Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:20PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Here's the thing.

You need a longitudinal properly designed study across a significant period of time to test the effect of a childs upbringing in a same sex household vs a heterosexual couple household. They've been doing it for decades with single parents verses a couple for example, because there were enough of them for that to happen.

Right now, there hasn't been done, and note, I say longitudinal. People here can post one and I'll happily concede but otherwise as you said pang, the effects are unknown and it is an extremely unethical thing to encourage as a result.

There's at least 1:

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.full

It actually suggests better outcomes for children of lesbian mothers, but when the data is all aggregated together into meta-analyses the differences average out any essentially there's no appreciable difference.

18-06-2017 11:20PM

pangbang wrote: »

And as I said earlier, you can weigh whatever studies done in the last insignificant amount of time versus human history.

And it is, redundant as it is to say, weighted in one direction by a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

And scientific studies these days, unfortunately, are highly politicised, and must always be questioned to the utmost. Agendas are all over the place, influencing everything, including "fact".

do you know all about families, in all different cultures, in all different countries?
In fact, do you know about raising children in Ireland 1500 years ago?
Or do you just know about families in your area/country over the last few hundred years or so.

John_Rambo · 18-06-2017 11:20PM

I grew up with a kids that had same sex parents. I'm still friends with them and they're fine. Well balanced adults with families, good jobs etc... It was never an issue, we went on holidays with them. Even through my teens I never questioned the relationships! It was only in my twenties it dawned on me. But the fondness and love overpowered the urge to differentiate.

And now, as a parent, my kids go to school with kids from same sex relationships. We've been on holidays with same sex parents and kids. Our kids and the kids in the school just don't see the difference. Kids are gas, they don't question things like this, they just take it in their stride, and I'm talking about sleepovers where my kid has seen the parents in bed - Not a bother.

The only negative shpeel I've come across is from young bucks, inexperienced naive males that don't have kids, but feel they have to have their bigoted say....

online

anonymously

and never, ever face to face.

And they have the cheek to call "no balls"?

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:23PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

If there was actual proper research out there that showed no statistically significant evidence between the upbringing of the two, then sure, absolutely, I would 100% agree with you, but right now there isn't, because this is such a new thing in human history. Putting a child in an environment with that kind of outcome to be unknown is an evil, unfair thing to do on the kid's behalf.

You're experimenting on a human life with its own outcomes just to feel good about yourself. Nice work lads. Even if the experiment proves to be a success, it's still an experiment.

As answered to Pangbang, this is untrue. See below.

Your argument about "the experiment" is laughable.

Biblarz & Stacey 2010 (sadly paywalled but the abstract states conclusions clearly):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract

Crowl et al. 2008 (full text):
https://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Crowl%20Ahn%20%20Baker%202008%20Same%20Sex%20Parenting%20Meta%20Analysis.pdf

The major professional psychological societies all agree there's no measurable difference, and that is the scientific consensus generally.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:24PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Except this is a different topic, about same sex parents raising children, and evidence shows theres no significant difference in development of children under same sex households. So why argue against it.. just because its not 'biological'

Adoption by straight couples interracially isn't biological either, Im sure it never happened throughout much of history. Yet it doesn't matter a bit does it, lots of couples raise children of different races as well as any mono racial household

Im sure children would look like to look like their families, and not stand out physically. Maybe this isn't ideal, like having parents of same sex may not be completely ideal, but is it enough of a problem that we shouldn't allow it to occur? No!

To downplay your very existence, what you are made of, what you are, what you can and cant do.....that's what you are doing by downplaying "biology". It really is an indication of how far off the scales we have gone, yeesh!

Why don't you go into space without a spacesuit, and then have an argument with physics while youre at it?

And as I must have said 4 or 5 times already, the questionable "evidence" of the last few years flies in the face of everything......literally everything we have ever done as a species.

I cant say that certain studies are wrong, but I most certainly can think with a bit of common sense. One side is a pin-head, and the other is the size of planet in terms of evidence. I tend toward planetary-sized evidence.

