- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Are Children with Same Sex Parents at a Disadvantage?
More than 100,000 children are adopted each year in the United States. Increasingly, these adoptions are being made by same-sex couples, raising questions about whether a child’s best interests can be served by same-sex parents. Are traditional homes still the best way to go, or are kids just as well-suited as part of a non-nuclear family?
Featured Image:
Comments
I myself am bi sexual. I have
I myself am bi sexual. I have heterosexual parents. They don't know that I am bi and i strongly think that if they were homosexual that it would be easier to tell them. One of my friends has a lesbian parent (not sure if her mom is married to another women yet or not) and she says she loves it. i believe that there is 7 children in the family. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is to love someone and to take care of someone. Homosexuals should be able to adopt. If I marry another girl i know for a fact that i would want to adopt. I love children and i know how to take care of one. So we are capable to do so. Love sees no difference between a male and a male dating, a male and a female dating or a female and a female dating. We are people just like heterosexuals, we love the same amount and are normal people therefore have the same ability to take care of a child.
Let me explain something. I
Let me explain something. I am the youngest of five girls and we were all raised in a lesbian household. My eldest sister was adopted, my second sister is biologically my one mother's daughter and the last three of us are biologically related to my other mother(titles get confusing so just bear with me). I have not once been bullied in school because I have two mothers. I graduated 2nd in my class and am at school on a full academic scholarship. I've watched some of my friends' go through their parent's divorce (heterosexual one's I may add). My mothers have been the model of love and understanding. I've never felt deprived because I didn't have a father in my life, I've never regretted not having one. I was definitely not at a disadvantage, if anything I was more fortunate than most of my classmates. Also, I want to say. Why don't you ask the kids with homosexual parents if they are at a disadvantage instead of assuming?
with regret I must say...
For all of my adult life (I am in my 50s) I have supported gay rights. I am not gay but I have many gay/bi/trans friends. HOWEVER I have come to believe that children raised by two women or two men (in particular) are definitely at a disadvantage when compared to the traditional loving mother and father scenario.
Two gay men cannot ever give any child the mothering (YES - MOTHERING) he or she deserves as a birthright. They can only offer a compensatory substitute upbringing, full of love one would hope BUT totally lacking in vital mothering. Two gay men can offer love and security etc but they cannot ever adequately replace the physical and emotional presence of a loving mother. That is just a fact, like it or not.
Two 'mommies' might, you would think, work out but when children get to the age where they realise that their home situation is different to that of their peers they can come crashing down to earth. Particularly where they have been used as poster children, dressed in lesbian/gay propaganda t shirts,etc. They need a father. They deserve a father. Not two mothers. Two mothers can only ever be a second choice. The societal and social ideal for any child is two loving heterosexual parents.
Let's be honest, let's get real. This is the ideal. Less is, well, less. Two same sex parents can work yes but such a situation can never hope to rival that of a mother and a father who love each other. End of.
Only those with a vested interest could justify denial of this basic truth. I had a mother and a father. They are both gone now but I am the progeny of their merged DNA as is my big brother. We are blood kin. Naturally conceived and born. I am now very suspicious of sperm bank conception because a woman I know HATES men and is raising her SON to hate them despite being only to happy to use male sperm to conceive that son. Poor little lad. He is heading for one very screwed-up adulthood.
Buy beats Exponential hit
Buy beats Exponential hit Juegos gazette Contort shopping community jerkiness honorific
I don't think so.
I'm not for gay marriage but I don't think children in a homosexual home are at a disadvantage, in most things.
Granted, when mom and mom have to explain the birds and the bee's to son , or help daughter with boy problems, there might be some trouble there but, I don't think its anything they can't work around.
I draw my evidence from history. Through the ages there have been countless individuals raised in Monasteries or Nunneries who have come out just fine.
Are Children With Same Sex Parents at a Disadvantage?
Of course children with same sex parents would be at a disadvantage: First, embarrassment,
degradation, deprivation, humility, confusion, hurt, pain, shyness, hostility etc. Will the "Bible" be
thrown out. Vulnerability to pedophiles, etc. Why did the creator make man and woman. Men and
women with deviates natures could resort to pedophilia with the child... then what. I can see that
law makers (as we call them) are crazy/insane and have apathy towards their own human race .
