Homosexual Marriage and Adoption
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Lol, it's times like these where I wonder how many people would be willing to argue with a large group of gay people protesting on the streets or how many people would be willing to argue with God or something both excaiming that they are right. I should right a short story about this...there is too much negative enery in this forum. It won't go anywhere in my opinion because everyone thinks their right exept me, I know I am right *smiles confidently* *uses feng shui to change forums energy**puts dancing monkey there* There
That is sort of why I ducked out of this debate... I won't be able to get my point across, and I don't want to make anyone annoyed with me. I am very passionate about this because, well, it directly effects me. Another reason I don't like to debate, it seldom goes anywhere.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it was the wisest choice to reference that data. We all know that there can be negative effects of single parenting. I don't think the data supports at all, not even in the slightest, the cons of a homosexual couple (or single gender) raising a child. I realize it was all you could find, but it is irrelevant to the topic.
And just to clarify, my husband did know his father for a short time (until he was 5/6), and his father was very abusive. His mother eventually left his father, and afterward, his mother fell in love with a woman and has officially been a lesbian ever since. My husband feels PG and Alcyone are both right in a sense. If he had a male role model growing up, being a husband and a father would come more naturally to him, he'd feel more confident and secure. But to Alcyone's point, he's being the best he can be because he wants to be everything he wanted in a dad when he was a child. He feels like if he had a consistent male role model as a child, things would've been easier for him, he didn't feel like his moms were always 100% there for him in the ways he needed. He doesn't feel that shortcoming is specific to gay couples, but specific to his own parents.
(By the way, he's an awesome dad and husband).
And I agree we need some more positive energy here.
Last edited:
The data perhaps shows that people who do not know how to be balanced in their own lives and with each other are not likely to have children that are. I never said it is a con about homosexual couples as I found (as I said) no objective data either way.
from my experience, anything dealing with gay rights has personal investments from all homosexuals. We feel the injustice of having our rights taken away, even if we don't plan on using those right. I will fight tooth and nail to get gay marriage rights, even though (as for right now), I don't think I'll ever actually seek to get a marriage in the legal sense. It the idea that we don't deserve the right that hurts us.
Awww I'm sorry, this makes me feel really guilty :/ I do think you should be able to marry, you have the right to love and have a ceremony for it just as much as anyone else!
don't feel guilty. I know your not being hateful, you're just making some assertions I disagree with.
What was wrong with this journal?
http://www.ru.edu/faculty/rboughner/courses/Alternative activities/Children of gays.pdf
How was it not objective?
You used the statistics about single parent homes, to make the argument that a home lacking a male figure causes detriment to children. Then you used that information to insinuate that a lesbian couple's home, which lacks a male figure, would have all the same detriment as a single parent's home to the children. Is that wrong?
That was a misuse of statistics, because...
1. You ignored every other variable in single parent homes, such as living with a single income. In fact, most of the people who are living in poverty in this country are single mothers. Poverty might have a little more to do with maladjustment in children raised in single parent homes than not having a male figure around.
2. You drew the comparison between single parent homes and homosexual couples raising children. That means you chose to ignore the variable of the number of parents. Two people can generally do a far better job of looking after a child than one can.
Do you honestly believe that not having a male figure around outweighs the income and number of the parents? Because that is precisely what you were stating when you used those statistics.
Last edited:
I'd rather have human beings take care of children over "The State".
But perfect world scenario a married male and female couple who is completely stable would take care of the kids. Good luck finding such a combo though. I suppose in a perfect world there would be no kids to adopt anyway so it doesn't even matter.
But perfect world scenario a married male and female couple who is completely stable would take care of the kids. Good luck finding such a combo though. I suppose in a perfect world there would be no kids to adopt anyway so it doesn't even matter.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I'll chime in one last time (hopefully) by stating my opinion as concice as I can:
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It occurs naturally and biologically, and does not cause any harm to anyone around them. Since their is nothing wrong with it, there should be no restrictions upon anything relating to homosexuality.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It occurs naturally and biologically, and does not cause any harm to anyone around them. Since their is nothing wrong with it, there should be no restrictions upon anything relating to homosexuality.
Haha this constant rivalry huh?
- I did not ignore any variable, I acknowledged all of them I merely emphasised a parallel between 'fatherless homes' to those fatherless homes of lesbans as well. Of course I realise the implications of being a single parent, I live with one, my mother?!
- No when I was using those statistics all I ever implied was the fact that the children had no father! Of course the other variables will affect, like only one income, one parent etc. HENCE, the fact that a father is not around is another variable that will be affected. A human cannot handle to many variables, calm down. We are essentially talking fractals so we have to draw disctintions. I never said that the income and number of parents dont mean a thing because they do. All I did was NOTICE the non-father variabe in both contexts. Hope I described myself clearer than before.
