That's sort of an answer, so I'll respond. But you don't get your five questions until the answer is complete.
I'm not asking for the truth of the universe, nor will your answer be the end of the debate. I'm asking what you believe. A guess with disclaimers would be fine.
No you aren't. In fact you don't need to since I'm quite up front with my beliefs and motivations whereas you aren't.
Once again you made this statement: Because adoption and in-vitro fertilization still constitute a negligible minority of children, and because some studies show that children raised by same-sex parents are statistically more likely do experience development and psychiatric problems. Both of those points are debatable, but until they're discredited it remains valid to distinguish between traditional and same-sex marriage on that basis.
Once more you made a statement that claimed gay parenting leads more often to troubled kids so therefore it should be used as a negative factor when deciding on adoptions.
I attacked that argument (quite successfully too) and questioned your motives because I doubt the motives of people who make those arguments just as I do those trying to tie race to things like crime rather then using circumstances.
Psudo wrote:
Your previous arguments plus deduction have led to that conclusion.
In other words you support me entirely in my conclusion of your motives based on deductive reasoning.
BTW, its not necessary to link words to their meaning lest lestthepostbecomes ... well you get the picture.
Psudo wrote:
Either you believe those arguments absolutely and the conclusion must therefore be absolutely true, or you only partially trust those arguments and don't dare trust the conclusion that derives from them, or you're being irrational. I think it's the second option,
Projection. Your own arguments were destroyed and your belief in them is foundering so you claim uncertainty in your opponent.
I didn't go from saying "studies show" to "we don't really know".
Psudo wrote:
but (as you've pointed out) I've been wrong in my thinking before.
Quite often actually.
Psudo wrote:
But your answer matters. It tells me who I'm debating. You've insisted that my character matters; it's only fair that your character matters, too. And the character of your logical mind interests me most.
Uh, OK.
Psudo wrote:
Would you like my answer first? I'm not certain how gay and straight parenting compare. My best guess is that any single-gender parenting team faces extra challenges and thus, on average, has a little less success. I am certain that prejudice is at least part of the gap, but I doubt it is all of the gap.
Then don't make bold statements that it should be used as a negative factor rather then (as I keep telling you) as a guide to a direction to take.
Psudo wrote:
That doesn't mean every individual gay parent must necessarily be a bad parent. On the contrary, I'm absolute certain that some gay parents are better than the average for straight parents. Those gay parents should be able to adopt children before straight parents of lower capability.
Well thanks for completely conceding the point. Now if only you could whip up a little chart that every one can follow so that each adoption agency can simply match the parents up along your "parent-O-metre" and everything will be hunky dorey.
Psudo wrote:
But an adoption agency that ignores the extra challenges gay (or any) parents face when deciding on child placement is, on average, putting children at additional risk.
THIS is the entire crux of the argument and I want you to read this very very carefully!
THEY DON'T. Adoption agencies don't simply ignore the sexual preference of the prospective parents just as they don't ignore religion, the presence of other children, colour, whatever. What they do do, is use this knowledge to identify potential problems and provide the information and tools the parents will need to raise a healthy and happy child
I've been saying that since day one. You however have been making the argument that the knowledge that the parents are gay should be used as an exclusionary factor where possible and you used a study conducted by people who want to prevent all gays from both adopting children and serving as foster parents.
You are changing your argument which either means:
A)you only partially trust those arguments and don't dare trust the conclusion that derives from them or
B) or you're being irrational.
Psudo wrote:
Now, please answer the question. Is the negative influence of anti-gay prejudice on gay parenting more of an influence than the difference between gay parenting and parenting by a straight couple?
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YET? It doesn't F*cking matter because I'm not advocating using that criteria as an exclusionary factor or else I'd be making the argument "in a few years when gays are more accepted then adoption agencies should favour gay parents over straight ones when all things are equal.
I'm not making that argument nor can I make the statement that in the absence of homophobia gay parents will raise healthier and happy children. There are too many factors to say that. What I am saying is that homosexuality isn't the evil black pit of child rearing that some think it is nor is it a factor to be used exclusionary like you say it is.
