad sample selection, incorrect conclusion, mistake in analysis - something!
To be honest (and this is not directed personally or particularly at you) I am sick and tired of people 'questioning' scientific studies just by saying it is 'questionable'. Unless there is a reason to doubt it, then they are essentially sticking fingers in ears and going NANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'.

I see it all the time. Some creationist will decide that evolution is 'questionable'. Some crank with a theory decides that General Relativity is 'open to question'. Some politician with an agenda will announce that 'AGW is questionable'.

Yes, OF COURSE THEY ARE. Every scientific theory, hypothesis, law, statement - they are ALL open to question, but unless you actually HAVE a decent question then it is just a statement of the bleedin' obvious couched in terms of a criticism by someone who probably doesn't even know the theory they are criticising. They are not really saying the theory is questionable at all - it is an example of another logical fallacy - what they are saying is 'I don't agree with it therefore it MUST be questionable'.
The exact nature of the fallacy depends on the circumstances. It is normally one or more of:
1. Argument from/Appeal to ignorance
2. Argument from nature
3. Appeal to/Argument from consequences

(In this case I would say both 2 and 3 are in play)

Just as an aside - have you actually read the study?
Bikerman
Bondings wrote:
Xanify wrote:
I pretty much agree with Bondings on this issue.

That said, maybe a better comparison would be to compare children of lesbian couples to children of couples who used IVF/adoption/donors/etc to have them. That way you get a sample of people who all really, really wanted that kid.

Indeed, that should make it a better comparison.
Agreed. You would also want to control for age, financial security, country and social attitudes, and a few other possible unwanted variables.
Quote:
First of all, they measure some characteristics which aren't a complete measurement of how good a child is raised.
Hmm...dodgy reasoning. NO study is ever a complete measure of anything. No theory is ever a complete explanation/model of anything. The best you can do is do the best you can....
Quote:
Besides, there is no absolute good and bad raising, especially if you take differences in morality into account. If you see someone (major) smoking a joint, does that mean he/she is badly raised? Some people would say yes, others no. The same with sex before marriage.
Oops..is this not reverse argumentum ad populum? Given some objective measure then what does it matter what some people would say?
Quote:
Secondly, even if some type of raising a child gives worse results, like more % ending up in jail, I still think there is nothing wrong with that unless the children were emotionally/physically abused. Parents should be able to raise their children however they wish unless the children are abused.
But how do you define abuse?
For example - is it abuse to raise a child and not let them mix with other children?
Is it abuse to constantly tell a child that unless they do what you say they should do that they will burn in hell for eternity?
At what point does the freedom of the parents become abuse of the child?
achowles
goutha wrote:
Nature created men and women to give birth and rase children.


Seemingly, nature has also created homosexual couples that while unable to procreate with their chosen partner, nonetheless retain a strong desire to raise kids. I can see the subtext of your post and how it simply reads 'it's unnatural, therefore wrong'. But plainly it is natural and equally it has proven to be right for both the couple and the adoptive child.
Bondings
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Besides, there is no absolute good and bad raising, especially if you take differences in morality into account. If you see someone (major) smoking a joint, does that mean he/she is badly raised? Some people would say yes, others no. The same with sex before marriage.
Oops..is this not reverse argumentum ad populum? Given some objective measure then what does it matter what some people would say?

Wow, I learn new concepts every day. Very Happy

I meant that some moral values differ for a lot of people. Maybe I gave the wrong examples. I meant things that are not illegal (or shouldn't be illegal), but still go against moral values. Things like lying, cheating, disrespecting other people, ...

What I meant to say is that you can be an asocial liar, cheater, ... but that doesn't mean that something should be wrong with that, it's a choice, although most would say a bad one.

About the abuse, I have no idea how to qualify it other than the obvious cases of a black eye every other day. Wink
Bikerman
Bondings wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Besides, there is no absolute good and bad raising, especially if you take differences in morality into account. If you see someone (major) smoking a joint, does that mean he/she is badly raised? Some people would say yes, others no. The same with sex before marriage.
Oops..is this not reverse argumentum ad populum? Given some objective measure then what does it matter what some people would say?

