protect our children from anti-family forces out to corrupt them!

[nathan1977]

No one criticized the AAP report's "sample selection" or "lack of proper control groups"--there weren't any samples or control groups involved! It was a scientific research review, not an experimental study.

Why did more than 600 members of the AAP protest by walking out of the Academy?

 

[yolland]

Because that 1% of the AAP's 60,000+ membership are opposed to gay adoption on moral grounds. Naturally, they also criticized the report itself for being based on flawed, "elitist" "advocacy" research--that's par for the course where policymaking based on social science research into political flashpoint issues is concerned. The remaining 99% of the AAP's membership did not agree that the research surveyed was terminally flawed, and its chapter council of presidents and vice-presidents from all 50 states unanimously passed the resolution resulting from the report's recommendations.

Similar firestorms had erupted over previous AAP resolutions pertaining to condom distribution and abortion. In this case (gay adoption), the most vocal 100 or so of the dissenters went on to found in response the American College of Physicians (ACP), "an organisation with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children," according to founder Joseph Zanga, MD.

I don't doubt that some among the 99% who didn't dissent were likewise predisposed on moral grounds to support the resolution regardless of scientific merit. And perhaps there were a few dissenters whose primary motivation was sincere reservations about the methodology, etc. of the studies cited. But I would feel pretty safe concluding that the fact that that many AAP members sided with their leadership and their chapter council is broadly indicative of widespread acceptance of the validity of this research within the pediatrics community.

 

[melon]

That's why I hate it when morality and science mix. Science is not meant to be catered to some archaic, arbitrary ideas of what is "moral," but, rather, what is true. And if morality cannot deal with the observable truth and must instead lie and defame an unpopular minority to justify its "morality," then it deserves to be discredited.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

So you're saying that men and women aren't different? And that those differences don't manifest themselves in parenting styles? And that those differences aren't ultimately beneficial to the child? This is problematic at a variety of levels, including your own example:



By this logic, you actually seem to contradict yourself. By inference, two fathers would teach children to be more closed-minded, emotional repressed, and alienated from their peers. Did you mean to condemn gay fatherhood?

it's dangerous to make inferences.

yes, men and women aren't different, but same-sex parenting has not been shown to have any sort of detrimental effect upon a child. perhaps a child of two fathers or two mothers might grow up to hold a different set of values, or be more or less emotionally expressive, but these differences in gender are really no different than differences you might find between children of different faiths, different socio-economic backgrounds, mixed-race parents, or different regions of the United States.

perhaps we are working from a different base assumption.

my base assumption is the following: there is no discernable moral difference or social worth between gay couples and straight couples. the differences in lifestyle between a gay couple and a straight couple are no more than the differences you might find between a straight couple from San Francisco and a straight couple from Oklahoma. there's realy no way to tell who is the "better" set of parents beyond what is actually quantifiable -- i.e., time spent with the child, time invested in the child's education, etc.

however, if you are going to assert that, yes, straight couples are by definition morally preferable to gay couples -- irregardless of any other criteria -- then your points against gay adoption start to make more sense.

 

[nathan1977]

If I were interested in moralizing, Irvine, I would have started a whole different conversation.

My base assumption, when it comes to adoption (or parenting in general, for that matter), is that both mothers and fathers are necessary and essential for parenting, and that this is the optimal situation for children; that there are other legitimate forms of parenting, but in less-optimal situations; and that when you are considering adoption, in which the "best interests of the child" are the prime consideration, it is the optimal situation that should be pursued.

 

[Irvine511]

My base assumption, when it comes to adoption (or parenting in general, for that matter), is that both mothers and fathers are necessary and essential for parenting, and that this is the optimal situation for children; that there are other legitimate forms of parenting, but in less-optimal situations; and that when you are considering adoption, in which the "best interests of the child" are the prime consideration, it is the optimal situation that should be pursued.

why is the gender difference so optimal? why is it so essential to have different-sex parents than same-sex parents? why does opposite-sex parenting trump all other positives a same-sex couple might bring to a child? why do you assume it is better and what research can you point to in order to substantiate this belief?

you haven't even begun to answer my questions -- by asserting that opposite-sex parents are simply better, you open the door to assertions that children are better off with same-race couples, same-religion couples, same-nationality couples, and so many other things.

there does seem to be ... not a moralizing, but an assumption that an oppsite sex pairing is "better" than a same sex pairing.

why?