Even if you now saw you never were making that argument it can certainly be implied by your insistence I say which group make better parents when that's entirely subjective. One failed kid for some parents might be to raise a socialist hippy and for other parents to raise a war mongering conservative.
ITS SUBJECTIVE.
All that matters is that the factors and circumstances of both the parents and child be used to provide a tool-kit to overcome current problems and identify likely ones to develop in order to prepare for and overcome those.
I'm not looking to keep score because Gay parents Vs Straight parents isn't a hockey game.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:50 am
I'll take the answer "It's subjective." Since it's subjective, my position is not objectively false. I'll keep it until it is.
You have five questions. I'm not counting "Don't you understand yet?" because I think you're being rhetorical. Fire away.
DerbyX
CKA Uber
Posts: 20757
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:11 pm
Psudo wrote:
I'll take the answer "It's subjective." Since it's subjective, my position is not objectively false. I'll keep it until it is.
You have five questions. I'm not counting "Don't you understand yet?" because I think you're being rhetorical. Fire away.
Again you misunderstand.
One failed kid for some parents might be to raise a socialist hippy and for other parents to raise a war mongering conservative.
ITS SUBJECTIVE.
The subjective part is the fact that the kid failed. Concluding that you know its entirely subjective means you can't make a statement affirming your conclusion that gay parenting constitutes a negative factor to be used in determining the fitness for adoption. Once again you bounce from "studies have shown" when you need to support your theory to "we don't have enough data" when I show your theory is false.
I'm not interested in asking you question to which I already have the answers to or to which I'm not particularly concerned with the answer.
Since we have exhausted this topic I'll bid you Qapla.
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:18 pm
DerbyX wrote:
I'm not interested in asking you question to which I already have the answers to or to which I'm not particularly concerned with the answer.
"It's not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Saffron
Active Member
Posts: 161
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:40 am
Quote:
in other words, How many of us, really want to associate with drug addicted skanks, or homosexual couples?
Many of my friends are homosexual couples. I have no more problem with them, than I do with heterosexual couples. I'm offended that you would equate them with drug addicted skanks. They are professors and pilots, doctors and firemen. In other words, they are just like real people!
Steen
Newbie
Posts: 2
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:46 am
An apology in advance for my rambling: it's somewhat stream-of-consciousness so if anybody doesn't want to read that, best to avoid this post.
Not because I actually believe his findings indicate a causal relationship at all, mind you; I suppose I just wanted to show that people will make statistical studies say whatever they want them to (especially when dealing with social statistics like this, where things can get nebulous).
I do believe that there probably is a slightly correlative relationship, however, since lesbian couples cannot have unplanned pregnancies and therefore will wait until they are financially and emotionally well-off enough for children. I don't believe what Stephen Scott seems to be saying in that article, which is that there is something inherently better about lesbian parents (although that might just be the article trying to be sensational). And I'm sure that the "heterosexual" data he uses includes unmarried couples.
Plus, the sample size of gay parents has always been much much smaller than that of heterosexual parents, and therefore the average is more prone to small fluctuations in the data. I don't think I've seen any studies come out yet with very robust, solid data on the subject. I have been convinced by the data that role models of the same gender as the child seem to be important, but I have not seen good enough data suggesting that it must be a parental figure.
Sorry if I strayed from what you guys actually wanted to discuss, it seems I just babbled on about what I wanted to talk about, instead. So, marriage:
If we accept that marriage is intended only for creating a better environment for raising children (which I would not automatically disagree with), and we also accept that a couple's capacity for quality parenting / raising quality children should be considered (ie: are gay parents as good as straight parents?), then I think it follows that all couples should be evaluated for parenting capacity.
Obviously, sterile couples and those who choose not to have children are in a small minority. But married people with inadequate finances or abnormal emotional issues are much more numerous, and their children are usually worse for these instabilities. I'm not suggesting that the government should refuse to allow two people to marry just because they are not upper/middle class (that is way too totalitarian), I'm just typing out a bit of a mental exercise on the subject.