Wow, I learn new concepts every day. Very Happy

I meant that some moral values differ for a lot of people. Maybe I gave the wrong examples. I meant things that are not illegal (or shouldn't be illegal), but still go against moral values. Things like lying, cheating, disrespecting other people, ...
Agreed - in fact very strongly so.
Quote:
About the abuse, I have no idea how to qualify it other than the obvious cases of a black eye every other day. Wink
LOL...sadly we are now trained as teachers how to spot physical abuse in children Sad
The whole issue is a minefield.
The main problem is that whilst most people would agree that it is right for the state to intervene when there is overt physical abuse, they are not keen when the abuse is not obviously physical. We all know that mental abuse can be as bad, if not worse than physical abuse, but once you try to quantify what it means then you end up with a whole lot of abuse cases or a definition so weak that it is effectively meaningless....
To give another example - Jehova's Witnesses believe (or many do, anyway) that children should not be given blood transfusions - even on peril of dying. Now to me that is abuse - even though they may well be loving caring parents in every other way. Fortunately the courts will normally intervene in cases where the child is in danger of death and order the transfusion. Now most people, I think, would agree that this is valid intervention, so we have now defined one area when the courts should intervene, even though it is not strictly physical abuse. The question then becomes - well what about x,y,z....
I don't have an answer, only opinions Sad
guissmo
Bondings wrote:


Gay couples that adopted children (which are usually lesbian couples) or had them created by artificial insemination had a very strong child wish and were usually older and more financially stable than the average couple having a child. They also didn't have any 'accidents' resulting in unplanned children which they have a hard time to support financially or dedicate a lot of time to (like if you have several jobs).

Under these circumstances it isn't hard to do better than the average and I hence doubt it's related to the sexuality of the couple raising the children. I was just trying to show that the arguments made by gay adoption opponents can be actually used against them, if used vigorously.


So the moral of the story is heterosexual relationship or not, be extra sure you're ready for a child - financially, emotionally, mentally, physically and whatever other adverbs that might fit in. Smile It's just a matter of good preparation.
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
In arguments about gay adoption, opponents have always claimed that children deserve and need a traditional mother and father and that hence gay adoption should be banned.

However a recent study actually found the opposite; namely that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers
I would be interested to know how the "normative" pattern that was used to compare the subjects of the study to was derived. The cities in which the study was conducted are quite well known for being intellectual, so the subjects who have been interviewed, must have been on an intellectual sophisticated level. The norm family in your big cities seem to be divorce, single mother, single father, or more than one mother and one father, very rarely traditional successful marriages?

I am not surprised that lesbian families would result in psychological balanced children, but am just wondering who the families were compared with? Traditional father and mother families, or an average of all other non-lesbian families, that include traditional father and mother families, as well as single mom, single dad, mixture of many things kind of families. As far as I can see in general, society in the big cities don't seem to be in a traditional mode.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I would be interested in the "normative" pattern that was used to compare the subjects of the study to. The cities in which the study was conducted are quite well known for being intellectual, so the subjects who have been interviewed, must have been on an intellectual sophisticated level.

a) A city doesn't have an intellect as far as I know.
b) The assertion that the subjects MUST have been 'on an intellectually sophisticated level' is a breathtaking generalisation - particularly from someone who says he doesn't like them. There is no 'must' about it, unless you believe that everyone in those cities is intellectually sophisticated - clearly not the case. Yes, they ARE cities which feature populations in the top league of intelligence - hardly surprising given that at least 3 have very large university populations. To leap from that to saying that the mothers MUST be xyz is not defensible.

Since the study is not linked, I will try to find it at work tomorrow (I can probably find it in the literature through a search in the library) but I can make a good stab at the methodology from bits revealed in the article.
She had no control group so she administered standard norm referenced tests. Such tests are, by definition, indicative of performance against peers. IQ tests are similar - the average IQ is 100 so (if you believe they tell you anything) they tell you where you are in the population just from the score alone.
Quote:
The norm in your big cities seem to be divorce, single mother, single father, or more than one mother and one father, very rarely traditional successful marriages?
Wow, you are really going for the generalisations tonight aren't you.
Are these rare traditional marriages intellectually sophisticated subjects or normal norms? If they are not normal norms then are they strange stacies or peculiar penelopes?