 

[nathan1977]

Like I said at the beginning of my posts, Irvine, this issue is the tip of an iceberg for many, which is why (while most people on this board wish to trivialize it) it is so crucial, as it cuts to the heart of perspectives on sexuality. And why it's asinine for people to say "what's the big deal?", when it so precisely IS a big deal. As your post points out.

When we find ourselves agreeing with a perspective that says "men and women aren't different" (your quote, which flies in the face of both sociology and biology), using that to trivialize (or, in the case of motherhood, completely devalue) the very aspects of sexuality that make us unique, marginalizing or trivializing certain experts we claim to be ideologically driven (while trumpeting a no less ideologically-driven, highly selective and controversial review -- for the record, the 600 who walked out of the Academy in protest represented a third of those present for the reported findings), and in so doing, redefine tens of thousands of years of human development and evolution, we do so at our own peril.

Can you at least understand the stakes that we are discussing here? Family, sexuality, gender, politics, etc. As I say, the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Irvine511]

Like I said at the beginning of my posts, Irvine, this issue is the tip of an iceberg for many, which is why (while most people on this board wish to trivialize it) it is so crucial, as it cuts to the heart of perspectives on sexuality. And why it's asinine for people to say "what's the big deal?", when it so precisely IS a big deal. As your post points out.

you're being very opaque here. can you flesh this out please? i don't see why opposite genders becomes not just the optimal, but as you are arguing, the only acceptable environment for children.

[q]When we find ourselves agreeing with a perspective that says "men and women aren't different" (your quote, which flies in the face of both sociology and biology), using that to trivialize (or, in the case of motherhood, completely devalue) the very aspects of sexuality that make us unique, marginalizing or trivializing certain experts we claim to be ideologically driven (while trumpeting a no less ideologically-driven, highly selective and controversial review -- for the record, the 600 who walked out of the Academy in protest represented a third of those present for the reported findings), and in so doing, redefine tens of thousands of years of human development and evolution, we do so at our own peril.[/q]

firstly, there was a typo in my post -- i do agree that men and women are different. but the point still stands. how is gender difference greater than, say, racial differences, or ethnic differences, or religious differences, between two parents? as Yolland has pointed out, there is no evidence that the presence of opposite genders means that it is by definition a superior environment for raising children.

if you'd like to go back tens of thousands of years of human development and evolution, you'd find families where men were not fathers by any contemporary standard, where women were married at 13, and where it was not one man and one woman but one middle-aged man and many different women.

this is where essentialist arguments break down, as do any grand narrative, under close scrutiny -- what we hold up as ideals today are really historical anomalies when you take a grand view of things. this, to me, is the iceberg -- the upsetting of comforting traditionalist narratives that do little more beyond solidifying the present power structure.

Can you at least understand the stakes that we are discussing here? Family, sexuality, gender, politics, etc. As I say, the tip of the iceberg.

the issue is complex as it does tie together family, sexuality, gender, politics, etc. but i don't see how allowing gay adoption -- of which we already do, there are just some states seeking to rescind those rights -- presents some sort of tip of an iceberg. it seems to me that the denying of such rights to be considered adoptive parents to gay people is what opens up this Pandora's Box you keep alluding too -- if you're going to say, "no, homosexual, you are not allowed to participate in this family structure," you better be well prepared to say why and how. the burden of proof is on your to prove not only why opposite sex parents are a good thing but why same sex parents are a bad thing.

you have yet to do so.

 

[nathan1977]

When you're going to upend commonly held societal structures, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why they were/are in need of upending. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate A) that there is a problem in need of resolving, and B) not only that your solution resolves those issues without creating a host of new ones, and that it is in fact the optimal.

I've never said that straight families are the only solution. Just the best.

 

[Irvine511]

When you're going to upend commonly held societal structures, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why they were/are in need of upending. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate A) that there is a problem in need of resolving, and B) not only that your solution resolves those issues without creating a host of new ones, and that it is in fact the optimal.

they are in need of upending because it is immoral, and unconstitutional, to deny gay people full citizenship and personhood on the basis of an involuntary, immutable characteristic which causes no harm to anyone -- the only harm caused by homosexuality is the feelings of worthlessness and self-hatred that a homophobic society imbues in the mind of a gay person.

this is the problem that needs to be resolved: there is no reason why gay people should be prevented from forming families.

