"Same-sex couples are as good at raising well-adjusted, healthy children as heterosexual couples are, a review of 20 years of social science research finds."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, duh.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, DUH!
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
The study is specifically lesbian couples versus hetero couples, though. They say they suspect they'd get the same results with gay male couples, but it's something worth speculating on, because most mothers I know are more involved in their children's lives than fathers. So I wonder whether the results would be the same for two dads versus mom and dad.
Wait actually, I just read the article a bit more carefully, and they imply that single dads are as effective as single moms-- I suspect because men who make the choice to be single dads are in a way self selecting for good parenting traits. So it makes sense that the (far fewer) gay male couples who choose to have kids would also be self selecting, and equally effective parents as lesbian moms.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Actually, something I AM curious about, is whether the study was specifically comparing lesbian couples to male/female parents who adopted. That way both groups are including the self-selection towards good parenting that adoption encourages. It's probably largely irrelevant to the actual point though, since the bottom line is that the self-selection exists no matter what.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: I suspect because men who make the choice to be single dads are in a way self selecting for good parenting traits.
Precisely.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: men who make the choice to be single dads are in a way self selecting for good parenting traits.
My impression (admittedly unsupported by any knowledge of the numbers) is that the majority of single dads are widowers, so I don't know that you can say they've "made the choice" to be single dads. Except inasmuch as they didn't dump the kids off at an orphanage, anyway, which is not really so much of a choice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound right. Checking ... only about 5% are widowed
quote:Among single parents living with their children, close to one in six is a father, compared with one in 10 in 1970, according to Census Bureau stats. Of that number, only 5 percent are widowed. A majority of them are divorced (42 percent) or have never been married (38 percent).
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, that doesn't sound right. Checking ... only about 5% are widowed
quote:Among single parents living with their children, close to one in six is a father, compared with one in 10 in 1970, according to Census Bureau stats. Of that number, only 5 percent are widowed. A majority of them are divorced (42 percent) or have never been married (38 percent).
Interesting.Wondering what makes up the remaining 15%, though!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, that doesn't sound right. Checking ... only about 5% are widowed
quote:Among single parents living with their children, close to one in six is a father, compared with one in 10 in 1970, according to Census Bureau stats. Of that number, only 5 percent are widowed. A majority of them are divorced (42 percent) or have never been married (38 percent).
That only adds up to 85%. What options are there for single parents besides widowed, divorced, and never been married.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Separated.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Chose not to identify?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nice to have another study to confirm it, but yes — the "a mother and a father are specifically required" for "appropriate childrearing environment" was completely bogus. The end.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, I know. I just wanted it here and easily searchable (as "easily" as anything is with this horrid search functionality) so that the next time a benighted 'phobe like CC mouths off about studies in this area, the response will be easier to pull out.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lisa- why are you trying to pollute the argument with silly things like facts and reason?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Could someone please send this to Arkansas so they can rescind their #@#$@#$@# law.
Pardon the #@$@#$@# language.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
No worries. Looks like Perl, except more readable.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
It's all well and good to say "duh", but frankly, those who are against gay marriage, gay adoption, and so on will never be swayed by such childishness. Simply standing up and announcing, "Well, OBVIOUSLY gay parents do no harm" isn't going to convince anyone. Granted, even with genuine scientific evidence, it will be an uphill battle convincing the naysayers, very few of whom have much scientific reasoning behind their own position anyway. But responding to these studies with "Well, duh" is simply not good enough.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If this was an actual debate thread, I might have actually debated. But even then, it's not like there is anything else I could possibly have said. The people who are going to be convinced by that article won't need any more arguments that it already presented.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
How do you decide when they are different genders?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...flip a coin? Or maybe do an egalitarian joint rule the way most modern families do?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
Silly, really. Why can't they BOTH be in charge?
grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
I think we both know the answer to that, and it involves a sports metaphor.
Too far?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
A propos of nothing, does saying "don't feed the troll" count as feeding the troll?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
מטומטם
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: A propos of nothing, does saying "don't feed the troll" count as feeding the troll?
In general, perhaps no. However, paired with an emotional response and/or insults, I would say yes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Really? Is DNFTT the same as DNATT*?
(*Do Not Abuse the Troll)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.
