What might be said of Bush's spirituality

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's because the Lerner-Nagai paper is a literature survey; i.e. a survey of existing research in the field. It's an established genre of scientific publication and one that's invaluable to researchers.

The Rekers study mentioned (http://www.narth.com/docs/rekers.html) is also a literature survey, but aggregates the results of the various studies into a unified argument.

Ok, you clearly know tons more about scientific studies and research than I do so I have only one final question.

Is invalidating studies that show homosexual parenting in a positive light the same as actually doing a study that shows homosexuals to be poor parents?

If you want to know my little conspiracy theory read on.

Keep in mind I have no evidence whatsoever that supports the following claim.

It seems to me that the anti-gay marriage (well, anti-gay anything) movement is well funded and made up of people that are highly motivated. Given that, I have to assume that they have done many of their own studies on the parenting skills of homosexual couples. It seems to me that if they could come up with an honest one that shows homosexual couples to be substandard parents they would use it...a lot. I would imagine people like me would have it thrust in our faces over and over again, yet I have never seen one. Is it possible they have yet to get one that shows the results they want? This is complete conjecture on my part.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Is it possible they have yet to get one that shows the results they want? This is complete conjecture on my part.

An interesting theory, however there are other factors which seem much more likely than unfavorable results.

Would you, as one-half of a gay couple raising a child, be inclined to participate in a study being pitched by NARTH.org concerning your fitness as a parent?

You could understand why such studies might have trouble attracting and maintaining the target research group.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
An interesting theory, however there are other factors which seem much more likely than unfavorable results.

Would you, as one-half of a gay couple raising a child, be inclined to participate in a study being pitched by NARTH.org concerning your fitness as a parent?

You could understand why such studies might have trouble attracting and maintaining the target research group.

-JC

LOL - Good point!

TheSkipper

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Time to crawl up the slippery slope for a change.

Let's do away with childless marriages. Newlyweds, ya get two years to prove your fertility. If not, mandatory divorce. God isn't interested in hearing your excuses; he told you to be fruitful and multiply, dammit!

And let's stop old people getting married. Disgusting! Who wants to see old fogeys ...[text shortened]... portant changes, I'm confident that we can keep marriage to its proper use and purpose.

I'm not attempting a slippery slope. I'm finding the boundary for contemporary sexual "experimentation". With the current definitions of sex (not to mention Kinsey find adult-child sex “not harmful and sometimes even beneficial to the child&rdquo😉 I think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy to deem pedophiles who engage in consensual sex as unsophisticated or morally objectionable.

On the other hand you have entirely misrepresented the conservative view.

Originally posted by bbarr
The state has a compelling interest in the health and safety of children, and there are good reasons to think that many children aren't informed enough or emotionally mature enough to actually consent. There are also good reasons to be concerned that adults have resources they can bring to bear in a coercive way on children. Uninformed agreement does not con ...[text shortened]... n adults and children will often not be consensual. This, I take it, is the liberalistic line.

Do you have a problem with adolescents experimenting sexually with each other?

Is it the possible consequences which elevate sex to an act which requires "informed" decision making? Is sexual freedom not an individual right?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, you clearly know tons more about scientific studies and research than I do so I have only one final question.

Is invalidating studies that show homosexual parenting in a positive light the same as actually doing a study that shows homosexuals to be poor parents?

If you want to know my little conspiracy theory read on.

Keep in mind I have no ...[text shortened]... y have yet to get one that shows the results they want? This is complete conjecture on my part.

Of course, invalidating studies that support same-sex parenting (what's "homosexual parenting"??) is not the same as showing that same-sex couples make, in general, poor parents.

Now, assuming there aren't many studies out there that show that same-sex parenting is harmful, there are many reasons why this could be the case:

1. Your conspiracy theory

2. Churlant's point on selection. Of course, this is also the flaw in many of the studies that support same-sex parenting. One consistent criticism of Lerner & Nagai against these studies is that they were self-selecting. Essentially, the researchers put out an ad saying "We're doing a study on the benefits of same-sex parenting; if you're interested, give us a call at 1-800-STUDY". Now, if you were a parent in a same-sex household that completely screwed up, would you give them a call?

3. The simple point is that many (most?) of these studies are based in Europe, where the conservative movement (why do you insist on calling it "anti-gay"? do you guys get a kick out of calling anyone who disagrees a racist or a homophobe?) simply isn't as strong or as well-funded as it is in the US.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course, invalidating studies that support same-sex parenting (what's "homosexual parenting"??) is not the same as showing that same-sex couples make, in general, poor parents.

Now, assuming there aren't many studies out there that show that same-sex parenting is harmful, there are many reasons why this could be the case:

1. Your conspiracy th racist or a homophobe?) simply isn't as strong or as well-funded as it is in the US.

Forgot to mention this - but the Rekers study does, in fact, make a case that same-sex couples (and homosexual couples in particular) do make poor parents. Most of the criticism (see the Wikipedia article on "gay adoption" ) of the Rekers study is that it doesn't prove anything about a particular same-sex couple who are coming forward for adoption - but since the same thing can be said about studies that support same-sex adoption, I don't see where that line of reasoning gets us.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Further, homosexual relationships are significantly less stable than heterosexual relationships, which exposes the child to the risk of a broken home (ibid.).

