A father's love is as important to a child’s emotional development as a mother’s, a large-scale study has confirmed.
Examining the cases of more than 10,000 sons and daughters revealed how a cold or distant father can damage a child’s life, sometimes for decades to come.
The review of 36 studies from around the world concluded that his love is at least as important to youngsters as that of their mothers.
Researcher Professor Ronald Rohner said that fatherly love is key to development and hopes his findings will motivate more men to become involved in caring for their offspring.
‘In the US, Great Britain and Europe, we have assumed for the past 300 years that all children need for normal healthy development is a loving relationship with their mother,’ he said.
‘And that dads are there as support for the mother and to support the family financially but are not required for the healthy development of the children.
‘But that belief is fundamentally wrong. We have to start getting away from that idea and realise the dad’s influence is as great, and sometimes greater, than the mother’s.’
32 Comments
That we need studies from qualified and government sanctioned “experts” to tell us such evident things, just shows how sick we are as a society.
And if we're going to play the silly and unfounded game of man against woman. Than I would say that it is because women (and our society) have arrogantly raised our children (in a climate of denigrating the man) these last few decades, that our culture is in the dumps on these issues of basic humanity. Women poorly educated (in how to love their child). Women and feminists our the problem. Make a study of that! Its “dead beat women (moms)”, those who do have the custody of our children (whether divorced, single or married), that have completely brought down our society. Along with their interested legal teams and social engineering accomplices.
Women have completely failed in teaching to their children (and so, to our culture) the importance and dignity of the man, and of the respectful place that the woman should (and must) allow him. Our western women and mom's are the problem to our cultural woes! Its not fully their fault. For they are just poorly educated, and easily manipulated by our extremely powerful, effective and self interested media, etc. The same powers that want to take things further – through the suppression of the word “marriage”.
What a silly and deadly game we are all caught up in. How effectively they have divided us.
In a culture where they have made us not even sure of ourselves on such basic things as how we should go to the bathroom. Unless first the “experts”, through one of their in depth university sanctioned, government authorized studies confirms for us the best way to do so. Within a report and findings that will be revisited in a few years time. So don't get too comfortable on the can...
It's great to have studies that confirm what our grandparents always knew.
The attack on fatherhood has escalated over the past several decades. Crime and incarceration rates are a testament to his fact. Hopefully the pendulum has begun to swing the other way. Studies such as this will help.
This study falls in line with decades of research noting the importance of fathers to their child's development and long-term outcomes.
Interesting tidbit in the article: the coalition is planning to punish women who keep kids away from their fathers after a family separation.
I would expect to hear of some fighting about that--especially if such a thing were proposed over here.
While I agree that the study raises an important point -- that distant, cold fathers can have a very negative impact on their children -- I do not think this point in any way supports the NOM agenda. What the study shows is that a distant and cold parent (in this case, a father) can be really bad for children. That does not mean that a same-sex couple that provides a child with two loving mothers or two loving fathers will have at all the same effect. The study isn't saying that a loving male parent is necessary, it's saying that the existence of an unloving, uncaring male parent is detrimental.
There have been studies showing that loving same-sex parents are just as good for children as loving mothers and fathers (and are a lot better for children than single mothers or single fathers, or orphanages). If anything, doesn't this study help show that creating loving households for children to grow up in is even more important?
Jon, why do you want to reinvent the wheel?
Jon, no study has compared children raised from birth by same-sex couples to children raised from birth by a married mother and father. There aren't even enough adults in the country who have been raised by a same-sex couple to examine empirically.
Much of the data on same-sex parenting is a snapshot in time, focuses on limited measures (gender identity, self-esteem, etc.) and often compares self-selected, educated, wealthy, white lesbians to random samples of the population, or to single and divorced mothers who are not as educated, wealthy, and racially similar.
The research "showing" that two women can provide just as much as a mother and father is bereft of the methodological rigor and scope to make such a claim.
It’s utterly ridiculous that people push such research to discount the importance of fathers, when the vast majority of children will be born due to heterosexual intercourse (as opposed to in-vitro fertilization) and immediately need both maternal and paternal investment.