Time will tell, but it wont be in my or your lifetime before anyone can make a stab at conclusions. But that doesn't mean someone can piss on my head and insist its raining, either.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 11:25PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's at least 1:

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.full

It actually suggests better outcomes for children of lesbian mothers, but when the data is all aggregated together into meta-analyses the differences average out any essentially there's no appreciable difference.

It's crap.

Parental self reported study. We don't get to see the raw child outcomes. The time period is too short. It's cross sectional at 2012, that's not good enough either.

Finally, there's a self selection bias according to the methodology.

18-06-2017 11:25PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

The only negative shpeel I've come across is from young bucks, inexperienced naive males that don't have kids, but feel they have to have their bigoted say....

online

anonymously

and never, ever face to face.

And they have the cheek to call "no balls"?

During the gay marriage referendum I know a few who are married with kids, middle aged, intelligent, articulate, very liberal...who had concerns about the whole gay parents thing. Not that it was bad per se, but just that it wasn't the optimum situation. Maybe they are biased, maybe they are relying too much on their own experiences, but to say "bigoted young bucks without kids" is not accurate.

18-06-2017 11:26PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm totally opposed to them. Not only is a resulting child deprived of it's biological parent(s), but they also involve creating generic combinations that nature did not intend to exist. I just don't think that's a wise thing to be doing for the long-term good of the species.

Don't forget, dentistry is unnatural too, so suffer that toothache as nature intended, forgo that heart surgery, keep those premature babies out of the incubators and halt all cancer treatment lest those people survive and reproduce, as it can only mean bad things for the long term good of the species after all.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:26PM

pangbang wrote: »

And scientific studies these days, unfortunately, are highly politicised, and must always be questioned to the utmost. Agendas are all over the place, influencing everything, including "fact".

And with this, you give yourself the perfect out for any study anyone uses here as evidence.

For all your lofty talk of facts, interpretation etc., you are essentially just another post-truther who has decided what is true before looking and will not move from that.

18-06-2017 11:26PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh yeah, and apparently kids raised by lesbian couples do the best of all!

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Yeah.........but can they park?

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:27PM

bubblypop wrote: »

do you know all about families, in all different cultures, in all different countries?
In fact, do you know about raising children in Ireland 1500 years ago?
Or do you just know about families in your area/country over the last few hundred years or so.

Well heres the perfect answer for you.......do you?

Because you are the one insisting that such and such a thing is virtually a fact.

I am the one that is questioning it.

One is reasonable, one isn't.

See the difference? Are you sure your feelings aren't taking the limelight of your logic here?

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:32PM

pangbang wrote: »

To downplay your very existence, what you are made of, what you are, what you can and cant do.....that's what you are doing by downplaying "biology". It really is an indication of how far off the scales we have gone, yeesh!

Why don't you go into space without a spacesuit, and then have an argument with physics while youre at it?

And as I must have said 4 or 5 times already, the questionable "evidence" of the last few years flies in the face of everything......literally everything we have ever done as a species.

I cant say that certain studies are wrong, but I most certainly can think with a bit of common sense. One side is a pin-head, and the other is the size of planet in terms of evidence. I tend toward planetary-sized evidence.

Time will tell, but it wont be in my or your lifetime before anyone can make a stab at conclusions. But that doesn't mean someone can piss on my head and insist its raining, either.

I understand where you're coming from. But we live in a more enlightened time where we are giving rights to minority groups, this involves raising children. As yet there is no reason to believe same sex parents would be worse parents than mixed sex couples, and there is evidence to believe they are as good if not better parents on average.

You are essentially saying you want the right to raise children to never be granted to same sex couples out of fear of the unknown. And this is an exaggeration, its not really unknown. We know quite well that same sex couples can raise children well, and I highly doubt any future long term studies will disprove this

And again, I think the argument is unfair to use against gay parents. As gay people have never had the chance to form families throughout history due to prejudice. Now they have a chance to prove they can do jus that, and they are proving it

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

During the gay marriage referendum I know a few who are married with kids, middle aged, intelligent, articulate, very liberal...who had concerns about the whole gay parents thing. Not that it was bad per se, but just that it wasn't the optimum situation. Maybe they are biased, maybe they are relying too much on their own experiences, but to say "bigoted young bucks without kids" is not accurate.

Ignorant would be the best description.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:35PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And with this, you give yourself the perfect out for any study anyone uses here as evidence.

