http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3
QuoteChildren of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.
"It's often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they're missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn't the case," lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.
Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.
Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents' education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population.
Crouch suggested the greater social cohesion among same-sex families comes from an equal distribution of work. He said same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones.
"It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner," he said.
But Benjamin Siegel, professor of pediatrics at the Boston University School of Medicine, said there are limits with such research. He told BU Today last year that none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial and that all studies on same-sex parenting are small since there aren't as many same-sex parents.
The University of Melbourne study also pointed out a problem facing same-sex families: stigma.
According to the study, about two-thirds of children with same-sex parents experienced some form of stigma because of their parents' sexual orientation. Despite these kids' higher marks in physical health and social well-being, the stigma associated with their family structure was linked to lower scores on a number of scales. Crouch said stigmas ranged from subtle issues such as sending letters home from school addressed to a "Mr." and "Mrs." to more harmful problems such as bullying at school. The greater the stigma a same-sex family faces, the greater the impact on a child's social and emotional well-being, Crouch said.
However, according to a report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics last year that analyzed three decades of data, children raised by gay and lesbian parents showed resilience "with regard to social, psychological and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma."
"Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents," said Siegel, co-author of the American Academy of Pediatrics report.
Amid the last year's Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, researchers found that the quality of parenting and families' economic well-being was more important than sexual orientation.
"I can tell you we're never going to get the perfect science, but what you have right now is good-enough science," Siegel said. "The data we have right now are good enough to know what's good for kids."
OK?
While I am skeptical of the particulars of such a study, I don't find the conclusion hard to believe. The general population includes a lot of terrible and indifferent parents. Same sex couples are going to select, I suspect, much more strongly for parents who are parents because they very much want to be as opposed to plenty of people who become parents by default.
QuoteCrouch suggested the greater social cohesion among same-sex families comes from an equal distribution of work. He said same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones.
"It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner," he said.
A suggestion based on....what exactly? Is he making a guess? If this is the conclusion than why did families from 100 years ago have greater social cohesion than present? This is quite an assumption.
Anyway I hope this shows you your social responsibility to get married and raise children garbon. This children are depending on you.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2014, 03:09:12 PM
While I am skeptical of the particulars of such a study, I don't find the conclusion hard to believe. The general population includes a lot of terrible and indifferent parents. Same sex couples are going to select, I suspect, much more strongly for parents who are parents because they very much want to be as opposed to plenty of people who become parents by default.
Yeah I would presume a same sex couple would be superior in almost all categories as a group.
I wonder what "family cohesion" is, and how one can measure it such that a 6% difference in it is a cause for note.
This strikes me as pure wishful thinking, the researcher seeing what he wants to see:
QuoteCrouch suggested the greater social cohesion among same-sex families comes from an equal distribution of work. He said same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones.
"It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner," he said.
You can be sure if they scored 6% lower in "family cohesion", he would not be praising the "family value" of following gender stereotypes - but rather, pointing out that the kids suffer the effects of bigotry from the surrounding population.
I tend to think that openly gay parents are, in fact, more likely to make good parents - on average - that hetero ones. Why? In our society, they are likely to be more motivated - it is more difficult for open gays to become parents, while social pressure pushes many hetero couples into parenthood who are not really suited for it.
But that's just a guess on my part, I don't have scientific measurements of "family cohesion" to back it up.
Edit: what Berkut and Valmy said.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2014, 03:09:12 PM
While I am skeptical of the particulars of such a study, I don't find the conclusion hard to believe. The general population includes a lot of terrible and indifferent parents. Same sex couples are going to select, I suspect, much more strongly for parents who are parents because they very much want to be as opposed to plenty of people who become parents by default.
Agreed. Self selecting parents will, one would assume, always be better than the general population.
The interesting question is what the data would be comparing hetro parents who planned their pregnancy with same sex parents. My guess is there would be no difference between the two groups.
But this study does help deal the the OMG gays/lesbians cant be good parents crowd.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2014, 03:09:12 PM
While I am skeptical of the particulars of such a study, I don't find the conclusion hard to believe. The general population includes a lot of terrible and indifferent parents. Same sex couples are going to select, I suspect, much more strongly for parents who are parents because they very much want to be as opposed to plenty of people who become parents by default.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Self-selection. You're not going to get anyone accidentally pregnant in a relationship between two exclusive homosexuals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
But this study does help deal the the OMG gays/lesbians cant be good parents crowd.
