Study on children raised by gay parents
Note the parts about more depression and drug use---statements I have pointed out here only to be told I am some kind of bigot. This time, though, it is the kids that are experiencing the depression and drug use. The kids are not the ones "not being accepted." Maybe there is something to the causal relationship?
(NOTE: Was going to put this in FSZ but it is closed. Note that I have posted in an adult and professional manner. Lets keep the discussion that way.)
The Homosexual couple with kids would typically be an attempt to deal with the aftermath of a dysfunctional traditional family, I'm thinking. Surely way over 90% of these kids first came from an attempt at a traditional heterosexual union, and very few from homosexual couples that adopted or whatever? Did the studies factor this in? The short article doesn't say. I haven't tried to crack the PDF file.
Quote: odiousgambitSurely way over 90% of these kids first came from an attempt at a traditional heterosexual union, and very few from homosexual couples that adopted or whatever? Did the studies factor this in?
Looks like it did:
Quote: The Study
Specifically, the study examined the respondents’ experiences growing up in
unconventional families where:
a. Parents are of the same sex
b. Biologically unrelated parents adopted the respondent
c. Parents were unmarried but co-habiting
d. Biological mother had a romantic relationship with another man
e. Biological mother did not have a romantic relationship with another man
My problem with the article is that the pdf doc, while looking scientific and trustworthy, only describes the methodology of the study, but no actual results, and the web page states the results in a questionable and argumentative way, that does not really mean very much:
Quote: The Article
Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact.
This indeed seems to be an unfair comparison. Why would you compare a family where the mother has had an affair to an "intact" one?
Abstract of One Study
Summary of Several Studies
And look at the language used in the page you've linked: The sample consisted of children "...who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship..." and children "...who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship..." That doesn't sound like 2 gay parents that had a child together, that sounds like a heterosexual marriage in which one parent was a closeted homosexual and ended up having a gay affair - not really a surprise that an experience like that could have a negative effect.
Side note: if you're looking to be adult and professional, perhaps you should steer clear of sources like foxnews.com
Quote: UWPeteO
Side note: if you're looking to be adult and professional, perhaps you should steer clear of sources like foxnews.com
I have a hard time with that. Foxnews is obviously slanted and crappy, and so is MSNBC. But sometimes they're the only ones talking about a given issue. Bad news is better than no news, isn't it? Same with things like Huffington Post and Red State for more explicitly political content. Definitely slanted, but also definitely actually talking about issues...
Quote: UWPeteO
Side note: if you're looking to be adult and professional, perhaps you should steer clear of sources like foxnews.com
What is wrong with a fair and balanced source like FoxNews? Their record is far better than CBS, NYT, NBC, ABC, and others who have been shown to have doctored or burried stories for political motive.
Are you among the people who still think FNC burried the 2000 Bush-DUI story?
Quote: weaselmanLooks like it did: Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact.
This indeed seems to be an unfair comparison. Why would you compare a family where the mother has had an affair to an "intact" one?
Statistically, "mom's live-in boyfriend" is the most likely abuser to the children. An article on Sandusky and "abuser profiles" stated that it is not uncommon for abusers to stake out women with kids they might be interested in. Sick, yes, still true. So it may appear from the article that "mom's live-in girlfriend" is no different, statistically.
Before I get replies about how "not every live-in BF is an abuser" please note this is about statistics. Even though the majority will not be abusers, it is statistically the least healthy envrionmnet for the kids.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat is wrong with a fair and balanced source like FoxNews? Their record is far better than CBS, NYT, NBC, ABC, and others who have been shown to have doctored or burried stories for political motive.
I'm not going to get into a discussion about which news source is most biased; I'm sure everyone is already thoroughly entrenched in their own opinion. However you must admit that when a conservative source speaks about conservative values (or a liberal source speaks about liberal stories), care should be taken by the reader, as they all have their own level of bias. For that reason I steered clear of any news sites and stuck to scholarly journals and studies.
Quote: AZDuffman
Before I get replies about how "not every live-in BF is an abuser" please note this is about statistics. Even though the majority will not be abusers, it is statistically the least healthy envrionmnet for the kids.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Households that include an unattached live-in adult (regardless of sexuality) are by far the most dangerous households for children. I'll assume that you're advocating for gay marriage here since that'll limit the instance of unattached live-in adults:-)
Quote: AZDuffmanSo it may appear from the article that "mom's live-in girlfriend" is no different, statistically.
