posted
Last week (or so), a certain person on this forum challenged others to cite sources showing that children raised by same sex couples turned out okay.
"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."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
People can be idiots for cultural reasons almost as easily as they can for religious reasons.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who assumed Ace of Spades was kidding? Perhaps there's history here I don't know about.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I think Same Sex Marriages work much better than when a married couple are having different sex (different from each other)--see Senator Edwards.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
