Same-Sex Parenting

[Galeongirl]

Come to think of it, I haven't really heard or read any gay person saying such comments in a long while. I guess with the acceptance of homosexuality and SSM gaining more strength in America, there will be fewer gays saying that. And they weren't really saying that they wish they were straight. They just wished homophobes would realize being gay was not a lifestyle choice as some believed (and still believe) it is.

I guess that they didn't mean that if they had the choice they would be straight, per se. I just think they want to be accepted by others as another normal human being..

Let's just hope we get to that point some day for all.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I just really struggle to comprehend the seeming notion that there is some vast existing majority of straight male and straight female parents out there with their perfect families, the perfect model. To set that up as the model ideal that gay families somehow automatically fail to live up to simply because they are two men or two women, well to me THAT is a false model. ALL families have some sort of difficulties to deal with, who ever knows what exists behind closed doors. I don't have kids, but I think I still know something about what makes for a healthy and happy family. I know by the opposite, unfortunately. And I know with 100 percent certainly that a male and female parent does NOT equate to automatically correct gender modeling. A gay man is perfectly capable of modeling what makes for a good man for a male child, or what could make for a good male partner for a female child. A gay woman, the same. It's about modeling basic goodness and human decency, not stereotypes about what makes a man a man or a woman a woman. Yes there will be times when you might want to get a different gender's perspective on things, when you're a teenager or whatever. That's why they say it takes a village, a healthy family doesn't exist in a vacuum..keeping out all outside opinions and influences.


Bottom line for me is- what all parents should be doing is providing love, security, friendship, self esteem and confidence boosting, and so many more things I don't have the time to list here. And any healthy functioning adult is capable of providing that. Kids of straight couples have plenty of struggles growing up with parents who are alcoholics and drug addicts, parents who are emotionally and physically abusive, parents who have never dealt with their own demons, parents who are selfish and never should have had children. And many more struggles. THAT is reality, not this idyllic utopia that doesn't exist. Maybe it does for the lucky few, but that hardly makes it the gold standard that gay couples fail to live up to just because they are gay. The kind of person you are makes you the kind of parent you are. So does the kind of relationship you have with your spouse. That relationship is about love, trust, communication-all that stuff. Not about gay or straight.

 

[Diemen]

A great, tough question. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we must come to the conclusion: yes, it is wrong.

And, in keeping with such honesty, it is a great indictment of a great number of heterosexual parents in the US today.

The question is pointless because it falsely assumes that gays are "willfully" denying something that a child cannot go without in order to live a happy, productive life.

When faced with personal stories such as Pac mule's, I hear from Aeon that of course you wouldn't say that he shouldn't have been raised by two women, but I'm having a hard time trying to see where the line gets drawn between acceptable deviation from "the ideal" and unacceptable.

 

[Pearl]

I just really struggle to comprehend the seeming notion that there is some vast existing majority of straight male and straight female parents out there with their perfect families, the perfect model. To set that up as the model ideal that gay families somehow automatically fail to live up to simply because they are two men or two women, well to me THAT is a false model. ALL families have some sort of difficulties to deal with, who ever knows what exists behind closed doors. I don't have kids, but I think I still know something about what makes for a healthy and happy family. I know by the opposite, unfortunately. And I know with 100 percent certainly that a male and female parent does NOT equate to automatically correct gender modeling. A gay man is perfectly capable of modeling what makes for a good man for a male child, or what could make for a good male partner for a female child. A gay woman, the same. It's about modeling basic goodness and human decency, not stereotypes about what makes a man a man or a woman a woman. Yes there will be times when you might want to get a different gender's perspective on things, when you're a teenager or whatever. That's why they say it takes a village, a healthy family doesn't exist in a vacuum..keeping out all outside opinions and influences.

Exactly.

Instead of lamenting and getting nervous over gay parents raising kids - and even doing a great job at it - why not focus on making straight parents better? There's plenty of straight parents who are not good role models for their kids in anyway, and to say they're still better parents because they are straight is wrong.

Really, I think some people who are against same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting are just nervous that homosexuals may do a better job than straights, thus proving that some gender expectations and roles no longer fit in today's world. Instead of kicking and screaming over this, they should re-examine what went wrong with heterosexual relationships and come up with rational ideas on solving problems like single parenthood, fewer straight men wanting to get married, things like that. Of course, the people who aren't happy about homosexual parenting are the last people to get involved in fixing the heterosexual world.

Oh, and in regards to taking a village to raise a child - many societies and cultures have extended families taking care of the kids. Sure, the parents are the prime guardians and role models, but the uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents are always nearby (sometimes in the same house) and raising kids is a family thing. So, gay parents have good company.

 

[jeevey]

A gay man is perfectly capable of modeling what makes for a good man for a male child, or what could make for a good male partner for a female child. A gay woman, the same. It's about modeling basic goodness and human decency, not stereotypes about what makes a man a man or a woman a woman.

The kind of person you are makes you the kind of parent you are. So does the kind of relationship you have with your spouse. That relationship is about love, trust, communication-all that stuff. Not about gay or straight.

Great post.

And that "village" mentality is where the needs of an opposite-sex child being raised by a gay couple get met.