Hopefully it is not coming off as a "slippery slope" type argument. It just seems logical to me that, if there is a "quality of child" spectrum of parents that looks something like this (for the sake of argument):
And that all gay couples should be excluded because of their inability to provide good enough parenting, then all other couples lower down the spectrum should also be excluded. Now, emotionally abnormal parents would be hard to catch and practically impossible to regulate, but we have to file our taxes every year so I imagine it would be logistically easy to exclude couples based on finances (and perhaps other factors, such as property ownership et cetera).
I realize that, ideally, marriage is supposed to make the finance problems easier and thereby ready the couple for children. But in actuality, the difference is not enough for poor couples to improve their children's upbringing. I'll admit it can make the difference for middle-class families, though.
If, on the other hand, we choose to define marriage as something else (to avoid excluding poor people and gays from getting married), well then what is it? I've often heard it likened to a business partnership (probably metaphorically, but it's something I can visualize). It almost seems to me, that the public concept of marriage has changed so much, that it seems difficult to apply the old philosophies and definitions.
I don't actually have any concept of what a marriage "should be," so I am exploring the question of what is a marriage.
I saw that study and was going to bring it up at one point, but I decided the point about the lack of trustworthy science was already sufficiently made by the U Cal study. I didn't want to add more fuel to the fire.
Steen wrote:
I do believe that there probably is a slightly correlative relationship, however, since lesbian couples cannot have unplanned pregnancies and therefore will wait until they are financially and emotionally well-off enough for children.
A radically good point I had not considered. I've long been under the impression that lesbian couples were more effective parents than gay male couples, but I attributed the difference to the loving mother/stoic father stereotype. Your explanation is much better.
Steen wrote:
I have been convinced by the data that role models of the same gender as the child seem to be important, but I have not seen good enough data suggesting that it must be a parental figure.
I had a neighbor growing up, a single mom with an adopted son. My father played his father (and I big brother) a lot over the years, including at the ceremony when the son received the rank of Eagle Scout. I can absolutely attest that the role model need not legally be a parent.
Steen wrote:
Sorry if I strayed from what you guys actually wanted to discuss, it seems I just babbled on about what I wanted to talk about, instead.
Not at all. I think you're exactly on-topic.
Steen wrote:
I think it follows that all couples should be evaluated for parenting capacity.
The adoption agency should certainly evaluate them before placing a child in their care, sure. Government considering the couple before allowing a marriage, though... I'm extremely wary of regulation of that beyond what is necessary to prevent polygamy, underage marriages, kissing cousins, and the like. Everyone should be allowed to get married, but not necessarily now or to literally anyone (and certainly not anything!) they like.
Steen wrote:
[If] all gay couples should be excluded because of their inability to provide good enough parenting, then all other couples lower down the spectrum should also be excluded. Now, emotionally abnormal parents would be hard to catch and practically impossible to regulate, but we have to file our taxes every year so I imagine it would be logistically easy to exclude couples based on finances (and perhaps other factors, such as property ownership et cetera).
It's an utterly unique analogy you're drawing here between preventing the marriage of gays and preventing the marriage of two poor people. Gays are allowed, in the current US system, to get married -- just not to members of their own sex as they wish. Poor people, in your metaphor, would also be allowed to marry -- just not to members of their own income class. I'm not sure whether you intended it or not, but you've given a remarkably strong argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. I can't imagine any social conservative rationale that would not passionately object to a ban on poor marriage, and yet the parallel is quite strong.
Having two parents matters. Their gender doesn’t, according to a new study.
A pair of American sociologists spent five years sifting through all the available literature contrasting the outcomes for children raised in traditional families with those raised by a same-sex couple. Their conclusion: no substantive difference at all.
“The upshot of the study is something that should be common sense, but instead there is this enormous belief in the significance of gender. Bottom line: What matters is good parenting,” said NYU’s Judith Stacey. She and colleague Timothy Biblarz published the results of their investigation in the Journal of Marriage and Family on Friday.
Stacey and Biblarz have been involved in the culture wars surrounding gay marriage and gay parenthood since the release of their 2001 study, How Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?
Those who disagreed with their answer to that question – “not that much” – began casting around for their own scientific data. That prompted this follow-up.