For all your lofty talk of facts, interpretation etc., you are essentially just another post-truther who has decided what is true before looking and will not move from that.

Its not a perfect out, and its not the reason I mentioned it. And I stand by what I said, that scientific studies these days are highly questionable, whether FOR a certain sociological trend, or AGAINST.

I don't need to decide on the truth of history. It is there, it is general enough, and widely known enough, that anyone can agree.

Anyone, except for people who don't "like" my questions and suppositions.

I've already said it, I'll say it again. One side is based on evidence, and I use that evidence to QUESTION the supposition that gay couples are the same.

Your side, is based on studies conducted on a micro-scale, and you INSIST that something is a fact.

One side questions based on history, the other side insists based on a few flimsy studies. And I defend the word "flimsy" because the longitudinal depth is practically non-existent.

So, in conclusion, I say that people are just upset with what I'm saying. Feelings over logic.

I've already been called stupid, and now I'm a "post-truther" (first time for everything!)......its genuinely amusing.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 11:35PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As answered to Pangbang, this is untrue. See below.

Your argument about "the experiment" is laughable.

Biblarz & Stacey 2010 (sadly paywalled but the abstract states conclusions clearly):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract

Crowl et al. 2008 (full text):
https://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Crowl%20Ahn%20%20Baker%202008%20Same%20Sex%20Parenting%20Meta%20Analysis.pdf

The major professional psychological societies all agree there's no measurable difference, and that is the scientific consensus generally.

I can't read the first one but the second one taken from the paper itself:

"However, when interpreting the current findings, a number of limitations
inherent in this analysis could also explain the variance of gender
role behavior found between studies. One possibility is the variation in the
way this outcome was measured. Although we went to great lengths to
ensure that categories were as clearly and consistently defined as possible,
the researchers whose findings were compiled may have used measures
that varied in important ways. For example, many of the methods used
to measure gender role behavior have untested psychometric properties,
which may have affected our findings given the large number of qualitative
indicants for measuring this outcome. "

So heres an idea! Lets take a number of studies which are not longitudinal and do have completely (and untested as admitted in the paragraph above) different metrics of mental wellbeing, let's abuse the Q statistic and its mathamathical foundations to get the result we want and use that to implement social policy! And we will openly admit that in the discussion comments part of our methodology.

Bloody hell.

18-06-2017 11:36PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Ignorant would be the best description.

They are ignorant because they express beliefs based on their own experiences and observations? Surely that's just having an opinion?

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:38PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

It's crap.

Parental self reported study. We don't get to see the raw child outcomes. The time period is too short. It's cross sectional at 2012, that's not good enough either.

Finally, there's a self selection bias according to the methodology.

I agree with your assessment of the flaws, and I would add that the sample size is smaller than I'd like, which is why I quote meta-analyses elsewhere. Crap, no. It's just a flawed study. Useful but limited.

However your claim was that there are no longitudinal studies, and it took me less than a minute to find one.

You're making some pretty hefty claims against the scientific consensus for someone who couldn't google "longitudinal".

18-06-2017 11:39PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well heres the perfect answer for you.......do you?

Because you are the one insisting that such and such a thing is virtually a fact.

I am the one that is questioning it.

One is reasonable, one isn't.

See the difference? Are you sure your feelings aren't taking the limelight of your logic here?

I do know there are other cultures were children are not raised by a mother & father.
You are just judging same sex parents by your own experience. That doesn't mean you are right. There are many ways of raising children, there is no definitive proof that children raised by a man & woman are better off then children raised by other means.
'It takes a village to raise a child'

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They are ignorant because they express beliefs based on their own experiences and observations? Surely that's just having an opinion?

Expressing an opinion in ignorance of the abundant evidence to the contrary. How else to describe that aside from ignorance? It is not meant as an insult.

jeanjolie · 18-06-2017 11:40PM

pangbang wrote: »

But its not like your example. Men and women are different, that's all there is to it. There is even growing theory that the physical presence of a man or woman exerts a biochemical impact on a very young child, something akin to pheromones.

Its the trend that "we are all the same" but "we are completely different" that is in vogue, a contradiction that will pass, like all trends.