Any sexual deviation is ABNORMAL and should not be placed upon innocent children. If there were
less human beings in the world it would be a much better place for all... and leave animals out of
the picture they are all absolutely normal when not interfered with by humans. I just love animals -
they are so pure. People should learn from animals, especially if they have problems with their life.
children of gay parents are most certainly at disadvantage
it is quite obvious and clear that children of same-sex couples are most certainly at a disadvantage. it is a shame that intolerant americans still exist to this day, but they do and will most certainly attempt to complicate the lives of said kids . that being said, are children of poor couples at a disadvantage? most certainly! and yet neither of these "disadvantages" should deem a parent incapable of raising a healthy individual.
Well They're Definitely Not at an Advantage!!
I grew up the oldest boy out of three, in a Midwest model American home with a mother and a father until the age of twelve. Up until then I believed everything was just as perfect and I would have to say that I was probably at an advantage over most of the other families I knew, simply because of the fact that we were all still a family.
One day my father caught my mother cheating on him with another female. Now, kudos to both of them because I will have to say they did one heck of a job keeping us three kids out of the mess that had been created. Of course, divorce followed and soon I watched our family crumble into pieces from that day forward. I knew what was going on, but I never brought it up. It was a little embarrassing, so as far as everyone else, I was just a good kid going through tough time at home.
Eventually, my mother came out to us and it was not different than it was before. For two-thirds of the time under my parents roof, everything was great. The last third was a mess!! Not because, she was gay, or even the fact that I was gay, it was the ugly, messy divorce. The odd thing was that my father never really met anyone until many years later, but my mother had a girlfriend who lived with her.
I am here to tell you now that homes with two parents, any parents whether they are gay, straight, blue or brown, are the ones at an advantage. For the most part I was better off living with my mother and her girlfriend than with my father, not because money , or lifestyle, or anything else. It was simply because of the single parent home versus the two parent home factor. It was hell going through all of that, and the only thing that put me at a disadvantage was the divorce.
Insider view....
Being brought up by two lesbian parents and being a boy with no male role model in my life (other than gay friends of my mom's) i would have to say that it does not put you at a disadvantage.
Kids will pick on you for a huge list of reasons. If that means i was saved from names such as 'big head' or 'four eyes' because children would choose to focus on the sexual orrientation of my parents, so be it.
Both my moms gave me love and attention and supported me through education , relationships and anything they could.
I must say that i am a very camp man but i harbor no homosexual desires, im completely straight. This is without any heterosexual influence.
Now im in my late teens , i didnt go to college , unfortunatly but instead i work in a large investment bank, earning as much as any graduate in my job.
In conclusion having gay parents hasnt affected me, i have a nice job, a beautifull girlfriend and im debt free. This is all the product of the so called 'broken home'
This blows my mind
I'll tell you what, the best thing that my parents ever did for me was get divorced, yes it was rough on my single mom and hard for me to comprehend, but they would have eventually killed each
(literally) had they stayed together. Something that cracks me up is a comment about kids with divorced parents never wishing that their parents had same sex partners...watching my dad be emotionally abusive to all his girlfriends and my mom be emotionally abused by all her boyfriends, in hindsight I bet had my parents had same sex relationships things would have gone a lot smoother. I think that might even be true of them today, watching them in their current relationships. I don't care where babies come from; what's most important is that they are loved when they get here. Whether you're gay, straight, bi-curious or a unicorn, if you are comfortable with who you are and you can pass that on to your kid, the lesson is not "be like me" the lesson is "be yourself". If two people who love each other are willing to invest positive time and energy into their children , it doesn't matter whether one is a man and the other a woman, a child just needs to be loved, respected and allowed to have a chance at a happy childhood. There are so many reasons why this argument is ridiculous...I could go on and on but I don't want to hog all the space.
My Questions for You:
*Do gay people really wish gay-dom on their children, knowing the adversity they may face in their future?
*Isn't being molested as a young person more likely to effect your sexuality (in any regard) in your future more so than having two loving parents who happen to be of the same sex?
* Do you think that adopted children are thinking "my parents are pushing their gay agenda down my throat and that is too heavy a burden for [me] to carry and it is in my opinion criminal" (according to Hope7) or do you think they are thinking "hey i have two parents who love me, awesome".....?