I've never said that straight families are the only solution. Just the best.

but how are you arriving at this conclusion? upon what evidence do you base this other than your own ideas of what a family should look like? is this an "all things being equal give the kid to the hetero couple" argument, or are you saying, point blank, that gay people should be prevented from adopting children?

 

[melon]

When you're going to upend commonly held societal structures, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate why they were/are in need of upending.

Good point. However, by your own logic, you've got some explaining to do. Gay individuals (and, as such, de facto gay couples) have been legally allowed to adopt children for decades. Why should we *now* make it illegal?

I also know a lot of this boils down to "perception." That is, when you think of a mother and father, you think of "Leave it to Beaver." And when you think of gay parents, I have a hunch you either think of someone like "Big Gay Al" on "South Park" or pedophiles. Am I correct here?

So, tell me, would you prefer a responsible gay couple adopting children or would you prefer a mother and father like Sharen and Michael Gravelle? Your "ideal" is just that: an ideal. And a romanticist one at that. Even Florida, which has banned gay adoption since the late 1970s, is now investigating reinstating it. If gays are considered suitable to be foster parents (and adoptive services consider them to be so, because there are, contrary to your ideal, not enough straight couples willing to do so), why are they not suitable to be adoptive parents?

So demonstrate why our current social structure needs to be upended to codify heterosexual supremacism.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

So demonstrate why our current social structure needs to be upended to codify heterosexual supremacism.

this seems a very succinct summation of the arguments against both gay adoption and gay marriage -- there seems to be a need, an urge, to validate the worth of heterosexual relationships through the denigration of homosexual relationships. hence, you get civil unions -- truly, separate but equal -- and a need to affirm gender differences as utterly critical to a child's development, self-esteem, and overall happiness. two loving parents isn't enough. two loving heterosexual parents is the ideal.

lines have been drawn up separating couples not on the basis of their parenting skills but by their sexual orientation.

this strikes me as the essence of discrimination.

 

[nathan1977]

upon what evidence do you base this other than your own ideas of what a family should look like?

"My own ideas"? Or is it in fact sociological, cultural, and historical precedent, in addition to the host of studies that show that children are better off -- more emotionally balanced, more likely to succeed later in life, improved self-esteem -- with a mother and a father. (This isn't a "romanticist ideal," either, Melon -- statistically speaking, it's a reality, as somewhere around 75% of all children -- in America, at least -- have both a mother and a father.)

is this an "all things being equal give the kid to the hetero couple" argument, or are you saying, point blank, that gay people should be prevented from adopting children?

As I've pointed out repeatedly (in citing the NCA, which states it themselves), my perspective is that a heterosexual married couple is the optimal situation in which a child should be raised. Not the only, but the optimal. And when it comes to evaluating adoptive home situations, the general rule in adoption is, "whatever home will best fit the needs of the child." I have said nothing to tear down homosexual families (I pointed out my friend and his partner, who have adopted). What I have said is that there is an optimal situation, and it would seem to do best by the child to focus on providing that.

there seems to be a need, an urge, to validate the worth of heterosexual relationships through the denigration of homosexual relationships.

Implications or assertions have been made in this and other threads that when it comes down to it, homosexual parents are better than heterosexual ones. (Melon's example notwithstanding, I think you'd be hard pressed to find statistics showing that all, most, or even some adoptive parent situations are like the one he pulled up. This story seems to play to the worst forms of discrimination against adoptive couples.) So it seems, on this board anyway, that the denigration goes both ways.

 

[melon]

"My own ideas"? Or is it in fact sociological, cultural, and historical precedent, in addition to the host of studies that show that children are better off -- more emotionally balanced, more likely to succeed later in life, improved self-esteem -- with a mother and a father. (This isn't a "romanticist ideal," either, Melon -- statistically speaking, it's a reality, as somewhere around 75% of all children -- in America, at least -- have both a mother and a father.)

Except that 25% do not, including children abandoned by their heterosexual birth parents. Your studies (of which I will be skeptical until you cite the origin) ignore the fact that many unhappy criminal psychopaths had a mother and father and there are plenty of happy and well-adjusted children have come from homosexual parents.

