Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Homosexual Families Be Able To Adopt?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 11:55:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A homosexual couple walks into an adoption agency. They are both fine examples of parents. Should they have the opportunity to adopt? I am not privy to the actual laws regarding this, I will assume that, since it's so hard to adopt even for hetero couples, homo couples are never considered. That sounds like a safe assumption. But either way we can argue the point.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 12:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is probably the most complicated issue modern society has to deal with. Honestly, I'd subject people to a full psychological examination before I'd go discriminating against them based on sexuality; but then there is a rather sensible case to be made for male and female role models both playing crucial parts in a child's most rewarding upbringing. I'm not too up to date on the studies, to be honest.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 12:51:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plainly, yes. There are too many children raised by the system who grow up facing difficulties resulting from that system. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's definitely a problem with the system itself (as, although there are issues that surely need to be addressed, there will always be problems with accommodations that are meant to be temporary and bare minimum), and instead, the dearth of adoptive parents.

I think any willing adopter should be under consideration, despite their age (past adulthood), religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, etc.

What I would like to know is what a First World country with recurring recessions, a broken school system, and endemic violence is doing worrying about gay people.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 12:58:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 12:51:18 PM, Such wrote:
Plainly, yes. There are too many children raised by the system who grow up facing difficulties resulting from that system. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's definitely a problem with the system itself (as, although there are issues that surely need to be addressed, there will always be problems with accommodations that are meant to be temporary and bare minimum), and instead, the dearth of adoptive parents.

I think any willing adopter should be under consideration, despite their age (past adulthood), religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, etc.

What I would like to know is what a First World country with recurring recessions, a broken school system, and endemic violence is doing worrying about gay people.

Might as well be tossing children overboard in trying to reduce weight in a sinking ship, dude. It is, and should be, a delicate issue.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 1:15:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 11:55:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
A homosexual couple walks into an adoption agency. They are both fine examples of parents. Should they have the opportunity to adopt? I am not privy to the actual laws regarding this, I will assume that, since it's so hard to adopt even for hetero couples, homo couples are never considered. That sounds like a safe assumption. But either way we can argue the point.

The problem with this is that you assume homosexuals tend to be fine examples of parents. However, arguably the best study on the issue just came out. It had a large enough sample size of gay parents (500)--and other than Allen et al and Rosenfeld 2010--had the largest sample size of gay families. And the issue with Allen and Rosenfeld is that they had to indirectly guess orientation. The Williams Institute estimated as much as 20% of the homosexuals in their samples were actually not gay. Back to the study. So the study found children raised in homosexual households had higher emotional disturbance rates. When stability and such was controlled for, although the results were smaller (abstract says it is 0, but in the study he says it is larger. You can get the study for free here http://papers.ssrn.com...) the result was children of gay parents were still 1.5 times more likely to suffer emotional disturbance.

Further, I see no reason stability should be controlled for. Although the data on gay men is scant, a wealth of evidence suggests lesbian relationships are less stable and their lifestyles would harm children (http://lr.avemarialaw.edu...). If instability is part of the homosexual lifestyle, it is part of the reason they would harm children. This also has argumentation as to why stability should not be controlled for (http://www.markregnerus.com...).

So, really, assuming that most homosexuals are going to be as good as heterosexual parents is completely false.

Should it be legal? To this I am undecided. Even though homosexuals are, on aggregate, worse parents, I don't see why that should bar them from being parents. I think if both a heterosexual and a homosexual couple want the same child, heterosexuals should be preferred. However, if a child is bound to grow up in an orphanage or foster care system, they would likely do better in a homosexual household. And there are, in fact, *some* homosexuals who could raise good children. So legal? Sure. But heterosexuals should be preferred. I am undecided, though, as there has been no research comparing children raised in an orphanage compared to those raised by homosexuals. So I cannot empirically make a decision. Plus, lesbians (in vitro fertilization) can raise children biologically related to them. So, at least one of the parents will be biologically related.

Further, legalization of this also begs the question: how much good would occur? Only about 1-3% of the population is gay, and of that, very few choose to raise children. And of those, how many raise children they produced in former heterosexual unions (in the closet), and how many were adopted/fertilized after their homosexual union began. So any good created by legalization of gay adoption would likely be very small, maybe even immeasurable. But the potential harms of legalization could outweigh the benefits...

