|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Gay Parents started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2014,18:08
< Maybe not as good as we've been told. >I remember the study, and I'm sure we posted it here somewhere... Anyway, I tend to believe that the results were bullshit. Nobody is a better parent because of who they fuck. Nor are they better based on income, cleanliness, level of education, etc. The study seemed flawed, and apparently it was... Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,07:10
I can imagine them being better on average but only in the sense that adoptive parents are better on the average. Because 100% of adoptive parents made a conscious choice to have kids and studies show that they dedicate more time and effort to their children than biological parents. But only because of the low-end "oops, and I hate this kid" tail of the biological parent quality curve, which doesn't really happen with adoption. I don't see why the same would not be true of adoptive gay parents as well.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2014,07:33
Well, that is certainly the argument that's been making the rounds. Almost makes me feel like a bad parent because he is being raised by his biological parents.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,07:48
If you feel that way because of gay parents, you must also feel that way because of all adoptive parents. Because the studies are about adoptive parents versus biological parents, not gay versus straight. Or is it only the gay adoptive parents that threaten you so?Look, unless you fall into the segment of parents that had an oops baby they didn't want and then hate the kid because they feel like the kid has ruined their life, then clearly this has nothing to say about you. If you feel that way you either are 1) that sort of parent and should feel bad, 2) unable to understand plain English, or 3) just saying that because you want to be snarky. Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,07:51
I've seen that study as well. I never really bought into it either. For better or worse, we model the relationship between men and women that our kids learn. And the dynamics in a heterosexual marriage are very different than a gay relationship. Men and women ARE different. So I've always thought that the kids were missing half the picture being raised by a gay couple.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,08:06
QUOTE And the dynamics in a heterosexual marriage are very different than a gay relationship. This is an assumption with which I disagree. All the gay couples I've known - of both sexes - have had one person that was much more feminine than the other and one that leaned more masculine. I have little doubt that they are modeling both rolls just fine, regardless of what is dangling between their legs or not. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2014,08:50
The linked article clearly has one primary and one secondary intention. The primary is to serve as PR for same sex couples, to try and remove the stigma of their being parents which, in my opinions, is exaggerated. The subtle message, intended or not, is to suggest that hetero couples are the inferior choice as parents. There is no way to misinterpret that, it straight up states that gay couples generally raise better kids.I think that's horseshit, but my response above, to them, is exactly the response they want. I said it ironically because it seemed to be easier than being angry about it. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,08:55
That study was done by people that wanted grant money.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,09:01
Oh, yeah, the study that gay couples are better is crap, no doubt about that. I am in no way defending it. That doesn't change the fact that studies have shown that on average adoptive parents are better but only because they aren't accidental parents. And that majority of gay parents are adoptive parents with almost none of them being accidental parents. Which two facts taken together do imply that gay parents are probably better on average. Well, as long as you posit that gay parents are even capable of being good parents at all and aren't somehow inherently incapable because they have the same genitalia. Please note the stress on the words "on average", because that is a key essential point. The only reason there might be any truth to this at all is because the worst of the worst are chopped off the bottom of the quality curve. There is absolutely no indication of any sort that your typical good adoptive parent is in any way better or worse than your typical good biological parent. That hasn't even been hinted at in any of the articles I've read on the matter, and if you read one that did it was written by an idiot or an ass. It's only the reduction in numbers of bad ones on the adoptive side that makes the average different. If that makes you feel bad, I don't know what to tell you. To me it seems stupid to feel bad about it. Unless you think you are one of the bad parents, of course. Then it's okay to feel bad. Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,10:02
