Children don't deserve homosexual parents

[maquiscat]

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

I'm not sure I would call that a study per se, but it does at least directly reference several. I will have to peruse it later.

 

[faithful_servant]

If that's the criteria why stop at differentiating between heterosexual and same-sex couples. Why not look at single parents? Or income levels? Or education?

To me that question misses the point completely. What matters is whether the parent or parents can properly provide for the child's physical and emotional wellbeing and I'd suggest that varies with EAC individual set of circumstances and has nothing to do with some gross measure like sexual preference or income level.

The same kind of answer I always get to this question. It's not about whether ANYONE can or cannot raise a child, it's about WHEN YOU LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, is a child better off being raised in a family with parents of both genders or just one??
So instead of sidestepping the question, how about actually answering it?? I've NEVER gotten anyone who support homosexual marriage/adoption to ever step and even give ANY answer to this question. How about you be the first one in about 5 years of asking this question to answer the question?? Take a stand and honestly state which situation is the best in your opinion.

 

[roguenuke]

While the OP is laden with fallacies, there is one simple question that it should be driving all of us to ask: With everything else being equal, is a child better off being raised in a family with parents of two genders or just one?? Now I'm pretty sure that I'll get inundated with responses that are predicated on everything else not being equal, but I hope that people will honestly look at this question and answer it honestly. This isn't asking if homosexual parents can be great parents or that heterosexual can be great parents, but rather if we COMPLETELY level the playing field, which situation is the best for the child.

Everything else can't possibly be equal because we are talking about humans. I'm so tired of this crap. We will never have a case where two absolutely identical couples will be the exact same when it comes to everything else except their relative genders. On top of that, even if it were possible, you would still have the situation of the child to take into account, who could thrive better in a same sex household than an opposite sex household.

Plus do you ask this question of two opposite sex couples? "Everything else being equal except their race or religion or this one fact right here which means pretty much nothing to the raising of a child..."?

 

[roguenuke]

The same kind of answer I always get to this question. It's not about whether ANYONE can or cannot raise a child, it's about WHEN YOU LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, is a child better off being raised in a family with parents of both genders or just one??
So instead of sidestepping the question, how about actually answering it?? I've NEVER gotten anyone who support homosexual marriage/adoption to ever step and even give ANY answer to this question. How about you be the first one in about 5 years of asking this question to answer the question?? Take a stand and honestly state which situation is the best in your opinion.

Because we know reality. If all was equal do what we do with opposite sex couples who are equal. There is no valid answer.

 

[faithful_servant]

Everything else can't possibly be equal because we are talking about humans. I'm so tired of this crap. We will never have a case where two absolutely identical couples will be the exact same when it comes to everything else except their relative genders. On top of that, even if it were possible, you would still have the situation of the child to take into account, who could thrive better in a same sex household than an opposite sex household.

Plus do you ask this question of two opposite sex couples? "Everything else being equal except their race or religion or this one fact right here which means pretty much nothing to the raising of a child..."?

...and another non-answer.... Why does this question bring out the evasive in people?? It's a simple, direct question that for some odd reason just cannot be answered...

 

[faithful_servant]

Because we know reality. If all was equal do what we do with opposite sex couples who are equal. There is no valid answer.

.. and ANOTHER evasion... You know what's being asked, so why can't you answer the question???

 

[azgreg]

...and another non-answer.... Why does this question bring out the evasive in people?? It's a simple, direct question that for some odd reason just cannot be answered...

The only answer I can give is in the study(s) I linked to the conclusion was that it was indistinguishable between a hetero couple and a ssm couple.

 

[faithful_servant]

The only answer I can give is in the study(s) I linked to the conclusion was that it was indistinguishable between a hetero couple and a ssm couple.

aaaand sidestep... Is there no one in all the interweb who is willing to give an answer to this question??

 

[azgreg]

aaaand sidestep... Is there no one in all the interweb who is willing to give an answer to this question??

That study answered your ****ing question and guess what? It's on the interweb. I think the issue here is you really don't want the answer.

 

[roguenuke]

.. and ANOTHER evasion... You know what's being asked, so why can't you answer the question???

I answered the question. You do what you do when there are two couples who are opposite sex who are "equal". That usually means looking deeper at the couples and the child to be adopted, or even just going with "first come, first serve" (whichever couple applied first). I see no difference between the two couples.

 

[matchlight]

Children have always been one of the most important parts of the worlds society. Children often unintentionally teach lifelong lessons to those who need them the most. Children have always been the next great thing in the progression of our world. The new generation that we must nurture to achieve great possibilities. But the lives of our children are at risk, a child's life is based off of a familial structure. A real family consists of a mother and a father, joined happily in marriage. The children are arguably the most important part of family. But the idea of family has been diluted by society, the prospect of homosexuality has destroyed the family. Studies show that children adopted into homosexual parentage have much higher risk factors when it comes to mental and social disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, and speech difficulty. Children are so important to the future of our planet, therefore they do not deserve discordant gay parents. Because those parents can never give the child a real life, a good life, a life where they have the loving care of a mother, and a strong willed, proud father at the same time. In a homosexual relationship, the child will never be able to experience what a child needs to grow and become stronger. I am not against homosexual marriage, but I am and always will be against homosexual adoption, because I believe in doing what is best for the future generation of our planet.