They will point to lots of their own studies.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
But this study does help deal the the OMG gays/lesbians cant be good parents crowd.
They will point to lots of their own studies.
From the same "scientists" that say dinosaurs and humans co-existed. That is why this study is important - despite its flaws.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
But this study does help deal the the OMG gays/lesbians cant be good parents crowd.
They will point to lots of their own studies.
Well, don't post those here. We don't want to discourage Garbon's evident desire to become a parent.
;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
But this study does help deal the the OMG gays/lesbians cant be good parents crowd.
They will point to lots of their own studies.
From the same "scientists" that say dinosaurs and humans co-existed. That is why this study is important - despite its flaws.
There has been plenty of similar studies in the past. But I was just saying that crowd is not so easily defeated as a few scientific studies. Or even lots of scientific studies. Or even widespread scientific consensus.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
Well, don't post those here. We don't want to discourage Garbon's evident desire to become a parent.
;)
I would never stand in the way of Languish: The Next Generation -_-
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
Because this study could be comparing apples to shitty people who never wanted kids anyway.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
Mostly so the guy could make a statement like this and not sound like an idiot:
QuoteCrouch suggested the greater social cohesion among same-sex families comes from an equal distribution of work. He said same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones.
Quote from: sbr on July 07, 2014, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
Because this study could be comparing apples to shitty people who never wanted kids anyway.
But that's a part of the population that you can't really waive. I mean unless you are saying that the population norms they have compared to are biased to having too much representation from shitty didn't want to be raising children families.
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
Mostly so the guy could make a statement like this and not sound like an idiot:
QuoteCrouch suggested the greater social cohesion among same-sex families comes from an equal distribution of work. He said same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones.
Do we care that much about how Crouch looks? :lol:
Besides don't a lot of studies end up with the undertakers theorizing a bit at the end? I don't have access to the actual paper but below is from something that is a bit closer to source* (cited by WaPo and then it has link directly to paper).
*actually this is the source insofar as it is an article written by Crouch. I'd say that WaPo sentence isn't a fair summary of what he wrote.
http://theconversation.com/kids-from-same-sex-families-fare-as-well-as-peers-or-better-28803
QuoteOur findings support and strengthen the existing international research undertaken with smaller sample sizes.
Interestingly, there is growing evidence to suggest that the structure of same-sex parent families, particularly in relation to work and home duties, plays an important part in how well families get along. Same-sex parents, for instance, are more likely to share child care and work responsibilities more equitably than heterosexual-parent families.
It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner. Our research suggests that abandoning such gender stereotypes might be beneficial to child health.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
I think many studies have already shown this have they not? I don't think anybody thinks gay couples are less capable unless they are already extremely anti-gay or very traditional. But if it changes some minds that will be great.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
I don't think anyone here at least doubts that gays can make just as good parents. We are just, in typically Languish style, nit-picking the odd-seeming conclusions drawn from the data by this scientist.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
I think many studies have already shown this have they not? I don't think anybody thinks gay couples are less capable unless they are already extremely anti-gay or very traditional. But if it changes some minds that will be great.
I don't know. Suggestion here seemed to be that this study had (while still small) a larger sample size than many of the previous studies.
Also, to build a narrative, you have to keep reminding people.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
I don't think anyone here at least doubts that gays can make just as good parents.
I'd say you are being overly generous. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
I don't think anyone here at least doubts that gays can make just as good parents. We are just, in typically Languish style, nit-picking the odd-seeming conclusions drawn from the data by this scientist.
Yeah it was a WTF sort of moment. That seemed like a hilarious leap. 'The 6% advantage found in our study suggests that thousands of cultures throughout the world are wrong'
Wait, slow down cowboy.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:42:09 PM
Also, to build a narrative, you have to keep reminding people.
True that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 03:44:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
I don't think anyone here at least doubts that gays can make just as good parents. We are just, in typically Languish style, nit-picking the odd-seeming conclusions drawn from the data by this scientist.
Yeah it was a WTF sort of moment. That seemed like a hilarious leap. 'The 6% advantage found in our study suggests that thousands of cultures throughout the world are wrong'
Wait, slow down cowboy.
Yup, a clear example of a researcher seeing what he wants to see.
To answer the question as to why anyone should give a shit when the importance of the study is to demonstrate gays can make just as good parents - the reason is that spouting odd-sounding theories brings the researcher into doubt, and hence can be used by those with a vested interest in demonstrating that gays make crappy parents to discredit the study.
