Lesbian households have a 0% abuse rate

[Anonymous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

I'm always a little wary of 0% anything. It seems like there should be at least an outlier or two. I have not looked up the study to check all the information. It does say that the study has been going on for 24 years.

I'm a lesbian mom. Does this study show that the "one mother and one father is best" argument is false?

[Anonymous]

Impossible.

[Anonymous]

That is just common sense. A household with two female parents will naturally be safer for a child than one with a male and female parent. Who beats and abuses kids most? Stepfathers followed by biological fathers. And I say this as a Bible-thumping conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is just common sense. A household with two female parents will naturally be safer for a child than one with a male and female parent. Who beats and abuses kids most? Stepfathers followed by biological fathers. And I say this as a Bible-thumping conservative.

Moronic.

[Anonymous]

Too bad you can't handle the politically incorrect truth.

Yes, mothers are more likely to neglect and beat their kids but stepfathers, followed by biological fathers, perpetrate the most sexual abuse as everyone knows.

[Anonymous]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you take it too far, it looks like homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to raise kids. I'd hate to see us draw that conclusion. And I say that as a liberal Christian who attends a church that includes a gay (male) couple who has adopted.

[Anonymous]

First off, it's probably rounded to the nearest whole number, so it means less than 0.5%, which allows for the outliers mentioned by 06:49. Second, even if we accept that men are more likely to be abusers than women, it is still probably a small percentage of men and should not be taken as an argument against gay couples raising kids who might otherwise end up in institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad you can't handle the politically incorrect truth.

Yes, mothers are more likely to neglect and beat their kids but stepfathers, followed by biological fathers, perpetrate the most sexual abuse as everyone knows.

How does that work out to 0%?

[Anonymous]

I knew a lesbian couple where the one beat the crap out of the other, because she was bi and getting some cock on the side. So that's not 0%.

[Anonymous]

Have you guys read the books by that author that was horriffically abused by his mother? Dave something.

Or the woman in DC who chopped up and froze her foster kids?

I don't think it can be said that it's a male v. female thing. Perhaps the family dynamic of a 2 mom family is less likely to lead to abuse. But some of the worst abuse cases are committed by women/mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you take it too far, it looks like homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to raise kids. I'd hate to see us draw that conclusion. And I say that as a liberal Christian who attends a church that includes a gay (male) couple who has adopted.

Actually, I can imagine a theoretical argument why this line of reasoning would not lead to the assumption that male gay couples would have higher abuse rates than hetero couples: I think it's plausible that the highest likelihood of abuse would occur when there is a power difference between the two parents, because an abusive individual wouldn't have the "check" on their behavior of an equally powerful adult in the family. If the parents have equal power, it's more likely that one parent could be an effective protector of children from a violent parent. To the extent that power differences in couples are still induced by gender differences, it would seem that hetero couples would be the most likely to have an abusive home.

Just a thought, but I'm sure there are stats of rates of domestic/partner abuse of gay vs. hetero couples which might be indicative.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I think that an overlooked factor may be that lesbians don't tend to get pregnant accidentally. Risky behavior in straight people, which may be an indication of maturity and ability to parent effectively, can lead to pregnancy. Since gay and lesbian parents have to go through extraordinary means to parent, they have to, at the very least, give it more thought than the average straight couple. Could this single step weed out the immature and risky ones?

[Anonymous]

OP that is an excellent point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think that an overlooked factor may be that lesbians don't tend to get pregnant accidentally. Risky behavior in straight people, which may be an indication of maturity and ability to parent effectively, can lead to pregnancy. Since gay and lesbian parents have to go through extraordinary means to parent, they have to, at the very least, give it more thought than the average straight couple. Could this single step weed out the immature and risky ones?

This would be even more true for gay male parents, since the barrier to parenthood is even higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think that an overlooked factor may be that lesbians don't tend to get pregnant accidentally. Risky behavior in straight people, which may be an indication of maturity and ability to parent effectively, can lead to pregnancy. Since gay and lesbian parents have to go through extraordinary means to parent, they have to, at the very least, give it more thought than the average straight couple. Could this single step weed out the immature and risky ones?

Obviously, not. Adoptive parents?