I agree that the ideal for a child is to be raised by a father and mother who love each other, with other family members--grandparents, aunts, uncles--and possibly close family friends sometimes helping them out. But I doubt what you say about depression and bipolar disorder. There is a strong genetic component to those and many other psychological disorders, and the fact a child was raised by homosexual parents would have no effect on that.

 

[SMTA]

This will end well I think.

It did, as his karma arrived quickly.

 

[faithful_servant]

That study answered your ****ing question and guess what? It's on the interweb. I think the issue here is you really don't want the answer.

No, it doesn't. The study doesn't correct for economic and educational differences in the two groups. It also focuses on a pretty limited number of criteria to establish "no difference". You see, I've read this study pretty well and it's NOT an apples to apples comparison. The fact that it found no differences exposes that handily. The simple fact is that a child raised by two parents of different gender is exposed to both genders and their individual quirks, while a child raised by only gender misses out on half of that story. It's simple common sense that those who actively support homosexual marriage/adoption fully ignore. There's no doubt that a homosexual couple raising a child can do a very good job of it, but at the same time that homosexual couple - by the very definition of their relationship cannot model both genders. That means that there is a piece missing from the child's up-bringing. How a big piece is determined by a lot of factors, but it is missing nonetheless.

 

[azgreg]

No, it doesn't. The study doesn't correct for economic and educational differences in the two groups. It also focuses on a pretty limited number of criteria to establish "no difference". You see, I've read this study pretty well and it's NOT an apples to apples comparison. The fact that it found no differences exposes that handily. The simple fact is that a child raised by two parents of different gender is exposed to both genders and their individual quirks, while a child raised by only gender misses out on half of that story. It's simple common sense that those who actively support homosexual marriage/adoption fully ignore. There's no doubt that a homosexual couple raising a child can do a very good job of it, but at the same time that homosexual couple - by the very definition of their relationship cannot model both genders. That means that there is a piece missing from the child's up-bringing. How a big piece is determined by a lot of factors, but it is missing nonetheless.

Then I don't think you'll ever get your answer. There are just way to many variables to get an apples to apples comparison.

 

[roguenuke]

No, it doesn't. The study doesn't correct for economic and educational differences in the two groups. It also focuses on a pretty limited number of criteria to establish "no difference". You see, I've read this study pretty well and it's NOT an apples to apples comparison. The fact that it found no differences exposes that handily. The simple fact is that a child raised by two parents of different gender is exposed to both genders and their individual quirks, while a child raised by only gender misses out on half of that story. It's simple common sense that those who actively support homosexual marriage/adoption fully ignore. There's no doubt that a homosexual couple raising a child can do a very good job of it, but at the same time that homosexual couple - by the very definition of their relationship cannot model both genders. That means that there is a piece missing from the child's up-bringing. How a big piece is determined by a lot of factors, but it is missing nonetheless.

Every child is exposed to people of both genders. There is no evidence that they need parents of each gender to do "better". There is nothing significant missing unless the child is being raised in the middle of nowhere with no other human contact and that in itself would cause issues.

 

[roguenuke]

No, it doesn't. The study doesn't correct for economic and educational differences in the two groups. It also focuses on a pretty limited number of criteria to establish "no difference". You see, I've read this study pretty well and it's NOT an apples to apples comparison. The fact that it found no differences exposes that handily. The simple fact is that a child raised by two parents of different gender is exposed to both genders and their individual quirks, while a child raised by only gender misses out on half of that story. It's simple common sense that those who actively support homosexual marriage/adoption fully ignore. There's no doubt that a homosexual couple raising a child can do a very good job of it, but at the same time that homosexual couple - by the very definition of their relationship cannot model both genders. That means that there is a piece missing from the child's up-bringing. How a big piece is determined by a lot of factors, but it is missing nonetheless.

And please tell us all exactly what it is that mothers model that a father or another woman (grandmother, aunt, friend or even mother who simply isn't a primary parent) can't do. The same for fathers.

 

[Gaius46]

The same kind of answer I always get to this question. It's not about whether ANYONE can or cannot raise a child, it's about WHEN YOU LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, is a child better off being raised in a family with parents of both genders or just one??
So instead of sidestepping the question, how about actually answering it?? I've NEVER gotten anyone who support homosexual marriage/adoption to ever step and even give ANY answer to this question. How about you be the first one in about 5 years of asking this question to answer the question?? Take a stand and honestly state which situation is the best in your opinion.

I did answer your question you simply don't recognize that or don't like the answer you were given.

How's about this. To completely level the playing field assume I'm the same exact person I am now and my wife is the exact person she is. The only difference is I'm a woman instead of a man (or she's a man - take your pick).

