• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Study Finds Same-Sex Parenting Isn’t Best For Kids

I think you're absolutely wrong. In order to understand the male/female dynamic, two parents of opposite sexes is important. And that's just a start. Your father teaches you what a man is, and how he treats a woman. Ditto for the mother. Two men or two women, with all the love and money in the world, still can't teach the same lessons.

I don't really think you need two parents of the opposite sex to understand the male/female dynamic.

My parents (opposite sex) didn't even teach me about any of that, and I still understood how that all worked pretty well. And there are plenty of people who have been raised by same-sex couples who I'm positive understand the male/female dynamic pretty well.
 
I don't really think you need two parents of the opposite sex to understand the male/female dynamic.

My parents (opposite sex) didn't even teach me about any of that, and I still understood how that all worked pretty well. And there are plenty of people who have been raised by same-sex couples who I'm positive understand the male/female dynamic pretty well.


Sure they did. Each and every day you spent with them. They did it the very best way...by example.
 
For the sake of argument, lets say that these studies were actually correct...I'd still say "So?"

What you would need to show me is not that a Man/Man or Woman/Woman couple is worse than a Man/Woman couple....you'd need to show me that they are worse off than a child who grows up the majority or all of their formative years in a foster care.

Because really, the only thing this comes into play in is with adoption. If two men come to an agreement with a woman that one of them will get her pregnant and she'll have their child, it's not the states business. If two women come to an agreement with a man or a sperm bank and get themselves pregnant, again, it's not the states business.

At least with adoption, there's some kind of transaction of sorts that reasonably could be regulated. So that's where the question comes down to. And so long as there remains children that need to be adopted, and aren't, then I would strongly disagree with disallowing any loving couple from being able to adopt if they meet all the standard requirements. And that would be my stance until such time that you can significantly show that their adopting would actually be more harmful to the child than keeping them in foster care.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential factors that may go into making a "less than ideal" set of parents that we in no way, shape, or form test for with adoptions and in which the state absolutely doesn't step in and use as a means of keeping the couple from becoming pregnant. There's no reason why homosexuality should be the weird exception.

So for me, all these studies, on either side, are basically just dick waving contests in hopes of convincing people who likely will never be convinced on either side.
 
For the sake of argument, lets say that these studies were actually correct...I'd still say "So?"

What you would need to show me is not that a Man/Man or Woman/Woman couple is worse than a Man/Woman couple....you'd need to show me that they are worse off than a child who grows up the majority or all of their formative years in a foster care.

Because really, the only thing this comes into play in is with adoption. If two men come to an agreement with a woman that one of them will get her pregnant and she'll have their child, it's not the states business. If two women come to an agreement with a man or a sperm bank and get themselves pregnant, again, it's not the states business.

At least with adoption, there's some kind of transaction of sorts that reasonably could be regulated. So that's where the question comes down to. And so long as there remains children that need to be adopted, and aren't, then I would strongly disagree with disallowing any loving couple from being able to adopt if they meet all the standard requirements. And that would be my stance until such time that you can significantly show that their adopting would actually be more harmful to the child than keeping them in foster care.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential factors that may go into making a "less than ideal" set of parents that we in no way, shape, or form test for with adoptions and in which the state absolutely doesn't step in and use as a means of keeping the couple from becoming pregnant. There's no reason why homosexuality should be the weird exception.

So for me, all these studies, on either side, are basically just dick waving contests in hopes of convincing people who likely will never be convinced on either side.


On this we agree. I think it is WORLDS better that a child be raised by loving adults than by a series of foster parents, abusive parents, or the streets. I do think that on matters of adoption, the preference should be given to heterosexual couples BEFORE any other arrangement is considered.
 
For the sake of argument, lets say that these studies were actually correct...I'd still say "So?"

What you would need to show me is not that a Man/Man or Woman/Woman couple is worse than a Man/Woman couple....you'd need to show me that they are worse off than a child who grows up the majority or all of their formative years in a foster care.

Because really, the only thing this comes into play in is with adoption. If two men come to an agreement with a woman that one of them will get her pregnant and she'll have their child, it's not the states business. If two women come to an agreement with a man or a sperm bank and get themselves pregnant, again, it's not the states business.

