gay parents "comparable" to straight parents

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,498
Location
the West Coast
[q]A report just released by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a prominent adoption policy group, makes the following findings:

**Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

**Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.

**Though few states have laws or policies explicitly barring homosexuals from adopting, some individual agencies and workers outside those states discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants based on their own biases or on mistaken beliefs that such prohibitions exist.

**Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.

[...]

Based on its findings, the report suggests the following policy initiatives:

**Move to end legal and de facto restrictions on adoption by gays and lesbians. This includes working to expand co-parent and second parent adoption, as well as revising agency policies and practices that may impede their consideration as an adoptive resource.

**Develop clear statements in support of such adoptions, recognizing a "don't ask, don't tell" approach disadvantages parents and, ultimately, their children. And develop contacts with the gay/lesbian community in order to engage in genuine, informed outreach.

**Help workers, supervisors, and agency leaders examine their attitudes and beliefs about gay and lesbian parenting, while affirming the value of these families by including them in outreach, training materials, and parent panels.

**Conduct research to inform the development of resources, training, and support to improve post-adoption success. And work to include and educate children in the process, recognizing that they may encounter prejudice if adopted by gay parents.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_26-2006_04_01.shtml#1143650176

[/q]



read the report here: http://adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php
 
It's interesting that this study was funded by the Gill Foundation.

And that Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, admits that “The research into this subject of gay and lesbian parenting and especially adoptive parenting is really quite limited.”

A limited study funded by an ideological group, with statements even the researchers admit can't be quantified.
 
nathan1977 said:
It's interesting that this study was funded by the Gill Foundation.

And that Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, admits that “The research into this subject of gay and lesbian parenting and especially adoptive parenting is really quite limited.”

A limited study funded by an ideological group, with statements even the researchers admit can't be quantified.

ka-ching.
 
nathan1977 said:
It's interesting that this study was funded by the Gill Foundation.



so this makes it about as credible as the study you pointed towards in the earlier thread? actually, it's more credible because, while the funding might have come from the Gill Foundation, the report itself bears the seal and approval of the Donaldson Adoption Institute which seems fairly devoid of any ideological leanings. this, combined with the fact that they, you know, bothered to do a study as opposed to the group you referenced (who did little more than posit cliches as incontravertable evidence) makes it emminently more credible.


[q]And that Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, admits that “The research into this subject of gay and lesbian parenting and especially adoptive parenting is really quite limited.”[/q]


yes, it's a new subject, and if anything, pointing out the limitations of the study adds to the overall crediblity and credulity of the report.

ultimately, Nathan, you're not going to be able to run away from the fact that ALL of the growing body of research points towards the fact that children do just as well with gay parents as with straight parents, and the bottom line is the following: competent, loving parenting is better than no parenting.

or is that a biased statement?

are we to suppose you'd rather have older and "special needs" kids who won't otherwise be adopted and languish in the foster-care system until they turn 18 because straight people (who shat them out in the first place) don't want them?
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
so this makes it about as credible as the study you pointed towards in the earlier thread? actually, it's more credible because, while the funding might have come from the Gill Foundation, the report itself bears the seal and approval of the Donaldson Adoption Institute which seems fairly devoid of any ideological leanings.

I'd be very surprised if a study funded by a particular ideological group churned out results that would run against its particular position.

ultimately, Nathan, you're not going to be able to run away from the fact that ALL of the growing body of research points towards the fact that children do just as well with gay parents as with straight parents, and the bottom line is the following: competent, loving parenting is better than no parenting.

All? Most? The majority? The breathless posting of a "study" funded by a gay-rights advocacy group will hardly change my mind.

You and I certainly agree on the competent, loving parenting line. However, as one of the two links you posted said, "It's one thing to say that a married mother and father are the ideal environment for raising children; it's another thing entirely to say that no other environment is suitable when that ideal is unavailable, as it often is for children awaiting adoption."

I've certainly never said the latter (the NCA itself states that such cases should be evaluated on a case by case basis); I've only said the former, and repeatedly advocated that in the case of adoption, where the best interests of the child should be tantamount, the former is still the best situation,and one that should be promoted.

We can go around and around on this, Irvine, though I think our previous conversation about this was probably enough on the subject, at least from my perspective.
 
nathan1977 said:


I'd be very surprised if a study funded by a particular ideological group churned out results that would run against its particular position.



okay, so then we can agree to toss the study you pointed to in the previous thread totally out the window, yes?



