Why Gay Parents May Be The Best Parents

[Ice_nine]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html

thoughts?

[Byzantine]

There's a fine line between "tolerance" and "spinelessness," in my opinion.

After only one semester of high school statistics, I find it rather difficult to trust studies.

If people were more responsible, there wouldn't be a 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals.

[OnlySunshine]

[quote]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 [b]open-mindedness[/b], tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.[/quote]

Yeah, let's be so open-minded that our brains just fall out. I fail to see the logic in the argument that gay parents are better able to teach tolerance than traditional families. These arguments can get so ridiculous at times.

[Papist]

Gay and lesbians. I thought lesbians are gay.

I always love it when the results of the "research" matches the thinking of the researcher.


[img]http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/goldberg/bannerfinal.jpg[/img]

[mcts]

My heterosexual parents seemed to be pretty darn "motivated" and "committed".

Gay parents aren't the only ones who try to have children. Is it more difficult to conceive a child than just having sex? Yes. It's that way for many straight parents as well, though. If you compared a gay couple who had been together for years, had good jobs, and wanted to have a baby, to an unwed teenage mother, I'm assuming that they'd be able to provide more stability than she would. It's not because they're gay. They're just more prepared.

[BG45]

[quote name='Byzantine' timestamp='1326800278' post='2370446']

After only one semester of high school statistics, I find it rather difficult to trust studies.

[/quote]
I agree with this statement.

After four stats courses in my time in academia with another next semester...I don't trust statistics unless I have the raw data and run the analysis myself.

Then again that may come from working under a stats guy whose favorite hobby is showing how the data provided by a certain anti-drinking group that likes to sue people never is close to reality.

[sixpence]

yeh I saw this yesterday! I don't think it is fair to compare gay parents who actually had to go through some kind of adoption process and decide they really wanted a kid to ALL heterosexual parents who unfortunately like to go around having sex and not being prepare for the possible results.

I also feel pretty confident that gay parents know they are out to prove something to the world. They are going to try super hard to raise a successful kid, unlike many other parents.

I also like how these are suddenly the "best" kids because they will be raised with a certain mindset towards homosexuality. Its just so objective and scientific!!!

[Basilisa Marie]

Part of the problem with the argument that gay people make great parents is that the only gay people that are vocal about wanting to parent are those who REALLY REALLY want to do it and give tons of reasons why they would be great...whereas they're comparing themselves to ALL heterosexual parents ever. Which, even without statistical data, isn't fair and doesn't make any sense. Sure, it's entirely possible that kids can grow up and be well-adjusted with two gay parents. But it's also entirely possible that kids grow up to be well-adjusted with only one parent, or parents that have problems. It doesn't change that there are ALSO statistics that show that it's ideal for kids to grow up in a two parent, heterosexual, committed to their marriage, household.

[StMichael]

Only "studies" that support the position is put out on the wires for mass consumption. Those many that contradict these findings are squashed and or attacked as homophobic.

Nothing more than propaganda.

Edited January 17, 2012 by StMichael

[thessalonian]

What a joke.

[dUSt]

This study should compare gay parents who adopted compared with infertile heterosexual parents who adopted. At least then you are comparing two sets of people who could not conceive naturally but really wanted children, and were first evaluated on their ability to raise children, and then granted permission.

Or, compare gay parents who conceived accidentally but were not ready for children yet... oh wait.

[Jesus_lol]

in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326823224' post='2370531']
in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews.
[/quote]

You're so meta.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326823224' post='2370531']
in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews.
[/quote]

Umadbro?

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='MaterMisericordiae' timestamp='1326802238' post='2370450']
Yeah, let's be so open-minded that our brains just fall out. I fail to see the logic in the argument that gay parents are better able to teach tolerance than traditional families. These arguments can get so ridiculous at times.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think traditional families are better at teaching how to love everyone while only tolerating what is *right.*

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1326812729' post='2370473']
It doesn't change that there are ALSO statistics that show that it's ideal for kids to grow up in a two parent, heterosexual, committed to their marriage, household.
[/quote]

wheres?!

[missionseeker]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=3]"A recent study seems to confirm long held assumptions that heterosexuals are more easily able to reproduce than homosexuals."[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=3]I found it interesting that homosexual couples "rarely" had accidental pregnancies, meaning occasionally they DO? lol. [/size][/font][/color]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326826022' post='2370547']
wheres?!
[/quote]

Somewhere.

BUT

Wikipedia tells us that no actual credible research has been done comparing homosexual parents in a stable relationship to heterosexual parents in a stable relationship.

[quote]According to a 2001 review of 21 studies by Stacey and Biblarz published in [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sociological_Review"]American Sociological Review[/url][/i]: "[R]esearchers lack reliable data on the number and location of lesbi-gay parents with children in the general population, there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of such families. Most studies rely on small-scale, snowball and convenience samples drawn primarily from personal and community networks or agencies. Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature, and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states."[/quote]

[quote]According to the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Social_Workers"]National Association of Social Workers[/url] and National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter, [b]it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons when comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting[/b]. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally finds that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies cited do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, [b]and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders[/b].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-S14799-40"][41][/url][/sup] According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, "It is scientifically untenable to use studies about the effects on children of divorce or being raised in one parent households, to draw conclusions about the children raised in two parents households whether the parents are same or opposite-sex gender."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-aapmch-41"][42][/url][/sup][/quote]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Misrepresentation_of_research

The thing is, the only substantial research that has been done is by comparing 2 parent, heterosexual, stable couples to single parent or divorced couples, and it's obvious that the kids do better. But there's just not enough research done to compare stable homosexual parenting to stable heterosexual parenting.

[BG45]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326823224' post='2370531']
in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews.
[/quote]

More like, for me at least, an abiding knowledge that what is correct data wise is not always published because it is no politically correct. I've seen a lot of stuff that flies in the face of "common knowledge", including critiques of certain groups statistics that show them to be literally impossible to be real; no one will publish such things though, because they don't wish to go against the politically correct groups and the groups that have money.

An example. One researcher I know did a series of studies that showed there is no significant correlation between restrictive underage drinking laws and traffic accidents. Methodology is sound, every journal he submitted to agreed. However, all wanted him to change the wording of his conclusions so that it would still mostly support the party line, and to cherry pick what statistics were used to be more supportive of the party line.

Another was turned down by some journals for saying that the best fathers in her study were not the ones who were visited in prison by their children, but the ones who kept their kids from visiting because they didn't want them exposed to such an awful environment. I think she eventually got it published and became decently successful in the field, despite it flying in the face of what everyone "knows to be true".

This sort of stuff happens all the time. That's part of why I say I want the raw data and to run it myself before I trust statistics that could have been pulled out of thin air. Especially if there's a chance they've made their own construct and named it what they want; a Factor Analysis, which could have been run on all the variables that were collected, could have determined there was an underlying construct to some of the questions. You can sieze on that and name it whatever you want, as long as you make an argument for why the name works.

We like to call those "fishing expeditions", "the kitchen sink", and "voodoo science". Not Factor Analyses, but just tossing everything (and the kitchen sink ) into a factor analysis, figuring out what holds together, and then doing the rest of the research process from that point on. It's not that I only distrust this study's data, I tend to distrust every study now to an extent, because I know just how easy it is to bull-poopy one.

[brianthephysicist]

83% of all statistics are made up. Including this one.

Edited January 17, 2012 by brianthephysicist