Is it me, or are people willing to discount the importance of fathers in order to make a miniscule group of women who decided to raise children without one feel good about themselves?
Even if there were studies showing same-sex couples to be equal to the married mother and father (and there are no studies), the reality is that it’s extremely unlikely that a child will be raised from birth by a same-sex couple. Being born to and raised by a same-sex couple is so unlikely, that it’s dangerous for people to espouse the idea that fathers are unnecessary.
The vast majority of children will not be raised by a same-sex couple in a planned family. They need their mother and father. Society must uphold this ideal, even if there were actual studies showing that same-sex couples are just as good as a mother and father.
Since there are no studies, it’s even worse to say that fathers are unnecessary; in part because it’s untrue, and in part because there is decades worth of evidence to the contrary.
Lefty, my argument is as follows:
1) Children do better when raised with loving same-sex parents than with single parents or in orphanages.
2) Many children would benefit if loving same-sex couples were recognized by the government and could legally adopt them in any state.
3) As the study shows, cold/distant fathers are bad for children.
4) 3 does nothing to negate 1 and 2, and having more kids raised by loving same-sex parents instead of in orphanages would still be a good thing.
5) The study is a good and important one, but I don't think it supports NOM's agenda.
I'm not saying that a loving mother+father couple is bad for children, or that heterosexual parents (the wheel in your analogy) need to be reinvented. All I'm saying is that the study's main point is that children need love and affection from both parents, and that same-sex couples can provide love and affection just as well as traditionally marriaged parents can. I'm sure a same sex couple in which one parent is distant and cold would be equally as bad for a child as having a father who is distant and cold.
I'm up for debating my points, but I'll need more than a rhetorical question from you.
Ash,
I was referring to studies summarized in the following literary reviews:
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf
I'm saying that having two loving parents is the most important thing for children to be raised well and turn into valuable members of society. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not devalue traiditional couples, aside from removing their currently unique status as valid marriages in most states. They would still very much be valued and recognized by the government. All I'm saying is that loving same-sex parents deserve to also be recognized and valued by the government for their ability to raise children in loving families. The documents I linked to support the idea that same-sex parents can do a great job of raising children.
I don't see my position as an attack on fathers or a blanket statement that fathers are not necessary. The fact is that the vast majority of children, whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized, will be raised by heterosexual, traditionally marriaged parents. This means that my position supporting the value of two loving parents is therefore a confirmation of the importance of loving fathers for the vast majority of children.
@ ash
No it isn't unlikely there plenty of children out there that are raised from same sex couples from birth. I personally know four by sperm donation. Now I don't have kids of my own, but according to my mother there no different then any of u were at there age. The first one even had a mother that became a born again Christian and an alcohalic, he was adopted by the other mom after he was verbally abused by his step father and didn't have a mother because he was to drunk to function. Most people on this forum have never known anyone in this situation whitch means you have no idea what it is like. My father who is uneasy with being around gay or lesbians will tell you my uncle who donated the sperm and is also gay is not a father he is t in there lives everyday, but the children are in a loving house hold with two parents and that none of the kids have bin there any thing different then any other children execpt the first one. That is coming from a mother and a father of three boys they know both sides of the story and say there is nothing wrong. So Iam sorry this article doesn't mean gays and lesbians are bad for children and most of the medical community says there doing just fine so what are we fighting about
again. I get religious freedom but that doesn't mean you have the freedom to force it on someone else. If its not your thing then don't take part in it
The LBGT crowd want nothing more than to totally redefine what a family is, and expect everybody to believe it's healthy without doing any unbiased studies on it They just barge ahead and say it's OK because paid political flacks on their side of the aisle say it's ok. How cheap and dishonest.
Actually I have wondered how the kids in gay/lesbian households are doing. If the gays want to prove their point, then they should be prepared to take on some scrutiny, IMO. More such unbiased studies need to be done. And if it can be proven by unbiased scientific methods that gay/lesbian households are doing a great job: then that's validation for them, but those days are not in the foreseaable future any time soon.