[q]All? Most? The majority? The breathless posting of a "study" funded by a gay-rights advocacy group will hardly change my mind.[/q]


yes, most. breathless? well, with homophobic adoption laws pending in 16 states, perhaps i am a little breathless, and perhaps being singled out as an unfit parent on the basis of my sexuality does up the ante a little bit. sorry to be so sensitive, but perhaps if you put yourself in my shoes you'd understand what's at stake, and i'm not going to leave an issue alone simply because it's been discussed before.

what it comes down to is this: there isn't enough evidence, yet, to conclusively show that children are better off with straight parents, or that they are harmed by gay parents. you're free to spin this "tie" as a win, however, the growing body of evidence points to the fact that children do just as well with gay parents as with straight ones, despite the fact taht the current legislation is making the assumption that all straight couples are more parentally fit than all gay couples.

and, ultimately, the promotion of your "ideal," especially because that is the same language employed by those supporting a ban on gay adoption, essentially sends the message that a child is better off in an orphanage or with a drug-addicted mom than having two dads



We can go around and around on this, Irvine, though I think our previous conversation about this was probably enough on the subject, at least from my perspective.


i enjoyed our last conversation, and this wasn't a thread intended for you and only you. respond or not, i'm still going to stay on top of this issue because it is tremendously important to me.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I think it's discusting that the only rated thread in FYM is this, and it was given 1 star.



uppity homos who don't hate themselves and sit in the back of the bus and get AIDS and die aren't terribly popular in some circles.
 
Irvine511 said:




uppity homos who don't hate themselves and sit in the back of the bus and get AIDS and die aren't terribly popular in some circles.

Is this a statement about FYM?

:eyebrow:
 
Irvine511 said:
[q]A report just released by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a prominent adoption policy group, makes the following findings:

**Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

**Studies are increasing in number and rigor, but the body of research on gay/lesbian parents is relatively small and has methodological limitations. Still, virtually every valid study reaches the same conclusion: The children of gays and lesbians adjust positively and their families function well. The limited research on gay/lesbian adoption points in the same direction.

**Though few states have laws or policies explicitly barring homosexuals from adopting, some individual agencies and workers outside those states discriminate against gay and lesbian applicants based on their own biases or on mistaken beliefs that such prohibitions exist.

**Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.

[...]

Based on its findings, the report suggests the following policy initiatives:

**Move to end legal and de facto restrictions on adoption by gays and lesbians. This includes working to expand co-parent and second parent adoption, as well as revising agency policies and practices that may impede their consideration as an adoptive resource.

**Develop clear statements in support of such adoptions, recognizing a "don't ask, don't tell" approach disadvantages parents and, ultimately, their children. And develop contacts with the gay/lesbian community in order to engage in genuine, informed outreach.

**Help workers, supervisors, and agency leaders examine their attitudes and beliefs about gay and lesbian parenting, while affirming the value of these families by including them in outreach, training materials, and parent panels.

**Conduct research to inform the development of resources, training, and support to improve post-adoption success. And work to include and educate children in the process, recognizing that they may encounter prejudice if adopted by gay parents.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_26-2006_04_01.shtml#1143650176

[/q]



read the report here: http://adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php


I guess some people need proof such as this, but when I read it all I could think is "well, DUH!"

It's just so completely obvious. :shrug:
 
Irvine511 said:

okay, so then we can agree to toss the study you pointed to in the previous thread totally out the window, yes?...what it comes down to is this: there isn't enough evidence, yet, to conclusively show that children are better off with straight parents

Of course. But if we take into consideration the precedents at play, I think it still makes more sense to focus on placing kids in what has been historically, sociologically, and developmentally the best situation for them. The preponderance of that evidence disagrees with you on this one.

perhaps if you put yourself in my shoes you'd understand what's at stake, and i'm not going to leave an issue alone simply because it's been discussed before.

Of course not. I just don't think that the study you pointed to is really evidence of anything, which is why I commented on it.

despite the fact taht the current legislation is making the assumption that all straight couples are more parentally fit than all gay couples.

I've actually never argued this. Empirical statements can be dangerous (which is why the NCA promotes evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis).

and, ultimately, the promotion of your "ideal"... essentially sends the message that a child is better off in an orphanage or with a drug-addicted mom than having two dads.