Grab On has a good point. Presumably the question driving this study is whether a child is harmed by being raised by a self selecting same sex couple. No one is suggesting randomly handing out orphans to gay couples by lottery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2014, 03:50:34 PM
No one is suggesting randomly handing out orphans to gay couples by lottery.
Though that does sound like a hilarious new network sitcom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2014, 03:50:34 PM
Grab On has a good point. Presumably the question driving this study is whether a child is harmed by being raised by a self selecting same sex couple. No one is suggesting randomly handing out orphans to gay couples by lottery.
Agreed. That should have been have been the conclusion of the research rather than, as Malthus pointed out, reaching for a conclusion not available on the data observed.
On the other hand, given the data, on average children would be better off if they were given to gay couples through a lottery system :P
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
I don't think anyone here at least doubts that gays lesbians can make just as good parents.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
To answer the question as to why anyone should give a shit when the importance of the study is to demonstrate gays can make just as good parents - the reason is that spouting odd-sounding theories brings the researcher into doubt, and hence can be used by those with a vested interest in demonstrating that gays make crappy parents to discredit the study.
But what the researcher actually said (not the article paraphrase) doesn't seem so wacky.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2014, 03:53:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2014, 03:50:34 PM
Grab On has a good point. Presumably the question driving this study is whether a child is harmed by being raised by a self selecting same sex couple. No one is suggesting randomly handing out orphans to gay couples by lottery.
Agreed. That should have been have been the conclusion of the research rather than, as Malthus pointed out, reaching for a conclusion not available on the data observed.
Unless one of us read the actual paper, I'm not sure that any of us knows the actual conclusions drawn by the researcher.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 04:01:02 PM
Unless one of us read the actual paper, I'm not sure that any of us knows the actual conclusions drawn by the researcher.
Without even reading the paper, I'd be willing to bet the conclusion is "statistically significant difference in two dependent variables in favor of homofag couples.'
I would certainly be curious as to how the study measures "family cohesion".
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2014, 04:07:08 PM
I would certainly be curious as to how the study measures "family cohesion".
acid bath?
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Do we care that much about how Crouch looks? :lol:
Besides don't a lot of studies end up with the undertakers theorizing a bit at the end? I don't have access to the actual paper but below is from something that is a bit closer to source* (cited by WaPo and then it has link directly to paper).
*actually this is the source insofar as it is an article written by Crouch. I'd say that WaPo sentence isn't a fair summary of what he wrote.
http://theconversation.com/kids-from-same-sex-families-fare-as-well-as-peers-or-better-28803
QuoteOur findings support and strengthen the existing international research undertaken with smaller sample sizes.
Interestingly, there is growing evidence to suggest that the structure of same-sex parent families, particularly in relation to work and home duties, plays an important part in how well families get along. Same-sex parents, for instance, are more likely to share child care and work responsibilities more equitably than heterosexual-parent families.
It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner. Our research suggests that abandoning such gender stereotypes might be beneficial to child health.
That's good, but I'm still not sure what in his research could be regarded as evidence for the superior structure of same-sex parent families. It's equally likely that same-sex couples have to go to more trouble than hetero couples, and hence are more motivated to make it work. That's why I would want the data compared to hetero couples who couldn't go the normal breeding route and had to take the extra step with adoption/surrogacy. I'm thinking the results would end up being much closer if not the same.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:59:00 PM
But what the researcher actually said (not the article paraphrase) doesn't seem so wacky.
I never said it was wacky. It may be true. I just said it was a bizarre leap. He just found evidence they had they have greater results in certain areas. I did not see how the hows or whys were conclusive. As others have suggested it seems logical that they would be better because they would, on average, be more self selecting. But that is just a guess as well.
I further found it dodgy he used it to turn around and suggest it is the traditional people who are inferior, because you are leaving yourself open there to lots of attacks based on results from thousands of cultures around the world and historical data from this country. Why go down that path when the point is to point out that children are not harmed by having same sex parents?
Here's lots more on study (aka published article): http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 04:09:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Do we care that much about how Crouch looks? :lol:
Besides don't a lot of studies end up with the undertakers theorizing a bit at the end? I don't have access to the actual paper but below is from something that is a bit closer to source* (cited by WaPo and then it has link directly to paper).
*actually this is the source insofar as it is an article written by Crouch. I'd say that WaPo sentence isn't a fair summary of what he wrote.
http://theconversation.com/kids-from-same-sex-families-fare-as-well-as-peers-or-better-28803
QuoteOur findings support and strengthen the existing international research undertaken with smaller sample sizes.