"No different" - probably. But I thought, that claim was that it actually is different?
Don't get me wrong, I actually do think that it is different (albeit, in somewhat different ways than the article suggests), but I just don't see enough information in the source you quoted to objectively support such conclusion.
Quote: NareedI think a more interesting study would be on why conservatives go bat-crap crazy when confronted with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Some people just don't like confrontation or don't handle it well, nothing to do with sexuality/gender stuff.
What I think would be really interesting is a study on why gay, lesbian and trans-gender people are always so confrontational to begin with.
Quote: weaselmanSome people just don't like confrontation or don't handle it well, nothing to do with sexuality/gender stuff.
I meant confronted as in when they come across a kind of people, not as in a confrontation. That's why the sentence read "confornted with" and not "confornted by."
Quote: weaselmanWhat I think would be really interesting is a study on why gay, lesbian and trans-gender people are always so confrontational to begin with.
Perhaps it's because they're treated as second class citizens in many ways in this country.
Quote: Gabes22I don't think the average person comes across someone who is homosexual, lesbian, transgender on a daily basis, or even a semi-regular basis
With 3-5% of the country identifying as LGBT (with some estimates closer to 10%), I'm guessing the average person does almost every single day, probably failing to notice more often than not.
Quote: UWPeteOPerhaps it's because they're treated as second class citizens in many ways in this country.
Really? I have never been asked about my sexual orientation in this country by any official or semi-official .. or really anyone, ever.
Whether I am gay or not, it would be impossible for anyone to treat me as a second class citizen based on that, even if they really wanted to, for the simple reason that they have no information available to them to discriminate. Now, if I was marching on the streets with huge annoying slogans declaring that I am, say, a Changa-Manga, am very proud of it, and demand recognition, and various kinds of concessions based on that ... Well, then, I suppose, some people might indeed get tempted to treat me as a second class citizen ...
Quote: UWPeteO
I'm guessing the average person does almost every single day, probably failing to notice more often than not.
... and forgetting to discriminate against too, I suppose ...
Exactly my point.
This was tame compared to what happened to me at a punk show in San Francisco.
Often times conservatives get labeled as being insensitive. There's insensitivity from both sides of this issue.
Quote: weaselmanReally? I have never been asked about my sexual orientation in this country by any official or semi-official .. or really anyone, ever.
Quote: weaselmanNow, if I was marching on the streets with huge annoying slogans declaring that I am, say, a Changa-Manga, am very proud of it, and demand recognition, and various kinds of concessions based on that ... Well, then, I suppose, some people might indeed get tempted to treat me as a second class citizen ...
I assume you've never tried to marry someone of your own gender. And before you say "I don't want to marry someone of my own gender," plenty of people do. And to be denied that right is to be denied the rights married couples enjoy (hospital visitation, proxy rights, etc.). Not to mention the bullying/slurs they have to deal with; teenagers have killed themselves because they'll told day in and day out that what they are isn't normal. And the public figures that openly debate that gay people should not be allowed to raise children. And the occasional far right-wing talking head that equates homosexuality with bestiality or being a pedophile. If I was on the receiving end of all that I'd be marching, too.
Quote: weaselman... and forgetting to discriminate against too, I suppose ... Exactly my point.
My point was that gay people are, more often than not, just like everyone else, mostly in response to the initial question as to whether anyone thinks "gay is no different." And are you saying that refusing to offer marriage rights to gay people isn't discriminatory?
Quote: Gabes22I don't think the average person comes across someone who is homosexual, lesbian, transgender on a daily basis, or even a semi-regular basis
Are you serious? I think there are many more gays in the world than you're assuming there to be.
Quote: RogerKintOften times conservatives get labeled as being insensitive. There's insensitivity from both sides of this issue.
Yes there is.
But there's a world of difference between a gay man hitting on a straight one, and claiming that recognizing same-sex marriage will be the downfall fo Western civilization.
Quote:A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled.