Perfectly clear. Now I can address the "father not being around" issue directly since it is something you "noticed".
I presented this study...
http://www.ru.edu/faculty/rboughner/courses/Alternative%20activities/Children%20of%20gays.pdf
Which argues with 20 years of research of same sex couples that the "father not being around" issue does not have a detrimental effect on the adjustment of children, since the children of same sex couples are just as well adjusted as the children of heterosexual couples. All the other variables that I mentioned (income, number of parents, etc.) are likely what caused the detriment to the children of single parents in mayflow's statistics. That is called isolating a variable. We are not talking about "fractals", I'm simply stating that the "father not being around" issue is completely irrelevant as far as the statistical data demonstrates.
Last edited:
I skimmed over the link and it seems to say something similar to this, which does seem to support your position. http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/parenting_in_a_same-sex_relationship.html
I am aware of that satya but it breaks down like fractals because we could go on arguing on which is the determinant in these cases. Fatherless or singleparent... You see the extraneous variables do effect a child, but if you are absolutely sure that a father has nothing to do with it then go ahead and explain to me why a heteroparent-raised-child who was raised in a fairly wealthy environment with many stimulating supporters, HAVE psychological problems when a father has not been around?!?!? It is in fact because there has not been a father perspective. So to conclude the same would go for a homo-raised child.
The child will learn to see for himself that his friend's famillies has fathers, hetero families. It is these learning journeys of the child that implements psychological problems. You see LIKE half of the DSM diagnoses have a connection to lack of father involment, or missbehaviours from father etc.
Last edited:
Where did you get that information? Where are your statistics on heteroparent raised children who are also raised in wealthy environments? Or are you just pulling things out of the air now? There has not been any statistics presented in this entire thread of what you are arguing. In fact, it could be just as possible that heterparent raised children in wealthy environments suffer no psychological problems as a result of not having a male figure around. Please provide the statistics to support your assertion.
None of the DSM diagnoses have a connection to "lack of father involvement". Please, provide just one DSM diagnoses where one of the criteria is "lack of father involvement".
Last edited:
i have no verifiable numerical statistics (thanks for making me feel like a failiure I guess that was your aim now wasnt it?)
I have read studies carried out on this where the fatherless subjects did have problems relating to male situations. One example would be 'Sex roles' which is a journal of research on such matter. Also as both me and my best friend are raised by our single parent mothers, I dare propose that it does have an impact. In the case of females they gain their sense of self and beauty and is validated by her fatger. Often it is to see that men will fulfill a dad's role in interpersonal relationships. And in those cases where a father has been present but dissapeared - relationships are chosen to mirror that bond of their father to recapture the bond of a father. Like for example men fulfilling a dad's role.
You are dissknowledging the observational sides of what can be empirical as well, you rely your belief in only numbers. Hence, trust your intuition some more perhaps?
Just take malignant narcissism or histrionic personality dissorder. Excellent example of the outcome when a fathers involvement is to low or malignant.
I could also find a link on the positive sides of a fathers engagement:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/bl...father-involvement-means-better-outcomes-kids
Not at all. If that is the result of our debate then I apologize.
Perhaps your personal experience has a great influence in your perception that children need to be placed in homes of heterosexual parents even when the studies indicate otherwise. It is your privilege as an NFP to hold subjective value judgments. Also, without seeing the journal I can't determine how valid it is. For all I know, it was written by a Christian organization bent on arguing the gender roles that were dictated by Paul.
Qualitative studies have value, just not in drawing generalizations or determining causation. In order to do those things, you have to rely on quantitative data. Intuition has nothing to do with either. When interpreting data, I have to rely on Ti.
I'm not going to argue that father involvement or engagement has no impact on children. I'm only arguing what the actual studies of homosexual homes has indicated. That children raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples.
Since you want me to try out my intuition in this matter, I'll oblige. I would say the next question you will have to ask yourself, is if a female can't act as a father figure or a male can't act as a mother figure in a child's life. What generally makes a mother is a nurturing and forgiving figure, whereas the father is the disciplining and gate keeping figure. If a homosexual couples chooses to adopt children, what is to keep one of them from acting as the father figure and the other as the mother figure? If a "father" involvement is as important as you seem to feel it is, then that is probably what homosexual couples are already doing since they are raising children who are just as well adjusted as their heterosexually raised counterparts. You place a lot of emphasis on the sex in gender roles, but as the studies indicated, children of homosexual parents typically still adjust to the gender identity that matches their sex. Why do you suppose that is?