So I am undecided. As of right now, I would say yes. But reluctantly so. And homosexuals who have kids from previous unions or have them already, if it was banned, should NOT have them taken away.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 1:22:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 12:07:30 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is probably the most complicated issue modern society has to deal with. Honestly, I'd subject people to a full psychological examination before I'd go discriminating against them based on sexuality; but then there is a rather sensible case to be made for male and female role models both playing crucial parts in a child's most rewarding upbringing. I'm not too up to date on the studies, to be honest.

The 'good' studies tend to show homosexuals raise children worse (Allen et al. 2012, Allen 2013, Regnerus 2012a 2012b, Potter 2012, Sullins 2014). For the most part, studies claiming "no difference" rely upon weak methodology (Lerner and Nagai 2001, Allen 2010, Allen 2013). Only a few exceptions--Rosenfeld 2010--use large random samples and find no difference. But Rosenfeld's study is weak as at least 20% of its gay sample is not homosexual, and their analysis controls for many of the wrong factors, leaving factors it should have controlled for uncontrolled (Allen et al. 2012).

You need a sample size of 500 in order to avoid type 2 errors (Nock 2001). Only 4 studies--Allen 2013, Allen et al. 2012, Rosenfeld 2010, and Sullins 2014 do this. Of those, 3 find negative externalities in relationship to gay parenting.

Of the studies claiming no difference (see Stacey and Biblarz 2010), the mean sample size is 39. That is it. 39. But the authors claim there is convincing proof children raised by homosexuals are not different. uh huh... And the study ignores other studies--albiet relying on non-random samples--using decently sized sample sizes and finding differences (Sirota 2010, Sarantakos 1996, Sarantakos 2000). The authors (Stacey and Biblarz 2010) note how they wish there was research on gay fathers... Sirota was ONLY on gay fathers, and it meets their inclusion criteria AND had better methodology (though still weak) when compared to what they were citing. And what did it find? Children raised by gay men had attachment issues. Yep. Excluded probably due to bias--the authors of the review are lesbian!

Marks 2012 reviews the APA statement, finding that its conclusion of no difference is bunk.

So most studies show no difference. But they are flawed. The best studies--with one exception--also finds negative differences.

Hope that helped.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 1:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also note the review studies cited by the media miss what was termed as the "best" studies by Lerner and Nagai and Marks 2012.

Sarantakos 1996: Children raised by homosexuals do worse in school
Cameron and Cameron 1996: Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay and more likely to have sexual relationships with their parents. First study to use a random sample.
Cameron and Cameron 2002: Children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexuals.
Schumm 2010: Adds data do Cameron and Cameron 2002. Also uses a much more diverse data set. Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be homosexual.
Sirota 2007: Daughters of gay fathers have attachment issues
Schumm 2006: Reviews the research, noting how the studies are deficient. The gay reviews never include research proving that the research is inadequate.

2012 is really when the tide turned. Regnerus came out. Criticized, sure, but he responded. He also got a lot of support (Schumm 2012, Amato 2012, Johnson et al. 2012, Marks 2012). And his work was replicated by Allen et al. 2013, Allen 2014, Potter 2012, and Sullins 2014. All using random samples. Can all of the actual studies using good methodology be wrong, and the bad ones be correct? Maybe, but obviously unlikely. And remember these studies also were parallel to the earlier studies above, which the pro-gay academics and media ignore.

Indeed, there is also a publication bias (Schumm 2008. Date may be a bit off, but it was published in PR). So, really, the empirical evidence is pretty obvious that gay parents raise worse children... But I think it should be legal as the alternative is worse.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 1:56:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 1:30:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also note the review studies cited by the media miss what was termed as the "best" studies by Lerner and Nagai and Marks 2012.

Sarantakos 1996: Children raised by homosexuals do worse in school
Cameron and Cameron 1996: Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay and more likely to have sexual relationships with their parents. First study to use a random sample.
Cameron and Cameron 2002: Children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexuals.
Schumm 2010: Adds data do Cameron and Cameron 2002. Also uses a much more diverse data set. Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be homosexual.
Sirota 2007: Daughters of gay fathers have attachment issues
Schumm 2006: Reviews the research, noting how the studies are deficient. The gay reviews never include research proving that the research is inadequate.