As I've pointed out repeatedly (in citing the NCA, which states it themselves), my perspective is that a heterosexual married couple is the optimal situation in which a child should be raised. Not the only, but the optimal. And when it comes to evaluating adoptive home situations, the general rule in adoption is, "whatever home will best fit the needs of the child." I have said nothing to tear down homosexual families (I pointed out my friend and his partner, who have adopted). What I have said is that there is an optimal situation, and it would seem to do best by the child to focus on providing that.

Really, all that "optimal" ideals do is inflame politics. Because when it comes to reality--which we all have to deal with, not ideals--I would say that those who work in adoptive agencies are more qualified. If children abandoned by their heterosexual parents are good enough to be foster children with gay individuals or couples, then they are good enough to be adopted by them. I would say it is more damaging to children to know that their foster parents want to keep them and then have the state force them to go somewhere else, because of some arbitrary sense of ideal. We don't live in percentages here in the real world. Everything has a case-by-case solution.

Melon

 

[nathan1977]

Really, all that "optimal" ideals do is inflame politics. Because when it comes to reality--which we all have to deal with, not ideals--I would say that those who work in adoptive agencies are more qualified. If children abandoned by their heterosexual parents are good enough to be foster children with gay individuals or couples, then they are good enough to be adopted by them. I would say it is more damaging to children to know that their foster parents want to keep them and then have the state force them to go somewhere else, because of some arbitrary sense of ideal. We don't live in percentages here in the real world. Everything has a case-by-case solution.

Which is what the NCA states -- that less-than-optimal situations should be examined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, I'm skeptical when you say that you'd prefer to pay attention to the perspectives of "those who work in adoptive agencies (who) are more qualified," since you summarily disregarded the perspective of a child's advocacy group with over 25 years of experience working with adoptive children when they say something you disagree with.

When adoptive policies state that their policy is to find families that will be in the best interests of the child, we are dealing in optimals and ideals.

To say "let's move away from the optimal/ideal," comes suspiciously close to demanding the right to adopt. (Especially when such an ideal is not arbitrary, as I've repeatedly pointed out, but based in sociological, historical, and cultural contexts. While the interpretations of principles may have shifted some in thousands of years, the principle has remained the same -- a mother and a father are the best situation for a child's development.)

 

[yolland]

...marginalizing or trivializing certain experts we claim to be ideologically driven (while trumpeting a no less ideologically-driven, highly selective and controversial review -- for the record, the 600 who walked out of the Academy in protest represented a third of those present for the reported findings), and in so doing, redefine tens of thousands of years of human development and evolution, we do so at our own peril.

So, because I made the bland and far from starstruck observation that the AAP report was "thoroughly documented," that means I was "trumpeting" it? I posted those studies because the article by Pierce you linked to stated that "(t)he data, so far as I know it and am familiar with it, do not tell us anything about same-sex parenting." He didn't say that the data is methodologically flawed or ideologically suspect; he said it has nothing to say, and that is simply untrue. There is a wealth of data concerning the effects on children of same-sex parenting out there to be debated and analyzed--I simply posted what pulled up in 2 minutes of searching on one database. One result happened to be the AAP report, which I happened to be familiar with. I could search for and post lots more, but why bother?

I did not "marginalize" or "trivialize" anyone by pointing out that the most widely publicized AAP-member detractors of the study (Zanga, Billingsly, Field, Friday et al.) consider themselves to be guided primarily by religious commitments--indeed, they proudly and forthrightly present themselves in precisely that fashion. Furthermore, I made a point of stating that:

I don't doubt that some among the 99% who didn't dissent were likewise predisposed on moral grounds to support the resolution regardless of scientific merit.

...thus making clear that I am well aware there are ideologically motivated folks on both sides of the issue. I cannot speak to the ideological commitments of the MDs on the committee which actually drafted the report, as I do not know any of them personally and only one, Joseph Hagan (the committee's then-chair), has offered much in the way of public commentary on his role in and views on the research. He hardly comes across as an ideologically driven fellow. However, as a political science professor and the author of several scientific research papers myself, I know how to evaluate the design and methodology of a social science research paper, and I do not defer to anyone else's expertise when it comes to assessing the integrity of any studies in that regard.

Finally, as a happily married, Conservative Jewish parent of three young children, I am hardly hostile to either religion or traditional parenthood. I am a strong supporter of the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt, however, for *both* personal and scientific-research-based reasons.