In fact the US marriage rate averages (across states) at 7.1 per 1000 population and the divorce rate at 3.5 per population, so the majority of people do not divorce. It is about 50% - certainly not a 'norm'.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

If you want to criticise the study then there are plenty of grounds for doing so without making assumptions of this sort.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
a) A city doesn't have an intellect as far as I know.
Nitpicking now aren't we? I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant.
Bikerman wrote:
b) The assertion that the subjects MUST have been 'on an intellectually sophisticated level' is a breathtaking generalisation - particularly from someone who says he doesn't like them.
Doesn't like whom? If you are referring to me, then I reject that totally and hopefully you can let this thread know why you have come to that conclusion. I see that as a personal insult.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) A city doesn't have an intellect as far as I know.
Nitpicking now aren't we? I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant.
Bikerman wrote:
b) The assertion that the subjects MUST have been 'on an intellectually sophisticated level' is a breathtaking generalisation - particularly from someone who says he doesn't like them.
Doesn't like whom? If you are referring to me, then I reject that totally and hopefully you can let this thread know why you have come to that conclusion. I see that as a personal insult.
The sentence is quite grammatical and unambiguous. The object of the first clause is 'generalisation' therefore the second clause refers back to that - ie you say you don't like generalisations. I don't know why you want evidence - it is a perfectly sensible position to take and you have said so on numerous occasions. Why you find it offensive is beyond me.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
a) A city doesn't have an intellect as far as I know.
Nitpicking now aren't we? I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant.
Bikerman wrote:
b) The assertion that the subjects MUST have been 'on an intellectually sophisticated level' is a breathtaking generalisation - particularly from someone who says he doesn't like them.
Doesn't like whom? If you are referring to me, then I reject that totally and hopefully you can let this thread know why you have come to that conclusion. I see that as a personal insult.
The sentence is quite grammatical and unambiguous. The object of the first clause is 'generalisation' therefore the second clause refers back to that - ie you say you don't like generalisations. I don't know why you want evidence - it is a perfectly sensible position to take and you have said so on numerous occasions. Why you find it offensive is beyond me.

OK, let's put it differently then. The study was following a specific group of children from lesbian marriages. The results were then measured against a "Paediatrics" average (which I'm not so sure what it is, as one would probably have to dig up the study to check out the source). What would have made greater sense was if the study would have taken the exact same number of children from traditional family father and mother couples, and followed the progress of children from traditional families over a 20 year term as well.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
OK, let's put it differently then. The study was following a specific group of children from lesbian marriages. The results were then measured against a "Paediatrics" average (which I'm not so sure what it is, as one would probably have to dig up the study to check out the source). What would have made greater sense was if the study would have taken the exact same number of children from traditional family father and mother couples, and followed the progress of children from traditional families over a 20 year term as well.
Not necessarily, but possibly. The sample size would need to be similar, so you would then have 150 families to monitor over 25 years - a huge task.
Obviously is man/womanpower is no issue, then you want to select thousands of lesbian couples, thousands of gay couples and thousands of hetero couples. That would give you extremely high quality results. With much smaller samples available, then using a national normalised reference is quite reasonable.

Let's say the average for the test on (say) self-esteem in 27. That means the test has been administered to tens or hundreds of thousands of children - maybe even millions. That score (27) is the average score of that huge sample group and is therefore robust. No small scale effect could swing it much, if at all. You can say with a great deal of confidence that from a statistical viewpoint the result is extremely robust. Of course, you cannot say that in general, because the study may have other serious flaws, but as a methodology for this bit then it is fine. The objective was to compare these kids with 'normal' kids and a huge national sample gives you a very good normal.

Now if, instead, you compared with (say) 25 kids from hetero families who you followed like the lesbian families then that would be very unlikely to be as good. Such a small sample means that even a couple of 'not normal' kids would skew the mean significantly.