2012 is really when the tide turned. Regnerus came out. Criticized, sure, but he responded. He also got a lot of support (Schumm 2012, Amato 2012, Johnson et al. 2012, Marks 2012). And his work was replicated by Allen et al. 2013, Allen 2014, Potter 2012, and Sullins 2014. All using random samples. Can all of the actual studies using good methodology be wrong, and the bad ones be correct? Maybe, but obviously unlikely. And remember these studies also were parallel to the earlier studies above, which the pro-gay academics and media ignore.

Indeed, there is also a publication bias (Schumm 2008. Date may be a bit off, but it was published in PR). So, really, the empirical evidence is pretty obvious that gay parents raise worse children... But I think it should be legal as the alternative is worse.

You cite Regernus, which is a joke. He compares single gay parents to hetero couples. There's even a whole website dedicated to showed how much of a fraud he is. http://www.regnerusfallout.org...

And if we're spamming sources (studies attached):
Gay parents are just as good http://www.bu.edu...
Kids raised by gay are actually better off: http://www.biomedcentral.com...
Lesbians are just as good parents http://www.livescience.com...
And just for fun, 2 gay parents are better than 1 straight, orientation doesn't matter so long as there's 2 in a stable relationship: http://io9.com...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 2:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Honestly, I just really don't care enough to look into the studies, lol. But having glanced over your debate, 16k, there are certainly some psychologically sensible trends cited, so. I'll just say that if there's a difference which might disqualify homosexuals from adoption, it should be obvious.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 2:30:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 1:56:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/25/2015 1:30:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Also note the review studies cited by the media miss what was termed as the "best" studies by Lerner and Nagai and Marks 2012.

Sarantakos 1996: Children raised by homosexuals do worse in school
Cameron and Cameron 1996: Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be gay and more likely to have sexual relationships with their parents. First study to use a random sample.
Cameron and Cameron 2002: Children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexuals.
Schumm 2010: Adds data do Cameron and Cameron 2002. Also uses a much more diverse data set. Children raised by homosexuals more likely to be homosexual.
Sirota 2007: Daughters of gay fathers have attachment issues
Schumm 2006: Reviews the research, noting how the studies are deficient. The gay reviews never include research proving that the research is inadequate.

2012 is really when the tide turned. Regnerus came out. Criticized, sure, but he responded. He also got a lot of support (Schumm 2012, Amato 2012, Johnson et al. 2012, Marks 2012). And his work was replicated by Allen et al. 2013, Allen 2014, Potter 2012, and Sullins 2014. All using random samples. Can all of the actual studies using good methodology be wrong, and the bad ones be correct? Maybe, but obviously unlikely. And remember these studies also were parallel to the earlier studies above, which the pro-gay academics and media ignore.

Indeed, there is also a publication bias (Schumm 2008. Date may be a bit off, but it was published in PR). So, really, the empirical evidence is pretty obvious that gay parents raise worse children... But I think it should be legal as the alternative is worse.

You cite Regernus, which is a joke. He compares single gay parents to hetero couples. There's even a whole website dedicated to showed how much of a fraud he is. http://www.regnerusfallout.org...

There also websites trying to prove second hand smoke isn't bad or that GW Bush is an alien. Even assuming Regnerus' study is a joke, I cited many others. Further, a huge amount of studies claiming no difference compare to single mother heterosexual families. If the criticism applied to Regnerus is applied, ALL of the research showing no difference is also fraudulent.

Please read peer-reviewed papers instead of blogs.

Regnerus response to critics: http://www.markregnerus.com...
Original study: http://www.markregnerus.com...

Further, previous studies didn't share their data. He did. Obviously he has nothing to hide. Here is the entire dataset: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu...


And if we're spamming sources (studies attached):

I did for one post. The rest of my posts critically analyze the methodology. Note how of the best studies I cited earlier, I didn't include Regnerus. It's better than the opposing studies, but it isn't the best. Of the 4 best, 3 show negative differences. The best is probably Sullins 2014, finding children of homosexuals have higher emotional disturbance rates.

Gay parents are just as good

I accidentally deleted the link

Anyway it again cites studies which I already refuted... I have already read here articles and the studies they cite... All of which have been debunked in my former posts because I know people would cite these op eds which would have the same studies...

