Children Fare Better In Traditional Families Than Gay Families

[california boy]

From reading the other thread and a few other sources, it is very apparent that there are multiple problems with this study.

http://www.slate.com...iage_good_.html

Let's see.

Four pro-SSM pressure groups disagree with a study that challenges one of their pet talking points. Yep, it must be seriously flawed, all right!

Tell me, Daniel: when they don't have an audience to perform for, do any gaygitators really believe that children are not better off with a mother and a father?

Regards,

Pahoran

You will be removed from the thread if another disrespectful word is used.

And then of course there is the famous study that touted you could change your sexual orientation if you really tried that has been the darling of those that believe people just wake up one day and decide to be gay. Well it was the darling for over 10 years until the author of the study came out and confessed that the whole study was flawed.

This study with an agenda is not the first and won't be the last. Did you even read what was posted by Daniel? If you are defending this study, what part of the criteria of the study do you think is subjective? I would love to hear your rational for defending this study as being unbias other than your current pot shots.

Robert Spitzer Retracts 2001 Ex-gay

[selek1]

From reading the other thread and a few other sources, it is very apparent that there are multiple problems with this study.

And yet you don't highlight those flaws, you instead link to a politically-driven opinion piece.

And you do so despite your own rant in the other thread about not wanting "a bunch of politically motivated opinions."

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too- but that's not the first bit of intellectual hypocrisy exposed in this thread.

This study with an agenda is not the first and won't be the last.

Ironically, while you, Libs, and the LGBT advocacy groups allege that the study was agenda-driven, none of you provide actual evidence to support that claim.

All of the articles linked resort to ad hominem attacks on the author- but pay scant little attention to his methodology or purported flaws therein.

Nor ironically, have you ever been seen to demand the same sort of "due diligence" for studies which support your orthodoxy.

I will be the first to admit that this study may be flawed and should be examined more closely instead of dismissed out of hand.

But the calls for "due diligence" from people like SometimeSaint, Libs, Daniel, and CaliforniaBoy would be far more impressive if there were any evidence that they practice what they preach.

[Libs]

All of the articles linked resort to ad hominem attacks on the author- but pay scant little attention to his methodology or purported flaws therein.

You don't seem to have read the articles, if that is your belief. As for 'real' research, there is a lot of it and I have seen it. I can present the actual research, if you wish.

I will be the first to admit that this study may be flawed and should be examined more closely instead of dismissed out of hand.

That's a start. I think the two or three articles that have already been linked show the basic problems with this research (some of which I had already suspected). I've been around for along time and been very interested in racial, gender and other types of discrimination. You develop a sixth sense, after awhile.

[selek1]

You develop a sixth sense, after awhile.

Indeed one does. One can almost smell the ideologically-driven selectivity and hypocrisy in assessing which studies are to be swallowed whole and which are automagically declared "suspect".

And with that, I'm going to take the good advice I just got done giving to Walker in the other thread.

Wake me if a substantive criticism is offered.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/155845/why_conservatives_wrongly_blame_single_moms_for_the_disastrous_failures_of_the_right-wing_economic_model/?page=entire

[Buzzard]

http://www.alternet....el/?page=entire

Interesting. At the risk of coming off as another right wing, judgemental, stuffed shirt, (which I am really not, except on Monday mornings), I would posit that there is a large gulf between what I would call an abandoned wife, who enters into a good faith marriage, has children, and then is left by her husband, versus the "silly wom(a)n, laden with sins", who shacks up or otherwise can't keep her pants zipped. The former has a claim on society and/or the church for the maintenence of her family. In days gone by, alimony and child support somewhat took care of this, but that system has broken down, a subject for another thread.

The latter deserves, along with her "partner(s)", the condemnation of society for having brought precious souls into the world in a situation practically doomed to failure.

Interjecting a moral component into what is presented as an essentially economic issue might not be fashionable in this enlightened day and age, but some of us old fogeys still can see said component, and would also apply it to the whole gay parent rigamarole as well.

[thesometimesaint]

Buzzard:

I'm older than you are.

If the object is to lay blame so we can feel oh so much more morally superior to those loose women. Sure have at it. However if the object is to help the innocent children regardless of their mothers morals. Then demonizing them seems at best useless, and counterproductive at worst.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard:

I'm older than you are.

If the object is to lay blame so we can feel oh so much more morally superior to those loose women. Sure have at it. However if the object is to help the innocent children regardless of their mothers morals. Then demonizing them seems at best useless, and counterproductive at worst.

Couldn't agree more. Children are the innocent victims in all this. And blaming their irresponsible sperm and egg donors doesn't mean we abandon the kids. Also, don't be so sure about being older than me. I'm old enough to have voted for Gerald Ford.

[thesometimesaint]

Buzzard:

Richard Nixon.

[Libs]

Indeed one does. One can almost smell the ideologically-driven selectivity and hypocrisy in assessing which studies are to be swallowed whole and which are automagically declared "suspect".

And with that, I'm going to take the good advice I just got done giving to Walker in the other thread.

Wake me if a substantive criticism is offered.