Lefty:
Your #5 above says it all.
Eight words.
The answer is because it provides such a lovely opportunity for lawyers to get in and redefine "wheel", in ways that afford such wonderful opportunities for future legal opportunities to redefine the redefinition.
Also this particular question- marriage- is so deeply tied up in the Christian foundation of our civilization, it provides an unusually attractive target for those determined to erase that foundation.
Lefty
What Rick said.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
George Orwell
@nitro The LGBT crowd does not want to "totally redefine what a family is". Is a single mother who was left by her husband together with her kids a family? Are kids adopted by heterosexual couples part of a family? Are kids living either with their mother/stepfather and father/stepmother part of a family? I think the answer, in all of these cases, is an obvious yes, each one is a family.
And yet, now you are saying that including two loving same-sex parents with their adopted or ivf children is a total redefinition of what a family is? If a family must require one father, one mother, and their biological children, then are you saying that the families I listed in my first paragraph are not families?
And lastly, in my #8 post, I link to 3 different articles that go into some detail about the evidence that shows same-sex couples can make for very good parents (indistinguishable from good heterosexual parents).
@Rick, @AM - I would prefer if you would present some form of argument against the points I have listed above, rather than affirming the grandness of the statement "Why reinvent the wheel?". Perhaps we want to "reinvent the wheel" b/c the wheel is already dysfunctional (divorse) and exclusionary (hurts the adopted/ivf children of committed same-sex couples).
@ Whether its the LGBT crowd, the Wall Street crowd, the Medical and Pharmaceutical crowd, the Anti Religion and God crowd, the Marxist crowd or the Men in the Moon crowd – some crowd is trying to redefine the uniqueness of the biological family right out of the societies collective conscience, through the reeducation of its children. To where biological family means nothing; except to the prejudiced and bigoted people. For any original significance that the biological family might have must never be evoked in the public square. Hence no word allowed to define the very foundation of this type of family, which is the man-woman union under the name of marriage.
Why don't you help us out Jon.
And why be so cold toward fathers. Isn't it enough that their own government, society and legal system does all they can to discourage them from developing the natural fatherhood (and manhood) that is in each one of them. Do you really think that woman is a naturally better human being than man toward children and society? Give the guy a break. Don't be so cold.
Ivf chldren:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/get-over-it-children-of-anonymous-sperm-donors-met-with-hostility-ridicule
http://www.anonymousfathersday.com/
What about what the children would want? Given the choice, a child would prefer to be raised by his real parents than adoptive parents. And given the choice of opposite sex adoptive parents or same-sex parents, a child would choose the former. Having both of one's parents is the ideal, no matter what sort of criteria are used to claim otherwise in so-called "research" studies. No child would ever choose same-sex parents unless the alternative was no parents at all; and even there, a child might decide that an orphanage would be preferable.
Jon, thank you for providing the links. Unfortunately, the criticisms in my first comment are applicable to the literature reviews cited within the links.
The report from the Australian Psychological Society made a pretty outrageous claim when it said that family processes, as opposed to family structures (number and cohabitation status of parents), is more of a determinant of child well-being and outcomes. That is patently false, and so I didn’t give that report a lot of weight. You asserted that children do better with same-sex couples than with single parents or in orphanages, i.e. that family structure does matter. But this common-sense idea was rejected by this report.
Now, to the APA brief you provided.
One part that piqued my interest was a certain section’s title: “There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.”
As I’ve noted elsewhere on this blog, a former president of the APA, Nicholas Cummings, revealed in his book (Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy) that APA officials at the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns Office tactically decided to include such a title as this in one of their legal briefs after a colleague recognized that the scientific evidence to make definitive claims about children of same-sex couples is non-existent.
They changed the brief from ““Gay and Lesbian Parents are as Fit and Capable as Heterosexual Parents, and Their Children are as Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted” to ““There is No Scientific Basis for Concluding that Gay and Lesbian Parents are Any Less Fit or Capable than Heterosexual Parents, or that Their Children are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted” (the exact wording of the title in the brief you linked to).