*Does the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" actually mean a bunch of same sex couples or does it really just mean a positive support system, made up of people who have the child's best interest in mind?
KIDS WITH SAME SEX PARENTS ARE CONFUSED
a basic tenet of education is to teach both what is and what is not. therefore, in order to grow up normally as an adult male, a boy needs to learn via observing his parents know how to be a man, and how not to be a woman. conversely, a girl in order for her to grow up normally needs to seeing how it is to become a woman, and how not to become a man.
it seems to me
like you strongly enforce gender roles. can a boy not be a stay at home father, while the mother goes out to work as the primary bread winner? people can act in whatever way they please, i promise you their gender will not change over night or any period of time.
confusion?
That is an interesting hypothesis... but the evidence does not support your claims, rather it shows that children in same sex families are as well adjusted as those in heterosexual families.
Right
The only way the child could get confused is if the parent's were not honest with the child about the situation... Haven't you ever seen "The Birdcage"?
Robin WIlliams
Yes, it is a movie I rather enjoy.
CB School teacher tells class, "it's ok to be gay"
http://judiwheeldon.blogspot.com/2009/08/council-bluffs-public-school-teacher.html
why not?
Why isn't it OK to be gay?
And
the teacher is right in his / her assertion that "it's ok to be gay". The only time it's not ok is when in the presence of the ignorant.
Why should it matter?
There are currently about half a million children in America's foster care system. Why deny any of these kids the love they'll receive from someone who wants to raise them? Love they may never have gotten had their biological parents kept them.
Other than the fact that they share the same reproductive organs, a gay couple is no different than a heterosexual couple.
It is interesting
that Florida has no problem with gay foster parents only with gay adoption . It's not about whats good for the child but, like gay marriage , being hung-up on a word.
don't be ridiculous
"a gay couple is not different than a heterosexual couple"???????As I see it the only difference is that the gay person has shunned and is unable to interact with the only other existing species of human on the earth. No different?????????l
you just proved his point!
as he stated, a gay couple is no different than a heterosexual. sorry "just a thought," but what you speak of is the way in which the couple is regarded. that is different from their inherent nature :)
species?
“As I see it the only difference is that the gay person has shunned and is unable to interact with the only other existing species of human on the earth. No different?????????l”
First… in what way has a ‘gay’ person shunned anyone by being gay? Can you describe exactly how not sleeping with someone is shunning them?
Second… What other species? Men and women are members of the same species, H.Sapiens
Gay men are still men
I think too often we fail to recognize that two men, whether they are gay or straight, are still two men. I know many gay men who have characteristics that I view as inherently male (I.E., men are more visual than women. It doesn't matter what sex they are attracted to).
This means that two men, no matter how accommodating they are to their children , will most likely not be able to provide everything a mother would. I'm not sure what that means for the future, but to say that a child raised by two women or two men is equal to a child being raised by a man and a woman is just not true. There are certain gender characteristics that are immune to sexual preference.
Is the open mind a disadvantage?
If were going to say having same sex perents is a disadvantage you might as well bubble rap your self in plastic and never leave the house.
If you present the agrument that children will get teased by having same-sex parents your right, the simple and blind view of socierty is to not except anything that is too different. But as children we have to learn how socierty functions, whats the different young or later on when they dont follow the conformity of high school life.
Yes the child of a family with homosexual parents may get teased but dont we all. Children have been taught buy there parent to reject to anything they dont understand. The children that do the teasing have been raised in familys no better then a same-sex family because they are already at a young age taught to disriminate.
Children from homosexual familys arn't disadvantaged, they have the amzing choice to think freely about the world. They have the habit to think about thinks before they judge.
Children Learn What They See
I have no objection to same sex marriage. People should be left alone and be allowed to do whatever they think will make them happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
I do, however, strongly oppose adoption by same sex couples. In that case, you're taking a unique individual and placing that individual in a situation in which they have no say in the matter.
I'll put this question to those with an opposing view: How many of you have ever regretted NOT being raised by a same sex couple? If you were making the choice for yourself, is it what you would have chosen?
