Gay/Lesbian Parents

[DeeDee]

I have read several reports (sorry I can't quote the cites) stating that children raised in gay/lesbian households are less likely to be gay than those raised in heterosexual households. Interesting, no?

[picchick]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Sep 2 2005, 12:07 PM']I have read several reports (sorry I can't quote the cites) stating that children raised in gay/lesbian households are less likely to be gay than those raised in heterosexual households. Interesting, no?
[right][snapback]708765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, I read that.

I am not sure why. I have a few crude assumptions as to why though.

[Didacus]

How about: If reverse psychology is effective in teaching children the truth, then I guess this is the first 'good' thing I've heard about same-sex marriage.

[picchick]

Yes but why is it that they are more driven to the heterosexual lifestyle?

Some possible ideas (and yes it could be called "mean" or "harsh")

-they were made fun of for having two same sex parents.
-they don't want their kids to grow up in that enviroment

[track2004]

It's probably because most people are heterosexual. The number of kids in the survey raised in a homosexual home is probably so small it is nearly impossible to count that as hard evidence.

[picchick]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 2 2005, 03:06 PM']It's probably because most people are heterosexual.  The number of kids in the survey raised in a homosexual home is probably so small it is nearly impossible to count that as hard evidence.
[right][snapback]708919[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think that they are just counting children of homosexual parents not all children together.

[White Knight]

Still reguardless of anything, this still damages other children's views on the issue, and Homosexuals sould not be parents at all. its too harming to the kids.

[track2004]

I just meant that most people are hetero so yeah most of their kids would be. But the sample size still has to be horribly small to really say it's valid.

[picchick]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 3 2005, 12:19 AM']Still reguardless of anything, this still damages other children's views on the issue, and Homosexuals sould not be parents at all. its too harming to the kids.
[right][snapback]709326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry I was disagreeing with you. I was just clarifying.

[Semalsia]

And so far you have been able to say that we should reinforce the gender roles in parents, because that's a good way to reinforce those gender roles in the children. But you see, the gender roles are arbitrary and meaningless. And frankly, I see them only doing harm.


[quote name='dreamweaver']A girl should look at how her father treats his wife: with love and respect. She should model her relationships on those principles. Without a father figure, she has less of an idea about what is considered respectible in a relationship.[/quote]

People should learn how to treat other people. Sex has nothing to do with it. And they should learn that just because something is done by the other sex doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[quote name='White Knight']Homosexuallys sould not be allowed to raise children, nor be parents[/quote]

Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?

[quote name='picchick']Yes but why is it that they are more driven to the heterosexual lifestyle?

Some possible ideas (and yes it could be called "mean" or "harsh")

-they were made fun of for having two same sex parents.
-they don't want their kids to grow up in that enviroment
[/quote]

This kind of thinking assumes that they can freely, subconsciously or in any way [i]choose[/i] their sexual orientation, which goes against what we already know of the causes of homosexuality.

Actually it might be because of gay parents hiding the fact that their children are gay in the fear that others will think that homosexuality is hereditary.

Heterosexuals having more children than homosexuals on average might be a factor on this as well.

[Sojourner]

Semalsia,
Can you explain why you think gender roles are meaningless? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.

[White Knight]

[quote] by Semalsia Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?[/quote]

Yes I would honestly.

[picchick]

[quote]And so far you have been able to say that we should reinforce the gender roles in parents, because that's a good way to reinforce those gender roles in the children. But you see, the gender roles are arbitrary and meaningless. And frankly, I see them only doing harm.
[/quote]


Please explain why you find this harmful. I do not see it as harmful. The reason being is girls will naturally be girls and boys will naturally be boys. Why not reinforce this with the good example of a good husband and a good wife. Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her father cares for her mother. She will see these qualities in a man because she sees them from her father. A boy will want a girl like her mother. Someone caring and nuturing. Someone who will be able to care for children with compassion yet firmness. He will have the example of his father to show how he is to treat women. I see no harm in this. [b]Gender is important because women and men are not the same.[/b] They learn and see in different ways. A woman cannot just teach her daughter what good man to find. Visa versa for boys. Often to learn we need examples. Women cannot show anyone how to be a good father because they are not a man. Men cannot show how to be a good mother.

[quote]Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?
[/quote]

I am in favor of taking away children from ANY parents who poses a threat to their children be it emotional, physically, or mentally. Homosexuals tend to have more partners. This can be confusing for a child. They will then grow up to learn that this is acceptable. This is not acceptable. God wants man and wife and only one man for one wife. Does that make any sense?