(TPRJones @ Jul. 11 2014,10:06) QUOTE QUOTE And the dynamics in a heterosexual marriage are very different than a gay relationship. This is an assumption with which I disagree. All the gay couples I've known - of both sexes - have had one person that was much more feminine than the other and one that leaned more masculine. I have little doubt that they are modeling both rolls just fine, regardless of what is dangling between their legs or not. I know there's usually a more male dominant of the pair in a gay relationship, but that doesn't make him a woman (in the case of gay men). Two gay men can't model that you open a door for a lady within their relationship. In a gay relationship there are no gender norms. The first relationship every man has with a woman is with his mother. That will forever influence every future relationship he has. And the opposite with women. Don't get me wrong. I don't think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. I think being in the home of a loving gay couple is worlds better than the foster system. But I think we're going to find it isn't optimal. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,10:03
QUOTE The first relationship every man has with a woman is with his mother. I can tell you from personal experience that this is not universally good. This is in no way salient to this conversation, however. More on point there isn't really any evidence yet to support either view. Not until we get more adult children of gay couples to look at. But I suspect that there will be little difference overall. Kids don't grew up in a vacuum, and there will usually be plenty of people in their lives apart from their parents as they grow up for them to study if there are any bits missing. Things like the religion and politics and philosophy and quality of the parents will likely have a far overshadowing impact on the children than their gender. All IMO, of course. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,10:05
QUOTE But I think we're going to find it isn't optimal. Given most people I've seen raised by heteros, I'm not calling that shit optimal, either. QUOTE The first relationship every man has with a woman is with his mother. Also a relationship that should never, ever be repeated with another woman. QUOTE Two gay men can't model that you open a door for a lady within their relationship. Yeah, there's no way to let you know that opening doors for someone else is polite unless you're doing it for someone with a vagina. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2014,11:17
(TPRJones @ Jul. 11 2014,12:01) QUOTE If that makes you feel bad, I don't know what to tell you. To me it seems stupid to feel bad about it. Unless you think you are one of the bad parents, of course. Then it's okay to feel bad. There is a difference between being offended by something, and recognizing that offense was intended. I know the my kid is going to be better than anyone elses, they are wasting their breath trying to offend me. But I reserve the right to tell them to go fuck themselves, too. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,12:19
I seriously doubt that when they were publishing that they were cackling and rubbing their hands together, gleeful about how they were sticking one to GORDON.No, I'm kidding, I know what you mean. And I still don't think that it was their purpose to try to insult heterosexual couples in general, either. As I've said elsewhere, there's a cultural war going on around homosexual civil rights, and sometimes people who aren't the brightest and subtlest of writers are going to go too far in trying to make a point. Add that to the fact that they are reporting on idiots that can't run a decent study, and you get something like that. Don't attribute to malice what can most easily explained by incompetence, because the latter is far more common. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2014,12:29
You can't say one produces superior results without also saying the other produces inferior results.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,13:14
(GORDON @ Jul. 11 2014,14:29) QUOTE You can't say one produces superior results without also saying the other produces inferior results. Sure. But if the data is bullshit, then that claim is bullshit. I'm not chalking it up to being manipulative. Fraud in "scientific" studies has been around in every discipline forever. People want name recognition, they want fame, they want more grants. You don't get that publishing the same results everyone else does. I will happily go out on a limb about two theories related to this: 1) Heteros tend to take for granted their ability to have children because there's usually the biological, reproductive option. 2) As TPR has pointed out, homos don't become parents without a great deal of warning or a sudden event that causes them to be a surrogate. The ones that have children probably want them. I'm unconvinced sexuality plays as significant a role in child-rearing compared to how much you want to be a parent. Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,13:44
(TPRJones @ Jul. 11 2014,12:03) QUOTE QUOTE The first relationship every man has with a woman is with his mother. I can tell you from personal experience that this is not universally good. This is in no way salient to this conversation, however. More on point there isn't really any evidence yet to support either view. Not until we get more adult children of gay couples to look at. But I suspect that there will be little difference overall. Kids don't grew up in a vacuum, and there will usually be plenty of people in their lives apart from their parents as they grow up for them to study if there are any bits missing. Things like the religion and politics and philosophy and quality of the parents will likely have a far overshadowing impact on the children than their gender. All IMO, of course. The first five years of a child's life is when they are impressed with things that will have a heavy influence on their entire lives. Having parental role models of both sexes I think is important. I know a lady with a daughter that's in her early 20's