As far as the dissenters' walkout and its relationship to the report of the findings goes, I cannot comment on these one way or the other because I have not been able to find any stories that appear pertinent to either incident, other than one reference to a walkout by 600 from a publication called Christian Research Journal which cites as its source a Focus on the Family article which turned out to say no such thing, and a statement by Dr. Zanga of the ACP, repeated on several Christian family advocacy sites, which claimed that one-third of the committee drafting the report (8 people) disagreed with its findings (which said committee denied in the AAP's journal).

~ Peace

 

[nathan1977]

as a happily married, Conservative Jewish parent of three young children, I am hardly hostile to either religion or traditional parenthood.

I actually wasn't reacting to your comments, yolland -- I was primarily addressing melon, who expressed more hostility. I apologize if you took offense. I don't remember off the top of my head whether you wrote off the NAC or Mr. Pierce's comments, but I was primarily reacting to that.

I'm not convinced that the AAP's review represents a propenderance of data to change the belief that the optimal parenting situation for a child is a mother and a father. Perhaps that is what Mr. Pierce was referring to in his comments.

 

[melon]

Which is what the NCA states -- that less-than-optimal situations should be examined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, I'm skeptical when you say that you'd prefer to pay attention to the perspectives of "those who work in adoptive agencies (who) are more qualified," since you summarily disregarded the perspective of a child's advocacy group with over 25 years of experience working with adoptive children when they say something you disagree with.

I summarily distrust any organization with ties to conservative Christians, since they are anti-gay by default. As such, I expect them to create "studies" that will always support their religion. Likewise, any research they do will never contradict their religious beliefs, and that's plain not good science.

When adoptive policies state that their policy is to find families that will be in the best interests of the child, we are dealing in optimals and ideals.

And, apparently, that's not working. I just showed you the example of the Gravelles who put their children in cages, and I could also talk about a Michigan heterosexual couple who beat their adopted son over a period of years until, one day, they killed him. The autopsy revealed multiple broken bones and a smashed upper jaw.

So now tell me that heterosexuals are always better parents than homosexuals.

To say "let's move away from the optimal/ideal," comes suspiciously close to demanding the right to adopt. (Especially when such an ideal is not arbitrary, as I've repeatedly pointed out, but based in sociological, historical, and cultural contexts. While the interpretations of principles may have shifted some in thousands of years, the principle has remained the same -- a mother and a father are the best situation for a child's development.)

It's nothing at all about demanding the right to adopt. It's demanding that one be determined by their parenting skills, not by their sexuality.

Melon

 

[yolland]

Originally posted by nathan1977
I don't remember off the top of my head whether you wrote off the NAC or Mr. Pierce's comments, but I was primarily reacting to that.

I'm not convinced that the AAP's review represents a propenderance of data to change the belief that the optimal parenting situation for a child is a mother and a father.

I did point out that the NCA is an advocacy group and that Pierce's article was a position piece not a research paper, but that wasn't to write off either--there's nothing wrong with advocacy or position papers, and I have tremendous respect for much of the NCA's work as far as it goes. Given the context, I simply found it important to point out that these were not empirical statements referenced with traceable scholarly research.

I would never say that any one study, the AAP's or otherwise, is resoundingly decisive enough to settle such big questions on its own. However, the fact remains that there is a large body of relevant research out there to weigh and ponder.

 

[nathan1977]

I just showed you the example of the Gravelles who put their children in cages, and I could also talk about a Michigan heterosexual couple who beat their adopted son over a period of years until, one day, they killed him. The autopsy revealed multiple broken bones and a smashed upper jaw.

So now tell me that heterosexuals are always better parents than homosexuals.

That would be very compelling if I said that, Melon. But I didn't. If you really think that's the standard, the norm, or even common, then I'm sorry you think that way, but it's not reality.

 

[nathan1977]

I would never say that any one study, the AAP's or otherwise, is resoundingly decisive enough to settle such big questions on its own. However, the fact remains that there is a large body of relevant research out there to weigh and ponder.

I would certainly agree with you on this -- which was the point of my initial post. (To whit: simply that there are reasonable perspectives on both sides of this discussion.)