And I would still say the same thing, humankind has thrived/survived based on man and woman as parents since our very existence (just think about the enormity of that time scale, its sheer ignorance/arrogance to brush it away!), the complementarity of each contributing to a childs balanced development.

And again, the question is entirely predicated on gay parents versus straight parents, nothing more.

Could you elaborate please on what you mean.

I believe you in one way but I'm very skeptical. Couldn't you just chalk it up to socialization mostly (personality differences) and some biological influences?

One of my friends grew up with a father and he hated it. Mother and the father had marital issues eventually deciding to divorce. The woman wanted to remarry another man but the son seemed quite resistant not because he didn't want a stepfather but another father in general. His previous father always took problem with him being 'feminine'.

Long story-short, the mother gave in and got into a relationship with another woman. Today they're living a happy relationship with a son who's doing much better with lesbian parents than his biological straight parent.

I understand these are exceptions but....

Mountainsandh · 18-06-2017 11:41PM

pangbang wrote: »

And as I must have said 4 or 5 times already, the questionable "evidence" of the last few years flies in the face of everything......literally everything we have ever done as a species.

I cant say that certain studies are wrong, but I most certainly can think with a bit of common sense. One side is a pin-head, and the other is the size of planet in terms of evidence. I tend toward planetary-sized evidence.

Time will tell, but it wont be in my or your lifetime before anyone can make a stab at conclusions. But that doesn't mean someone can piss on my head and insist its raining, either.

The problem with this, is that you are making an opinion on this from a very narrow field of view.
Your interpretation of the planet, and human history, is just your interpretation, and not necessarily historically or socially accurate. Your concept of "family" is very simplistic, it implies that only both genitors will raise their biological offspring, which has not ever been nor is a given fact.
It's like you're looking at the grey and red car, and believing these are how things should be, and that's where all parameters will be, because there's a red and a grey car, and that's a fact.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/51Lbe0Vm_YM/maxresdefault.jpg

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

During the gay marriage referendum I know a few who are married with kids, middle aged, intelligent, articulate, very liberal...who had concerns about the whole gay parents thing. Not that it was bad per se, but just that it wasn't the optimum situation. Maybe they are biased, maybe they are relying too much on their own experiences, but to say "bigoted young bucks without kids" is not accurate.

Its the trend man, you just cannot question anything without being ****-piled, being a bigot, being a "post-truther", being stupid, being backward.......and the hilarious part is that these groups are usually the furthest from science and fact. But I'll probably be criticised for pointing that out too!

It'll pass, like all things. But for now, men and women are exactly the same, except when they arent, and straight couples are just the same as gay couples, except when they aren't. Contradictions up the wazoo....a prime indicator of emotional thinking.

Emotional nonsense that has managed to get a foothold in the mainstream. What goes up must come down though. Supposing you believe in physics, of course.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 11:45PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I agree with your assessment of the flaws, and I would add that the sample size is smaller than I'd like, which is why I quote meta-analyses elsewhere. Crap, no. It's just a flawed study. Useful but limited.

However your claim was that there are no longitudinal studies, and it took me less than a minute to find one.

You're making some pretty hefty claims against the scientific consensus for someone who couldn't google "longitudinal".

No, it shows assuming the maths part is ok (which I didn't look at, I stopped reading at the start), that gay couples who are happy to put themselves forward for a survey about psychological wellbing rate their kids higher on the scale. It's a completely different question.

Also, cross sectional means at a point in time. That survey was generated at one point in time, 2012. It's not really longitudinal. So you couldn't understand that, but good on the snark tho for a typo.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:45PM

pangbang wrote: »

Its not a perfect out, and its not the reason I mentioned it. And I stand by what I said, that scientific studies these days are highly questionable, whether FOR a certain sociological trend, or AGAINST.

I don't need to decide on the truth of history. It is there, it is general enough, and widely known enough, that anyone can agree.

Anyone, except for people who don't "like" my questions and suppositions.

I've already said it, I'll say it again. One side is based on evidence, and I use that evidence to QUESTION the supposition that gay couples are the same.

Your side, is based on studies conducted on a micro-scale, and you INSIST that something is a fact.