now. She grew up with her mom along with her mother's parents. I think having a father figure in her grandfather ended up messing her up where she was attracted to men that were very inappropriately aged. Like my age. Like me in particular. Not sure how these things will end up impacting a child growing up with a gay couple. We likely will never know. Too politically incorrect to mention if studies show it's negative for the child in any way. My gut tells me that it's best for a child to grow up with a mom and a dad. Not for any moral or religious reasons, but because that's the way nature has been doing things with humans from the get-go. It may be that there is no problem, or it may be there are obstacles that these kids have that others might not. My biggest concern is that you might not be allowed to have that conversation without being called names and having people screaming for your firing. And if people put a political agenda ahead of a child's wellbeing... well, they're monsters. Plain and simple. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,13:50
QUOTE The first five years of a child's life is when they are impressed with things that will have a heavy influence on their entire lives. I'd argue that to an extent. Early childhood is a thing, and a big thing, but it's not all things. QUOTE I think having a father figure in her grandfather ended up messing her up where she was attracted to men that were very inappropriately aged. There are a million psychological reasons why that may have occurred. QUOTE ...but because that's the way nature has been doing things with humans from the get-go. Nature's also been having us sleep and shit outdoors or in caves for the better part of humanity's existence. Nature's way is not necessarily "the best" anymore than evolution produces "the best" creatures. It's a way things have gone in the past. QUOTE It may be that there is no problem, or it may be there are obstacles that these kids have that others might not. My biggest concern is that you might not be allowed to have that conversation without being called names and having people screaming for your firing. That's like me arguing that it's best for people not to have religious convictions because that just leads to obstacles they might not have otherwise. I don't see nature telling the bees to make offerings to the honey badger so he doesn't visit his wrath on them. Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,14:08
(Malcolm @ Jul. 11 2014,15:50) QUOTE QUOTE I think having a father figure in her grandfather ended up messing her up where she was attracted to men that were very inappropriately aged. There are a million psychological reasons why that may have occurred. That's not the only woman I've know known that this has happened with. This isn't at all uncommon. Hell, you met Davina. Same thing there. Her dad committed suicide when se was 5 or so and she consistently dated older men. QUOTE QUOTE It may be that there is no problem, or it may be there are obstacles that these kids have that others might not. My biggest concern is that you might not be allowed to have that conversation without being called names and having people screaming for your firing. That's like me arguing that it's best for people not to have religious convictions because that just leads to obstacles they might not have otherwise. I don't see nature telling the bees to make offerings to the honey badger so he doesn't visit his wrath on them. I have no idea what you're talking about there.[/quote] Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,14:09
QUOTE Her dad committed suicide when se was 5 or so and she consistently dated older men. I know a girl who's got a living father (not the greatest) and another living stepfather (far better). She pulls the same shit. Women going after older men is not 100% related to not having a father figure growing up. Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,14:14
(Malcolm @ Jul. 11 2014,16:09) QUOTE QUOTE Her dad committed suicide when se was 5 or so and she consistently dated older men. I know a girl who's got a living father (not the greatest) and another living stepfather (far better). She pulls the same shit. Women going after older men is not 100% related to not having a father figure growing up. Never said it was. Being diabetic doesn't mean you eat shit tons of sugar every day. But eating shit tons of sugar every day greatly increases you chances of being diabetic. I think you've confused what I was saying about the causes. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,14:16
90% of the women I've met (perhaps 75% if I'm in a good mood that day) have daddy issues. The reason I have a hard time buying into the gender/psychology theories is that they reek of Sigmund Freud's work. Sigmund was a little too obsessed with sex and his parents and projected that shit into all his work but every psych I've ever met holds him up as the second coming of jeebus.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 11 2014,14:28
I'm not even talking about sexual relationships. ALL future relationships are impacted by your relationships with your parents. You first intimate relationship with a man was with your father and with a woman was with your mother.I've never much studies Freud, but when you say "intimate relationship" most people assume you mean sexual, when that's not really what it means. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,14:33