 

[Irvine511]

"My own ideas"? Or is it in fact sociological, cultural, and historical precedent, in addition to the host of studies that show that children are better off -- more emotionally balanced, more likely to succeed later in life, improved self-esteem -- with a mother and a father. (This isn't a "romanticist ideal," either, Melon -- statistically speaking, it's a reality, as somewhere around 75% of all children -- in America, at least -- have both a mother and a father.)

no, these are your own ideas given to you by a society that has been traditionally hostile to homosexuals. the gay rights movement is a relatively new one, and if you lived in Dupont Circle or WeHo or Cambridge, your idea of what a family looks like might change drastically.

Melon has noted that the studies you cite -- especially since the initial one you pointed to was clearly biased -- will really need to be validated.

i also think you're making an assumption: i think we can agree that children do best in stable environments with two parents. you assume this to mean a mother and a father, that the opposite-sex pairing is as crucial to a child's development as, say, a lack of domestic violence in the home. i don't think it is, and the studies out there -- as Yolland has alluded to -- will back me up.

children develop just as well in gay households as do straight ones.



[q]As I've pointed out repeatedly (in citing the NCA, which states it themselves), my perspective is that a heterosexual married couple is the optimal situation in which a child should be raised. Not the only, but the optimal. And when it comes to evaluating adoptive home situations, the general rule in adoption is, "whatever home will best fit the needs of the child." I have said nothing to tear down homosexual families (I pointed out my friend and his partner, who have adopted). What I have said is that there is an optimal situation, and it would seem to do best by the child to focus on providing that.[/q]


why is it optimal? you've not yet given a reason.



[q]Implications or assertions have been made in this and other threads that when it comes down to it, homosexual parents are better than heterosexual ones. (Melon's example notwithstanding, I think you'd be hard pressed to find statistics showing that all, most, or even some adoptive parent situations are like the one he pulled up. This story seems to play to the worst forms of discrimination against adoptive couples.) So it seems, on this board anyway, that the denigration goes both ways. [/q]


you've got that wrong -- i was raised by heteroseuxals, and i'm deeply grateful to my parents and proud of them. i haven't said anything negative about heterosexual parenting except to say that opposite-sex households aren't necessarily default better than gay ones.

and if you read a bit more closely, you'll see that the reasons i cite for gay couples being, generally, "better" adoptive than straight couples has NOTHING to do with sexuality but EVERYTHING to do with what might equip them to be better parents: they tend to be older, they tend to be well educated, they tend to have resources, and they tend to really, really want children.

 

[melon]

If you really think that's the standard, the norm, or even common, then I'm sorry you think that way, but it's not reality.

Ah, but when you think in nothing but lofty ideals, you're ignoring the nuances of reality as much as you think I am.

Melon

 

[anitram]

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there not a surplus of children in the foster care system currently? Certainly not all of them are being adopted.

So even if we accept that heterosexual adoption is optimal and homosexual adoption is something "less than optimal" then why is it that homosexual couples can't adopt all the children who are left over in the system? Is "less than optimal" not better than being moved from foster home to foster home over 18 years?

I mean, would you prefer the children remain in the system? Is that not akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face?

 

[nathan1977]

no, these are your own ideas given to you by a society that has been traditionally hostile to homosexuals.

Which society is that? And can you show me a society where gay parenting is the normative family structure?

the studies out there -- as Yolland has alluded to -- will back me up. children develop just as well in gay households as do straight ones.

As I said, one review performed at one time under one set of circumstances by one group of researchers -- how many were on the board? -- hardly represents a preponderance of evidence to undo sociological and biological structures that have been in place for thousands of years.

why is it optimal? you've not yet given a reason.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it isn't, since that is your basic assertion, and one which flies in the face of basic human development. What I have stated is that the hefty weight of both historical precedence and sociological and developmental expertise indicates that children function best in a household with both a mother and a father. You've not yet provided evidence to the contrary, and since you're calling into account such basic structures, again, you need to demonstrate A) a fundamental flaw with such structures and B) why your solution resolves them without creating new flaws.

and if you read a bit more closely, you'll see that the reasons i cite for gay couples being, generally, "better" adoptive than straight couples has NOTHING to do with sexuality but EVERYTHING to do with what might equip them to be better parents: they tend to be older, they tend to be well educated, they tend to have resources, and they tend to really, really want children.

When I was talking about assertions about gay parents being better than straight ones, I was specifically referring to melon's comments as such, which have been made in insinuations here and explicitly elsewhere.

But you do realize straight adoptive parents tend to have all those qualities as well.