You obviously are thinking that you should try to minimise variation - and that is a good general instinct and is normally to be desired - eliminate as many variables (other than the one being measured) as you possibly can. But in this case the relatively small sample groups would mean that doing that would actually produce less reliable results. We know what the spread of results will be in the main population - it will be documented. So if your concern is to control for a high-achieving background then you could compare with a higher level - say the top 25th percentile rather than the mean.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You obviously are thinking that you should try to minimise variation - and that is a good general instinct and is normally to be desired - eliminate as many variables (other than the one being measured) as you possibly can. But in this case the relatively small sample groups would mean that doing that would actually produce less reliable results. We know what the spread of results will be in the main population - it will be documented. So if your concern is to control for a high-achieving background then you could compare with a higher level - say the top 25th percentile rather than the mean.
Good explanation, however in the end we still have details compared with a general norm. Also, it was a lesbian family study, not a comparative study:
Quote:
The objective of this study was to document the psychological adjustment of adolescents who were conceived through donor insemination by lesbian mothers who enrolled before these offspring were born in the largest, longest running, prospective, longitudinal study of same-sex–parented families.
Refer Objectives of the study

The study was undertaken in order to show how well adjusted adolescents from lesbian marriages are, so the details must have moved in the direction of wanting to prove that point. Subjects were selected from families of women who volunteered for the study. Refer Methods of the study:
Quote:
Between 1986 and 1992, 154 prospective lesbian mothers
volunteered for a study that was designed to follow planned lesbian
families from the index children’s conception until they reached adulthood.
Data for the current report were gathered through interviews
and questionnaires that were completed by 78 index offspring when
they were 10 and 17 years old and through interviews and Child Behavior
Checklists that were completed by their mothers at corresponding
times. The study is ongoing, with a 93% retention rate to date.


I found an interesting E-Letter by Prof. Schumm of Family Studies Kansas University responding to the paper in Pediatrics:
Quote:
However, at least 67% of the mothers in the NLLFS [3] had at least a college education compared to approximately 28% of women of similar age in US Census data (after which the Achenbach comparison data was modeled), yielding an odds ratio = 5.14 (p < .001, 95% CI, 2.71-9.77). The relatively better adjustment of the children of lesbian parents may reflect, at least in part, higher levels of education or different sibling constellations relative to heterosexual parents rather than parental gender or sexual orientation per se.

......Pediatrics

There are three E-Letters, all worth reading.

Would be interesting if they should also make a study of how adjusted children are from homosexual marriages and compare those with lesbian marriages. For example, are women perhaps more nurturing than men are as parents and could this be a factor in the psychological adjustment of children?
Arty
Bondings wrote:
goutha wrote:
Bondings wrote:
children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.


I think this is an example of another extreme point of view. Nature created men and women to give birth and rase children. I'm not sure that 2 moms or 2 dads are better than a standard 1 mom 1 dad couple.

While I'm not against gay adoption, I question the authenticity of the cited study.

There is actually a very good reason explaining this.

Gay couples that adopted children (which are usually lesbian couples) or had them created by artificial insemination had a very strong child wish and were usually older and more financially stable than the average couple having a child. They also didn't have any 'accidents' resulting in unplanned children which they have a hard time to support financially or dedicate a lot of time to (like if you have several jobs).

Under these circumstances it isn't hard to do better than the average and I hence doubt it's related to the sexuality of the couple raising the children. I was just trying to show that the arguments made by gay adoption opponents can be actually used against them, if used vigorously.