QUOTE ALL future relationships are impacted by your relationships with your parents. I'll go with impacted. I'm not going to go with the type and gravity of impact you're suggesting. "Intimate" also means many different things to different people. That's largely determined by your psychological type. Your sensitive area isn't the same as someone else's. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,17:54
QUOTE You can't say one produces superior results without also saying the other produces inferior results. On the contrary, you absolutely can. If you chop off the bottom end of the biological parent quality curve by dropping all the accidentals and unwanteds, you might find that the average remaining biological parents are better than the average adoptive parents. At the same time it is already fairly well established that leaving that bottom segment on biological curve - a segment that is nearly nonexistant on the adoptive curve - results in adoptive being better. Either could be better depending on which segment you are looking at. I don't know of any studies that discount that lower end of the biological curve that doesn't exist on the adoptive curve, but the result I described above is entirely plausible. tl;dr plain english: Biological parents are likely better than adoptive parents in cases when the child is planned and/or wanted. Sadly there are enough unplanned and/or unwanted children in the world to skew the average to make adoptive better on average. Get mad at the parents that treat their unplanned and/or unwanted children poorly, not at the people doing the study. QUOTE My biggest concern is that you might not be allowed to have that conversation without being called names and having people screaming for your firing. Once homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, that sort of thing will stop. Not too much longer now. Well, it won't stop overnight, as old people tend to have a lot of inertia when it comes to cultural wars. But it will fade and within a generation it will be gone. QUOTE Having parental role models of both sexes I think is important. I can accept that this is probably true in most cases. Will you at least acknowledge that homosexual parents are likely to be better than single mothers/fathers, which have this same problem but also have a deficit of time to care for the child? And are already happening in vast quantities. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2014,18:40
QUOTE I can accept that this is probably true in most cases. Just to be a Jeselnik, what if it's a man and a women who are both bisexual? Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2014,21:53
Me? I think it would be fine. But I also think kids can get by with any number of parents of any genders or orientations that care and dedicate time to being good parents.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 12 2014,11:19
I suppose that's more directed at Vince. Again, just to be a Jeselnik.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 13 2014,05:49
(TPRJones @ Jul. 11 2014,19:54) QUOTE QUOTE My biggest concern is that you might not be allowed to have that conversation without being called names and having people screaming for your firing. Once homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, that sort of thing will stop. Not too much longer now. Well, it won't stop overnight, as old people tend to have a lot of inertia when it comes to cultural wars. But it will fade and within a generation it will be gone. That would be nice, but I find it doubtful as long as we're into this weird identity politics. A sportscaster got fired for using the phrase "the chink in his armor" while discussing Jeromy Lin. Mentioning Chicago is racist when talking about the President. The civil rights marches were 50 years ago. No, I think it's much more about how they wrap their identity up in their sexuality (in this case). How many Vietnamese boat people came over in the 70's? I never hear them whining and crying about how they weren't treated well, and having worked with Vietnam vets, I can assure you they were greeted with lots of hostility when they got here. I think the difference for them is they just wanted to be Americans that happened to be Vietnamese. They weren't determined to be Vietnamese Americans. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2014,12:22
QUOTE That would be nice, but I find it doubtful as long as we're into this weird identity politics. A sportscaster got fired for using the phrase "the chink in his armor" while discussing Jeromy Lin. Mentioning Chicago is racist when talking about the President. The civil rights marches were 50 years ago. 1) Weird identity politics? What is this? 2) The dude that wrote the article with the "Chink ..." headline, I assume you're not referring to him. The dude that said it during the commentary got shafted. That's about as stupid as getting pissed at someone using "niggardly," which has happened. Idiocy is a thing, and if you work in a big enough place it's likely at least one of your bosses is an idiot. 3) How the fuck do the Civil Rights marches fit in? QUOTE No, I think it's much more about how they wrap their identity up in their sexuality (in this case). Yeah, fuck forbid fucking plays a large part in determining who you are. QUOTE They weren't determined to be Vietnamese Americans. About a decade ago, there was a techno night at a club where a few of my buddies worked. It was officially called "Power Jam Thursday." Everyone in the know referred to it as "Asian Fight Night" because there was fucking always a fight. The Vietnamese were just as clique-happy as the Filipinos, the Cambodians, the Chinese, the Hmong, ad nauseum. I'm failing to see how this analogy plays out since there's no country of gay people from which homosexuals can emigrate. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2014,12:35