 

[yolland]

As I said, one review performed at one time under one set of circumstances by one small group of researchers hardly represents a preponderance of evidence to undo sociological and biological structures that have been in place for thousands of years.

What I have stated is that the hefty weight of both historical precedence and sociological and developmental expertise indicates that children function best in a household with both a mother and a father. You've not yet provided evidence to the contrary, and since you're calling into account such basic structures, again, you need to demonstrate A) a fundamental flaw with such structures and B) why your solution resolves them without creating new flaws.

By this logic, all children of divorced parents ought to be removed from their parents' custody and put in foster care until one or the other parent remarries, since the resulting situation is clearly not "optimal" nor in line with thousands of years of human development. My own siblings and I were raised alone by our mother after my father's untimely death, she never remarried, and we all did just fine. For that matter I could show you reams of sociological research from India, my area of specialization, indicating that children fare better in arranged marriages and extended family households (which none-too-coincidentally happen to be the norm there, as in many other countries) than they do in marriage-by-choice, nuclear family households.

And again, you are wrongly speaking as if the AAP study represents some lone, rogue effort in the realm of social science research suggesting that children can do well (or poorly) in a wide variety of parenting arrangements, from the most "traditional" (which in fact varies widely in form from one part of the world to the next) to the most unprecedented. It is not. The NCA is committed a priori to a particular vision of what an ideal family looks like, and they make no bones about that (to their credit, as far as it goes).

I would still like to see the information you have about the AAP dissenters' walkout and the event where the findings were reported.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Which society is that? And can you show me a society where gay parenting is the normative family structure?[/q]

simply because something is “normative” does not mean that it is “ideal” or “optimal,” let alone "the only way things should ever be done." it is normative to have two parents of the same race, or the same religion, or the same nationality, and the vast majority of children in this country come from homes where this is the case. However, it is not to say that there is anything wrong with a mix-religion couple, a mixed-race couple, or a mix-nationality couple. Children from these homes might grow up with a slightly different perspective on life and family than a child from the “normative” household, but that is not to say that one is better than the other. In fact, it is the presence of diversity in family structures and compositions that makes American society as dynamic as it is.

By touting the “normative” as “optimal” – and denigrating alternatives to the norm – you’re essentially arguing for the homogenization of society. That there’s only one way to be, and that anything less than the way to be should be actively discouraged – these are not values that jive with any sort of pluralistic society.

[q]As I said, one review performed at one time under one set of circumstances by one group of researchers -- how many were on the board? -- hardly represents a preponderance of evidence to undo sociological and biological structures that have been in place for thousands of years.[/q]

sociological and biological structures that have been in place for thousands of years? Tell me, can your wife read? Does she have a job? Is she allowed to question your decisions? Do you beat your children? Do you beat your wife? Do you have several wives? Was your wife barely pubescent when you married her? Because all of these things are sociological and biological structures that have been in place for thousands of years and I don’t see anyone rushing to replicate them.

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin; Loretta Lynn was married at about the same age, and this is within our parent’s lifetimes – why have we gotten rid of laws that enabled middle-aged men to marry barely pubescent girls? Because it was bad for them! Because they were harmed by these relationships, despite thousands of years and all.

[q]Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it isn't, since that is your basic assertion, and one which flies in the face of basic human development. What I have stated is that the hefty weight of both historical precedence and sociological and developmental expertise indicates that children function best in a household with both a mother and a father. You've not yet provided evidence to the contrary, and since you're calling into account such basic structures, again, you need to demonstrate A) a fundamental flaw with such structures and B) why your solution resolves them without creating new flaws.[/q]

wrong. The whole thinking is wrong – and it applies to the gay marriage debate as well. An expansion of the definition of a marriage, or of what a parent is, does nothing to undermine the “normative” structure; it simply expands who is able to participate in the creation of social stability – marriage and family. If I marry my BF one day, it will not affect your marriage in the slightest. It never ceases to amaze me how the people who argue most ardently against gay marriage, or adoption, turn around and label gays as promiscuous AIDS-purveyors – the irony of denying gay people the tools to effectively socialize and make their relationships more “normative” is apparently lost on such blinkered thinking.

To answer your questions, again:

A) there is no basic flaw in the heterosexual family structure; there IS a flaw when a society chooses to use sexual orientation as a basis of discrimination to bar anyone from entering into the same structures of marriage and parenting – it’s quite striking that you view homo and heterosexuality to be in opposition to one another. why is it so threateneing?

