Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page

Homosexuality is socially beneficial

|
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:33:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ugh... there are so many things wrong with your argument I feel I am wasting my time with this...

Nevertheless, I will proceed. Homosexuals are believed to consist of 1% to 3% of the population. This is not a very effective way to deal with overpopulation. When we lived in tribes, nature had much more direct ways of dealing with overpopulation, and evolving homosexuality would not have made sense at all. I have not heard a scrap of evidence to support your theory.:

More to the point, it assumes that "Mother Nature" is a conscious entity which purposefully acts to keep things in balance. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is "nature's way of population control."

Homosexuality exists. We don't need to speak of it in Darwinian terms to validate it or in invalidate it. It exists, people just need to get over it and accept the obvious. It doesn't matter why it exists anymore than it matters that chipmunks exist.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:38:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 8:55:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:53:57 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
It hasn't done more good than harm. Think of all the homosexuals who have been oppressed and murdered, all the political hatred and debates that created turmoil, etc. None of this can be measured up by any benefits of homosexuality (ESPECIALLY for the gays).

You've just described bad things that happened because of people's intolerance toward homosexuality. You've referenced no harm that had to do with homosexuality itself.

Devil's advocate: STDs.:

With the sole exception of AIDS, which used to be called GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) all other STD's first began and were proliferated via heterosexual intercourse.

Secondly, as Danielle as pointed out, lesbians are one median that has the lowest incidences of AIDS.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:55:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 9:25:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
Homosexuality, from a historical PoV, has made people feel repressed, be oppressed, murdered, prosecuted, etc etc etc. This brought absolutely NO benefits whatsoever.

Homosexuality (acting on homosexual impulses) did not make people feel sh!tty. Once again, it was people's INTOLERANCE toward homosexuality that led to gays being persecuted and the subsequent turmoil. This is obvious. You just like to argue with me *yawn*
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:56:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 9:28:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:19:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
I don't know if I agree with the proposition that homosexuality was meant as a form of population control -
When did I say that?

You didn't - I was just responding to what Kleptin and others in the thread had said.
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 9:29:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But If anything, penis-vagina intercourse is necessary to you know further the human race.

Not since 1978.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 9:29:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But If anything, penis-vagina intercourse is necessary to you know further the human race.

False. In vitro fertilization has outdated this.
Mirza
Posts: 11,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:08:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 11:55:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Homosexuality (acting on homosexual impulses) did not make people feel sh!tty. Once again, it was people's INTOLERANCE toward homosexuality that led to gays being persecuted and the subsequent turmoil. This is obvious. You just like to argue with me *yawn*
You have a problem understanding things sometimes, sheesh. Yes, of course it's the intolerance, but there wouldn't be intolerance if there wasn't homosexuality. This doesn't imply that homosexuality caused the oppression, but it simply made the oppressors have an urge to prosecute and smash down on certain people. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, there would be no murders on gays or suicides due to the fact that people don't like being homosexuals. (Environmental factors.)
Mirza
Posts: 11,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:11:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:08:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
You have a problem understanding things sometimes, sheesh. Yes, of course it's the intolerance, but there wouldn't be intolerance if there wasn't homosexuality. This doesn't imply that homosexuality caused the oppression, but it simply made the oppressors have an urge to prosecute and smash down on certain people. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, there would be no murders on gays or suicides due to the fact that people don't like being homosexuals. (Environmental factors.)
If anyone takes this as a stance that homosexuality is inherently wrong, then that's their understanding issue. This is merely an argument that homosexual urges attracted negative actions from repressive people - which is a fault of their own.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:08:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:55:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Homosexuality (acting on homosexual impulses) did not make people feel sh!tty. Once again, it was people's INTOLERANCE toward homosexuality that led to gays being persecuted and the subsequent turmoil. This is obvious. You just like to argue with me *yawn*
You have a problem understanding things sometimes, sheesh. Yes, of course it's the intolerance, but there wouldn't be intolerance if there wasn't homosexuality. This doesn't imply that homosexuality caused the oppression, but it simply made the oppressors have an urge to prosecute and smash down on certain people. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, there would be no murders on gays or suicides due to the fact that people don't like being homosexuals. (Environmental factors.)