All you have to offer are personal attacks, selek. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, seems not worth the effort.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

One study of course doesn't establish the science, but it is an interesting study. I agree that personal attacks don't advance the discussion.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard:

Richard Nixon.

OK, I surrender....

[Libs]

I agree that personal attacks don't advance the discussion.

Thanks, SSS. They certainly don't. That will cause me to back off from a discussion faster than anything.

As for this recent study, it distresses me, because it appears to be an attempt to disparage a group of people who have already been through the mill of disparagement, in this country, and many others. But, change rarely comes easily nor without resistance..

[Zeta-Flux]

As for this recent study, it distresses me, because it appears to be an attempt to disparage a group of people who have already been through the mill of disparagement...

Where exactly does it disparage them?

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I think there is a great deal of validity to the idea that we learn to parent from our parents, and we learn how to be a married couple from our married parents. Of course it's not absolute, but the best predictor of a child's future divorce is the divorce of the parents. I don't know as there is enough studies to show the same correlations with never marrieds.

[Libs]

Libs:

I think there is a great deal of validity to the idea that we learn to parent from our parents, and we learn how to be a married couple from our married parents. Of course it's not absolute, but the best predictor of a child's future divorce is the divorce of the parents. I don't know as there is enough studies to show the same correlations with never marrieds.

I wouldn't disagree, at all, that children learn how to have relationships and also how to parent, from their own parents. In watching an interview with Neil Patrick Harris and his partner (who have two biological children), they were discussing how they both grew up in rather conservative homes and how that has effected, not only their relationship with each other, but their parenting style.

Relationships are often heavily influenced by watching our own parents (both in the positive and negative).

Parents are our first role models (whether they are single, married or SS couplings). I think positive modeling can occur, no matter the situation...but, struggling with economics can prevent parents from having enough time to spend with their children, which becomes a big problem for single mother's, in particular. Children are left long hours in the care of others or simply left to their own devices, which can have disastrous outcomes.

[Libs]

Buzzard:

Richard Nixon.

Seems you and I are relatively close in age. I voted for Richard Nixon. I could have voted in the election previous to that one (Lyndon Johnson?), but I was living out of my home state, at the time, and didn't bother. I was traveling with my husband (Vietnam Vet) and we were stationed in Alabama, at the time.

[Libs]

Where exactly does it disparage them?

I have to leave for now, but I will get back to this.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I don't know as that can be said of SS couples. We do know that girls learn how to interact with men from watching their fathers interact with them and their mothers, and boys learn how to interact with women from watching how their mothers interact with them, and their fathers. What opposite sex relationship interactions would SS couples be modeling for their children?

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Between the first election of Nixon and his second they changed the voting age from 21 to 18. So while technically I wasn't old enough for the first, but was for the second.

[Daniel2]

Libs:

I don't know as that can be said of SS couples. We do know that girls learn how to interact with men from watching their fathers interact with them and their mothers, and boys learn how to interact with women from watching how their mothers interact with them, and their fathers. What opposite sex relationship interactions would SS couples be modeling for their children?

Hey, sometimesaint,

I hear this claim made often... That boys learn how to treat women by watching how their father treat their mother; same for daughters, etc.

I'm curious, and ask this in all sincerity... what specific "opposite-sex interactions" do you believe are necessary/vital/important to be modeled for children that would be present in a home headed by two opposite-sex parents but absent in one same-sex parents...?

Daniel

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

I don't know as it is any one specific action or even a constellation of actions. I haven't studied it in that degree of depth. Of course any given specific SS couple may have those traits while any given specific heterosexual couple may not. We're talking trends and tendencies not absolutes.

[Libs]

Libs:

Between the first election of Nixon and his second they changed the voting age from 21 to 18. So while technically I wasn't old enough for the first, but was for the second.

Yeah, I had forgotten about that! I was thinking the change to 18 was more current. Come to think of it, I don't think I was old enough to vote for Johnson. Think I was just under the line. I did vote for Nixon, at the time, though...he was a homeboy . We lived in La Habra, right on the border of Whittier, where Nixon went to college. My sister worked as Asst Registrar at Whittier College for many years. The Nixons have a long history in this area. Nixon Library is not far from my house.

[Libs]

Daniel2:

I don't know as it is any one specific action or even a constellation of actions. I haven't studied it in that degree of depth. Of course any given specific SS couple may have those traits while any given specific heterosexual couple may not. We're talking trends and tendencies not absolutes.

Are there really any important traits that we learn from one gender or another? Seems to me that any of us can learn to be decent human beings, from anyone of either gender, who is of good character..

[Libs]

Where exactly does it disparage them?

Zeta, I think, for now, I am just going to point you back to the OP. Since none of what was, supposedly, found in this one study, correlates with any of the numerous other studies that have been done on SS parenting...and since the methods used by this man seem to be very flawed (samplings from groups that were not even representative of what he is supposedly measuring, if he is trying to do comparable research to what has already been done) all leads me to believe that this 'research' was done purely for political purposes (it was in fact funded by an ultra-conservative group) with the expressed purpose of having something to point to, that is contrary to the many reliable studies already done, in this area.