Kids raised by gay are actually better off: http://www.biomedcentral.com...

Convenience sample AND parent reported. Gay parents have a reason to rank themselves as better due to this thread: people like me think they're worse, so they rank themselves higher for political reasons (Schumm 2014).

Lesbians are just as good parents http://www.livescience.com...

My other forum posts refute the study cited by this.

And just for fun, 2 gay parents are better than 1 straight, orientation doesn't matter so long as there's 2 in a stable relationship: http://io9.com...

Two parents are better than one, correct. But doesn't your Regnerus critcism refute this study? Plus, plenty of research shows homosexuals raise worse children than single or cohabiting relationships:
Sarantakos 1996, 2000 (best of the early research)
Sirota 2007
Regnerus 2012a
Schumm 2014
Sullins 2014
Potter 2012
Allen 2013, 2014

We both agree gay adoption should be legal, but seem to fundamentally disagree as to whether or not no difference theory is true. But the fact is, on aggregate, children of gay parents do worse. Maybe it's because of bullying, lack of marriage, etc. but children o f gay parents do worse.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 3:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 12:58:12 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/25/2015 12:51:18 PM, Such wrote:
Plainly, yes. There are too many children raised by the system who grow up facing difficulties resulting from that system. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's definitely a problem with the system itself (as, although there are issues that surely need to be addressed, there will always be problems with accommodations that are meant to be temporary and bare minimum), and instead, the dearth of adoptive parents.

I think any willing adopter should be under consideration, despite their age (past adulthood), religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, etc.

What I would like to know is what a First World country with recurring recessions, a broken school system, and endemic violence is doing worrying about gay people.

Might as well be tossing children overboard in trying to reduce weight in a sinking ship, dude. It is, and should be, a delicate issue.

Oh, sure, it is, but to be overly selective is a mistake. Based on merit and capability? Sure, be as selective as you can. Based on dogmatic distinctions? That will result in a farcical system.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 7:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 11:55:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
A homosexual couple walks into an adoption agency. They are both fine examples of parents. Should they have the opportunity to adopt? I am not privy to the actual laws regarding this, I will assume that, since it's so hard to adopt even for hetero couples, homo couples are never considered. That sounds like a safe assumption. But either way we can argue the point.

It depends.
If you are talking about, say Catholic orphanages, who view gay couples as living in sin, thus the child is harmed spiritually by living with them, then I would say they should not be able to adopt.
If you are asking if I think that gay couples, in general, should be allowed to adopt, I'd say yes, but not at the cost of barring orphanages (or surrogates) from placing children with who they think are unfit, for whatever reason with whatever validity that may be.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.facebook.com...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 7:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 11:55:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
A homosexual couple walks into an adoption agency. They are both fine examples of parents. Should they have the opportunity to adopt? I am not privy to the actual laws regarding this, I will assume that, since it's so hard to adopt even for hetero couples, homo couples are never considered. That sounds like a safe assumption. But either way we can argue the point.

Yes, but hetero couples are better at parenting and should be preferred as parents.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:38:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 2:30:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Excellent quality in this thread, I was impressed with everyone's posts!

16K you bring up a wealth of studies by peer-reviewed sources, you obviously are making the strongest case here. But what I find interesting about such studies is: just how much really can be controlled for? I'm not surprised to hear that children end up being 1.5x more likely to be emotionally disturbed in a homosexual home, but what we are missing here is why. I would bet the researchers mention this somewhere in those studies, even: isn't it possible that that it is us, the heterosexual community, who are really to blame for the poor emotional state of those children? Isn't it our children, the ones we teach that homosexuality is evil, that bully these kids and torment them about their families? I find it nearly impossible that a child could be raised by homosexuals and not be tormented at school about it; to not feel that they had something to hide and be ashamed of. You insinuate yourself, 16K, that one of the negatives of being raised in a homosexual home is the danger of becoming homosexual. If we really think of homosexuals as equals, then why should we list that as a negative risk?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:45:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Several of you mention preference to hetero couples... how does that weigh into the selection process? I will admit I don't know anything about adoption processes so perhaps some of this may seem uninformed... Do we value homosexuality as a risk similar to, say, alcoholism? Do we push hetero couples to the front of the line and only give homo couples children if there are no hetero couples available? Do we only give homo couples children that are especially desperate?