“In the U.S. especially, policy makers ... always start their (anti-gay marriage) argument with, ‘Research proves...,’” Stacey said. “But that research is almost exclusively research that compares children with two married parents to children whose parents divorced or never married. It’s completely skewed.
“They were extrapolating from those studies, which can say, on average – and that’s an important qualification – two parents usually are better than one. Not always. That’s another, more complicated story. But it certainly has nothing to do with whether (the parents are) male or female.”
The only discernible and consistent advantage they could come up with for traditional couples: lactation.
Their new review of 81 studies focused almost exclusively on lesbian couples raising children. Stacey notes that gay male parenthood is too recent a phenomenon and the sample size too small to provide evidence of child outcomes.
Without exception, the studies showed that, on average, children of lesbian couples fared no worse than their counterparts. They played more with their children, spent more time with them, and were less likely to use physical discipline. Their children, in turn, were more accepting of difference in others.
Since the issue of “fatherless boys” is front-and-centre in those debates, Stacey particularly wanted to debunk the myth that boys suffered.
“The unstated – or maybe stated – fear is that they’ll be ‘sissies’ or ‘wimps.’ There’s no evidence for that. There’s a teeny bit of evidence that boys with two mothers were just as masculine on the scales that we use to measure such things, but they did turn out a little bit higher on their feminine scale,” Stacey said.
In other words, boys tended to be better rooted in both gender camps. Girls raised by a pair of mothers were indistinguishable in their development from those raised by a man and woman.
As for the argument that children of gay couples were bound to be the object of teasing and abuse from other children, Stacey was dismissive.
“There’s very little evidence of that. Plus, that’s one of those self-fulfilling prophecies, isn’t it?” Stacey said. “That’d be like saying you shouldn’t let Jewish people have children in an anti-Semitic society because they’ll be stigmatized by their peers. It’s ridiculous.”
If anything, children raised by lesbians might be slightly better off.
“It’s a little hard to say, because if you have two women parenting together, you’re selecting for people who very actively wanted to become parents,” Stacey said. “But the second female parent (the mother who did not give birth) tended to be more actively involved than the biological heterosexual father, in terms of contact time with their children. Plus, lesbian couples, on average, tend to share domestic and economic responsibilities a little bit more equally than heterosexual couples did.”
However, Stacey veered away from any talk of better or worse. She emphasized nurture over nature.
“Women have a slight advantage for all sorts of reasons – cultural, and possibly biological reasons – but on average there are more women who are really eager to be parents and be really invested in it,” Stacey said. “But men who want to do it are just as good at it as women.”
Rachel Epstein, coordinator of the LGBTQ (Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Trans Queer) Parenting Network at Sherbourne Health Centre, welcomed the results, but with a caveat.
“This finding about gender is interesting. It kind of lays to rest the anxieties that people have about kids growing up in lesbian families,” Epstein said. “People are afraid they’ll be all confused about gender, they won’t understand. The study’s saying, ‘No need to worry. The kids come out the same as any other kid.’”
“On the other hand, if you want to make a more complicated argument, you could ask, ‘Do we really want to support very traditional gender norms? Is that what we’re striving for?’” Epstein said. “There’s always been this pressure on LTGB families and the kids in LGBT families to be poster children. We always have to say, ‘Everything’s fantastic.’ It would be really great if we could have a more real conversation about what’s happening in our families, good and bad. But that conversation becomes limited because of the political context in which we live. It’s still very attacking of our families.”
Many of those issues are addressed in Who’s Your Daddy?, an anthology about queer parenting edited by Epstein.
Though she hasn’t ventured as far as those intimately involved in the debate, Stacey was nonetheless preparing for a backlash.
“I suspect there will be (hostility). It just too directly conflicts with what is just a foundational belief of people who are opposed to all sort of family changes,” Stacey said. “But I think they’re going to have a hard time finding any research that supports them. We really looked carefully.”
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:16 pm
How do you jive this study's findings with your previously stated view that judging parenting outcomes requires a subjective definition of a healthy child? It can't simultaneously be both scientifically definitive and politically subjective.