The court on Thursday agreed with a previous ruling, in which a district court judge said the photo studio is considered public, similar to a restaurant or store, and cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation, the Albuquerque Journal reported (http://bit.ly/JSAdE5 ). The photography studio had argued that its refusal was not an act of discrimination but a reflection of the owners' religious and moral beliefs
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/05/nm-court-upholds-gay-discrimination-ruling/#ixzz1xc4bD4zW
Quote: NareedYes there is.
But there's a world of difference between a gay man hitting on a straight one, and claiming that recognizing same-sex marriage will be the downfall fo Western civilization.
No doubt.
Quote: UWPeteOI assume you've never tried to marry someone of your own gender.
Well ... no. But that's not the only thing I never tried. I never tried to marry my sister for example. Not that I ever wanted to, but still ... What I actually would want is to marry two women at once (yes, I love them both, and they love me) ... actually, three would be even better.
It's really a bummer, that I can't marry whoever I want. But does that mean I am treated as a second class citizen?
I don't think so ... And before you say you don't want to be married to two women at once, "plenty of people do".
Quote:And to be denied that right is to be denied the rights married couples enjoy (hospital visitation, proxy rights, etc.).
Exactly. I'll go even further ... Gay people have a lot more hope to be afforded these rights (nobody but gays themselves is really opposed to the idea of civil unions), while people who happen to love more than one person are totally and completely out of luck. Leave alone those who are in love with their siblings.
Quote:Not to mention the bullying/slurs they have to deal with; teenagers have killed themselves because they'll told day in and day out that what they are isn't normal.
Teenagers kill themselves for all kinds of reasons. It sucks to be gay teenager ... but it also sucks to be a geek or a whole lot of other things. If it sucks to be you, it does not automatically mean, that you are treated as a second class citizen. Come on.
Quote:And the public figures that openly debate that gay people should not be allowed to raise children.
So? Should they be treated as second class citizens, and shut up, because their opinion does not match yours?
Quote:And are you saying that refusing to offer marriage rights to gay people isn't discriminatory?
In a way, yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. It really depends on how you define discrimination, but if refusing to offer marriage rights to polygamists is not it, then the same conclusion applies to the gays issue. If the marriage must be between one man and one woman, so be it. But if two man is fine ... Why not three then? (And I mean really, not in the "slippery slope" sense. Seriously, why not? And why in the world not brother and sister?)
Quote: weaselmanSo? Should they be treated as second class citizens, and shut up, because their opinion does not match yours?
Offering lies as proof is not a difference of opinion.
Quote: Nareed
Offering lies as proof is not a difference of opinion.
Definitely!
Quote: UWPeteOPerhaps it's because they're treated as second class citizens in many ways in this country.
Heck, if you want to see who is treated as a "second class citizen" in the USA, consider the plight of the straight-white-christian-male:
--They talk about their faith on "American Idol" or in the NFL and they are told to "tone it down." How many gays are told to "tone it down" when they push gay issues?
--They get attacked in a racially-motivated crime and you will never hear about the "hate-crime enhancement." They defend themselves and hurt a minority and there are calls for a hate-crime charge.
--They are the only group that the Supreme Court says it is OK to discriminate against, to bring "diversity" to college campuses
--They diagree with changing marrige form one man-one woman, as it has been for thousands of years, and they are called racist-sexist-bigot-homophobes. Heck, if they do not swallow the gay agenda 100% they get called that.
--When was the last time you heard a political candidate say "I want to reach out and support straight-white-male rights!"??? You hear it all the time for women, minoritiesm and gays.
---Called on to condem pedophile priests and they do, but how often are there calls for "gay rights" supporters to condem the hedious group NAMBLA?
It goes on and on. The difference is straight-white-christian-males consider themselves individuals, not a "group" and go about their lives, knowing the choices they make are theirs to make and live with good or bad consequences.
Quote: weaselmanSome people just don't like confrontation or don't handle it well, nothing to do with sexuality/gender stuff.
What I think would be really interesting is a study on why gay, lesbian and trans-gender people are always so confrontational to begin with.
Be careful, you will join me and EvenBob on his blocked list with a comment like that.