Then it is not the sexual orientation of the parents that is the issue, it is the age / financial stability of the parents.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
....Also, it was a lesbian family study, not a comparative study:

Hoorah!
Now THAT is a proper posting on the matter. Aside from one little lapse it is free from generalisation and assumptions....
(You cannot say that the details 'must' have been .... you can certainly say something like "since the study does not claim to be impartial then I have concerns about the choice of sample".
Aside from being more accurate to write it that way, it is also not suggesting any dishonesty, simply something we call confirmation bias).
But otherwise a much much much better effort. I don't criticize just for the sake of it you know....
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
I was just trying to show that the arguments made by gay adoption opponents can be actually used against them, if used vigorously.
And it was a good point too. In an e-letter responding to the research paper, a Professor Walther Schumm from Kansas State University referred to a previous study that had been conducted. I thought he worded his comment well:
Quote:
There is no question that the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) [1] is commendable for its depth, duration, and contemporary relevance. Its results follow a recent report by Biblarz and Stacey [2] which yielded findings that suggested that lesbian parents were better parents than heterosexual parents. Thus, since Gartrell and Bos [1] found the same relative outcome, academic debate may be shifting from whether lesbian parents are as fit as heterosexual parents to the extent to which heterosexual parents (and fathers, in particular) may be less fit than lesbian parents.

Source: Paediatrics
erlendhg
In my country, Norway, the subject about homosexuals having children has been a very difficult and debated question for a long time.
Just recently, it has been allowed for homosexuals to adopt children. Typically, the argument of total social equality is applied for those in favor of this.

When other people disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children, they say it's because the child is more endangered to harassment, typically in school.

I haven't been able to make up my mind for this case, but I guess I'm more accepting than the contradictory.
Aredon
deanhills wrote:

Quote:
... to the extent to which heterosexual parents (and fathers, in particular) may be less fit than lesbian parents.

Source: Paediatrics

So in a way we're declaring war on the current idea of the fatherly figure? I'm not sure that will be widely accepted without some kind of world-wide cognitive shift.
Bikerman
LOL...no, not really. Simply highlighting some stereotypes and showing the problem with the general argument about 'fitness' for being parents. It is always assumed that Gay parents are measured against the yardstick - the hetero couple. I think it is a nice twist to turn it back, because it is a nice example of the universal principle in action. How do people react the being measured against a gay yardstick....not well, in many cases ... Smile
deanhills
Aredon wrote:
deanhills wrote:

Quote:
... to the extent to which heterosexual parents (and fathers, in particular) may be less fit than lesbian parents.

Source: Paediatrics

So in a way we're declaring war on the current idea of the fatherly figure? I'm not sure that will be widely accepted without some kind of world-wide cognitive shift.
I don't think they are declaring war, they did research, and research came up with results that showed lesbian couples are doing better. This Professor showed more than two research studies that came up with the same results. But think about it for a bit as well. How long do fathers spend with their children every day, and how long do mothers spend with their children every day. Maybe the answer can come from that as well? Perhaps the parenting role of a father (with lots of exceptions of course) is very dependent on that of the mother in a hetero relationship. In many cases it is the mother who is encouraging the father to spend time with his children. Whereas possibly in a lesbian family, children may be receiving much more nurturing? I would be very interested in a comparative study with homosexual parenting. Would be interesting to compare lesbian parents with homosexual parents and whether there are any differences. As well as a comparative study with hetero parents.
Afaceinthematrix
This article obviously shows that there is no parenting advantage to being heterosexual vs. homosexual.

However, there is a bigger issue here than simply people wanting to ban homosexual adoption. The way I see into this is that some people argue that homosexual adoption should be banned because it leads to unideal (even though this article debunked that) parenting. But, if people are going to try and ban homosexual adoption on the basis of idealism then why not attack other forms of non-ideal parenting?

For instance, you can say that I wasn't born into an ideal situation (although I am not complaining about my life... I lived a pretty damn good life and had great parents). My parents are both uneducated. My father hung wallpaper and my mother cleaned houses. Now I did pretty well in school. But perhaps I would have done better if my parents were wealthy and able to send me to a fancy private school. Or perhaps I would have had more friends if my dad was a rock star. Or perhaps (I can go on forever).

The fact of the matter is that almost everyone can say something similar to what I said above. Nobody has an ideal parenting situation because everyone is flawed!! Some situations are worse than others. I consider my situation to be privileged because I had great parents. But they do have flaws.