But focusing solely on the substance of the research cited by the brief, I can say that none of what I read therein challenges the criticisms I laid out about the same-sex parenting research.
While reading the brief, I noticed that the APA repeatedly used the term “heterosexual parents” when denoting the group to whom lesbian and gay parents are compared, and are shown to do just as well.
But as noted by Dr. Marks in his comprehensive review of the studies cited by the APA (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580), this type of description of the literature is wanting in terms of clarity and significance.
There are many “heterosexual” families in existence that are not as conducive to child flourishing as is the married-biological family. Some of these families include single parent families, divorced families, step-parent families, cohabitating biological families, cohabitating blended families, etc.
Indeed, the use of the word “heterosexual” confirms that the APA is not citing any study to show that children in same-sex households have been directly compared to the supreme family structure. One of the sources mentioned in the brief, Michael Lamb, admitted during the Prop 8 trial that he was not aware of any study that makes these comparisons.
True, children of same-sex might do just as well as children reared in “heterosexual” broken families; emphasis on “might” when one controls for race, education, and wealth. But that is not sufficient to say that same-sex couples do just as well as a married mother and father.
Thanks to Dr. Mark’s review of the research, we now know that the author of an APA report on same-sex parenting deliberately left out a study showing that, when compared to the married mother and father, same-sex couples underperformed; this study superseded the overall body of research, methodologically, in several ways. In light of the existence of this study, Paul Amato, a researcher writing in the same journal, called a particularly bombastic sentence from the APA’s statement about homosexual parenting “unfortunate.”
I agree that having two loving parents is important, but what the research has shown us over the decades is that the number two is not magical. Two cohabitating parents or a biological and step parent arrangement, don’t measure up to the married biological family. Could same-sex couples prove to be unique? Perhaps. But that is not yet known.
Same-sex marriage is an issue in and of itself. But I take qualms when every piece of research that demonstrates the importance of fathers is refuted as being “gender-neutral.” Usually, such refutations are then dragged further to say that children do not enjoy special advantages from being raised by their married mother and father, a conclusion based on the questionable same-sex parenting research at issue.
And that’s why we’re having this conversation
Overcame:
"Given the choice, a child would prefer to be raised by his real parents than adoptive parents."
How in the world do you know what these children want? Given the way a child becomes available for adoption, I'd say it's extremely rare for a child in this circumstance to have any choice in the matter.
IVF? Wait a minute. You pitched this as a matter of same-sex couples helping out needy orphans who would otherwise be left forgotten in institutional care. Now it seems like it's more about what the orphans can do for you: legitimize the intentional creation of motherless and fatherless children through the fertility industry, without any consideration given to the children's right to a mother and a father.
Jon, get a clue.
As expected, the more rigorous the study, the less glamorous same-sex parenting looks as compared to the reigning champion: the intact married family.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/
Dr. Loren Mark's did a review of the studies cited by the APA to conclude that same-sex parenting is wonderful. Here are a few points:
-Only 33 of the 59 studies cited by the APA even contained a heterosexual comparison group.
-The vast majority of the comparison group samples were broken families, i.e. single and divorced parents.
-The studies don't even measure up to the research standards set out by the APA in its own publication manual.
-And possibly the most shocking fact of all, there was a study done in 1996 that found the married mother and father to be superior to cohabitating couples, and cohabitating couples to be better than homosexual couples in terms of child outcomes. This study was more rigorous and methodologically sound than the others, and the researcher went on to publish textbooks in research methodology. Nevertheless, it was dismissed by the Charlotte Patterson (author of the APA paper, and a regular producer of the weaker studies) because it bucked against the "no differences" research, and was published by a lesser known journal. She claimed that the paper had no abstract, but it did.
Since 1973, homosexual activists took control over the APA leadership and has since suppressed any dissenting opinions. Instead of being science-based, it has become a political advocacy group, masquerading as healing professionals.
Nitro, if you're going to copy some of my previous posts at least cite me!