I will go back to an example EB used for the why they are so confrontational thing, and add in a little of my own. Part of it is a desire for attention. A "look at me" game they are playing. This is why you will see some of the outlandish behavior at their events as was brought up elsewhere here. The other part kind of playes into the first. Gays know christians and conservatives do not approve of or accept their lifestyle choice. We tolerate it, but do not accept it. But there is a difference. Conservatives generally see this kind of thing as misguided, maybe try to change minds, but otherwise go on with out lives. OTOH, gays are like liberals in that they do not like that they have to share the planet with people who hold conservative views. Accelerating since the early 1990s the mantra has been "Acceptance or else!" Some, and I admit being one, will never accept it. Tolerate, sure--accept no. Well, they know that the wild behavior and chanting slogans is repulsive to many who do not accept their life choices, so they keep doing it more and more.
Conservative gays, and they are out there, do not do this. They keep it to themselves, understanding that if the straight guy isn't talking about his exploits all the time then the gay guy should not either as, well, in normal society you talk about other subjects.
So, that's the level of what's allowed to exist on the heterosexual side. Do I really need to worry about children of normal loving non-sociopathic but homosexual parents?
Really?
I got other more worthwhile things to worry about.
Quote: rxwine
So, that's the level of what's allowed to exist on the heterosexual side. Do I really need to worry about children of normal loving non-sociopathic but homosexual parents?
No, not any more than you'd worry about children, raised by a couple of siblings. Or by a family of five non-sociopathic parents.
Quote:I got other more worthwhile things to worry about.
Of course ... Like what what exactly that homosexual couple is called for example.
Quote: rxwine
So, that's the level of what's allowed to exist on the heterosexual side. Do I really need to worry about children of normal loving non-sociopathic but homosexual parents?
Really?
Yes, because the rates of depression, drug abuse, and dysfunction are far higher in those children. And your post seems to imply that all homosexual relationships are just normal, loving ones. In reality a homosexual marrige is far more likely to be "open" and other shall we say, "unnormal" elements around that the kids will be raised around. No matter how you slice it, and the homophiles have sliced it into evey cut possible, homosexuality is unnatural. The mere phgysical repulsion felt when people think about it as well as the negative connotations that poo up in any far-flung society world-wide show that.
Quote: AZDuffmanHeck, if you want to see who is treated as a "second class citizen" in the USA, consider the plight of the straight-white-christian-male:
Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek and you're not actually complaining about winning the genetic lottery.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, because the rates of depression, drug abuse, and dysfunction are far higher in those children. And your post seems to imply that all homosexual relationships are just normal, loving ones. In reality a homosexual marrige is far more likely to be "open" and other shall we say, "unnormal" elements around that the kids will be raised around. No matter how you slice it, and the homophiles have sliced it into evey cut possible, homosexuality is unnatural. The mere phgysical repulsion felt when people think about it as well as the negative connotations that poo up in any far-flung society world-wide show that.
Care to back that up with some actual data? And no, the original link doesn't count for reasons already pointed out in this thread. And if homosexuality is unnatural, why are some people born homosexual (I'm opening up a can of worms with this statement, I'm sure)? How about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom? Happens more often than you might think.
Quote: weaselmanNo, not any more than you'd worry about children, raised by a couple of siblings. Or by a family of five non-sociopathic parents.
Realistically it shouldn't matter, and the government should probably just step out of the defining marriage role. I won't say that siblings should have a (biological) child together due to increased chances of birth defects, but beyond that, what is it anyone's business? If no one is being harmed, the government shouldn't be concerned - don't conservatives want less government anyway?
Quote: UWPeteOCare to back that up with some actual data?
Would that there were some actual data.
Come on, they have to fudge a study in order to get something approaching what they want. But if they said "Study finds that children from broken homes with at elast one gay parent don't do as well as chidlren raised in stable homes," no one would even laugh at them.
Quote: rdw4potusBad news is better than no news, isn't it?
You're joking, right?
Quote: rdw4potusAre you serious? I think there are many more gays in the world than you're assuming there to be.
Are you saying there are that many couples engaging in sodomy (or saying that they are) or that there are that many who think they are sexually attracted to those of their own sex?
Quote: NowTheSerpentYou're joking, right?
I, for one, am thankful that most news is bad news. The reason it is news is because it is shocking and out of the ordinary. I would hate living in a world in which the good deeds we find commonplace and normal, was the behavior that was shocking and out of the ordinary, and thus newsworthy.
Quote: UWPeteOdon't conservatives want less government anyway?