As I alluded to in responding to 16k, there stands to reason that we are actually creating the very problem we are worrying about. Such cautious optimism about homo couples only reinforces the sense that they are in fact inferior, and by marginalizing them we are condemning their children and their families to the very emotional damage that we detect in our studies.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

I have seen some people compare biological parents to adoptive homosexual parents, but I find that flawed as there are even differences between biological parents and straight adoptive parents.

Again, I would have to research this again.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 8:25:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:38:26 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/25/2015 2:30:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Excellent quality in this thread, I was impressed with everyone's posts!

16K you bring up a wealth of studies by peer-reviewed sources, you obviously are making the strongest case here. But what I find interesting about such studies is: just how much really can be controlled for? I'm not surprised to hear that children end up being 1.5x more likely to be emotionally disturbed in a homosexual home, but what we are missing here is why. I would bet the researchers mention this somewhere in those studies, even: isn't it possible that that it is us, the heterosexual community, who are really to blame for the poor emotional state of those children? Isn't it our children, the ones we teach that homosexuality is evil, that bully these kids and torment them about their families? I find it nearly impossible that a child could be raised by homosexuals and not be tormented at school about it; to not feel that they had something to hide and be ashamed of. You insinuate yourself, 16K, that one of the negatives of being raised in a homosexual home is the danger of becoming homosexual. If we really think of homosexuals as equals, then why should we list that as a negative risk?

This is possible. Sarantakos 1996, 2000 thinks the differences he finds are due to bullying and discrimination. But Schumm 2010 argues the differences are too large to be explained by bullying alone. In another review he published in 2010, he argues lesbians tend to be more non-stable. Regnerus agrees, saying no one in his random sample who was gay was also in a stable relationship. Potter also agrees: the differences are caused by instability.

So what causes the instability? It's inherint.

Allen uses Canadian data, finds negative differences. Gay marriage is legal there. There were studies in 2006 in Sweden finding higher divorce rates in homosexual marriages, and in 2010 got the same results. Sweden is the most progressive nation on earth.

This might sound super bigoted... The reason they are less stable is themselves. On aggregate, regardless of the social setting, they are less stable.

Plus 30 years of research confirms having both a mother and father matter. Biology matters, love--although most important--isn't enough. So the differences are likely not from--or not fully from--bigots like me.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39


I have seen some people compare biological parents to adoptive homosexual parents, but I find that flawed as there are even differences between biological parents and straight adoptive parents.

Again, I would have to research this again.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 8:33:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39


I have seen some people compare biological parents to adoptive homosexual parents, but I find that flawed as there are even differences between biological parents and straight adoptive parents.

Well most gay parents aren't biologically related... And Regnerus 2012 has an adoptive sample and they still score better. His single straight parents often out-perform


Again, I would have to research this again.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 9:10:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is wrong with you people!

The study should compare emotional trauma of kids with homosexual parents with those of NO PARENT!

That is the type of studies you need to look at. Oh by the way, it's actually pretty easy to adopt if you check the brown baby box.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 12:08:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39

Didn't Australia do the largest sample in any official survey which concluded that they were equal?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 12:08:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39

Didn't Australia do the largest sample in any official survey which concluded that they were equal?

It was a non random convenience sample. It had 500 gay families. Sullins did a random sample of 500 gay families and found emotional disturbance. Allen et al. Had an estimated 6000 gay families and found differences. The Australian study compared a random sample of straight men to a non-random sample of gays. Gays in convinience samples are usually the "best", as only gays with "good" children will sign up... So the fact the "best" gay parents are equal really proves there are differences...

So really the study isn't very convincing. I read it recently
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:07:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:08:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39

Didn't Australia do the largest sample in any official survey which concluded that they were equal?

It was a non random convenience sample. It had 500 gay families. Sullins did a random sample of 500 gay families and found emotional disturbance. Allen et al. Had an estimated 6000 gay families and found differences. The Australian study compared a random sample of straight men to a non-random sample of gays. Gays in convinience samples are usually the "best", as only gays with "good" children will sign up... So the fact the "best" gay parents are equal really proves there are differences...