Yeah there is, The People's Republic of San Francisco.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 13 2014,15:18
(Malcolm @ Jul. 11 2014,20:40) QUOTE QUOTE I can accept that this is probably true in most cases. Just to be a Jeselnik, what if it's a man and a women who are both bisexual? As long as they were in a monogamous relationship, then I don't see how it'd matter. And yes, I think a monogamous relationship part is important, too. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2014,18:45
This topic crossed my mind today whilst riding roller coasters.There is no biological component AT ALL in raising well rounded children? Doesn't factor into it at all? Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2014,19:58
QUOTE There is no biological component AT ALL in raising well rounded children? Doesn't factor into it at all? Biology's a big thing. What specific thing do you have in mind? Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2014,20:32
I don't know. The subtle things. A child looking up at his dad and watches him shave is, I think, getting a whole lot of subtle cues about masculinity. Not just how to shave... he can watch one of his 2 adoptive lesbian moms shave her pits, after all. But watching his father shave... his progenitor... seeing that it is ok to be a man, a natural thing. If nothing else, someone who will tell him privately one day, "Women are fucking crazy, son. Beware." All kinds of facets of that same gem.I don't know. Just speculation, and none of you accept any kind of speculation in these conversations so it doesn't matter. Posted by Paul on Jul. 13 2014,21:05
Anybody who actively seeks to adopt is probably more responsible than the average parent.Any irresponsible schmuck can make a baby. Adoption takes effort, and you have to pass the interviews. When I hear that kids who eat breakfast and/or play a musical instrument do better in school I think they should be saying, "Kids who have parents who care enough to make their kids ear breakfast and/pr play a musical instrument have parents that also make sure they do well in school." No duh! That being said, men and women tend to bring different things to the table and kids learn by example. Having responsible male and female role models goes a long way. I didn't learn to shave from my father, but I learned how to be a man (responsibility) from his example. When a young man doesn't have a responsible male role model to look up to he seeks them out, which is why so many young men get into gangs. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2014,21:11
You are about to be told that boys can learn responsibility from their lesbian parents so your observation is moot. But not by me. I am just making the call.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2014,21:12
QUOTE If nothing else, someone who will tell him privately one day, "Women are fucking crazy, son. Beware." I've heard both gay and straight women say that nearly verbatim. QUOTE ...seeing that it is ok to be a man, a natural thing. Huh? None but the most militant feminazis would claim otherwise. Now you only have to get a universal consensus on the definition of "a man" and you're set. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 13 2014,21:15
(Malcolm @ Jul. 14 2014,00:12) QUOTE QUOTE ...seeing that it is ok to be a man, a natural thing. Huh? None but the most militant feminazis would claim otherwise. You need to observe what has been going on in pop culture and the schools or at least the last 10 years. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2014,21:22
(GORDON @ Jul. 13 2014,23:15) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Jul. 14 2014,00:12) QUOTE QUOTE ...seeing that it is ok to be a man, a natural thing. Huh? None but the most militant feminazis would claim otherwise. You need to observe what has been going on in pop culture and the schools or at least the last 10 years. Put forth your definition of "a man." Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 14 2014,07:58
(Vince @ Jul. 13 2014,07:49) QUOTE No, I think it's much more about how they wrap their identity up in their sexuality (in this case). On the contrary, it's their attackers that keep making everything about their sexuality. If they would just let them have the same rights as everyone else already instead of punishing them for being gay, then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. QUOTE I think the difference for them is they just wanted to be Americans that happened to be Vietnamese. They weren't determined to be Vietnamese Americans. Nice example, except the big difference between them and gays or blacks is they didn't have to fight to have the same legal rights as everyone else. Maybe they were individually persecuted, but they could marry who they wanted and vote (once they got naturalized, of course) and be otherwise equal under the law. Not so for homosexuals and blacks. Homosexuals are still fighting. Blacks won their rights long enough ago that they should shut up about it already, but there's still enough old people who are still fighting that it's not quite wound down yet. QUOTE And yes, I think a monogamous relationship part is important, too. Heh. Here's a whole other topic where we'll fight. Monogomy is bullshit, but if it makes the two people involved happy then so be it. But it is in no way "natural" or "normal" or the default condition of humanity. Posted by Vince on Jul. 14 2014,08:37
*sigh* Okay, I really don't care any more. And when I say I don't care, I mean I'll let their whiny ass bitching continue to feed my building scorn for them. I just won't offer an opinion.
|