Weaselman is trolling you.
Notice he doens't say anything specific against gay marriage, but tries to equal it with polygamy and incest. By that logic, we should abolish all forms of marriage.
In other words, don't feed the troll.
BTW conservatives are just fine with big government butting in where it's neither needed nor wanted, so long as it furthers their agenda. It's like when they say they favor free markets, except for labor.
Quote: UWPeteORealistically it shouldn't matter, and the government should probably just step out of the defining marriage role. I won't say that siblings should have a (biological) child together due to increased chances of birth defects, but beyond that, what is it anyone's business? If no one is being harmed, the government shouldn't be concerned - don't conservatives want less government anyway?
Well, it looks like you and I are in agreement then. Gay people have as much reason to hold their annoying pride parades and march around the streets obstructing traffic, as do polygamists, those who love with their siblings, and other similarly oppressed classes. Right?
I am not sure what this has to do with less government. You can live with whoever you want - your brother, your six girlfriends, your iPhone even as long as you don't care about the government recognizing your particular living arrangement as marriage.
If you really think it's none of government business, there is no point in protesting and parading. Just consider yourself married to whoever you want, and live with them happily ever after.
Quote: Nareed
Notice he doens't say anything specific against gay marriage, but tries to equal it with polygamy and incest. By that logic, we should abolish all forms of marriage.
I don't try to equal it. I am asking anyone who can, to point out the difference, because I honestly cannot see it.
It's ok too, if there isn't any in your view, like UWPeteO said. I just want to understand your point of view.
There is really nothing specific that can be said against gay marriage, it's just a word. And meaning of words is always subject to the definition. Up until now, the meaning of word "marriage" has been a union between one man, and one woman with the assumed main purpose of procreation.
I understand that words do change meaning sometimes. What I am asking is for someone to explain to me the reasons for the meaning of this particular word to be redefined. The usual argument about gay people not being able to marry who they want does not seem to work, because there are other, non-gay, people, who are not able to marry who they want too. If it makes sense to accommodate the former, then why is it OK to keep the latter in th "second class citizen" category? Because their voice isn't loud enough, and there are no annoying parades in the streets? That does not seem fair ...
Quote: weaselmanI just want to understand your point of view.
No, you don't. You just want to nitpick statements, meanings to create more false moral equivalencies. Your goal is to ridicule and delegitimize, not to understand.
Quote: ewjones080I just clicked the link and saw Fox News, so immediately I feel I won't believe a WORD of it.. but I'll read and see what I think.
I think you are confused--it is other outlets, mainly CBS and NBC that have been caught using fake doccuments and changing 911 calls to further their agenda. FoxNews is fair and balanced, but liberals do not like that they do not parrot the left-wing line of thinking.
Quote: NareedNo, you don't.
I am sure, you have very extensive knowledge in the area of what I want. So, I guess, I'll have to defer to your expertise in this matter.
Quote: weaselmanWell, it looks like you and I are in agreement then. Gay people have as much reason to hold their annoying pride parades and march around the streets obstructing traffic, as do polygamists, those who love with their siblings, and other similarly oppressed classes. Right?
Gay pride parades have their roots in marching against violence and discrimination that was rampant in the past (and obviously still exists to a lesser extent). They allow formerly (and in many cases still) marginalized members of the community to show that they aren't ashamed of being who they are, to increase their visibility as a community.
For the record I wouldn't have a problem if polygamists sought for equality, or any other group that felt marginalized. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether polygamy or incest or whatever should be legalized because that's not what we're discussing. It suffices to say that people, who by living an alternative lifestyle of their choice which does no harm to anyone else, should not be discriminated against.
Quote: UWPeteOPlease tell me this is tongue-in-cheek and you're not actually complaining about winning the genetic lottery.
It is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." Pointing out plenty of people in groups have obstacles to overcome.
Quote:And if homosexuality is unnatural, why are some people born homosexual (I'm opening up a can of worms with this statement, I'm sure)? How about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom? Happens more often than you might think.
There is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. And please don't waste my time pointing out the pro-gay Wikapedia article saying there is. Animals do not have sex for pleasure. Male-on-male animal mounting is all about domination, like male-male rape in prison is. Finally, you are not "born homosexual." Homosexuality is a behavior driven by choice.