 

[BonosSaint]

I just really struggle to comprehend the seeming notion that there is some vast existing majority of straight male and straight female parents out there with their perfect families, the perfect model. To set that up as the model ideal that gay families somehow automatically fail to live up to simply because they are two men or two women, well to me THAT is a false model. ALL families have some sort of difficulties to deal with, who ever knows what exists behind closed doors. I don't have kids, but I think I still know something about what makes for a healthy and happy family. I know by the opposite, unfortunately. And I know with 100 percent certainly that a male and female parent does NOT equate to automatically correct gender modeling. A gay man is perfectly capable of modeling what makes for a good man for a male child, or what could make for a good male partner for a female child. A gay woman, the same. It's about modeling basic goodness and human decency, not stereotypes about what makes a man a man or a woman a woman. Yes there will be times when you might want to get a different gender's perspective on things, when you're a teenager or whatever. That's why they say it takes a village, a healthy family doesn't exist in a vacuum..keeping out all outside opinions and influences.

Thank you for your post.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think a child might miss having a mother or a father and feel a loss (an experience I know from friends who grew up in single parent households). But in many cases the father/mother missing would not have made great, supportive parents. I think, as Mrs. Springsteen said so eloquently, it is important for children to have an entire support network of both sexes that do not need to be their parents, but need to provide a broader experience (And this goes for children who have both a mother and a father). They need the aunt who encourages mischief and the male family friend who does all that guy stuff that women don't quite get--like introduce the kids to The Three Stooges. They need a constant presence and acceptance in their lives from both sexes.

 

[nbcrusader]

The question is pointless because it falsely assumes that gays are "willfully" denying something that a child cannot go without in order to live a happy, productive life.

When faced with personal stories such as Pac mule's, I hear from Aeon that of course you wouldn't say that he shouldn't have been raised by two women, but I'm having a hard time trying to see where the line gets drawn between acceptable deviation from "the ideal" and unacceptable.

In your scenario, “gays” are electing to forgo an element, just as many hetero couples do (having children without being in a committed relationship, having children without taking primary responsibility to raise the children, etc.)

Again, for discussion purposes (I would hope we all view these threads as AEON described:

I do not see these discussions as win/lose debates - but about sharing each other's viewpoints. However, I fear that this if I'm not careful - I will hurt more than help, and I certainly don't want to do that. Please try not to picture me as the man with a bullhorn outside of the stadium - instead, please view me as one of you at a pub, sitting around a table, drinking a pint, talking about life as Achtung Baby plays in the background.

, we are talking about an ideal – something that we can recognize is not being met by many parents.

 

[nbcrusader]

Are you saying we should ignore the study on the off chance a future study has a different conclusion?

Nothing even close. We should scratch our heads if all we see is a vague reference to an executive summary from one study. As Irvine has informed us, there are other studies that do come to different conclusions. We can ignore one study or the other based on the result we are seeking, or we can evaluate and weigh the conclusions of two or more studies in thoughtful discussion – what I thought was the intention of this thread.

 

[nbcrusader]

Or until anti-gay forces can fund a rigged study to show their "science" as we saw with the Regenerus "study" done just in time for SCOTUS arguments last March.

Instead of playing the race card, seems we now play the gay card whereby anti-gay organizations can complain that it's only political correctness that prevents social science from validating their own viewpoints. Just as we have scientists funded by energy companies to "dispute" global warming science, so to are we going to have "tough questions" that pretend to bravely question the stranglehold that gay liberal forces apparently have upon the APA.

It's like Middle East politics. If you don't like the results, discredit the process.

It would have been far easier to answer AEON's question with the word "No".

Your post gave me the opportunity to look into the Regenerus study. I can see why Ligtvoet did not cite this study as it would have required far more significant analysis than intended for his article. What Irvine fails to mention is the study faced political opposition, but more importantly, scientific peer review. The peer review validated Regenerus’ work, both at the University of Texas (where Regenerus works) and on a national stage.

A preemptive attempt to discredit the process is not worthy of this thread. If you are going to start a thread seeking discussion, we deserve a better response.

 

[Irvine511]

It would have been far easier to answer AEON's question with the word "No".

Your post gave me the opportunity to look into the Regenerus study. I can see why Ligtvoet did not cite this study as it would have required far more significant analysis than intended for his article. What Irvine fails to mention is the study faced political opposition, but more importantly, scientific peer review. The peer review validated Regenerus’ work, both at the University of Texas (where Regenerus works) and on a national stage.

A preemptive attempt to discredit the process is not worthy of this thread. If you are going to start a thread seeking discussion, we deserve a better response.

Regenerus' "study" has been widely discredited. That's what happens when you compare children from broken homes who have one parent who may have had a short term same-sex relationship with intact families. But when you've utterly failed to show any -- any -- harm in the Prop 8 Trial, better scramble for funding quick before it goes to SCOTUS.

Google a bit more.

 

[PhilsFan]

Didn't someone at Regnerus' own journal call it a bullshit study?

 

[Irvine511]

Didn't someone at Regnerus' own journal call it a bullshit study?

Look at the link NBC provided for the "national stage."

He has proved my point exactly -- the study was designed to be something for conservative media to latch onto.

 

[nbcrusader]

Look at the link NBC provided for the "national stage."

He has proved my point exactly -- the study was designed to be something for conservative media to latch onto.

So, we can now debunk a scientific study based on which secondary media outlet reports the findings?

I would think a discussion would necessarily include an analysis of the methodology and results of studies with conflicting conclusions.

Or, again, is your honest answer to AEON's question: "No".

 

[Irvine511]

So, we can now debunk a scientific study based on which secondary media outlet reports the findings?

don't distort things.

the study has been debunked on it's own.

go do your own research.

I would think a discussion would necessarily include an analysis of the methodology and results of studies with conflicting conclusions.

by your own admission, you weren't aware of the Regenerus "study." if you were, you'd be aware of the analysis that has already been done and you'd be aware of how Regenerus cooked his numbers to arrive at a pre-established conclusion.

Or, again, is your honest answer to AEON's question: "No".

you want to know my thoughts? you had answered for all of us earlier.