My parents were divorced when I was 7. There were many times growing up I wished they had stayed together. Never once growing up did it even cross my mind to wish either would find a member of their own sex so the two could raise me together. In fact, I wasn't all that crazy about most of their opposite sex partners.
With that said, the greatest advantage comes from growing up in a loving home, with the two people who gave you life in the first place. Anything else is a disadvantage by definition. From there, the argument becomes one of assiging a value to the degree of disadvantage. That's no easy task and involves infinite shades of gray.
Never the less, if it's possible to identify the best solution, it should also be possible to say the farther alternate and lesser solutions deviate from the ideal model, the greater the resulting disadvantage.
You can say society should be more accepting of alternate lifestyles, and no doubt it should. That does not change the fact that it does not. You can say a child's peers shouldn't haze them for being part of an alternate lifestyle, and no doubt they should not. That doesn't change the fact that they do.
It is irrefutable that it is only possible to produce children through heterosexual means. Millions of years of evolution has defined heterosexuality as having the highest advantage for every life form higher than bacteria. In the game of survival of the fittest, that's what works best. A child raised with the tools to form a lasting bond with members of the opposite sex has the greatest advantage, by the only definition that matters. It is what works best in terms of both survival of the individual and of the species.
hey don one question
i read some time ago of a Japanese firm's attempts to combine the genetic material of both same-sex parents [male or female] in a viable egg. if they were to succeed and it was possible for same-sex couples to father/ mother a baby to which they both "contributed life," would you consider condoning parenthood for these parents?
A more interesting question
The gay issues aside, or included, how about a person raising their own clone? No genetic manipulation, just a carbon copy?
About the best I can say is I'm undecided, and there aren't many topics I'm undecided on. Ask me in two hundred years when more information is available. It's an interesting question, though.
Gosh
Paragraph by paragraph all your staements are naive assumptions which are in addition very very unfactual!
What say do kids born to heterosexual couples have over who their parents are?
People dont regret being raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents, people regret being raised by unfit parents, which come in both heterosexual and homosexual packages. Ask a lot of the happy thousands of kids and adults raised by homosexual couples if theyd prefer to have been raised by heterosexual couples and the answer will be different from your assumption.
Your parents having divorced when you wree so little is regrettable, but what you really wished for at that age is the idea of a happy loving couple to raise you as you have no idea what the reality of that union would have been. You could have been raised by a bickering always-at-each-other's-throats couple and you would have begged your parents to divorce under those circumstances.
People who give you life in the first place are not guaranteed to build a happy home and living with them in an unhappy home is a huge disadvantage and anythiong else becomes an advantage.
a heterosexual loving couple is nomore of an ideal than a homosexual loving couple, this is purely a matter of different strokes for different folks, lets open our minds and thinking a bit here.
Some kids and folks are nasty, it does not mean we should ban interracial, huge age gap and homosexual marriages and families as long as both parties involved in the home building and parenting are adult and of sound mental health .
U say "It is irrefutable that it is only possible to produce children through heterosexual means. Millions of years of evolution has defined heterosexuality as having the highest advantage for every life form higher than bacteria. In the game of survival of the fittest, that's what works best"...and I say take time to pull out a scientific article or watch a documentary or two on homosexuality and parenting in the animal kingdom and you will see that homosexual parenting in the wild is not only happening but is quite widespread in some species and that but same-sex parents in some species have exhibited a higher frequency of raising their young to adulthood as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/more_just_bromance_same_sex_animal_behavior_pretty_common_says_study
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1288633.ece
Poor arguments
Next you'll be telling us we should all catch bugs in a web and eat them because it works for spiders.
Men and women are not the same, politically correctness to the contrary. Millions of years of evolution have caused men and women to adapt to the best model to preserve the species. One is not less than the other, but they are different. It takes the combined natural adaptations of both to produce an individual that is able to survive and reproduce in turn.
You can argue until hell freezed over but you will never legislate natural law out of existance. Yeah, maybe it'd be better if pi was equal to 3 instead of 3.145926....., but wishful thinking will never make it so. It is what is and we are what we are. I do not mean to be unkind, but homosexuality is not a survival characteristic, it's an evolutionary dead end. You can argue that other alternatives to the traditional family unit are equally contra survival, perhaps even with some small merit, but that doesn't change the fact that the traditional family unit provides the best possible benefits to children .