At least with adoption, there's some kind of transaction of sorts that reasonably could be regulated. So that's where the question comes down to. And so long as there remains children that need to be adopted, and aren't, then I would strongly disagree with disallowing any loving couple from being able to adopt if they meet all the standard requirements. And that would be my stance until such time that you can significantly show that their adopting would actually be more harmful to the child than keeping them in foster care.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential factors that may go into making a "less than ideal" set of parents that we in no way, shape, or form test for with adoptions and in which the state absolutely doesn't step in and use as a means of keeping the couple from becoming pregnant. There's no reason why homosexuality should be the weird exception.

So for me, all these studies, on either side, are basically just dick waving contests in hopes of convincing people who likely will never be convinced on either side.

Exactly and well put, its a smokescreen and fallacy narrative of "think of the children"

Also while there are so many studies that show that two loving people is basically just as good you are right, if there is evidence out there that says foster care is better than everything but mother father then these things would have some merit.

To expand on your post and the basic common sense of THE BIG PICTURE, and not trying to take away what you said about ANY study on either side, what I find weird about the less than handful of studies like the one pointed out in the op is they never expand.
They typically try to focus on gay parents, which is weird and a state like " 18.3 percent of adolescents being raised by typical parents reported depression, compared to 21.8 percent of adolescents raised by same-sex parents." is pretty meaningless without so much more. What if that 3.5% depression came from people telling them their family is evil and wrong or their parents are evil? Im sure thats not the case for all 3.5% but im just saying its a pretty meaningless stat without know EVERY cause of the depression in each group to compare and contrast.

I bet minority children go through somethign similar or mixed children . . due to people judging them, not there actual parents/guardians.
 
I'm going to try this again and see if I can get one honest answer:

All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??

Before anyone starts in with the usual garbage, I am not making any statement about whether a same sex couple, single parent, etc, can do a good job of parenting or whether teachers, aunts, uncles, neighbors can fill the role of the missing sex, I'm simply asking the question above. I fully expect that I'll get the usual accusations, goal-post shifting and off-topic comments, but hopefully someone will be honest enough give a direct answer to the question and possibly even a logical and rational explanation for their answer.

I'll be like the 50th person in this thread to directly answer your question: Exactly equal and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise. Keep fishing, we all know what it is you want.

Kids need a father and a mother. That's why they have them. It's self evident. Mary and John will usually do a better job of raising their own flesh and blood than Merv and Jerry will do raising someone else's. They will also do better then Jane does on her own.

There are exceptions to any rule, but the nuclear family works out very well for MOST.

You're not comparing like with like. The children homosexuals usually adopt are orphans, so you'd have to compare children adopted by straight couples with children adopted by homosexual couples.

Good parenting is being ridiculously over-simplified if the criteria for it is boiled down to the requirement of one penis, and one vagina.

There are far too many other variables that need to be considered.

I'm of the firm belief that if you need a specific sexual organ to raise a child you're doing it wrong.
 
So pretty much every other study on the planet has shown homosexuals can raise children just as well and in many cases better than straight parents, but a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY says gays suck at parenting so let's believe them.

I don't expect there to be a negative impact on the children, at least I hadn't read of any. But the literature is rather new and longer term studies could turn up unexpected results.
 
Gee, for a guy who complained about "goal post shifting", you sure can run fast while carrying that post

I'm right on point with my comment. Let's re-phrase the question into a more "liberal friendly" style:

Are gender-diverse parents better for a child than non-gender-diverse parents?
 
"Diversity" only comes in the form of two people in a child's life?

Not grandparents, aunts, uncles, extended family, brothers, sisters, teachers, mentors, coaches, and if needed there's the Big-Brother and Big-Sister program in most cities around?

... and the usual avoidance argument (go back to my question and you'll see what I mean)...
 
I'll be like the 50th person in this thread to directly answer your question: Exactly equal and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise. Keep fishing, we all know what it is you want.

You're the first one to provide a direct answer and I thank you for that.
Now then...

Do you think that as a general rule that men and women act and respond differently in certain situations or do you think that as a general rule both genders act and respond similarly to similar situations??
 
You're the first one to provide a direct answer and I thank you for that.
Now then...

Do you think that as a general rule that men and women act and respond differently in certain situations or do you think that as a general rule both genders act and respond similarly to similar situations??