It would be better classified as the fault of the people who are repressive. If they were not so intolerant of differences, these problems would not exist.
Mirza
Posts: 11,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:15:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:13:54 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:08:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:55:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Homosexuality (acting on homosexual impulses) did not make people feel sh!tty. Once again, it was people's INTOLERANCE toward homosexuality that led to gays being persecuted and the subsequent turmoil. This is obvious. You just like to argue with me *yawn*
You have a problem understanding things sometimes, sheesh. Yes, of course it's the intolerance, but there wouldn't be intolerance if there wasn't homosexuality. This doesn't imply that homosexuality caused the oppression, but it simply made the oppressors have an urge to prosecute and smash down on certain people. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, there would be no murders on gays or suicides due to the fact that people don't like being homosexuals. (Environmental factors.)

It would be better classified as the fault of the people who are repressive. If they were not so intolerant of differences, these problems would not exist.
It is the fault of oppressive people, but because they had such strict views on homosexuality, gays would've been better off if they were heterosexuals in the first place.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:20:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:15:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:13:54 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:08:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:55:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Homosexuality (acting on homosexual impulses) did not make people feel sh!tty. Once again, it was people's INTOLERANCE toward homosexuality that led to gays being persecuted and the subsequent turmoil. This is obvious. You just like to argue with me *yawn*
You have a problem understanding things sometimes, sheesh. Yes, of course it's the intolerance, but there wouldn't be intolerance if there wasn't homosexuality. This doesn't imply that homosexuality caused the oppression, but it simply made the oppressors have an urge to prosecute and smash down on certain people. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, there would be no murders on gays or suicides due to the fact that people don't like being homosexuals. (Environmental factors.)

It would be better classified as the fault of the people who are repressive. If they were not so intolerant of differences, these problems would not exist.
It is the fault of oppressive people, but because they had such strict views on homosexuality, gays would've been better off if they were heterosexuals in the first place.

What is the point of even saying this except that you are attempting to do a bit of covert victim blaming? If it is the fault of the oppressors, then they are the ones who need to reform, and not the homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the action that is having the negative impact; the oppression is the activity that is having the negative impact.
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:15:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
It is the fault of oppressive people, but because they had such strict views on homosexuality, gays would've been better off if they were heterosexuals in the first place.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and I have all along. I realize that your highlighting this obvious point is based on your compulsion to disagree with everything I say just for the sake of arguing with me, and not because you're actually making a contradictory point - which you're not. Clearly homosexuality was not helpful to society as it caused many homosexuals and intolerant heterosexuals to feel threatened and uneasy. But the exact same thing can be said about blacks, women and other oppressed groups throughout history. There's no point in saying "Being black was not socially beneficial in 1955." It's more appropriate to say that "Intolerance toward black people made it difficult to be black in 1955 society." It's just semantics at this point. /over it
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:23:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:20:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What is the point of even saying this except that you are attempting to do a bit of covert victim blaming? If it is the fault of the oppressors, then they are the ones who need to reform, and not the homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the action that is having the negative impact; the oppression is the activity that is having the negative impact.

Haha we basically said the same thing at the same time :) +1
Mirza
Posts: 11,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:20:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What is the point of even saying this except that you are attempting to do a bit of covert victim blaming?
Please. The entire thread is about homosexuality being beneficial, and I disagreed by saying that it was used as an excuse by certain people to murder and oppress gays. (Which means that people would've been better off without it, ergo it was not beneficial in general.) That's not hard to understand.

If it is the fault of the oppressors, then they are the ones who need to reform, and not the homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the action that is having the negative impact; the oppression is the activity that is having the negative impact.
Again, it's the excuse for oppressors - and it's their fault, not the fault of homosexuals. It's clear. It's not an attack on homosexuals (one must have giant bias toward me to say that).
Danielle
Posts: 18,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:26:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mirza just likes to argue with us because we're women and the fact that we are being "heard" though not seen makes him feel threatened - especially because we challenge the very fabric of his naive perspective and tend to make his views look silly in doing so ;)
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:27:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:23:24 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:20:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What is the point of even saying this except that you are attempting to do a bit of covert victim blaming? If it is the fault of the oppressors, then they are the ones who need to reform, and not the homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the action that is having the negative impact; the oppression is the activity that is having the negative impact.

Haha we basically said the same thing at the same time :) +1

=)
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:26:20 PM, Danielle wrote:
Mirza just likes to argue with us because we're women and the fact that we are being "heard" though not seen makes him feel threatened - especially because we challenge the very fabric of his naive perspective and tend to make his views look silly in doing so ;)

LOL :) +1
Mirza
Posts: 11,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I already responded to the same point you made, but LOL Danielle, to claim that I say this to argue with you is amusing, considering you replied to me in the first place! Nonetheless, you even agreed with my entire argument in your line above: "Clearly homosexuality was not helpful to society as it caused many homosexuals and intolerant heterosexuals to feel threatened and uneasy." You even used the term "caused" which is more extreme; I'd rather say it attracted or was used as an excuse.