Children are not pets . I can't even begin to express how low my opinion is of anyone who would use children as bargaining chips as a way to legitimize their own lifestyle choices. If you want a pet, get a puppy or a kitten. Better yet, start with a nice house plant and if it's still alive after a year, get a fish or a hamster. With experience, you may eventually become competent to care for a critter as complex as a baby cat or dog. The big difference between a pet kitten and a human child is with the kitten, you are not responsible for teaching it everything it will need to know to survive for the 50 plus years it will live after leaving your care.
I have a high opinion of free will even though I don't always agree with the way it is exercised. If you're gay, I fully respect your right to be left alone to make the best life you can for yourself. The moment you say you should be allowed to impose your will on another, you will find me in adament opposition to your position. Do what you like as long as you do me no harm in the process, and leave children alone.
men v. women
there is actually VERY little difference between men and women , aside from the behaviors imposed upon them by culture. sure we have different body parts and our brains operate slightly differently, but these differences are VERY slight. physical strength aside, there is very little difference in propensities between the genders.
Re: Mean Vs Women
What are you talking about? Men are very different than women . They are equal but they are different. They have different hormones that course through their body, heck we even have structural differences in our feet. Our brains are even different. A women speech centre in the brain is on both hemispheres of the brain. Because women do not receive a testosterone bath while in the uterus that severs the majority of connections between the right side and the left. And there actually differences in our behaviours. As babies girl and boy develop very differently. And guess what babies have not been, as you are proposing, brain washing by our culture.
hormones
There are differences between men and women , but much of the psychological differences are cultural in origin (not biological).
There is a great diversity among the personality of men and women, so a blanket "men are X and women are Y" is not accurate.
There is no reason why two women or two men cannot raise happy, healthy, well adjusted children (as is shown by studies done on gay parents).
pets
“I do not mean to be unkind, but homosexuality is not a survival characteristic, it's an evolutionary dead end.”
Actually there is evidence to the contrary. Male penguins raising a chick together are a good example of how homosexual parings can promote the survival of the species. This lends credence to the idea that homosexuals help with population survival buy providing additional caretakers for the young while not contributing young of their own.
“You can argue that other alternatives to the traditional family unit are equally contra survival, perhaps even with some small merit, but that doesn't change the fact that the traditional family unit provides the best possible benefits to children .”
That argument has been made before… and as before I have to ask what evidence you base that assumption on?
Furthermore children adopted by homosexuals are already without a ‘traditional family unit’, and so all that really needs to be shown is that being raised by a homosexual couple is better then being left in foster care.
“The big difference between a pet kitten and a human child is with the kitten, you are not responsible for teaching it everything it will need to know to survive for the 50 plus years it will live after leaving your care.”
So couples need to be careful when considering having children? No part of this entire rant applies exclusively to homosexuals (which is to say it is a statement that could be made to any couple regardless of the couples gender).
“The moment you say you should be allowed to impose your will on another, you will fnd me in adament opposition to your position.”
How is this imposing anyone’s will on you?
“Do what you like as long as you do me no harm in the process, and leave children alone.”
So children should not be placed in potentially loving homes?
re: Pets
Actually there is evidence to the contrary. Male penguins raising a chick together are a good example of how homosexual parings can promote the survival of the species. This lends credence to the idea that homosexuals help with population survival buy providing additional caretakers for the young while not contributing young of their own
Are talk about when the female leave the group to go the oceans to fish for the young. Then yes then males do all look after the offsprings together. BUT when the female come back the family unit is restored. And the mother and father look after the young. So what your saying is if more than one male looks after an offspring it is evidence of homosexuality . WOW that is awesome, awesome scentific reasoning.
Roy and Silo
Actually I'm referring to the penguins at the New York zoo called Roy ans Silo
{ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html }
Another interesting bit about homosexuality in the animal kingdom was in Seed where they mention that homosexual behavior has been documented in ~450 different vertebrate species... including big horn sheep, giraffes, dolphins , killer whales, grey whaled, manatees, bonobos, macaques...
{ http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom / }
The focus of the article is Dr. Joan Roughgarden, who posits that homosexual activity presents an evolutionary advantage among social species... strengthening the bond between individual members. A rather interesting hypothesis!