The study makes a strong argument. There are three limitations to it, two of which they themselves admit: 1) It says nothing of gay male parents. "gay male parenthood is too recent a phenomenon and the sample size too small to provide evidence of child outcomes." This somewhat undermines the claim that gender is irrelevant to parenting, though it does nothing to diminish the apparent effectiveness of lesbian parenting. 2) It is not based on new data, but rather new analysis of existing data. In the interest of thoroughness and in light of their 2001 claim that previous studies' methodologies were flawed, new data should be collected and processed by the same analysis as this study to validate the data collection process as well. 3) It's a little suspect to claim all previous studies were flawed, then claim after one study that you've found the answer. Duplication of the results by another researcher would reinforce the argument further.
2) and 3) could be resolved by the same study, if another research team recreated the Stacey/Biblarz methodology on entirely new data. If such a study arrived at the same conclusion without a new contradicting study, it would be about as definitive of evidence as science ever provides. No science-based, intellectually honest politician could recognize any distinction in parenting rights between lesbians and heterosexual parents in the face of that evidence.
Quote:
“In the U.S. especially, policy makers ... always start their (anti-gay marriage) argument with, ‘Research proves...,’” Stacey said.
Though I'm not a policy maker, I'm sure you were thinking of me when you read this. If you go back and read my comments, though, you'll see that I never said "proves" and always said "some research", thus acknowledging the inconclusive evidence and another side to the story. I've always known the science was divided on the issue, and have always been careful to indicate that, though you have seemed at times not to notice.
All in all, it's a very good argument.
DerbyX
CKA Uber
Posts: 20757
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:57 pm
Psudo wrote:
How do you jive this study's findings with your previously stated view that judging parenting outcomes requires a subjective definition of a healthy child? It can't simultaneously be both scientifically definitive and politically subjective.
How do I jive it? Well for one you'll note they aren't making that type of well fare qualification of a healthy child. They simply state that there are no substantial differences in the outcomes. They avoid making judgments about "health".
Psudo wrote:
The study makes a strong argument. There are three limitations to it, two of which they themselves admit: 1) It says nothing of gay male parents. "gay male parenthood is too recent a phenomenon and the sample size too small to provide evidence of child outcomes." This somewhat undermines the claim that gender is irrelevant to parenting, though it does nothing to diminish the apparent effectiveness of lesbian parenting.
Not really since the claim that it takes 1 male and 1 female to properly raise a child is the claim they are disputing. They can easily do that by showing 2 women can raise children as well as 2 men. At worst they'll confirm what most people think anyway in that women are better suited to nurturing children then men. They are simply acknowledging the limitations of the data, something the anti-gay side never did.
Psudo wrote:
2) It is not based on new data, but rather new analysis of existing data. In the interest of thoroughness and in light of their 2001 claim that previous studies' methodologies were flawed, new data should be collected and processed by the same analysis as this study to validate the data collection process as well.
New data is being collected but its irrelevant when they are disputing claims made by others about the very data they are referencing. If groups like Narth want to claim data supports their conclusions then it damn well better and these researchers are showing it doesn't. The anti-gay side isn't using new data. In fact they rely heavily on older data because newer data keeps showing that the pro-gay side is correct about gay parenting.
Psudo wrote:
3) It's a little suspect to claim all previous studies were flawed, then claim after one study that you've found the answer. Duplication of the results by another researcher would reinforce the argument further.
Suspect? Well for one they aren't necessarily disputing the studies but they are disputing the claims made by others over their analysis. In fact their study is based on all previous studies rather then just the ones that showed what some people wanted them too. Since they aren't conducting a study with reproducible results how exactly can another researcher reproduce them. Since they have a list of all the literature they reviewed then its very easy for somebody to do what they did and read through them all and come up with their own analysis.
Psudo wrote:
2) and 3) could be resolved by the same study, if another research team recreated the Stacey/Biblarz methodology on entirely new data. If such a study arrived at the same conclusion without a new contradicting study, it would be about as definitive of evidence as science ever provides. No science-based, intellectually honest politician could recognize any distinction in parenting rights between lesbians and heterosexual parents in the face of that evidence.