Surely this has a lot to do with samesex parents not being allowed to marry? Maybe you have just given reason for legalizing gay marriage?
All the reasons you gave were generalities. It wouldn't surprise me if similar generalities could be made about say black couples in america. (higher risk of engaging crime for example). Does this mean that all black people should not be allowed to adopt? Maybe you should pass a law banning black marriage as they are clearly not suitable procreators.
Unless you can show that there is something specific about same-sex marriage that has a significant direct negative impact on child rearing in every possible case then to ban samesex couples from adopting would be discrimination which IMHO is worse.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Forgot to mention this - but the Rekers study does, in fact, make a case that same-sex couples (and homosexual couples in particular) do make poor parents. Most of the criticism (see the Wikipedia article on "gay adoption" ) of the Rekers study is that it doesn't prove anything about a particular same-sex couple who are coming forward fo ...[text shortened]... ut studies that support same-sex adoption, I don't see where that line of reasoning gets us.

Ok so really the best (worst?) we can do is say that homosexual people "may" be poor parents. Of course, we can say that about ALL people. What we do know for sure is that there does exist some (a handful, a few, who knows) homosexual couples that can raise a healthy, happy child (I know one such couple personally).

So, my suggestion is why not judge each family looking to adopt on their own merits and keep kids out of the hands of ALL crappy parents regardles of their sexual orientation?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by lucifershammer
where the conservative movement (why do you insist on calling it "anti-gay"? do you guys get a kick out of calling anyone who disagrees a racist or a homophobe?) .

Yeah, sorry. I live in Washington DC and we get the extreme end of everything here. Trust me the people in town this week for the vote on the gay marriage amendment were very much anti-gay. It can be difficult to remember that they do not speak for the majority of people in the "conservative movement".

Washington DC is about the worst place to be, in the world, if you want to avoid crazy extremists.

Mea Culpa

TheSkipper

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely this has a lot to do with samesex parents not being allowed to marry? Maybe you have just given reason for legalizing gay marriage?
All the reasons you gave were generalities. It wouldn't surprise me if similar generalities could be made about say black couples in america. (higher risk of engaging crime for example). Does this mean that all black ...[text shortened]... ble case then to ban samesex couples from adopting would be discrimination which IMHO is worse.

I think the study shows that homosexual relationships are less stable than cohabiting heteresexual couples, but I'll need to check. But why do you think legalising same-sex marriage makes such relationships more stable?

The first two reasons I cited were, indeed, "generalities" (as I mentioned earlier, a criticism against Rekers's study). But the third one (specific psychological advantages of having both a father and a mother/specific psychological disadvantages of not having one of the two present) is not - they apply to every single same-sex couple.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok so really the best (worst?) we can do is say that homosexual people "may" be poor parents. Of course, we can say that about ALL people. What we do know for sure is that there does exist some (a handful, a few, who knows) homosexual couples that can raise a healthy, happy child (I know one such couple personally).

So, my suggestion is why not jud ...[text shortened]... ds out of the hands of ALL crappy parents regardles of their sexual orientation?

TheSkipper

Do you think permitting same-sex couples to adopt alleviates the foster-care situation?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you think permitting same-sex couples to adopt alleviates the foster-care situation?

I would not have a clue. Although it stands to reason that if you have a larger group of people "allowed" to adopt then you would have more adoptions.

Maybe I don;t understand the point of the question?

TheSkipper

EDIT: Wait...I think homosexual couples are already permitted to adopt children. Good grief...what are we arguing about?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok so really the best (worst?) we can do is say that homosexual people "may" be poor parents. Of course, we can say that about ALL people. What we do know for sure is that there does exist some (a handful, a few, who knows) homosexual couples that can raise a healthy, happy child (I know one such couple personally).

So, my suggestion is why not jud ...[text shortened]... ds out of the hands of ALL crappy parents regardles of their sexual orientation?

TheSkipper

Not quite - the point of the Rekers study is that same-sex parents (especially homosexuals) make, in general, worse parents than different-sex parents. So, the question a policymaker should ask is - what are the incremental benefits (to adoptable children) by opening up adoption to same-sex couples and do these benefits justify the increased risk to their health and well-being? Are there other ways to promote the same benefits without taking on the additional risk?

Further, much of the rhetoric has been positioned as matters of "discrimination" and "civil rights" of the couples involved - rather than the welfare of the children involved.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I would not have a clue. Although it stands to reason that if you have a larger group of people "allowed" to adopt then you would have more adoptions.

Maybe I don;t understand the point of the question?

TheSkipper

EDIT: Wait...I think homosexual couples are already permitted to adopt children. Good grief...what are we arguing about?

I recently read an article that said that around 25,000 married American couples were adopting children from South East Asia annually. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that there are plenty of married (different-sex) couples who are seeking to adopt but are on waiting lists with adoption agencies.

What's happening here? If there are people still on waiting lists to adopt, and are looking abroad for adoptions, how are there still children in foster-care? What's the pressing need for same-sex adoption?

My theory is that many children are virtually un-adoptable. No one wants to adopt a problem child. If you're a 14-year old who's been moving around foster homes and with a problemmatic record, very few couples will want to adopt you - same-sex or regular. Most couples are looking for a "perfect baby" - and there are few of those going around. Of course, there will always be the odd couple willing to take on a problem child or a child with disabilities.

So, I'd say the average adopting same-sex couple (excluding those cases where one parent is a biological parent of the child) isn't really adopting a child that married couples didn't want. Rather, what's really happening is a substitution of same-sex couples for married couples. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is actually happening. Since adoption agencies aren't allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples (and many are, apparently, discriminating against married couples!), this results in the waiting lists and foreign adoptions I mentioned above.