[quote]This kind of thinking assumes that they can freely, subconsciously or in any way choose their sexual orientation, which goes against what we already know of the causes of homosexuality.
[/quote]

Although I suppose that some people might be homosexual naturally (I am not sure how this is or if it is true) I think that much of the homosexuality that we see is due to society's push towards it. If you are not dating anyone or you find no attraction to it then you are gay. If you have a certain mannerism a certain way to talk a certain way to walk then you are considered gay. People get into this rut and they think, "Hmm maybe I am." This is my thought on the issue.
[quote]Actually it might be because of gay parents hiding the fact that their children are gay in the fear that others will think that homosexuality is hereditary.
[/quote]

If gay parents are so open to being homosexual and they are so open and alright with the lifestyle why would they be afraid of it being hereditary?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='picchick']Please explain why you find this harmful.[/quote]

Because not everyone wants to live in these roles. But if they don't live in them, they might face ridicule and contempt. It puts limits on people and tells them how to act, what to wear, what to do, etc based on their sex. "Here is all the stuff you want to do, but you can't do them because you are not male. And here's some other stuff you have to do since you are female." ... Agh!

[quote]The reason being is girls will naturally be girls and boys will naturally be boys.[/quote]

Only because they live in a society where it is said to be unnatural to be anything else. But in reality it's just unusual.

And you are saying that gender roles have a basis in biology? Then perhaps you could explain the purpose of dress codes for the sexes. Why is cross-dressing ridiculed and considered not acceptable? Men wearing skirts could be considered the norm in other cultures. It is the culture that determines gender roles.

[quote]Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her father cares for her mother.
[/quote]

What is wrong with the following:
"Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her mother cares for her (other) mother."
?

Only in a society where it is expected for men and women to act differently, could the girl get an idea that those same qualities can't be found in a man.

[quote]Gender is important because women and men are not the same.
[/quote]

They aren't the same, but it's not like the differences matter anymore. We don't live in the stone age. Physically there are few differences, but mostly it's stuff where you can only see a statistical difference (on average... etc).

[quote]I am in favor of taking away children from ANY parents who poses a threat to their children be it emotional, physically, or mentally. Homosexuals tend to have more partners. This can be confusing for a child. They will then grow up to learn that this is acceptable.[/quote]

Half of all the marriages end in divorce and an average person will have something like 3-4 marriages in lifetime. And how many percentage have had affairs? When it comes to sexual life the heterosexuals are not really that monogamous either. Obviously some are monogamous, but then again some homosexuals are monogamous too. What's your point?

Hm, would you be in favor of taking away all the children away from those people who have had a divorce or an affair? It could also be argued that (assuming catholicism is correct) having parents of other religion than catholicism poses a threat to the child. Would you then be in favor of not letting anyone else but catholic couples have and keep children?

[quote]Although I suppose that some people might be homosexual naturally (I am not sure how this is or if it is true) I think that much of the homosexuality that we see is due to society's push towards it. If you are not dating anyone or you find no attraction to it then you are gay. If you have a certain mannerism a certain way to talk a certain way to walk then you are considered gay. People get into this rut and they think, "Hmm maybe I am." This is my thought on the issue.[/quote]

In a way I see your point, if someone is neither gay or straight. But people should know they don't have to do anything that they dislike, especially when it comes to sex. And if they do like it, then I don't see the problem with, for example, a straight woman having sex with another woman.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 3 2005, 05:46 PM']Only because they live in a society where it is said to be unnatural to be anything else. But in reality it's just unusual.

And you are saying that gender roles have a basis in biology? Then perhaps you could explain the purpose of dress codes for the sexes. Why is cross-dressing ridiculed and considered not acceptable? Men wearing skirts could be considered the norm in other cultures. It is the culture that determines gender roles.
What is wrong with the following:
"Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her mother cares for her (other) mother."
?

Only in a society where it is expected for men and women to act differently, could the girl get an idea that those same qualities can't be found in a man.
They aren't the same, but it's not like the differences matter anymore. We don't live in the stone age. Physically there are few differences, but mostly it's stuff where you can only see a statistical difference (on average... etc).
[right][snapback]709934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The assertion that gender roles are "arbitrary and meaningless" is nonsense plain and simple. "Gender roles" have existed in all human cultures in all parts of the world through all history. While specifics vary, in many ways these roles are strikingly similar - men are the warriors, breadwinners, etc., while women are in charge of child-rearing, home, and hearth. Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.

Only modern liberals in today's highly artifical society have tried to do away with gender roles. This is ideology, not nature.

Clothing differences as a symbol of these different roles is also pretty much universal. The fact that men or women wear different things in different cultures does nothing to undermine this reality. In each culture, what a woman wears is distinct from what a man wears, and these differences reflect the different sex roles. For instance, a traditional Scotsman does not wear a kilt to look like a woman, but kilts are considered masculine clothes, and are not women's clothes. Tell William Wallace he's a cross-dresser, and he'll cut off your head!