My response to Jon is in the filter and should be posted soon (I hope).
"Given the choice, a child would prefer to be raised by his real parents than adoptive parents"
Nope. I was adopted by two wonderful parents and, if given the choice, I would have always chosen them over my biological parents. It just so happened that my parents are an opposite-sex couple. If they so happened to be a same-gender couple, I have no doubt in my mind that I would love them just the same, have turned out just the same, and would select them over my biological parents just the same.
You are letting your bias, animus, and negative attitude towards gay Americans hinder your ability to form an accurate and honest opinion.
@Overcame -- I think Bruce and RJ responded appropriately to your post. Your post only shows your personal disdain for homosexuality, and your lack of empathy for children.
@nitro -- First, if you want to have a constructive debate, don't start posts with "Get a clue". It doesn't add anything to your argument. I have refrained from making personal attacks, so I hope you can as well.
As to your first post -- I originally made my case for same-sex parents by looking at the most obvious case in which they are a good thing for American children, i.e. orphaned children who would not have any parents at all without people willing to adopt them. I think it's hard to argue that denying same-sex parents adoption rights is a good thing (as I think anyone could agree a child will be better off living with a committed same-sex couple than they would be growing up in an orphanage). As for IVF, I was including same-sex parents who have IVF children as an example of what a family can look like, and that such a family would be no more a redefinition of the word "family" than a single-parent family, a foster parent family, or any other non-traditional family.
Some questions I have for you: If IVF is an attack on children's rights, do you believe children should be legally allowed to be born out of wedlock? Should it be illegal to give one's child up for adoption? In both cases the child is losing his/her "right to a mother and father".
As to your second post -- the one study that you link to which you claim is "more rigorous" also has glaring flaws. For one, it is not a comparison of intact 2-parent same-sex households with heterosexual households:
"Very few of the respondents with gay parents lived in a two-gay-parent household; almost all of them came from broken homes of gay parents who had been married to a straight spouse or, more surprisingly, an opposite-sex gay spouse"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
The articles I linked to, on the other hand, represent the collective opinion of the social science community as a whole. Personally, I don't think there is conclusive proof either way right now. As you pointed out, there are many problems with the studies used by the APA. I agree that those studies are in no way conclusive evidence that same-sex parents are statistically equal to heterosexual parents. However, as someone who knows people who are in a committed same-sex relationship, it would be very hard for me to believe that they are simply inferior parents to typical heterosexual parents. Can they not also provide a loving, safe environment for a child?
On a side note, the study that you linked also demonstrates the inherent problems with one argument I have seen on this site from NOMers, that homosexuals are just as free to marry (someone of the opposite sex) now as are heterosexuals. The problem with this argument is that when homosexuals marry and have kids with people of the opposite sex, it tends to lead to broken homes, broken marriages, and poor results for their children. These are the sorts of relationships that the study shows are less effective than traditional marriages.
"Same-sex parents" is a misnomer:
Misnomer: a use of a wrong or unsuitable name or term to describe something or somebody
Let us take a look at the definition of the word "Parent:"
a.
something from which one or more similar and separate things have developed, or to which they are attached
b.
chemistry an atom, molecule, or ion that undergoes change to become a new product. The starting components in a chemical reaction are the parent molecules.
c.
nuclear physics a radioactive particle that disintegrates to give a new particle nuclide as a subsequent member of a radioactive decay series
Same-gender pairings are physically incapable of producing children. Same-gender Guardians is a more appropriate descriptive of who these miscreants represent to any child unfortunate enough to be raised in this construct.
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius
Thanks Good News and nitro for the links. They were helpfull. I liked the comments in the Washington Times, it was not all of the homosexual trolls spewing their garbage.
Randy, if you want to go to definitions, check out http://www.dictionary.com for parent:
4. a protector or guardian.
I'm using this definition of parent.
Thanks for defining misnomer for me, though. At least it shows your lack of respect for me.
Jon, maybe if you didn't repeat the same illogical arguements then maybe I wouldn't have to tell you to get a clue But, you digress.