Under those circumstances which is as level a playing as you can possibly get I'd surmise that my children would turn out pretty much the same way they actually did. In other words the genders or the parents - as I believe I've already stated are probably on average irrelevant.

 

[SDET]

Question?

Since you obviously are living in the late fifties...how are you able to transport this message to us in 2016?



Oh...can you do me a big favor and put a bet on Syracuse winning the 1959 NCAA Football National Title for me? Say $50 bucks? Yes...they are going to win it so I would put a few dollars on them if I were you.

After they win, just let me know and I will tell you which one of my parents I want you to give it to.

Thanks very much.

You would have to buy antique money to pull that off. Imagine trying to break a 21st Century $100 bill in the 1950s.

 

[Quag]

Good parents are better than bad parents
Sexual orientation isnt what makes someone a good or bad parent.

 

[blarg]

Children have always been one of the most important parts of the worlds society. Children often unintentionally teach lifelong lessons to those who need them the most. Children have always been the next great thing in the progression of our world. The new generation that we must nurture to achieve great possibilities. But the lives of our children are at risk, a child's life is based off of a familial structure. A real family consists of a mother and a father, joined happily in marriage. The children are arguably the most important part of family. But the idea of family has been diluted by society, the prospect of homosexuality has destroyed the family. Studies show that children adopted into homosexual parentage have much higher risk factors when it comes to mental and social disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, and speech difficulty. Children are so important to the future of our planet, therefore they do not deserve discordant gay parents. Because those parents can never give the child a real life, a good life, a life where they have the loving care of a mother, and a strong willed, proud father at the same time. In a homosexual relationship, the child will never be able to experience what a child needs to grow and become stronger. I am not against homosexual marriage, but I am and always will be against homosexual adoption, because I believe in doing what is best for the future generation of our planet.

im not sure about the loving care of a vagina and the strong willd proud penis er i mean mother and father excuse me

could be that a vagina is not loving and caring or that a penis is not that strong

or perhaps one of those 2 could have either of those traits or both

seems odd to assume people are a certain way by genitals er i mean gender

 

[faithful_servant]

Every child is exposed to people of both genders. There is no evidence that they need parents of each gender to do "better". There is nothing significant missing unless the child is being raised in the middle of nowhere with no other human contact and that in itself would cause issues.

Horsecrap. Being around both genders over extended periods of time is vastly different than having teachers of both genders.

The thing about this whole discussion is that there isn't ANY good argument against my point. There is a clear benefit to having parents of both genders that only having parents of gender lacks. It's not ideology, it's a simple irrefutable fact. The only arguments that EVER get offered up are arguing against points I never made. For example, you tried to make it sound like I was saying that was a significant lack, but I clearly stated that the size of the impact had alot of determining factors. So you're arguing against something I never said because you're so stinking PC about this issue that a simple fact gets you all twisted up.

 

[faithful_servant]

And please tell us all exactly what it is that mothers model that a father or another woman (grandmother, aunt, friend or even mother who simply isn't a primary parent) can't do. The same for fathers.

Time. Aunty goes home after her visit, mom doesn't. Grandpa drops his grandson off after they go fishing, dad is there every day. Visits are not substitutes for long term co-existence.

 

[Lursa]

If that's the criteria why stop at differentiating between heterosexual and same-sex couples. Why not look at single parents? Or income levels? Or education?

I'm going with a recent response of mine from a similar thread: the only thing that truly matters in the upbringing of a child or children is the character of the parent(s).

Does the OP find that there is something lacking in the character of all gay parents that is not found in heterosexual parents? If so...what, specifically?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

While the OP is laden with fallacies, there is one simple question that it should be driving all of us to ask: With everything else being equal, is a child better off being raised in a family with parents of two genders or just one?? Now I'm pretty sure that I'll get inundated with responses that are predicated on everything else not being equal, but I hope that people will honestly look at this question and answer it honestly. This isn't asking if homosexual parents can be great parents or that heterosexual can be great parents, but rather if we COMPLETELY level the playing field, which situation is the best for the child.

Everything being equal? They'd be equal.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, it doesn't. The study doesn't correct for economic and educational differences in the two groups. It also focuses on a pretty limited number of criteria to establish "no difference". You see, I've read this study pretty well and it's NOT an apples to apples comparison. The fact that it found no differences exposes that handily. The simple fact is that a child raised by two parents of different gender is exposed to both genders and their individual quirks, while a child raised by only gender misses out on half of that story. It's simple common sense that those who actively support homosexual marriage/adoption fully ignore. There's no doubt that a homosexual couple raising a child can do a very good job of it, but at the same time that homosexual couple - by the very definition of their relationship cannot model both genders. That means that there is a piece missing from the child's up-bringing. How a big piece is determined by a lot of factors, but it is missing nonetheless.

Whenever I see someone try to prove their position by using the "common sense" evidence, I know they have nothing. You ask a question. The evidence is there. You don't like the evidence so you dismiss the answer. Doesn't change the answer. If all things are equal, then they are equal.