So my question is, why would you attack homosexual adoption on the basis of it not being "ideal" (even though the evidence points out that it doesn't really make a difference) and then not attack other forms of non-ideal parenting? If you were going to ban homosexual adoption, wouldn't you also look for other things such as:
- Requiring the parents to make enough money to send the child to a private school - that way they receive the best education possible
- Parents who are fit and eat healthy - that way they can pass on those habits to the child
- Parents who are "cool" - after all, you do not want the child to be embarrassed

These are the things that people do not think about when they're mindlessly trying to push their agenda on to someone else for some bullshit reason. I tend to look at the bullshit and try to apply it equally on to other situations and see if it really makes sense. Banning homosexual adoption on the basis of idealism just doesn't make sense...
natilovesmike
ah aha ah! I like your idea of at least two moms! I know a few men that wouldn't mind having two wives!...of course then you would have to make a study to see if the male figure is a disruption or not!
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

So my question is, why would you attack homosexual adoption on the basis of it not being "ideal" (even though the evidence points out that it doesn't really make a difference) and then not attack other forms of non-ideal parenting? If you were going to ban homosexual adoption, wouldn't you also look for other things such as:
- Requiring the parents to make enough money to send the child to a private school - that way they receive the best education possible
- Parents who are fit and eat healthy - that way they can pass on those habits to the child
- Parents who are "cool" - after all, you do not want the child to be embarrassed

These are the things that people do not think about when they're mindlessly trying to push their agenda on to someone else for some bullshit reason. I tend to look at the bullshit and try to apply it equally on to other situations and see if it really makes sense. Banning homosexual adoption on the basis of idealism just doesn't make sense...
Good questions. Think we hear daily about children who have come from less than ideal beginnings, who made it big. Like they have their own packages, and with those who are talented and driven, humble/challenged family lives can be almost like a driving force to propel themselves forwards. Tom Cruise may be an example of someone who is completely driven and had a really bad start in life, and turned it into something incredible.

The study that was discussed however, was about lesbian parents, not homosexual parents. The heading of the thread could have been misleading in a way. I don't think the people who did the study were under attack, they just did a very extensive study of over 20 years, and apparently surprised themselves with the results. Also, it was not a comparative study, the study was limited to children from lesbian households only. Verdict is that the "non-ideal" perception of lesbian parents is not correct.
Bondings
@Afaceinthematrix, exactly what I meant to say, just way better explained. Very Happy

deanhills wrote:
Tom Cruise may be an example of someone who is completely driven and had a really bad start in life, and turned it into something incredible.

I wouldn't say that about a militant supporter of Scientology, an organization responsible for a lot of harm.
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
@Afaceinthematrix, exactly what I meant to say, just way better explained. Very Happy

deanhills wrote:
Tom Cruise may be an example of someone who is completely driven and had a really bad start in life, and turned it into something incredible.

I wouldn't say that about a militant supporter of Scientology, an organization responsible for a lot of harm.
I understand that you may not like his beliefs, I'm not for Scientology either and I agree Scientology has been responsible for a lot of harm, but I was using him as an example of someone who came from a very bad home (lack of parenting), and was basically looking after himself from the age of 16.

Note: Embarassed Wow, I don't know how I could have gotten it so wrong. I just looked up his Bio, and none of it is true. He had a very typical hetero parenting background in his early years. In his teens however, his mother divorced his father. Cruise claims that his father was abusive.

OK, looking for another example then I found this Website with orphans who made it big in their lives:
http://thirdworldorphans.org/gpage.html34.html Not all of them qualify, as some were raised by hetero families.
manmast
It does nicely point up the dual standards that critics of homosexuals wanting to adopt like to use. They are happy to use scientific research so long as it supports their point. When it doesn't ... we'll, let us see if anyone would care to comment
Related topics
Google banned my site!!
Great Books (series) banned by the pope.
Frihost server banned by aol mail because it spams?????
"We Hate Aliens" Campaign [ENDED]
why u banned me?
Are you blocking ip address of banned users?
WHY AM I BANNED!?!
is it possible to recover the banned account?
Censorship Sucks...
"You've banned from this forum"???
posts of banned members must be removed from the domain
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Gay adoption laws
Homosexuality & Adoption
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.