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

[CLAX1911]

I have read many studies & articles on the subject, and a good many of them were conducted/written by progressive liberal psychologists with biased views and agendas, much like the single parent studies & articles. That is just my own opinion, so another persons mileage may vary. I never give full trust to psychologists on the issue because a child's mental development is not a one size fits all.

With that said, I am not the one to say if either way is better or not.

But I do know for certain that any kid raised in the company of loving & caring adults, regardless of sexual orientation, is going to be far better off than not having them.

I agree with you here. Studies often reflect the desired answer of the conductor of the study.

 

[CLAX1911]

So diversity in a child's upbringing is unimportant??

Correct. Consistency is more imperative that diversity.

 

[CLAX1911]

What is the ever loving f'n point of studies like this?

What's the end-game here?

Is the hope and desire to prevent gay couples from adopting?
Is the hope and desire to prevent gay couples from reproducing?
Is the hope and desire to prevent gay couples from getting married?
Is the hope and desire to prevent people from "becoming gay"?
Is the hope and desire to forcefully remove children from homes where there are two same-gendered adults as caretakers?

What's the stinking point?

As a society we can't prevent or prohibit any female of child bearing age from getting pregnant.

We can potentially prevent specific people from adopting.

So what's the end-game of these "studies"?

The end game is to prove the bible beaters right. That's it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Kids need a father and a mother. That's why they have them.

Well, many kids don't have them. Many kids have terrible ones. In fact I am willing to bet nearly 100% of bad parents are heterosexual.

It's self evident.

Explain this self evidence. The fact I pointed out just above really craps all over your self evident theory.

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.

Well as much as you may not like this gay people are human beings and they can have children that are their own flesh and blood. Also being attracted to the opposite sex has no bearing on your ability to parent a child.

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

...sigh...

Nobody ever said that a traditional family doesn't work well. All anybody is saying here is that non traditional families work just as well.

If it is your claim that they aren't, you carry the burden of proof. Furthermore claiming it is self evident is another claim you have to prove. Based on what I posted above your claim that it was self evident really shoots some gaping holes into that theory. So you have a pretty tough road to hoe.

 

[notquiteright]

I've been expecting these studies for years. I grew up during a period when progressives spread the myth that single-parent households where a mother raised her children alone, is just as healthy of an environment as households where both the mother and father are present. No one would suggest that single parent households are a good option today. It only makes sense that a child needs a mother and father in their upbringing. Having 2 dads or 2 moms is unfair to a child.

Some things some people say that 'just makes sense' is a rigged story. I don't recall people saying single parent families are just as good as two parent homes- for one income tends to be quite a bit less in one wage earner home. (It only makes sense)

A family with a absentee Dad who is detached from the child rearing isn't as healthy as an involved father. (It only makes sense)

Compared to foster care or an orphanage (group home these days) a loving single parent is healthier (It only makes sense)

Given all the dysfunctional two hetro parent families out there- the Columbine kids didn't come from same sex parents- IT ONLY MAKES SENSE it is far more about the attention and love parents, of any number or sexual orientation. (It only makes sense)

To claim otherwise is unfair to a child... eace

 

[RetiredUSN]

I've been expecting these studies for years. I grew up during a period when progressives spread the myth that single-parent households where a mother raised her children alone, is just as healthy of an environment as households where both the mother and father are present.
No one would suggest that single parent households are a good option today.

It only makes sense that a child needs a mother and father in their upbringing. Having 2 dads or 2 moms is unfair to a child.

Many children do not have the luxury of growing up with the biological parents, and many of them go through life not being adopted.

That would be a lonely proposition for any child.

If same sex couples adopt them, it's a win win!

I had biological parents at home (wife beater father)........ so I lived on the streets for almost 3 years just to stay away, and I was the worst street rat hoodlum you could ever run into.

 

[faithful_servant]

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

Go back to my question and read it, paying extra special attention to the phrase "Everything else being equal"....

 

[faithful_servant]

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.

So you don't believe in the benefits of diversity?? A child exposed to both genders on a consistent daily basis is no better off than a child exposed to only one gender on a consistent daily basis?? ... and please don't throw the dumb argument about teachers, aunts, uncles, etc., an occasional or not in the home interactions are not the same.

 

[faithful_servant]

I suppose an honest answer is one you agree with.

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

Here's the question again:

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??

Do you think that there's no benefit to a child having consistent daily exposure to both genders, rather than just one??

 

[faithful_servant]

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 just want an honest answer. One that avoids making assumptions about what I'm thinking, that avoids re-directing the question into a discussion about whether same sex parents can be good parents, one that avoids the same tired arguments and assumptions that people make. Just an honest discussion about what is the absolute best for a child. I've never gotten that even once in YEARS of trying. EVERY time, the discussion ends up being derailed into "Same sex parents can be good parents and you're just a homophobe." or "What about aunts, uncles, teacher, etc?" or some other sad attempt at avoiding this topic.

 

[sangha]

So you don't believe in the benefits of diversity?? A child exposed to both genders on a consistent daily basis is no better off than a child exposed to only one gender on a consistent daily basis?? ... and please don't throw the dumb argument about teachers, aunts, uncles, etc., an occasional or not in the home interactions are not the same.

Again, 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.

It's become apparent to many of us that you have no interest in any answer that you disagree with.