I believe that every child waiting to be adopted belongs in the best home situation possible. The backlog of kids waiting to be adopted is heartbreaking. As I mentioned, my wife and I are considering it ourselves. I actually think the problem could be alleviated by promoting adoption more as an option to couples who may not choose it out of A. ignorance (they don't know how to get started), B. shame (they're embarrassed about not being able to have children of their own), or C. concerns about the financial cost.

i enjoyed our last conversation, and this wasn't a thread intended for you and only you. respond or not, i'm still going to stay on top of this issue because it is tremendously important to me.

It only makes sense that you would/should. There are a lot of FYM'ers who are interested in this issue. (Even if this thread has only been rated one star -- though I see it's now rated two. Irvine, we're moving up in the world!) I just don't want to waste your time by going around and around on issues we already discussed. (And, perhaps, more eloquently.)
 
Dreadsox said:


Is this a statement about FYM?

:eyebrow:



no.

this is a statement about some people who float in here from time-to-time and troll gay threads and who would give a star rating to this thread when, really, NO ONE gives stars to FYM threads.
 
Irvine511 said:




no.

this is a statement about some people who float in here from time-to-time and troll gay threads and who would give a star rating to this thread when, really, NO ONE gives stars to FYM threads.

I was confused....

and

My cousin raised by my aunt and aunt....is doing fine....his marriage is going well, and they are trying for their first child.

Apparently they did not turn him gay.:wink:
 
Dreadsox said:


I was confused....



it's okay. looking back, i can see the possibility misinterpretation. it was also in no way whatsoever intended for Nathan.

glad your cousin is doing well :up:
 
Irvine511 said:




it's okay. looking back, i can see the possibility misinterpretation. it was also in no way whatsoever intended for Nathan.

glad your cousin is doing well :up:

On a side bar, my aunts are taking our family to FL for vacation to Disney!!!!!
 
melon said:
American Academy of Pediatrics:

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm

"The statement says there is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual."


American Psychiatric Association:

http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/adoption_coparenting121802.pdf

"Research over the past 30 years has consistently demonstrated that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults."


American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

Not that conservatives will pay any attention to this.

Melon
 
melon said:


Not that conservatives will pay any attention to this.

Melon

Fucking assholes.....

Oh wait....I think I am a conservative....:ohmy:
 
A question to those who are against gay adoption or gay people raising kids period...do you actually know someone who was raised by gay parents or do you personally know any gay parents? Can you give some actual examples of someone who was confused, messed up or "turned gay" because of their upbringing?

I ask because I know plenty of gay people and 100% of them were raised by straight parents and most had intact homes with both a mother and a father.
 
Dreadsox said:
Oh wait....I think I am a conservative....:ohmy:

By Ann Coulter's standards, you're a flaming Massachusetts liberal who doesn't want to be associated with crude blue collar laborers. Hence, you are a Republican. :sexywink:

Melon
 
Bono's American Wife said:
A question to those who are against gay adoption or gay people raising kids period...do you actually know someone who was raised by gay parents or do you personally know any gay parents? Can you give some actual examples of someone who was confused, messed up or "turned gay" because of their upbringing?

Armchair bigots!

Melon
 
melon said:


By Ann Coulter's standards, you're a flaming Massachusetts liberal who doesn't want to be associated with crude blue collar laborers. Hence, you are a Republican. :sexywink:

Melon


Heheh:wink:
 
melon said:


Not that conservatives will pay any attention to this.

Melon

From the American Psychological Association's study you posted:
"It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed."

After four long paragraphs that point out the flaws in the very study they describe (flaws they themselves acknowledge), it seems to me that any conclusions would be flawed at best.

The American Psychiatric Association's link is a policy statement similar to the one I posted from the NCA, which was summarily ruled out of turn for lacking any real substance. We could do the same here.

And the AAP's statement, which is again a policy statement, states "The statement says there is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual" -- a conjectural statement at best... note the use of the words "suggests" and "expectations." The cautionary statements by the American Psychological Association regarding no real long-term analysis would seem to be most relevant here.

It seems to me that when it comes to children, when in doubt, don't.
 
nathan1977 said:
It seems to me that when it comes to children, when in doubt, don't.