Unless that research team was politically motivated to push the results a certain way. Again though, you should understand the difference of conducting a study and providing an analysis of many studies. The whole point of these researchers was to show that overall, all the studies conducted showed no significant differences because its likely some studies would have.
As for "no science based, intellectual honest politician" well that ignores the fact that the US is rife with religiously motivated anti-intellectual politicians who are very much trying to enact discriminatory laws. No study anywhere shows that gay marriage harms straight marriage in any way and yet its opposed vehemently.
Psudo wrote:
Quote:
“In the U.S. especially, policy makers ... always start their (anti-gay marriage) argument with, ‘Research proves...,’” Stacey said.
Though I'm not a policy maker, I'm sure you were thinking of me when you read this.
I was thinking of you when I read the piece not any specific passage.
Psudo wrote:
If you go back and read my comments, though, you'll see that I never said "proves" and always said "some research", thus acknowledging the inconclusive evidence and another side to the story. I've always known the science was divided on the issue, and have always been careful to indicate that, though you have seemed at times not to notice.
Actually what you said is that some research shows and that the research in question should be considered the gold standard for making policy until disproved an inherently one sided argument and a burden of proof fallacy. Science isn't divided on the issue. People are divided on the issue. Science merely provides the data and when used correctly an analysis. Your claim that you acknowledge the inconclusiveness of the data would carry greater weight if you hadn't made the claim that because some research showed children of gay parents fared worse that policy makers should base their policies on that premise until conclusively proven otherwise.
It amazes me you cannot see why that was wrong.
Psudo wrote:
All in all, it's a very good argument.
And how many politicians in your country will agree and accept their findings and drop all opposition to gay parenting?
Psudo
CKA Elite
Posts: 3266
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:47 pm
DerbyX wrote:
the claim that it takes 1 male and 1 female to properly raise a child is the claim they are disputing.
Statistics isn't about proving political points wrong, it's about determining what is right (ie, what is reflected by observable outcomes). You're disputing heterosexual parenting as the ideal. They're determining what is true.
DerbyX wrote:
The whole point of these researchers was to show that overall, all the studies conducted showed no significant differences
If that was the point of the researchers, then the research was biased. But I doubt that was actually the case. As science, the intent was to find truth through observation, not disprove political theories.
DerbyX wrote:
As for "no science based, intellectual honest politician" well that ignores the fact that the US is rife with religiously motivated anti-intellectual politicians who are very much trying to enact discriminatory laws.
Yes, idiots will continue to vote against clear scientific truths. But that makes them idiots. My point was that it would become impossible to rationally oppose lesbian parenting in the face of that hypothetical evidence, with the key word being rationally. I would never try to claim people were all rational, especially not to you.
DerbyX wrote:
Actually what you said is that some research shows and that the research in question should be considered the gold standard for making policy until disproved an inherently one sided argument and a burden of proof fallacy.
Actually, what I said was that "some research shows" and as long as science wasn't definitive either way I would continue to choose whichever of the scientifically acceptable theories I liked best regardless of why. Policy makers should make policy based on clear science first and foremost, but if science is divided or inconclusive they are free to choose based on something else.
If you disagree with my description of my own reasoning, show me quotes. Otherwise I remain the world's foremost authority on my own thoughts.
DerbyX wrote:
Science isn't divided on the issue. People are divided on the issue.
And yet I located scientific studies that disagreed with what you claim is the consensus theory. Doesn't that inherently demonstrate a scientific divide, at least in that older data?
In case it's escaped your observation, I haven't bothered to question NARTH's validity because you originally brought them up to defend your view. If figure if they're good enough for you, they're good enough for me.
whiskeyjack
Active Member
Posts: 184
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 am
The greatest contributions are the ones you leave behind
CKA Uber 
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YET? It doesn't F*cking matter because I'm not advocating using that criteria as an exclusionary factor or else I'd be making the argument "in a few years when gays are more accepted then adoption agencies should favour gay parents over straight ones when all things are equal.
CKA Elite 