In the blueprint of the Gay agenda article called "The Overhauling of Straight America," which lays out the strategies and deception needed to gain political ascendency, it counsels homosexuals to only speak of homosexuality in abstract terms. One example is to avoid the terms 'homosexual' or 'sodomy' and instead use terms like 'Gay,' 'loving and committed' and 'Civil rights.' It is psycho-babble garbage used by people just like you, but has proven to be very effective.
But children live in the real world, with the real and brutal consequences of entrusting homosexuals with the sole custody and control of a defenseless child.
Not too long ago, a non-news item was of a Duke Rape Case, not the false accusation against some White LaCrosse players, but of a couple of White and homosexual adoptive parents of a couple African-American boys.
It seems that one of the adult males had webcammed himself in the act of molesting the 5 year old boy and was caught when inviting an undercover officer to join in on the act.
Uniform crime reports and medical surveillance studies reveal that homosexuals committ (depending upon the location and study population) between 25 to 40 percent of all child sexual assault. The footnote to these studies is that the percentage may be even higher, since the shame, stigma and threats make such a crime highly unreported.
Moreover, the UN AIDS surveillance report indicates that of children under 18 years of age, 84 percent of the males were infected by homosexual / pederastic males.
Thus, when society sets up rules permitting homosexuals to adopt children and infants, there is a very real, clear and present danger that those children will become victims of sexual molestation.
The reality, from the child's perspective, of being alone, at night, as an adult male enters his room, knowing that there is no help or escape from what is about to happen to him, is sickening.
We did that to that child, by setting the stage and allowing this scenario to unfold behind the closed doors of many homes, and in so doing, have completely failed to protect that child from permanent psychic and psychological harm.
The hypothetical scenarios you spout may fit well in your twilight zone of "what-ifs" but I live in real-ville and have seen and heard the horror stories of children that have been wrongfully placed in so-called "loving" gay households and the horrors they have had to endure.
Like I said, Get a clue.
Jon, If you didn't repeat the same illogical arguments then I wouldn't need to tell you to get a clue. But, you digress.
In the blueprint of the Gay agenda article called "The Overhauling of Straight America," which lays out the strategies and deception needed to gain political ascendency, it counsels homosexuals to only speak of homosexuality in abstract terms. One example is to avoid the terms 'homosexual' or 'sodomy' and instead use terms like 'Gay,' 'loving and committed' and 'Civil rights.' It is psycho-babble, but has proven to be very effective.
But children live in the real world, with the real and brutal consequences of entrusting homosexuals with the sole custody and control of a defenseless child.
Not too long ago, a non-news item was of a Duke Rape Case, not the false accusation against some White LaCrosse players, but of a couple of White and homosexual adoptive parents of a couple African-American boys.
It seems that one of the adult males had webcammed himself in the act of molesting the 5 year old boy and was caught when inviting an undercover officer to join in on the act.
Uniform crime reports and medical surveillance studies reveal that homosexuals committ (depending upon the location and study population) between 25 to 40 percent of all child sexual assault. The footnote to these studies is that the percentage may be even higher, since the shame, stigma and threats make such a crime highly unreported.
Moreover, the UN AIDS surveillance report indicates that of children under 18 years of age, 84 percent of the males were infected by homosexual / pederastic males.
Thus, when society sets up rules permitting homosexuals to adopt children and infants, there is a very real, clear and present danger that those children will become victims of sexual molestation.
The reality, from the child's perspective, of being alone, at night, as an adult male enters his room, knowing that there is no help or escape from what is about to happen to him, is sickening.
We did that to that child, by setting the stage and allowing this scenario to unfold behind the closed doors of many homes, and in so doing, have completely failed to protect that child from permanent psychic and psychological harm.
Sadly, I have seen and heard far too many horror stories from innocent children that have been wrongfully placed into "loving" gay households.
This is the reality and not some hypothetical twilight zone in which you wish to operate.