In most cultures it is considered shameful for a man to act like a woman.

I'm sure you'll start with some feminist babble about "patriarchal oppression" at this point, and argue that societies create gender-roles for political purposes, but the truth is "gender roles" are found even in animals. In most mammals, males and females perform differing roles and behavior. So it appears that gender roles are rooted in nature.

[quote]In a way I see your point, if someone is neither gay or straight. But people should know they don't have to do anything that they dislike, especially when it comes to sex[/quote]

This is an absurd non-argument. To live as lawful members of society, many people have to do things they don't like. There are people who like to murder, steal, or rape. Most people don't like paying taxes. Many may not like caring for their children, or fulfilling their legal obligations to others. "People should not have to do anything that they dislike" is a foolish principle to use for morality.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Socrates']The assertion that gender roles are "arbitrary and meaningless" is nonsense plain and simple. "Gender roles" have existed in all human cultures in all parts of the world through all history. While specifics vary, in many ways these roles are strikingly similar - men are the warriors, breadwinners, etc., while women are in charge of child-rearing, home, and hearth. Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.[/quote]

Ok, perhaps not entirely arbitrary and meaningless. But useless and trivial nonetheless. They might have logically born from some need, but in modern days where such needs no longer exist they are most certainly maintained by society alone.

[quote]In each culture, what a woman wears is distinct from what a man wears, and these differences reflect the different sex roles.[/quote]

How does assigning specific clothing to men and women differ from assigning different clothing to different ethnic groups? How about what is appropriate for them to do? How is having a penis or a vagina any more significant than having different skin color? How does sexism differ from racism?

[quote]Clothing differences as a symbol of these different roles is also pretty much universal. The fact that men or women wear different things in different cultures does nothing to undermine this reality.[/quote]

It does not undermine the fact that there are gender roles, but it does undermine the rationale to follow them. Since culture determines what is masculine, two men considered masculine in their home countries could be each other's opposites in behavior. And ways of thinking too. Are you saying that different cultures are a product of spiritual and mental problems?

[quote]I'm sure you'll start with some feminist babble about "patriarchal oppression" at this point, and argue that societies create gender-roles for political purposes, but the truth is "gender roles" are found even in animals. In most mammals, males and females perform differing roles and behavior. So it appears that gender roles are rooted in nature.[/quote]

So you think we should act like animals, eh? Well, animals don't exactly behave as normatively as you claim: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior"]linky linky[/url]

Also, doesn't trying to behave like animals go against what the Church teaches? Since that would lead to immorality.

And if you are going to say that we shouldn't behave like animals, then biology and roots in nature become meaningless. Gender roles are based on social issues.

[quote]This is an absurd non-argument. To live as lawful members of society, many people have to do things they don't like. There are people who like to murder, steal, or rape. Most people don't like paying taxes. Many may not like caring for their children, or fulfilling their legal obligations to others. "People should not have to do anything that they dislike" is a foolish principle to use for morality.[/quote]

Well I wasn't thinking it that far. Obviously you are right. I was thinking about sex at the time and other somewhat trivial stuff.

Edit. Hm, since this post doesn't have anything on gay parenting maybe it should have been more appropriate in the other thread.

Edited September 5, 2005 by Semalsia

[IcePrincessKRS]

While I agree with everyone here who says that gender roles are important and children should have a mother and a father (one female parent and one male parent), I do think that there are the occasional rare exception where it might be necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt. Without going into all the sordid details (unless I have to) you may remember that our own dear Hyper (oh how I miss him) adopted his nephew and was raising little Pepin, and Jon's (and before someone goes off ranting about sin and evil and abomination, they were CELIBATE) daughter Ashley. They didn't adopt him for selfish reasons, no one else would take Pepin and raise him---though they wanted more children they wouldn't adopt more because of the Church's teaching, unless another scenario popped up like the one that gave them Pepin. Again, obviously not the ideal, but in some cases it may be the only choice.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Aug 31 2005, 04:36 PM']Meg --

Here's an article that may be helpful:
[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/researcher.html"]Researcher Surveys Studies on Gay Parenting and Children[/url]

At the bottom of that page, there are links to several other resources on this topic.

The link is off the home page for the [url="http://www.narth.com"]National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality[/url], which could provide a bunch of additional information for you on related topics.
[right][snapback]706751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think the one by NARTH has got to be the most troubling. It's a good thing that it says there isn't ENOUGH evidence to come to a conclusion, but why are the other "studies" already making conclusions and stamping them out as the "official" statement? All articles I've ever read up upon are either "the study clearly shows" (with an agenda/bias) and the nuetral (authors who are either pro-ssa or hetero) and state that not enough evidence is present to make a statement that gay/lesbian parenting causes no real harm/harm. What I do find wierd is their definitions of "faithful" or "promiscuity" in these studies. Remember, as long as you define your term, you may use that word. So if "promiscuity" to society means more than 1 partner, and the term promiscuity in the study is defined as 15+ more partners, then isn't it a bit misleading?