Interestingly, there is growing evidence to suggest that the structure of same-sex parent families, particularly in relation to work and home duties, plays an important part in how well families get along. Same-sex parents, for instance, are more likely to share child care and work responsibilities more equitably than heterosexual-parent families.
It is liberating for parents to take on roles that suit their skills rather than defaulting to gender stereotypes, where mum is the primary care giver and dad the primary breadwinner. Our research suggests that abandoning such gender stereotypes might be beneficial to child health.
That's good, but I'm still not sure what in his research could be regarded as evidence for the superior structure of same-sex parent families. It's equally likely that same-sex couples have to go to more trouble than hetero couples, and hence are more motivated to make it work. That's why I would want the data compared to hetero couples who couldn't go the normal breeding route and had to take the extra step with adoption/surrogacy. I'm thinking the results would end up being much closer if not the same.
Oh I deleted that post after finding that it did have full paper.
As to superiority, I think that's more an issue with headline. I don't think Crouch set out to demonstrate that gays have superior structure. Paper bares that out that point was to show that they don't suffer at the hands of gay parents.
I also don't find it shocking to suggesting that breaking down gender norms/roles could be helpful.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 04:15:23 PM
I also don't find it shocking to suggesting that breaking down gender norms/roles could be helpful.
It isn't "shocking", it is just a huge leap in logic from a relatively minor observed variance in something as (apparently) subjective as "family cohesion".
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 04:15:23 PM
I also don't find it shocking to suggesting that breaking down gender norms/roles could be helpful.
You don't find it a shocking suggestion that destroying the building blocks of society could be helpful? Sometimes I find it bizarre you consider yourself a Conservative. 'I want to completely SMASH traditional values...in a conservative way'
Anyway I am not saying that his conclusions are wrong. Me and my wife certainly operate inside of our skills and strengths for the most part. I mean what does the gender division of labor even mean in a society where both partners have to work in most cases? But I just found it a leap to conclude that from the study's results.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
You don't find it a shocking suggestion that destroying the building blocks of society could be helpful? Sometimes I find it bizarre you consider yourself a Conservative. 'I want to completely SMASH traditional values...in a conservative way'
I grew up in a household where my father stayed home to take care of the children and as a child I could play with whatever toys I wanted regardless of how they were coded gender-wise. It'd be radical for me to argue against breaking down gender norms.
Besides, I don't think I've ever said that I'm a social conservative. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
Anyway I am not saying that his conclusions are wrong. Me and my wife certainly operate inside of our skills and strengths for the most part. I mean what does the gender division of labor even mean in a society where both partners have to work in most cases? But I just found it a leap to conclude that from the study's results.
The thing is that it isn't clear to me that anyone made the leap. The paper says the following:
QuotePrevious research has suggested that same-sex attracted parents are much more likely to share household duties equally when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and they make decisions about work/family balance based more on circumstance than preconceived gender-based ideals [30]. Individual suitability rather than societal convention is more likely therefore to inform parenting roles. This has the potential to engender greater family harmony in the long-term.
Now perhaps it would have been better left out but the linkage is pretty clear that authors were taking their bit on family cohesion, linking it to prior research and then making a statement on parenting roles.
There is also the notion that more cohesive families are better. I'm not certain that this is true, in the same way that "being more healthy is better'.
Apparently, the issue is somewhat controversial among sociologist types.
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/29/6/215.full
One person's "strongly cohesive family" is another person's "overbearing, smothering parenting".
I can't be "arsed" (:bowler:) to read the article or thread, but did the researchers control for class/socioeconomic status/education level of parents?
My assumption would be that it is a cohort of relatively affluent and well-educated same-sex couples who are adopting or otherwise "having" children. Anecdotally, the gay men and lesbian couples that I know who are looking to have children soonish definitely fit the "stable bourgeois homosexual" archetype, especially ones who have great relationships with their own parents. With the working-class gay couples I've known, I think it has seemed unappealing or out of range. Actually, strike that, my lesbian mailman neighbor and her wife definitely want to have kids.