Dead conversation
RE: "So children should not be placed in potentially loving homes?"
Children should be in homes where they have some chance to grow up normal. If you want a gay penguin for a pet, go for it. You have absolutely no right to impose your will and lifestyle on an innocent child. Your lame rap about how it should be okay because other people who aren't gay screw up children's lives is disgusting. Two wrongs don't make a right. My last post on the topic.
some final thoughts...
"Children should be in homes where they have some chance to grow up normal."
Yes they should, and evidence suggests that children raised by homosexuals are no worse off the those raised by heterosexuals. Further, as I stated above, a child adopted by a homosexual couple is already one that will not have a 'traditional' upbringing.
"Your lame rap about how it should be okay because other people who aren't gay screw up children's lives is disgusting"
I'm not sure where you are getting this. All evidence shows that homosexual couples are as caring and supportive as heterosexual couples.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
Quite true... a child denied the family that that were born into is further wronged by being denied a loving home just because the couple is homosexual.
Got Research? Part 1
"Anything else is a disadvantage by definition."
Cool. Got research to back that one up? Because I have tons that tell you that you're wrong.
Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson. Child Development, 2004, Volume 75, Number 6, Pages 1886-1898.
“The small body of research that has focused on adolescent offspring of families headed by same-sex couples includes Huggins's (1989) study of 36 adolescents, ages 13 to 19, 18 with divorced heterosexual and 18 with divorced lesbian mothers. In this study, Huggins reported no differences in adolescent self-esteem as a function of mothers' sexual orientation. Daughters of lesbian mothers also had higher self-esteem if their mother had a romantic partner who lived in the home, if their fathers did not display negative attitudes about the mother's sexual orientation, and if they learned of their mother's sexual orientation at an early age. Huggins also reported that one adolescent with a heterosexual mother, but none with the lesbian mothers, identified as nonheterosexual.” p. 1887
“O'Connor (1993) studied 11 young men and women, ages 16 to 23, who were the children of divorced or separated lesbian mothers. Qualitative findings suggested that participants expressed strong love, loyalty, and protectiveness toward their mothers, and a desire for others to understand the benefits of having a lesbian mother, such as increased sensitivity to prejudice. Informants, however, described worries about losing friends or being judged by others and their need to keep their mothers' sexual orientation a secret from at least some people external to the family.” p. 1887
“Gershon, Tschann, and Jemerin (1999) studied self-esteem, perception of stigma, and coping skills among adolescent offspring of lesbian mothers. They conducted interviews with 76 adolescents, ages 11 to 18, and examined the impact of societal factors on self-esteem. The participants had either been born to women who identified as lesbians (25 adolescents) or had been born in the context of their mother's earlier heterosexual marriage (51 adolescents). Gershon et al. found that adolescents who perceived more stigma related to having a lesbian mother had lower self-esteem in five of seven areas, including social acceptance, self-worth, behavioral conduct, physical appearance, and close friendship. They hypothesized that the presence of various types of coping skills would moderate this relationship between perceived stigma and self-esteem. However, their results showed that only good decision making had a moderating effect: In the face of high perceived stigma, adolescents possessing better decision-making skills had higher self-concept in the area of behavioral conduct.”
“A slightly older population was studied in Tasker and Golombok's (1997) longitudinal study of young adult offspring of lesbian mothers. Forty-six young adults, ages 17 to 35, were interviewed in this follow-up to Golombok et al.'s (1983) study of children raised in divorced lesbian mother or divorced heterosexual mother families. In this generally well-adjusted sample, young men and women who were raised by lesbian mothers were no more likely than those raised by heterosexual mothers to experience depression or anxiety. Adult children from lesbian mother families were also no more likely than those from other families to have sought professional help for psychiatric problems. They reported having close friendships during adolescence and were no more likely to remember peer group hostility than were those from other families. Offspring of lesbian mothers were also no more likely to report same-sex sexual attraction or a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity than were those from heterosexual families. They were, however, more likely to have considered a gay or lesbian relationship as a possibility for themselves and to have been involved in a same-sex relationship, suggesting that although sexual attraction and identity may not be related to parental sexual orientation, the likelihood of considering or entering a same-sex relationship may be associated with parents' sexual orientation.” p. 1887
the verdict is actually still out...