Hasta la vista.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mirza, if oppressors are using homosexuality as an excuse to repress people, would not their repressive urges encourage them to stifle something else if homosexuality did not exist?

The implication is that the homosexuality is tangential to the happiness of the person being oppressed. The homosexuality is not the problem; the oppression is the cause of the problem. You cannot use the oppression in the impact calculus.
Zaradi
Posts: 7,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:36:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know about socially beneficial....but maybe socially indifferent? The only reasonable impact that I can forsee coming from the allowance of homosexuality, whether in marriage or overall relationship, is that more homosexual people are going to be homosexual, and we won't see some of them attempt to become heterosexual in a vain attempt to conform to the views of society. That's not really a palpable impact on us....
"Any way you measure it from society's point of view, the Down Syndrome individual is inferior."
- Lordknukle

"You know if Transformers procreated like organic creatures such as mammals, Optimus would totes be gettin laid like a boss."
- Buddamoose

: At 12/26/2012 8:40:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
But my president is black. Affirmative actions, atleast in most of America, isn't necessary anymore.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another benefit would be that they could adopt children and provide them with a family environment (yes, I know that this is already done; one of my friends in college was raised by lesbian parents). People are more likely to do this if they are in a two-person relationship than if they are single because it is more difficult to care for children if one is single. We can pull people out of the foster care system, which is prone to abuse, and put them in family environments. In other words, we promote family values :p
Zaradi
Posts: 7,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:45:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Another benefit would be that they could adopt children and provide them with a family environment (yes, I know that this is already done; one of my friends in college was raised by lesbian parents). People are more likely to do this if they are in a two-person relationship than if they are single because it is more difficult to care for children if one is single. We can pull people out of the foster care system, which is prone to abuse, and put them in family environments. In other words, we promote family values :p

NOOOO! DON'T TELL THE CONSERVATIVES THAT!! IT WOULD GIVE THEM NIGHTMARES!!!
"Any way you measure it from society's point of view, the Down Syndrome individual is inferior."
- Lordknukle

"You know if Transformers procreated like organic creatures such as mammals, Optimus would totes be gettin laid like a boss."
- Buddamoose

: At 12/26/2012 8:40:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
But my president is black. Affirmative actions, atleast in most of America, isn't necessary anymore.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:01:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:52:36 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:45:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Another benefit would be that they could adopt children and provide them with a family environment (yes, I know that this is already done; one of my friends in college was raised by lesbian parents). People are more likely to do this if they are in a two-person relationship than if they are single because it is more difficult to care for children if one is single. We can pull people out of the foster care system, which is prone to abuse, and put them in family environments. In other words, we promote family values :p

NOOOO! DON'T TELL THE CONSERVATIVES THAT!! IT WOULD GIVE THEM NIGHTMARES!!!

;)
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 12:45:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Another benefit would be that they could adopt children and provide them with a family environment (yes, I know that this is already done; one of my friends in college was raised by lesbian parents). People are more likely to do this if they are in a two-person relationship than if they are single because it is more difficult to care for children if one is single. We can pull people out of the foster care system, which is prone to abuse, and put them in family environments. In other words, we promote family values :p

and then theres the whole overpopulation thing. so instead of popping out children left & right that they can't and/or don't want to care for, the gays are making families for unwanted kids. sounds good in my book.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:04:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Homosexuality was treated as a very anti-social behavior throughout history, and still often is today, although to a lesser degree. I think a major part of the point of people claiming gays are "attacking marriage" is that homosexuality will become completely socially acceptable, and therefore common. This point relies on homosexuality being based on psychological factors rather an innate sexuality that people are born; however, Kleptin admits he agrees with that in his post and so do I. And to be honest, I don't agree that they could raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples either.

Here are some sources on traditional parenting:
1. http://www.ok.gov...
2. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...
3. http://www.citizenlink.com...
4. http://www.mercatornet.com...
5. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...
6. http://www.cfcidaho.org...
7. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
8. http://www.troubledwith.com...
9. http://www.crosswalk.com...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:07:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 1:04:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Homosexuality was treated as a very anti-social behavior throughout history, and still often is today, although to a lesser degree. I think a major part of the point of people claiming gays are "attacking marriage" is that homosexuality will become completely socially acceptable, and therefore common. This point relies on homosexuality being based on psychological factors rather an innate sexuality that people are born with; however, Kleptin admits he agrees with that in his post and so do I. And to be honest, I don't agree that they could raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples either.