Yes. :outback:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 07, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
my lesbian mailman neighbor
Uh, the PC term is "femailman" :rolleyes:
Mihali, you should help them out with that. :perv:
Quote from: derspiess on July 07, 2014, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 07, 2014, 04:53:58 PM
my lesbian mailman neighbor
Uh, the PC term is "femailman" :rolleyes:
Either way, they seem to have authority over the growth of my bushes. Assholes. :glare:
I need to move someplace very rural.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 07, 2014, 06:36:42 PM
Mihali, you should help them out with that. :perv:
I already did. :perv: ....with my suggestions for dealing with a complex real estate ownership situation (*this is not legal advice* etc) and info on the local school districts. :Embarrass: Humiliating as it was, I certainly expect they'll name their first son after me. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2014, 03:27:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
A better comparison for this type of thing would be to compare to hetero couples that adopt/use surrogacy, for all of the reasons everyone else pointed out.
I'm not really sure why one would need that comparison. Despite the headline from the WP, I would think the point of the research would be to show, as CC noted, that gay parents are just as capable as the general population of straight parents. I'm struggling to think of a benefit from research designed to show if motivated gay couples are better than motivated straight couples.
It is important because if we are being asked to take a study like this seriously, it should take itself seriously.
If the study wants to show that gay couples can be as good parents as straight couples, then it should be prepared to show and admit if necessary that the data *might* conclude otherwise. What if it turns out that in fact gay couples are not as good parents? Will the study admit to that? If not, then it isn't an honest study, and is really just an opinion piece wrapped up in the trapping of science.
Like I said before, I find the conclusion here (Your typical gay couple is as good parents as your typical hetero couple) convincing, but for reasons that have nothing to do with this study, which strikes me as pretty much complete bullshit.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2014, 08:21:57 AM
Like I said before, I find the conclusion here (Your typical gay couple is as good parents as your typical hetero couple) convincing, but for reasons that have nothing to do with this study, which strikes me as pretty much complete bullshit.
Well you are perfectly free to draw your own conclusions. I only wonder if you are reading too much into what the WaPo article said vs. actual study.
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2014, 08:21:57 AM
It is important because if we are being asked to take a study like this seriously, it should take itself seriously.
If the study wants to show that gay couples can be as good parents as straight couples, then it should be prepared to show and admit if necessary that the data *might* conclude otherwise.
:huh:
The data does show that gay couples are not only as good but are better parents than the general population of straight couples. We, including you, have already identified why that is necessarily so. Not all straight couples are self selected as parents.
An interesting question might be whether there is any different between self selecting hetero and gay parents. I suspect there would be none but the answer to that question has nothing to do with whether gay parents are better than the general population of hetero parents. The issue is important because nobody would seek to limit the rights of hetero parents based on predetermined criteria. But some groups think that gays should not raise kids simply because they are gay. Given the data that position is nonsense and the study makes it that point clearly.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2014, 09:35:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 08, 2014, 08:21:57 AM
Like I said before, I find the conclusion here (Your typical gay couple is as good parents as your typical hetero couple) convincing, but for reasons that have nothing to do with this study, which strikes me as pretty much complete bullshit.
Well you are perfectly free to draw your own conclusions. I only wonder if you are reading too much into what the WaPo article said vs. actual study.
No, he is making the logical flaw of thinking that in order for a gay couple to be as good or better than the population of hetero parents (the claim made by the report) they must be compared to the very best of hetero parents rather than the general population.
What about all the different LGQBTZXYTER combos that are possible? The study seems awfully gay-centric.
What if the headline was: Children of same-sex couples are more miserable and sickly than peers, research shows?
Would it change anybody's mind on same-sex marriage? On same-sex adoption?
The right to parent a child, your child, is a concept that is strongly enriched in contemporary American constitutional law and, I think, public consciousness. Which is different than many other societies, and different in at least some ways from other rich post-industrial states that share our fundamental ideology of liberal individualism.
I have a few newborns as clients. Not in criminal court (:console:@Beeb), but in family court. In one case, both parents have IQs in the 50s, and both have children from other relationships. In another, the mother did every drug she could find right up until she went into labor, won't do treatment, and the father appears by phone since he is incarcerated in another state for various felonies.
These parents all have a strong case to keep custody of their child. In reality, there are varying levels of state intervention, and that's where we're at in these cases. Still, nobody could legitimately say -- and I don't think any of us involved would even want to say -- what many people might think when confronted when that situation: Take the kid away from them, immediately!
Studies like these are, I guess, the "cherry on top" for people who support equal rights for same-sex couples. But I remain concerned that they undermine the political nature of queer peoples' struggle by setting up ostensibly-neutral scientific results as the arbiter of validity. Of course one study doesn't accomplish this, and scientific research does not 'intend' to produce moral/political outcomes; but the more we point to these as justification rationales for a specific political position, the more authority they accumulate.