Like I said, Get a clue.
nitro,
One anecdotal story is not evidence that homosexuality = child molestation. A brief search for me and I found this paper, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html, which talks about the myth that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, etc. You're going to have to cite some trustworthy sources if I'm going to believe the statistics you give me.
I think I have presented my opinion as well as I can (btw, I have never read the "Overhauling of Straight America"), but the debate has devolved to both insults and scare tactics. I could just as easily talk about abusive fathers who are heterosexual, tell an anecdote about a child being physically abused by his heterosexual parent, and then say "I have heard far too many horror stories from innocent children that have been wrongfully placed into 'loving' heterosexual households", and make it a case against adoption completely.
I guess I'll end with the question -- have you ever met a committed gay couple? Have you ever met any children raised by loving same-sex parents? They exist -- in reality, not in a "hypothetical twilight zone" -- and are doing fine. They are just looking for equality from the law, and a recognition of the committed relationship that they have.
@nitro,
Since we're going down this road... did you know that Catholic priests in America have a much higher rate of pedophilia and child abuse than average Americans?
Let me correct your quote for you:
"The reality, from the child's perspective, of being alone, at night, as a Catholic priest enters his room, knowing that there is no help or escape from what is about to happen to him, is sickening."
Yes, it is sickening.
The following is a truly stupid statement:
"The study isn't saying that a loving male parent is necessary, it's saying that the existence of an unloving, uncaring male parent is detrimental."
Why did you say, "male parent", rather than father?
And if a father is not distant where a child is raised by two women instead of a mother and a father, then, you really are not paying much attention to reality.
What you just said, Jon, about Catholic priests is a smear and far from the truth.
You are a pro-gay bigot.
Jon blurted out some rather ignorant statements:
1. " I think it's hard to argue that denying same-sex parents adoption rights is a good thing"
You might suppose it is hard, but that is an irrelevancy.
As a responsible participant in serious discussions on these matter, you are obliged to work harder, Jon, at thinking rather than merely asserting that because your imagination is limited there is no reason to disagree with your rhetoric.
Orphanages manifest an excellent societal response to the presence of orphans in society. Same-sex parenting is far below par.
Prioritization of adoption scenarios is a legitimate function of orphanages and adoption agencies. The married home provides the child with a mother and a father; such a home which already has children is best, on average. Other scenarios that approximate the optimal scenario merit higher prioritization. The farther from the optimal, the lower the prioritization of some scenarios and the elimination from consideration of some scenarios.
Given the high level of instability in the sexualized female same-sex relationship and the sexualized male same-sex relationship scenarios, the gay population hardly provides an optimal pool of prospective adoptors. Adoption won't fix what is wrong with these scenarios.
Of the adult homosexual population, maybe 11% reside in same-sex households; of that tiny percentage within the adult homosexual populatoin, maybe 3% reside in such households with children. Of that tiny subset of that tiny percentage of the adult homosexual population, maybe 4% of the children were adopted -- (and that is padded by so-called "second-parent" adoption where a partner of a lesbian or gay man adopts the child). This is the virtual inverse of marriage among the non-homosexual adult population.
Rather than pretend that the gay identity group is the savior of adoption, better to turn to the hard work (yes, Jon, hard is not really an impediment, contrary to your absurd remark) of encouraging the type of parental scenarios that put children front and center rather than the adults.
You also said:
"As for IVF, I was including same-sex parents who have IVF children as an example of what a family can look like, and that such a family would be no more a redefinition of the word "family" than a single-parent family, a foster parent family, or any other non-traditional family."
1. Of the few same-sex households raising children, maybe 1% attained those children through IVF with the express purpose of excluding either mom or dad. This is a redefinition of family.
2. Sure, exlusion of mom or dad is a lot like single parenting in structure.
3. Well, non-traditional is a redefinition of family. Your own remarks concede the point.
Marriage integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. Adoption is not procreation; excluding either mom or dad is not sex-integrative.
The Quebec policy is anti-family and anti-marriage. It surely is favoritism for the gay identity group, however.
Priorities can be misplaced, as your own remarks have illustrated with considerable alarcity.