However, to elaborate on the original question. It seems to me the purpose of a troll is to provoke an emotional response from an audience because the troll presumably enjoys it.
Therefore a simple warning that a troll is at work and not to respond wouldn't seem to satisfy this desire. However, a warning paired with an emotional response and/or insults would seem nearly as enjoyable as an outraged "on-topic" response. So yes, I would say it counts in the latter case.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
מטומטם
Didn't we have a discussion about not doing that recently? Lisa, please translate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Didn't we have a discussion about not doing that.
未解決!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
מטומטם
Didn't we have a discussion about not doing that recently? Lisa, please translate.
It was an appropriate response to a stupid question.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: It's all well and good to say "duh", but frankly, those who are against gay marriage, gay adoption, and so on will never be swayed by such childishness. Simply standing up and announcing, "Well, OBVIOUSLY gay parents do no harm" isn't going to convince anyone. Granted, even with genuine scientific evidence, it will be an uphill battle convincing the naysayers, very few of whom have much scientific reasoning behind their own position anyway. But responding to these studies with "Well, duh" is simply not good enough.
Especially since those who oppose it, really do oppose it on relgious grounds. You really can't argue with someone when their argument boils down to, "because God said so".
(No offense intended to religions, I know not all feel that way.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: ... Especially since those who oppose it, really do oppose it on relgious grounds.
Well, maybe in the US. But not true in general.
For example the OP article includes a picture for a Chinese state newspaper reporting on China's first gay "marriage," a country where opposition to gay marriage is decidedly non-religious in nature.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: ... Especially since those who oppose it, really do oppose it on relgious grounds.
Well, maybe in the US. But not true in general.
For example the OP article includes a picture for a Chinese state newspaper reporting on China's first gay "marriage," a country where opposition to gay marriage is decidedly non-religious in nature.
Good point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People can be idiots for cultural reasons almost as easily as they can for religious reasons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Especially when you live in a culture that is religious about its culture.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
If the parents are different genders, how do you decide who's in charge?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
*ahem*
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: *ahem*
lol
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People can be idiots for cultural reasons almost as easily as they can for religious reasons.
People generally don't need reasons at all to be idiots.
IME.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Am I the only one who assumed Ace of Spades was kidding? Perhaps there's history here I don't know about.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I thought he was too. Too bad sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
The Bible says "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Females don't even have rods.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: If both parents are the same gender how do you decide who's in charge?
מטומטם
Didn't we have a discussion about not doing that recently? Lisa, please translate.
she's calling him a wanker.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People can be idiots for cultural reasons almost as easily as they can for religious reasons.
I wouldn't really say that either. I think the reality is a bit more complex.
The Chinese example cuts both ways, not only does it show that opposition to same-sex rights is not necessarily religious in nature, but it also shows such opposition is much less malignant.
For example, Chinese Americans in California voted against Proposition 8 in larger numbers than the majority white population. This difference was largely explained when they controlled for religion. Religiosity was far and away the strongest predictor, ahead of party affiliation, and much stronger than ethnic background. Whatever cultural reasons Chinese people have for opposing same-sex marriage, they don't tend to bring it into their politics, and it is largely overruled by religion.
Another manifestation of this is in Hong Kong; the lead of the opposition to same-sex marriage is actually the Christian right-wing community despite their relatively small numbers in the face of both a larger non-religious community and a larger local (Buddhist, Taoist) religious community.
quote:The Concern Group Against Religious Hegemony, which led yesterday's march, said gay couples should be protected under the Domestic Violence Ordinance. "We are not saying that we support gay marriage," said spokeswoman Virginia Yue. "That is another issue. But same-sex cohabitants' rights should not be excluded from the law just because some religious groups do not accept gay culture."
The Domestic Violence Ordinance, enacted in 1986, enables a party to a marriage, or someone cohabiting with a member of the opposite sex, to seek a court injunction to prevent their partner abusing them. There was cross-party support in the legislature for an amendment, to include same-sex couples, until Democratic Party legislator Wong Sing-chi, a Christian, departed from his party's line and said he would vote against the amendment on religious grounds. Both Catholic and Protestant churches have since led the opposition to extending coverage of the law to same-sex cohabitants.