Wainwright's study did not control for divorce. Moreover, the study did not provide a way for students to report that they were living in a shared custody situation, so the study discarded the responses of students that reported both living in a same-sex household and residing with a father.
This should raise significant concerns, as should the comparison of single lesbian mothers to divorced heterosexual mothers as in Huggins & Tasker and Golombok.
O'Connor & Gershon, Tschann, and Jemerin really isn't relevant to the topic being dicussed. (eg whether same-sex parenting puts kids at a disadvantage)
It also doesn't address questions that can't be answered by a study: eg do children of lesbians ever wonder who their actual dad is? and is it fair to intentionally create a kid that will never know his or her father/mother?
Got Research? Part 2
“The results of the present study, which is the first based on a large national sample of adolescents living with same-sex couples, revealed that on nearly all of a large array of variables related to school and personal adjustment, adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show favorable adjustment when they perceived more caring from adults and when parents described close relationships with them. Thus, as has been reported in studies of children with lesbian mothers (e.g., Chan et al., 1998), it was the qualities of adolescent-parent relationships rather than the structural features of families (e.g., same vs. opposite-sex parents) that were significantly associated with adolescent adjustment (Golombok, 1999; Patterson, 2000).” p. 1895
“Across a diverse array of assessments, we found that the personal, family, and school adjustment of adolescents living with same-sex parents did not differ from that of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Consistent with the findings of earlier research (e.g., Huggins, 1989), we found that adolescent self-esteem did not vary as a function of family type. In addition, we found no differences as a function of family type in measures of personal adjustment, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety; in measures of school adjustment, such as academic achievement, trouble in school, or feelings of school connectedness; or in measures of the qualities of family relationships, such as autonomy, care from adults and peers, neighborhood integration, or parental warmth. The clarity of results from this broad array of assessments strengthens our confidence that adolescents living with same-sex parents were functioning well in many domains, both at home and at school.” p. 1895
Furthermore, consider the following:
Mental Health Issues in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities. Eds. Billy E. Jones and Marjorie J. Hill. American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, D.C., 2002.
“Hopefully, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know that there is no one lesbian or one gay lifestyle or point of view on matters that are important to the parenting of children. Therefore, any lesbian or gay parent must be given the benefit of an individualized assessment as it relates to her or his lifestyle and point of view and how these might or might not impact on the parent's ability to offer the child permanence, stability, a moral environment, guidance, and a generally healthy upbringing. Of course, to perform such an assessment, the psychiatrist must be able to integrate accurate knowledge and a sound understanding of parenting and the needs of developing children with an equally accurate knowledge and a sound understanding of gay and lesbian parents. Similarly, when testifying in child custody and visitation proceedings involving a gay or lesbian parent, psychiatrists must help the court understand that there is enormous diversity within the gay and lesbian community, that the testimony being given is based on an individualized assessment of the particular parent, and that the opinions rendered are supported by the information gathered during the process of the evaluation and by a well-informed body of knowledge that has been used to interpret that information.” p. 46
Got Research? Part 3
Furthermore, your idea that children should be left to their biological parents (while holding no water) is moot in a discussion of -adoption-. The children, if put up for adoption, will presumably -not- be raised by their biological parents.
So let's see what evidence you have.
"How many of you have ever regretted NOT being raised by a same sex couple? If you were making the choice for yourself, is it what you would have chosen?"
In light of the evidence I presented above, that argument is equivalent to any of the following arguments:
Have you regretted not being of the opposite gender?
Have you regretted not being born ten seconds after your actual birth?
Have you regretted not being of a different race?
Have you regretted not being born ten miles away?
You get my point. The argument you presented in that quote is moot, because (1) one can never make such a judgment unless compelling scientific evidence has arisen (which has not been provided); and because (2) aspirations of an individual don't translate to aspirations for the society.
"You can say a child's peers shouldn't haze them for being part of an alternate lifestyle, and no doubt they should not. That doesn't change the fact that they do."
So you would punish the child and the child's parents for an injustice committed by -someone else-? That's harsh.