If hundreds of studies showed that it was severely deleterious for a child to have a black parent, it wouldn't convince me to support reviving miscegenation laws. But why not, if I will point to the happy outcomes of similar studies to support my actual position on same-sex parenting?
Eugenics is very much an intelligible concept, not some crazy relic. And what is frightening about it is precisely how otherwise smart and tolerant individuals ended up supporting an abhorrent* political movement, with ostensibly neutral scientific authority guiding them all the while. (Certain of Sav's Progressive-Era filmmakers bear out this trajectory quite dramatically.)
*Per broad consensus in the West, July 2014. The usual suspects should feel free to weigh in on the matter.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 08, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
The right to parent a child, your child, is a concept that is strongly enriched in contemporary American constitutional law and, I think, public consciousness. Which is different than many other societies, and different in at least some ways from other rich post-industrial states that share our fundamental ideology of liberal individualism.
Where do you think this points?
I think most of the opposition to gay parenting isn't actually based on a genuine concern that kids raised by gays will turn out worse. The opponents of gay parenting generally could not care less if the kids raised by gays all went on to become genius athletes who take time out from composing symphonies to accept their Nobel Peace Prizes. They don't want gays to be parents because gays are icky and sinful.
No amount of studies showing that kids raised by gays are generally okay are likely to change their minds.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 08, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
The right to parent a child, your child, is a concept that is strongly enriched in contemporary American constitutional law and, I think, public consciousness. Which is different than many other societies, and different in at least some ways from other rich post-industrial states that share our fundamental ideology of liberal individualism.
Where do you think this points?
"Enriched"? WTF :huh: Should be "strongly
entrenched." :frusty:
Probably just points to some of the same Euro vs American tendencies we've discussed before. Also points to the general tendency for the disintegration of traditional community/family ties, or at least their authority, associated with modernization and the incorporation of a society into globalized capitalism. So nothing that hasn't been said before many times. Unless you had something else in mind?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 08, 2014, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2014, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 08, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
The right to parent a child, your child, is a concept that is strongly enriched in contemporary American constitutional law and, I think, public consciousness. Which is different than many other societies, and different in at least some ways from other rich post-industrial states that share our fundamental ideology of liberal individualism.
Where do you think this points?
"Enriched"? WTF :huh: Should be "strongly entrenched." :frusty:
Probably just points to some of the same Euro vs American tendencies we've discussed before. Also points to the general tendency for the disintegration of traditional community/family ties, or at least their authority, associated with modernization and the incorporation of a society into globalized capitalism. So nothing that hasn't been said before many times. Unless you had something else in mind?
Does this strong American feeling about the right to parent your child make Americans more positive to gay parenting, or less?
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2014, 04:26:31 PMDoes this strong American feeling about the right to parent your child make Americans more positive to gay parenting, or less?
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure, really. I think that since parents have such wide latitude in raising their children, it sets the bar for initial acceptance a little higher than elsewhere, i.e. since gaining "parent" status gives you so many rights over the child, there is probably more hesitancy to see same-sex couples (esp. two men) have access to it. But it may mean that gay parenting rights flow more naturally from any initial state recognition of same-sex couple status.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 08, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
What if the headline was: Children of same-sex couples are more miserable and sickly than peers, research shows?
Would it change anybody's mind on same-sex marriage? On same-sex adoption?
The right to parent a child, your child, is a concept that is strongly enriched in contemporary American constitutional law and, I think, public consciousness. Which is different than many other societies, and different in at least some ways from other rich post-industrial states that share our fundamental ideology of liberal individualism.
I have a few newborns as clients. Not in criminal court (:console:@Beeb), but in family court. In one case, both parents have IQs in the 50s, and both have children from other relationships. In another, the mother did every drug she could find right up until she went into labor, won't do treatment, and the father appears by phone since he is incarcerated in another state for various felonies.
I didn't finish reading the rest of your post, so you might have said literally anything, but don't you think it's time eugenics was reevaluated? :)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2014, 05:47:29 PM
I didn't finish reading the rest of your post, so you might have said literally anything, but don't you think it's time eugenics was reevaluated? :)
I'll send you a copy of this book on Vermont's eugenics program, gratis, if you want. :) I believe it's called
Breeding Better Vermonters. I bought it but didn't start it then misplaced it.
"The altitude poses unique challenge to the Vermont superman..."