One side questions based on history, the other side insists based on a few flimsy studies. And I defend the word "flimsy" because the longitudinal depth is practically non-existent.

So, in conclusion, I say that people are just upset with what I'm saying. Feelings over logic.

I've already been called stupid, and now I'm a "post-truther" (first time for everything!)......its genuinely amusing.

Well , to me the idea that a same sex couple couldn't raise children as well as mixed is ridiculous. So I guess I just dont have that same questioning mindset here. Would you have been this critical if wed been discussing the topic of interracial adoption many years ago when it was only just becoming popular? To me , that would be ridiculous as again Id say theres no reason to believe they'd be worse parents than the biological parents. But you could argue the same points about that, not much historical precedent vs mono racial families, no large scale studies, etc.

Maybe such longitudinal studies simply arent necessary as theres no reason to believe the parents gender will have a big impact on the childs development. Many adoption agencies certainly dont think so. I think such a large scale expensive study would only be carried out if there seemed to be very valid concerns for doing so.

pauliebdub · 18-06-2017 11:48PM

My cousins were raised by their mother and grandmother after their father died tragically when they were very young. Of course they had uncles and other positive male role models in their lives and they turned out quite well now that they are adults. That whole argument that used during the referendum was merely used to mask prejudice. I'm glad the voting public were able to see through it.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:50PM

pangbang wrote: »

Its the trend man, you just cannot question anything without being ****-piled, being a bigot, being a "post-truther", being stupid, being backward.......and the hilarious part is that these groups are usually the furthest from science and fact. But I'll probably be criticised for pointing that out too!

It'll pass, like all things. But for now, men and women are exactly the same, except when they arent, and straight couples are just the same as gay couples, except when they aren't. Contradictions up the wazoo....a prime indicator of emotional thinking.

Emotional nonsense that has managed to get a foothold in the mainstream. What goes up must come down though. Supposing you believe in physics, of course.

Yeh we will eat our words in 50 years when we finally find out that all the worlds gay couples have been raising their children to be poorly developed uneducated criminal psycho deranged lunatics, across the board. and then gay families will rightfully be banned forever

18-06-2017 11:50PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Expressing an opinion in ignorance of the abundant evidence to the contrary. How else to describe that aside from ignorance? It is not meant as an insult.

But we can all Google studies that question the methodology of the "they fare just as well" studies. Those who express concern are just falling back on their own experiences and observations, and biases too. I know single fathers who have brought up kids wonderfully well. But would I say that a single male parent was the optimum situation? I'd have to say no.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:51PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I do know there are other cultures were children are not raised by a mother & father.
You are just judging same sex parents by your own experience. That doesn't mean you are right. There are many ways of raising children, there is no definitive proof that children raised by a man & woman are better off then children raised by other means.
'It takes a village to raise a child'

I know! And as I said already, time will tell, hundreds of years from now possibly.

I'm using the argument that, generally, children have been ideally raised by a man and woman. Okay!

I'm just saying that a few years and a few studies to the contrary are just a drop in the ocean of evidence.

Let me put it as a question, and maybe it will help clear things up.

Why are same sex parents, completely new phenomenon socially, viewed as just the same, given the lack of evidence? What is the driving point behind such strongly-held views?

My own answer is that it is just shocking to have a contrary opinion to whats in fashion, and people are flying to their emotions instead of actually considering the lack of evidence/time/impact.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:52PM

pauliebdub wrote: »

My cousins were raised by their mother and grandmother after their father died tragically when they were very young. Of course they had uncles and other positive male role models in their lives and they turned out quite well now that they are adults. That whole argument that used during the referendum was merely used to mask prejudice. I'm glad the voting public were able to see through it.

It was such dirty tactics. Pro side never used any such tactics when they could have very easily dragged the catholic churches already ****ty image further through the mud. Thankfully didnt sway as many voters as I thought it would though.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:53PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Yeh we will eat our words in 50 years when we finally find out that all the worlds gay couples have been raising their children to be poorly developed uneducated criminal psycho deranged lunatics, across the board. and then gay families will rightfully be banned forever

Well look, you can be as sarcastic as you want, but theres as much to say that it will happen as it wont.

We might live to find out!

Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

Comments