Whatever. I guess it's better to have opposite sex parents who cuss and make racist comments, argue in front of their children, set unrealistic standards for performance, and, overall, make them feel like they're "just not good enough." Those parents are tried and true!

Those kind of standard disclaimers always remind me of how things are only discovered when straight white people discover them. Nevermind that America was discovered more than 10,000 years ago, and, yet, we give that credit to Christopher Columbus.

Melon
 
Last edited:
it seems to me that if same sex couples continue to be restricted from adopting, the studies on whether or not they're effective parents will continue to be scarce and "flawed" due to lack of data. kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?
 
I'm just tired of stereotypes that make it sound like same-sex couples are nothing but irresponsible lushes that may or may not molest their children, but will certainly make them emotionally disturbed; while all opposite-sex couples are nothing less than perfection all the time. It's "Leave It to Beaver," guys.

Melon
 
nathan1977 said:
It seems to me that when it comes to children, when in doubt, don't.



which sort of ignores the fact that straight people shit out kids all the time without a second thought, and i do get a little bit suspicious that using feel-good phrases like "for the children!" (or, you know, "protect marriage!") do well to mask genuine feelings of bigotry (i mean that in general). you're also preventing the question from being asked thus making sure that the assumption that straight parents are superior can't be falsified, and you're saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to raise kids—as they have in the studies reported so far—because children are not guinea pigs, which pretty much means that families are too delicate to research, which still leads us to a situation where there are more kids who need to be adopted than who are adopted and prevents gays and lesbians from forming their own families.

but, anyway, we're at a sort of impasse: you say, since we don't know that kids won't be damaged by gay parents, exclude; and i'm saying, since there's no evidence that gay parenting is bad, include. seems like it's, at best, a tie, that can easily be spun as a win either way -- both "sides" can say the burden of proof is on the other, and it seems to make more sense to me to say, "there's no proof that children are harmed by gay parents" than to say "there's no proof that children aren't harmed by gay parents."

and what would this "harm" look like? no one seems to know.

it seems to me, though, that the first statement is far more empiric, and the 2nd statement relies far more on assumptions and stereotypes, not to mention the sexism latent in any discussion of "natural" gender roles and child development (i.e., fathers masculinize their boys, and mothers civilize them).

and, finally, going back to the argument of providing incentives to encourage more straight people to adopt, to me, this simply reeks of prejudice. for the life of me, i don't understand how a gay couple desperate for a child is automatically a worse candidate for parenthood than a straight couple who have to be coaxed and cajoled into adopting.

the last thing is that there is a genuine human instinct, held by gays and lesbians and straights alike, to create families. there are children who need to be adopted, more children than families who are available, especially once children get past a certain age. so, by excluding well over 11 milllion Americans (that's a conservative estimate, btw) who cannot biologically have children, it seems as if this puts far more children at risk than whatever the "harm" would be done by having them raised by two men or two women. as legalized gay partnerships spread through the states (and they will, as most people under 40 support at the very least Civil Unions, if not outright Marriage Equality), and gay people are finally given the tools to construct stable relationships that have been so long denied to them, there's going to be a stronger push to have children. so, if we deny adoption, gays and lesbians with means are simply going to find sperm and/or egg doners, and perhaps surrogate mothers. gays and lesbians are going to have children anyway -- why wouldn't we let them adopt kids who need homes instead of pumping more money into the fertilization industry (like so many straight couples, but that's another issue ...)?
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: gay parents "comparable" to straight parents

indra said:



I guess some people need proof such as this, but when I read it all I could think is "well, DUH!"

It's just so completely obvious. :shrug:

No, it´s not.

I´m all for gay marriage (no third parties are affected by it). But when it comes to adoption it is kind of a hazy area because you don´t know if the parents´ example can lead the children to think homosexuality is what´s expected for them.

I think more research that is clear and unrefutable should be done before a categorical decision can be made.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


I´m all for gay marriage (no third parties are affected by it).

How generous of you.

BrownEyedBoy said:
But when it comes to adoption it is kind of a hazy area because you don´t know if the parents´ example can lead the children to think homosexuality is what´s expected for them.

How about research into how fucked up kids from hetero marriages can be? maybe we should license ALL parents before they can raise children?

I know kids from hetero marriages with really fucked up "expectations."
 
Back
Top Bottom