New study on gay parenting. All is not fine after all.

Quote from bonkman : Excellent op-ed on the importance of this study. [scientificamerican.com]

Excellent addition to the study itself.

The whole article is going to end up on the forum

Quote : What we have to remember is that there is a big difference between an empirical finding and a policy recommendation. Data can be used to show many things we might not like, including differences between groups. But would we, or should we, legislate based on that? Infringe on anyone’s rights? To do so would be to reduce an individual and his/her potential to the group he/she happened to be born into. To place limits on a person’s rights based on incidental factors beyond his/her control should be recognized as bigotry. We don’t need to reject data to make that political point. In fact, to feel we need to refute unlikeable data buys into a dangerous premise. The impulse to reject findings we don’t agree with is tacitly conceding that this kind of data can legislate rights, so to make sure we maintain the ones we want, it’s best to hide the findings that might undercut them. That admission is deeply problematic – for science because it leads us down a road of stifling findings that don’t resonate with our moral preferences, and for politics because it says our nation’s values on who should be able to have children are not founded in basic rights, but instead subject to the results of a single social science study. Neither is a road we should feel comfortable treading on.

I'm far from being an expert, but I suspect that gay couples do not have the pick of the litter so to speak, when adopting.

Also isn't there a link between drug and alcohol use among kids and their bio parents? If so, those using, may be a product of their bio parents not of their adoptive parents.

Another point is that those that adopt older children are getting a different child than they would have if they had that child at birth. Was that taken into account in the study?

Quote from trancepire : Thanks for sharing, bonk; definitely worth the read. This bit deserves quoting:

That was an excellent application of Kharvel's Second Law.

Quote from bonkman : Excellent op-ed on the importance of this study. [scientificamerican.com]

Yeah, I read that too, but I think that the author missed the bigger picture.

1. Children of homosexuals typically are worse off than even in single parent homes.

2. The study was random, and reflected how homosexuals typically raise children without being cherry picked by an agenda based research team. Sorry, no college educated lesbians here with master's degrees. It's an even playing field; a reflection of reality, which has no controls save one's own discipline and perseverance,.

3. It's only an initial study. Dr. Mark Regnerus plans on doing a more thorough, follow up study. (kinda like Dr. Robert Spitzer wanted to do before he got blackballed by the APA)

However, what doesn't really surprise me is that everyone was so worried about how this reflected upon gays adopting children that everyone missed this significant statistic: (ever notice how those that tend to lean left always seem to miss important details?)

Is in a same-sex romantic relationship: Intact bio-family:0.04 Lesbian mother:0.07 Gay father:0.12 Adopted by strangers:0.23 divorced late:0.05 Stepfamily0.13* Single parent:0.03 All other:0.02

If we go by this, then adopted children have almost twice as much chance of having a gay relationship, or even being gay entirely than a child raised by a gay father, nearly 3 times as likely than children with a lesbian mother, and 5 times as likely as the intact bio-family.

The lowest percentage is the children with a single parent and all other.

That's way too high of a statistic to be just a coincidence or a result of biology. There could be a definite correlation between the 'Big Brother Effect', adopted children, and homosexuality.

The 'Big Brother Effect' basically says that 15-29% of male homosexuals have big brothers. If they are a 3rd or 4th son, the chances of them being gay become even greater.

Now view this article about youngest child syndrome: http://www.mychildhealth.net/youn...ality.html

It basically states that the youngest child gets more support and nurturing than the older siblings do. The siblings actually help in giving the youngest such support.

Now view this article about adopted children: http://www.psychologytoday.com/bl...opted-ones

This article states that adopted children often get more nurturing and support than natural children.

Now, take the statistic that a single parent home is the 2nd to lowest. A a single parent probably doesn't have time to nurture or support the child as does the adoptive and bio family. So, following that logic, it's no real surprise that single parents have the lowest numbers of homosexual activity.

So, if we take these studies and statistics into consideration (which no gay-agenda activist would ever possibly do), it's highly likely that homosexuality has a psychological origin and not a biological one after all. As I've been saying all along.

Of course, even I'll admit that further studies into this exact find would have to be conducted. And with the APA run by pro-gay activists, that'll happen the day next to never.

In any case, it's still evidence which supports my conclusions. Hell, the entire article is evidence which supports my conclusions.

Quote from charles052 : In any case, it's still evidence which supports my conclusions. Hell, the entire article is evidence which supports my conclusions.

The *entire* article? You sure about that?

As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive.

....

While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.

You sure you made it that far through?

Quote from charles052 : The most robust study on children of gay parents has been done: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scie...9X12000610 And the results are that children of gay parents typically do worse than even children of single parents in many categories such as frequency of drug use, instances of arrest, welfare, employment, etc...

I have two questions:

1) How do you know it's the most robust study done on the subject? 3000 subjects indicates it's not. Which authorities agree with your opinion?

2) In the 1960s, children of mixed race families in the US were found to have higher rates of criminal behavior and psychological problems. Do you think something similar is going on with gay parent families today? If not, why not?

I am not sure why this surprises anyone. Homosexuality is abnormal. Whether it is accepted or not by society is beside the point. There is no way a child could get a "normal" upbringing with abnormal parents. I am against allowing homosexuals to adopt children. I have no issue if they want to have and raise their own biological children but they should be prohibited from adoption.

Quote from charles052 : Yeah, I read that too, but I think that the author missed the bigger picture.

I don't think she's the one who missed the bigger picture

Quote : In any case, it's still evidence which supports my conclusions. Hell, the entire article is evidence which supports my conclusions.

See?

if the study is accurate, we should be asking ourselves how we as a culture can change and come together and be more supportive of gay couples and their children to ensure that the children have a better life. nothing else really needs to be said on the matter.

Quote from thikthird : if the study is accurate, we should be asking ourselves how we as a culture can change and come together and be more supportive of gay couples and their children to ensure that the children have a better life. nothing else really needs to be said on the matter.

Or we should ask as a society, why we think it's acceptable to live a lifestyle that , at the very least, is biologically abnormal.
Even if you take the religious aspect out of it, how one can promote something that is so obviously incompatible with life, is amazing.

Quote from sanfran22 : Or we should ask as a society, why we think it's acceptable to live a lifestyle that , at the very least, is biologically abnormal?

can you define 'biologically normal'?

Quote from vivahate : can you define 'biologically normal'?

It's pretty apparent that men and women go together. To think otherwise is crazy. This world would cease to exist in 100 or so years if everyone were gay. Is that a sound model? No, it's someone wanting to do whatever they want regardless of the outcome.

Quote from sanfran22 : It's pretty apparent that men and women go together. To think otherwise is crazy. This world would cease to exist in 100 or so years if everyone were gay. Is that a sound model? No, it's someone wanting to do whatever they want regardless of the outcome.

surely there is some middle ground between everyone being gay, and no one being gay?

Quote from thikthird : surely there is some middle ground between everyone being gay, and no one being gay?

You missed the point.