And then, not every case is the same.

[quote]She admits that many of the current studies are skewed: "The majority of lesbian and gay parents and their children participating in studies have been recruited through advertising. In many contexts, it is still not safe for lesbians and gay men to be publicly 'out' about their sexuality, so a representative sample of lesbian and gay parents and their children probably constitutes an unattainable goal at present."

She concludes her survey by observing: "While there is no evidence that children experience difficulties because of being brought up by lesbian or gay parents, it is also important to remember the variation in their experiences."[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 5 2005, 09:09 AM']How does assigning specific clothing to men and women differ from assigning different clothing to different ethnic groups? How about what is appropriate for them to do? How is having a penis or a vagina any more significant than having different skin color? How does sexism differ from racism?[/quote]

It should be obvious that "having a penis or vagina" is more significant than differences in skin color. The male and female organs by their very nature have specific different functions, and males and females thus naturally play different roles in society.

Skin color is just skin color.

Playing the "race card" just won't work here.


[quote]It does not undermine the fact that there are gender roles, but it does undermine the rationale to follow them. Since culture determines what is masculine, two men considered masculine in their home countries could be each other's opposites in behavior. And ways of thinking too. Are you saying that different cultures are a product of spiritual and mental problems?[/quote]

I can't think of any two cultures in which the essential qualities of masculinity would be opposite.
(I am talking the basics here - not such peripherals as whether one wears a kilt or trousers, or length of hair, etc.)

Is there a single culture in which physical prowess, bravery, self-mastery, virility, and sense of honor would be considered effeminate?
Or one in which women are the warriors and men primarily tend for home and children? (Remember, the Amazons didn't exist.)

[quote]So you think we should act like animals, eh? Well, animals don't exactly behave as normatively as you claim: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior"]linky linky[/url]

Also, doesn't trying to behave like animals go against what the Church teaches? Since that would lead to  immorality.

And if you are going to say that we shouldn't behave like animals, then biology and roots in nature become meaningless. Gender roles are based on social issues.[/quote]

You are missing the point of my post. I do not claim that humans should behave like animals. My point was simply that the animal kingdom indicates that "gender roles" are based in nature, and not simply arbitrary constructs of society.

There is such a thing as human nature. Human nature is not the same as chimp nature or dog nature. We Catholics believe that humans are created higher than the other animals and are called to act according to reason and God's laws, not merely follow brute passions. But we are not to act contrary to our nature.

As Catholics, we believe that following morality fulfills our human nature as it was intended to be, not act contrary to it.
Obviously, as an atheist, you'd think differently about such things.

[quote]Well I wasn't thinking it that far. Obviously you are right. I was thinking about sex at the time and other somewhat trivial stuff.
[right][snapback]711728[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not consider sex "trivial." Sexual behavior has consequences, both for the individual and for society. This should be apparent at some level even to an atheist, but as long as I have a Catholic, theistic worldview, and yours is atheistic, we will disagree on many fundamental issues.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Semalsia']Can anyone give me any reason why both sexes are requires in good parenting? You are only saying that it is, without an explanation.

I already asked this in another thread, but the only answer I got was that men have penises.[/quote]
As everyone who's posted here for any length of time knows, I'm a heretic on the issue of human sexuality. I support gay and lesbian civil marriage and I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt children. This isn't a secret to anyone here who knows me. I don't apologize for it, though I admit that perhaps one day I will feel differently -- but right now I don't.

With that said, though, I've never understood people who claim that there is no evidence that children need parental influences from both genders in order to thrive. No offense, but that's just stupid. I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt, but they need to provide some kind of familial influence not provided by the gay or lesbian parents. In other words, a lesbian couple needs to provide a male familial influence for the child, and a gay couple needs to provide a female familial influence for the child. Where I differ from my friends here is that I don't believe that this absolutely must be another parent; I think this could be a grandparent, an uncle or aunt, or some other familial figure.

What's the evidence that children need the influence of both genders in their upbringing? That's easy -- the evidence is that, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise, children need both genders in order to be created. It follows for anyone who believes that God is the Creator that he has a reason for making procreation possible only through male-female sexual relationships. This is true even today in our high-tech society, even with in-vitro fertilization -- even with that, reproduction cannot occur without male and female gametes.

The burden of proof is on those who say that children [i]don't[/i] need the influence of both men and women in their upbringing. If that's the case, then why does nature work differently?