So really the study isn't very convincing. I read it recently

The question is (if they are not currently shown to be equal), is it to do with the parents themselves or because of how society views them (thus influencing the state of the child)?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:18:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:11:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:07:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 12:08:00 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/26/2015 8:28:21 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:00:25 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I would have to research this again, but if I remember, the following is correct when a child is adopted:
2 parents are better than one

Yes

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as good.

Not if you look at studies with a gay sample of over 39

Didn't Australia do the largest sample in any official survey which concluded that they were equal?

It was a non random convenience sample. It had 500 gay families. Sullins did a random sample of 500 gay families and found emotional disturbance. Allen et al. Had an estimated 6000 gay families and found differences. The Australian study compared a random sample of straight men to a non-random sample of gays. Gays in convinience samples are usually the "best", as only gays with "good" children will sign up... So the fact the "best" gay parents are equal really proves there are differences...

So really the study isn't very convincing. I read it recently

The question is (if they are not currently shown to be equal), is it to do with the parents themselves or because of how society views them (thus influencing the state of the child)?

I responded above. The differences are likely due to instability (Schumm 2010, Regnerus 2012a 2012b, Potter 2012). But research in Sweden shows gay MARRIAGES have higher divorce rates (I forgot the authors... I think Anderson and Gunderson 2006). Sweden is the most progressive country. A lot of the research on regards to promiscuity in gay couples is in the Netherlands--another pro gay country.

And one study in Canada, where gay marriage is legal, demonstrates other disadvantages.

Love is important. 2 parents are important. But gender does, in fact, matter.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:26:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, they should be allowed to adopt. I could possibly understand giving heterosexual couples priority if there's evidence to indicate that children do better in hetero homes. As far as I'm aware, though, there is no such evidence. Furthermore, all of the evidence I'm aware of indicates that any stable parenting situation, whether single, couple, straight, or gay, is drastically better than foster care. So unless there's some shortage of kids that need adopting, pretty much any adult or pair of adults capable of providing a stable, loving home should be allowed to adopt.
cnb
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, I think that homosexual families should have the "privilegy" to have and raise children. Of course, there are a lot of people who would say "oh, but the children need both, the mother and the father, to grow up and develop properly", but then how are children raised in a homosexual family any different from children who have been raised in a single parent family? Are you saying that a single parent family should not be allowed to have children? Of course, you would not be saying that, because if the single parent is able to provide for the child and takes good care, then it's completely OK. But then why do we not accept homosexuals to be allowed to have that? Because they have different sexuality? Because society makes us afraid of something different?
I think, that if they are able to provide for the child, can take good care and provide a loving environment, then that's all that matters...that the child is getting the love he/she needs and is not stuck in an orphanage with tons of other children not getting the love that a child needs.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:26:27 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Yes, they should be allowed to adopt. I could possibly understand giving heterosexual couples priority if there's evidence to indicate that children do better in hetero homes. As far as I'm aware, though, there is no such evidence. Furthermore, all of the evidence I'm aware of indicates that any stable parenting situation, whether single, couple, straight, or gay, is drastically better than foster care. So unless there's some shortage of kids that need adopting, pretty much any adult or pair of adults capable of providing a stable, loving home should be allowed to adopt.

Finally a sane person emerges.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:43:04 PM, cnb wrote:
Yes, I think that homosexual families should have the "privilegy" to have and raise children. Of course, there are a lot of people who would say "oh, but the children need both, the mother and the father, to grow up and develop properly", but then how are children raised in a homosexual family any different from children who have been raised in a single parent family? Are you saying that a single parent family should not be allowed to have children? Of course, you would not be saying that, because if the single parent is able to provide for the child and takes good care, then it's completely OK. But then why do we not accept homosexuals to be allowed to have that? Because they have different sexuality? Because society makes us afraid of something different?
I think, that if they are able to provide for the child, can take good care and provide a loving environment, then that's all that matters...that the child is getting the love he/she needs and is not stuck in an orphanage with tons of other children not getting the love that a child needs.

I've always thought adoption agencies do their best to not let singles adopt, unless they can establish a "safety network" or something, in case something happens to the "parent".
So, this criticism largely falls flat, since adoption agencies are reluctant to adopt to non-mother-and-father homes.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 4:06:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:57:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:26:27 PM, Burzmali wrote:

Finally a sane person emerges.

I resent that.