There is no argument you can make or long drawn out path you can lead me on for me to think it's a good idea to have the government insert itself into people's sexual and reproductive decisions and screw minorities out of their basic rights as human beings. We need more parents in the world, not less, and I applaud any homosexual couple who decides to make such an incredible sacrifice by adopting.
 
There is no argument you can make or long drawn out path you can lead me on for me to think it's a good idea to have the government insert itself into people's sexual and reproductive decisions and screw minorities out of their basic rights as human beings. We need more parents in the world, not less, and I applaud any homosexual couple who decides to make such an incredible sacrifice by adopting.

I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.
 
I'm right on point with my comment. Let's re-phrase the question into a more "liberal friendly" style:

Are gender-diverse parents better for a child than non-gender-diverse parents?

Can you show a measurably significant difference? You do realize that some people view most gender differences as socially constructed, and whatever drawbacks a child may have from being in a "less gender diverse" family may be offset by the benefits of greater awareness of those differences when they are encountered in other family or the world? You are fishing for the answer you want instead of listening. If you did listen you would realize you are pushing what most people consider an irrelevant question, unless you can demonstrate some sort of significant measurable difference.
 
It's a "Yes or No" question and you gave me a platitude about raising children, not an answer...

If it was a "Yes or No" question you should have said that from the start.

But regardless, I DID answer your question, like it or not.
 
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.

Oh! That is easy! The answer is neither! The nuclear family is an extremely artificial and new concept in human history that came into being around the industrial revolution. Humans are primates and our natural family structure is tribes, which typically consist of tight knit extended families. Research has generally demonstrated that kids who live with their extended families and in safe and involved communities do best.
 
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.

For my answer I'll refer you to CriticalThought's response, it's a completely irrelevant question.

Can you show a measurably significant difference? You do realize that some people view most gender differences as socially constructed, and whatever drawbacks a child may have from being in a "less gender diverse" family may be offset by the benefits of greater awareness of those differences when they are encountered in other family or the world? You are fishing for the answer you want instead of listening. If you did listen you would realize you are pushing what most people consider an irrelevant question, unless you can demonstrate some sort of significant measurable difference.
 
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.

Why is it about BEST?

What is the BEST family. Remember that sexuality is just one characteristic. Tell me the best race for raising children. The best education level. The best income level. The best religion.

ITS ABOUT WHATS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN
 
I'm right on point with my comment. Let's re-phrase the question into a more "liberal friendly" style:

Are gender-diverse parents better for a child than non-gender-diverse parents?

You can re-word the question in as many ways as you can think of and the answer will always be the same -- There is no proof that one is superior to the other.

That is an honest answer. Now try to give it an honest response.
 
I didn't go through this whole thread so I will risk repeating something that someone else might have said. The bottom line is that whehter same sex or opposite sex parents are ideal is the wrong question. This would be a good question if there were more willing adoptive parents than there are adoptable children. But that's not the case. The fact of the matter is that there are more children up for adoption than there are people interested in adopting them. The question, then, is not whether same sex parents are as good as opposite sex parents, but whether same sex parents are as good as foster care or groups homes.
 
I'm going to try this again and see if I get one honest answer.
I suppose an honest answer is one you agree with.

All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??
No, I don't think they are.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know you won't think that is am honest answer. But until proof exists that same sex parents aren't as good as opposite sex parents I'm going to continue to have my op
 
..and that's the kind of goal-post shifting answers that always come up. It's a simple question that people will not answer. You'll avoid, re-define terms, change the question, but you won't answer the simple question....
I answered it straight up. I'll do it again. No I don't think children raised by opposite sex parents are better off. I believe people think it is because it's traditional. That is the only reason.
 
I'm going to try this again and see if I can get one honest answer:

All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??

Before anyone starts in with the usual garbage, I am not making any statement about whether a same sex couple, single parent, etc, can do a good job of parenting or whether teachers, aunts, uncles, neighbors can fill the role of the missing sex, I'm simply asking the question above. I fully expect that I'll get the usual accusations, goal-post shifting and off-topic comments, but hopefully someone will be honest enough give a direct answer to the question and possibly even a logical and rational explanation for their answer.

Do you want an honest, fact-based answer, or just an answer that fits in with your belief system? If you want the former, I'll be happy to answer and discuss. If you want the latter, there is no point in discussing it with you.
 
I think a kid growing up with "any pair" of loving adults is far better off than not.

Should kids remain in foster care until adulthood?
 
Back
Top Bottom