 

[sangha]

Here's the question again:


Do you think that there's no benefit to a child having consistent daily exposure to both genders, rather than just one??

You just said "all other things being equal" and then assume that some other thing (ie daily exposure to both genders) is not equal

 

[Verthaine]

I just want an honest answer. One that avoids making assumptions about what I'm thinking, that avoids re-directing the question into a discussion about whether same sex parents can be good parents, one that avoids the same tired arguments and assumptions that people make. Just an honest discussion about what is the absolute best for a child. I've never gotten that even once in YEARS of trying. EVERY time, the discussion ends up being derailed into "Same sex parents can be good parents and you're just a homophobe." or "What about aunts, uncles, teacher, etc?" or some other sad attempt at avoiding this topic.

What is best for child entirely depends on the nature of the situation,the parties involved and the individual child .
You wanted an honest asnwer,well there you go.It's just also plain commen sense.

 

[CLAX1911]

Here's the question again:


Do you think that there's no benefit to a child having consistent daily exposure to both genders, rather than just one??

I don't believe children are any better or worse off with same sex parents.

 

[Deuce]

Go back to my question and read it, paying extra special attention to the phrase "Everything else being equal"....

Everything else being equal, it's best for children to be raised in a wealthy family.

Is that important to the discussion somehow?

 

[Hari Seldon]

I read a couple interesting articles today on a new study from a Catholic University on the effects of same-sex parenting.

Another Study Finds Same-Sex Parents Aren't Best For Kids



And...

Study: Children Of Gay Parents More Depressed | The Daily Caller



Interesting eh? But what I could not figure out is why the articles said nothing of this part of the study...[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]



Weird. Why would they not mention that minor detail?

Nearly 15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.


Robust conclusions? I don't think so.

 

[truthatallcost]

Many children do not have the luxury of growing up with the biological parents, and many of them go through life not being adopted.

That would be a lonely proposition for any child.

If same sex couples adopt them, it's a win win!

I had biological parents at home (wife beater father)........ so I lived on the streets for almost 3 years just to stay away, and I was the worst street rat hoodlum you could ever run into.

I get that, and I'm not saying that all ss couples are bad parents. I'm saying that I think the natural situation of having a mother and father in the home usually is the best option. Not every time.

Our situations sound really similar man. I was homeless at 14 due to a messed up home life. Lived on the streets in the Bay Area. Was going to join the military to get out of everything, but glad I didn't now, as now I've seen the results of the Iraq war and realize I could be worse off if I'd been sent into that mess.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I just want an honest answer. One that avoids making assumptions about what I'm thinking, that avoids re-directing the question into a discussion about whether same sex parents can be good parents, one that avoids the same tired arguments and assumptions that people make. Just an honest discussion about what is the absolute best for a child. I've never gotten that even once in YEARS of trying. EVERY time, the discussion ends up being derailed into "Same sex parents can be good parents and you're just a homophobe." or "What about aunts, uncles, teacher, etc?" or some other sad attempt at avoiding this topic.

Maybe you just don't like the answers that you have been getting. My answer? All things being equal? Neither. All things being equal, both are equally well suited and both will provide an equally good environment for a child. Having a penis or a vagina is irrelevant compared to the personalities and parenting styles of the parents. These days, gender roles tend to be more fluid. If you are pushing for diversity, answer this question: all OTHER things being equal, what is better, a child being raised in a home where both parents have similar personalities and parenting styles, or where each parent brings something a different to the table from a personality and parenting style standpoint?

 

[prometeus]

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.

Exactly so and that is why the earlier question about which is better is so lame and meaningless.

 

[prometeus]

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.

You asked the wrong question. See post 28 why.

 

[1751Texan]

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.

By your logic, four parents is better than two. Having two sets of gender-diverse parents better than one?

 

[CLAX1911]

I just want an honest answer.

I gave you one three times. You are lying. You want an answer you like.

 

[faithful_servant]

So once again, all I get it avoidance to this simple question... No one will admit that having consistent daily exposure to both genders is better than having consistent daily exposure to only one gender. It's something that is supported by liberals across a wide array of issues, but when it doesn't fit the paradigm that they want pushed suddenly diversity gets throw out the window. You can reply to this all you want, but I won't be reading them. It's not because you think that you "won" this argument, but because it's so frustrating to see people simply refuse to use common sense.

 

[William Rea]

So once again, all I get it avoidance to this simple question... No one will admit that having consistent daily exposure to both genders is better than having consistent daily exposure to only one gender. It's something that is supported by liberals across a wide array of issues, but when it doesn't fit the paradigm that they want pushed suddenly diversity gets throw out the window. You can reply to this all you want, but I won't be reading them. It's not because you think that you "won" this argument, but because it's so frustrating to see people simply refuse to use common sense.

What is, 'consistent daily exposure'?
'Both genders' should read 'all genders'?
If you have an evidence based case to make for this then fire away.

 

[TheGoverness]

So once again, all I get it avoidance to this simple question... No one will admit that having consistent daily exposure to both genders is better than having consistent daily exposure to only one gender. It's something that is supported by liberals across a wide array of issues, but when it doesn't fit the paradigm that they want pushed suddenly diversity gets throw out the window. You can reply to this all you want, but I won't be reading them. It's not because you think that you "won" this argument, but because it's so frustrating to see people simply refuse to use common sense.

Nah, dude. You totally lost the argument.