B) the burden of proof is on you to show me how kids are harmed by gay parents. you’ve not done so.

[q]But you do realize straight adoptive parents tend to have all those qualities as well[/q]

Yes, of course, and I have said as much and pointed to my own parents. Your assertion, then, is that these qualities are negated by homosexual orientation, which is quite savvy, because many homosexuals feel this as well – you’ve done a good job at getting to the source of socially-imbued self-loathing. And your arguments do much to perpetuate its existence.

 

[nathan1977]

I could show you reams of sociological research from India, my area of specialization, indicating that children fare better in arranged marriages and extended family households (which none-too-coincidentally happen to be the norm there, as in many other countries) than they do in marriage-by-choice, nuclear family households.

Naturally, just as families in the Middle East and Eastern Europe (both of which places I've lived) often have extended family living in the same home. (There's actually data to suggest that arranged marriages may have a better success rate than marriages-by-choice.) In those families, however, there will still be both a mother and father figure. Other family figures may be present, but usually they wind up in a supporting role to the mother and father. You haven't contradicted the basic presumption that in families where both mother and father are present, children are better off.

By this logic, all children of divorced parents ought to be removed from their parents' custody and put in foster care until one or the other parent remarries, since the resulting situation is clearly not "optimal" nor in line with thousands of years of human development.

The NCA makes concessions for less optimal situations. However, we are talking specifically about the case of pro-active adoption, where choices are made in advance about family situations, and the prevailing mentality of adoption is, finding "the family that best meets the needs of the child."

And the best needs of the child, I continue to state, are best met in a family with a mother and a father.

My own siblings and I were raised alone by our mother after my father's untimely death, she never remarried, and we all did just fine.

A close friend lost her father to cancer when she was 12. She is perfectly fine, but still struggles to this day with abandonment issues. She wishes she had grown up with a father, as I'm sure you do, and I can't blame her. I do agree that kids can adjust to a variety of situations, including your tragedy, but -- again -- the prevailing mentality of adoption is, "the family that best meets the needs of the child."

And again, you are wrongly speaking as if the AAP study represents some lone, rogue effort

One study by (did you say it was 8?) researchers, amidst a body of 60,000, does not overthrow an overwhelming amount of historical, sociological and biological data that quantifiably demonstrate the opposite.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]You haven't contradicted the basic presumption that in families where both mother and father are present, children are better off.
[/q]


but this is a flawed presumption to begin with because it glosses over the million-and-one characteristics of successful families that have nothing to do with the heterosexuality of the parents -- and, following this further, as you are fixated upon a male and a female parent, you're essentially saying that a dysfunctional heterosexual household is superior to a highly functional homosexual household.

 

[nathan1977]

simply because something is “normative” does not mean that it is “ideal” or “optimal".

Okay -- so change the question. Show me where gay family structures has ever been considered the optimal method of parenting. And I do ask about optimal, because we are talking about adoption, when optimal is the standard measure for potential families.

wrong. The whole thinking is wrong – and it applies to the gay marriage debate as well. An expansion of the definition of a marriage, or of what a parent is, does nothing to undermine the “normative” structure; it simply expands who is able to participate in the creation of social stability – marriage and family. If I marry my BF one day, it will not affect your marriage in the slightest. It never ceases to amaze me how the people who argue most ardently against gay marriage, or adoption, turn around and label gays as promiscuous AIDS-purveyors – the irony of denying gay people the tools to effectively socialize and make their relationships more “normative” is apparently lost on such blinkered thinking.

First of all, I don't think I've ever been anything but respectful to you, Irvine -- so I don't think I've ever called you a promiscuous AIDS-purveyor, or thought of you as such. While I don't doubt that such vile demonizing exists in this country, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find such a perspective in my posts.

As far as the effect on marriage goes, we've already discussed in this thread how this issue points to a fundamental redefinition of society's views on family -- on mothers and fathers, men and women, husbands and wives, on children, and by proxy, society. Again when we're talking about a fundamental redefinition of these views, we need to explore historical, sociological, and biological precedent in these discussions.

Your assertion, then, is that these qualities are negated by homosexual orientation

My perspective is as it has ever been -- that the best situation for a child with a mother and father. So far, nothing on this thread has made me think otherwise.