Here are some sources on traditional parenting:
1. http://www.ok.gov...
2. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...
3. http://www.citizenlink.com...
4. http://www.mercatornet.com...
5. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...
6. http://www.cfcidaho.org...
7. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
8. http://www.troubledwith.com...
9. http://www.crosswalk.com...

*fixed
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Zaradi
Posts: 7,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:09:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 1:01:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:52:36 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 5/25/2012 12:45:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Another benefit would be that they could adopt children and provide them with a family environment (yes, I know that this is already done; one of my friends in college was raised by lesbian parents). People are more likely to do this if they are in a two-person relationship than if they are single because it is more difficult to care for children if one is single. We can pull people out of the foster care system, which is prone to abuse, and put them in family environments. In other words, we promote family values :p

NOOOO! DON'T TELL THE CONSERVATIVES THAT!! IT WOULD GIVE THEM NIGHTMARES!!!

;)

You are the bane of Rick Santorum
"Any way you measure it from society's point of view, the Down Syndrome individual is inferior."
- Lordknukle

"You know if Transformers procreated like organic creatures such as mammals, Optimus would totes be gettin laid like a boss."
- Buddamoose

: At 12/26/2012 8:40:59 AM, Df0512 wrote:
But my president is black. Affirmative actions, atleast in most of America, isn't necessary anymore.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:11:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 1:04:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Homosexuality was treated as a very anti-social behavior throughout history, and still often is today, although to a lesser degree. I think a major part of the point of people claiming gays are "attacking marriage" is that homosexuality will become completely socially acceptable, and therefore common. This point relies on homosexuality being based on psychological factors rather an innate sexuality that people are born; however, Kleptin admits he agrees with that in his post and so do I. And to be honest, I don't agree that they could raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples either.

Why does the reasoning even have an effect on society? it doesn't. If someone is gay, they shouldn't have to suppress that because it is unacceptable in societies eyes, regardless of the reasoning. Acceptability has nothing to do with whether it is biological or not. Someone doesn't change their sexual impulses just because it is acceptable. The only link between acceptability and a common occurrence is that gays can be more open about themselves.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:13:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2012 1:04:48 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Homosexuality was treated as a very anti-social behavior throughout history, and still often is today, although to a lesser degree. I think a major part of the point of people claiming gays are "attacking marriage" is that homosexuality will become completely socially acceptable, and therefore common. This point relies on homosexuality being based on psychological factors rather an innate sexuality that people are born; however, Kleptin admits he agrees with that in his post and so do I. And to be honest, I don't agree that they could raise kids just as well as heterosexual couples either.

Here are some sources on traditional parenting:
1. http://www.ok.gov...
2. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...
3. http://www.citizenlink.com...
4. http://www.mercatornet.com...
5. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...
6. http://www.cfcidaho.org...
7. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
8. http://www.troubledwith.com...
9. http://www.crosswalk.com...

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show.


Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures.

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience.

There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said.

That's a speculation, she said, but if lesbian parents have to really plan to have a child, it's even harder for gay men. Those who decide to do it are thus likely to be extremely committed, Stacey said. Gay men may also experience fewer parenting conflicts, she added. Most lesbians use donor sperm to have a child, so one mother is biological and the other is not, which could create conflict because one mother may feel closer to the kid.

"With gay men, you don't have that factor," she said. "Neither of them gets pregnant, neither of them breast-feeds, so you don't have that asymmetry built into the relationship."

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

"Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men," she said.


In fact, the only consistent places you find differences between how kids of gay parents and kids of straight parents turn out are in issues of tolerance and open-mindedness, according to Goldberg. In a paper published in 2007 in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Goldberg conducted in-depth interviews with 46 adults with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of them spontaneously offered that they felt more open-minded and empathetic than people not raised in their situation.

"These individuals feel like their perspectives on family, on gender, on sexuality have largely been enhanced by growing up with gay parents," Goldberg said.

One 33-year-old man with a lesbian mother told Goldberg, "I feel I'm a more open, well-rounded person for having been raised in a nontraditional family, and I think those that know me would agree. My mom opened me up to the positive impact of differences in people."

Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. That's likely because gays and lesbians tend to have more egalitarian relationships than straight couples, Goldberg said. They're also less wedded to rigid gender stereotypes themselves.

"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'"
www.GlobalTestMarket.com