Your Citations Have No Statistical Significance
First of all, these groups are too small to have any statistical meaning. Second, there is no indication of how these so called studies were conducted, how participants were chosen, how questions were phrased, or answers were graded, or even the least indication of anything resembling a double blind. Among other major considerations, what passes for a control group is children from broken homes. Give me a break!!!
RE: "So you would punish the child and the child's parents for an injustice committed by -someone else-?"
Is English your second language? Your own quotes refute your position and show that children raised by same sex couples are at least as screwed up in the head, and likely more so, than children raised in broken homes. I don't know how you define "disadvantage", but this clearly is one, which happens to be the essence of the topic in the first place.
No one is talking about "punishing" anyone. If you are part of a same sex couple, you are quite obviously well aware that union WILL NOT PRODUCE CHILDREN. You are evidently of the view that human children should be a free market item of commerce, as available as a puppy at a pound. Even adoption of puppies these days is subject to a certain amount of screening by the better run shelters. Do you have a fenced yard? Do you have a stable home? Are you tempermentally suited to caring for a puppy? Etc.
As stated previously, a stable, opposite sex parent home, is the ideal environment to raise children. Your three post rant shows nothing to refute that claim. That the researchers you cite won't waste their time trying to compare same sex couples to that model speaks for itself. They know better, and if you are at all honest, so do you.
If you're gay, accept yourself for what you are and try to live the happiest and best life you can on that basis. If you can do that, my hat's off to you. If you're insecure in what you are, and believe you can prop that up by dragging an innocent child into the mix, you are selfish, irresponsible and unworthy of respect. Anyone who thinks they should be able to buy a kid in order to feed their ego is not a good person.
congratulations
You have stated the truth and all the whining can't change it. Leave children out of trying to defend lifestyle choices..
bully
“You have stated the truth and all the whining can't change it. Leave children out of trying to defend lifestyle choices…”
So children should be prevented from entering into a loving home where they will be cared for just because some people will act like jerks?
Which studies in particular...
Gershon et al. and the main one, Wainright et al. (though the Gershon one ... the way it was cited in the study confuses me, and may also be, as you said, a "broken" home, and the Wainright one -does- have forty-four participants).
Statistical Universes
RE: "the Wainright one -does- have forty-four participants"
These so called "studies", as described, amount to polls. Split into two groups, your margin of error is on the order of plus or minus 25% for each group. In other words, comparing the two groups would involve potential errors of close to 50%. It's not a study that can be taken seriously, or cited with any credibility.
A serious study would involve several thousand participants, which would give you a margin of error in the 3% range, with a level of confidence around 95%. I'd also argue that you'd want your participants to be more in the 25 to 40 age range, rather than teenagers. At that age, they'd have more perspective, be less succeptable to slanted surveys, and have more life experience to draw from.
Of course, propagandists don't do serious studies.
Statistics, indeed.
You -still- have produced no statistics of your own, however, so it seems that until more statistics are accrued, we are at an impasse in this line of arguing.
"Is English your second language?"
"First of all, these groups are too small to have any statistical meaning. Second, there is no indication of how these so called studies were conducted, how participants were chosen, how questions were phrased, or answers were graded, or even the least indication of anything resembling a double blind. Among other major considerations, what passes for a control group is children from broken homes. Give me a break!!!"
Two points: (1) Just because I didn't place the entire study in my post you presume that the studies weren't controlled for many variables? (2) I haven't seen you provide anything other than speculative reasoning to back up your point.
"No one is talking about "punishing" anyone."
I was relating this to the idea that children belonging to same-sex couples would be bullied, and I thought that your post was using this to create an argument.
"As stated previously, a stable, opposite sex parent home, is the ideal environment to raise children. Your three post rant shows nothing to refute that claim. That the researchers you cite won't waste their time trying to compare same sex couples to that model speaks for itself."
Except... they did? I don't understand how you think they would have come up with those numbers without comparison to opposite-sex couples within the same community at the same time raising similar children, etc.
In Harm's Way
RE: "I was relating this to the idea that children belonging to same-sex couples would be bullied, and I thought that your post was using this to create an argument."
It is an argument. If you know there's a war, you don't send innocents into the war zone. If an adult, of his or her own free will, wants to become martyrs for a cause, that's their call to make. I'll refrain from expressing an unvarnished view of what I think about adults who martyr children as their proxies.