An honest question (same sex marriage/parenting related)?

[Anonymous]

OP, this is mind-boglingly innocentL Your suggestion that we need to test the ability of gay parents reveals your prejudice. Should we test people with blue eyes? Brown hair? People from the Midwest? People with high incomes?
Why in the world would we even call into question the ability of gay people to parent in the first place?

And as for outcomes, theres really no way as others have pointed out to measure outcomes anyway. Too many variables.

If you knew anything about adoption you'd know that people from all walks of life adopt: wealthy and middle class, black, white, liberal, conservative. And while people can be vetted for criminal records, etc, you can't screen them out on the basis of political views, etc.

You are pretending to promote the scientific method but it sounds like the science the nazis embraced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

sure you could add that datapoint but it doesnt beat a randomized study using objective data. but a few cases? those are anecdotes. anecdotes are for losers. large N random studies are for winners.

Are you the same poster who was on the Common Core standardized testing threads and who thinks that describing people through numerical analysis is the cat's meow?

You didn't take enough humanities courses in college.

nope, not the same poster

[Anonymous]

meant to say mind boglingly ignorant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, this is mind-boglingly innocentL Your suggestion that we need to test the ability of gay parents reveals your prejudice. Should we test people with blue eyes? Brown hair? People from the Midwest? People with high incomes?
Why in the world would we even call into question the ability of gay people to parent in the first place?

And as for outcomes, theres really no way as others have pointed out to measure outcomes anyway. Too many variables.

If you knew anything about adoption you'd know that people from all walks of life adopt: wealthy and middle class, black, white, liberal, conservative. And while people can be vetted for criminal records, etc, you can't screen them out on the basis of political views, etc.

You are pretending to promote the scientific method but it sounds like the science the nazis embraced.

Yes, that makes sense. Because eye color and hair color have been the launching point for child rearing for the last 2500 years of recorded history. You don't think there's even a shred of reason (beyond gay animus) to think that mothering and fathering are a uniquely special and helpful way to bring children into the world? I mean, what possible reason could one believe that. There's no history to look upon to justify child rearing with a mom and a dad.

2 moms = 2 green eyed parents

[Anonymous]

Great! Then we can do a study seeing if the children of the secular do better than the children of religious folk, and legislate accordingly? Because there's a good deal of evidence that they do.

I assume you'll support that, and if the evidence comes out in accordance with prior studies, you'll support banning religious people from using reproductive technology and preventing them from adopting. Right.,

[Anonymous]

They tried to do analysis on race and iq but the study was deemed too controversial. Same here, unless you are hitler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you need to do such a study. Just ask the children of gay couples once they reach adulthood if they were happy with their given situations and allow them an honest, anonymous way to share their thoughts. Only they can tell us if this works well. If they're happy, functional people, perfect. If they express doubts or say their childhoods lacked something, then maybe they're onto something and their feelings need to be respected.

That's a laughable way to do science. That's like the thread in the relationships page asking if people post hoc regret their divorce. ppl justify things post hoc to rationalize their own experiences. I'm sure if Amy Winehouse came back she'd say "No regrets man".... lol.

So you have no interest in hearing from say a woman raised by two men if she felt an actual need for a mom? What if women raised by only men said they didn't care one way or another if they had a mother.

Sure, some people regret their divorce. Others may say the situation was far from what they ever wanted for themselves. What's wrong with asking someone raised by a gay couple if this would have been their first choice?

Why would anyone do a randomized study on gay parents if we havent done one one poor parents, or parents who live in apartments or houses or parents who post on anonymous internet boards. Gay people are people of varying parenting skills just like straight people.

In the end, it's a great topic for a book? Researchers and journalists have written books that contain slews of interviews with all sorts of distinct groups that are in situations some of us may not envy- unmarried, childless by choice or by circumstance, etc.

sure you could add that datapoint but it doesnt beat a randomized study using objective data. but a few cases? those are anecdotes. anecdotes are for losers. large N random studies are for winners.

[Anonymous]

anecdotes are for losers.

People who don't appreciate anecdotes are losers. Numbers have zero meaning without interpretation. Anecdotes often inform interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great! Then we can do a study seeing if the children of the secular do better than the children of religious folk, and legislate accordingly? Because there's a good deal of evidence that they do.

I assume you'll support that, and if the evidence comes out in accordance with prior studies, you'll support banning religious people from using reproductive technology and preventing them from adopting. Right.,

my argument is not about adoption. it's about surrogacy when it comes to raising a child in an environment without a mother and a father. can you name one reason how this is in the absolute best interest of a child? you can't use adult-focused arguments. focus on the child. why deprive him or her a mother and a father from day 1? Think about it this way. You don't think a father provides a unique set of fathering abilities when his son is learning how to shave, feeling his hormones come on, etc. etc or a mother with a daughter who needs to buy her first bra? What's the optimal thing for a child. Clearly having both a mom and a dad. If it weren't why would it take a mom and a dad to create one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

anecdotes are for losers.

People who don't appreciate anecdotes are losers. Numbers have zero meaning without interpretation. Anecdotes often inform interpretation.

says people who didn't go beyond calc 1

[Anonymous]

Let's ask everyone in prison for serious crimes if they had 2 opposite sex parents. Based on the response you can probably assume, using your logic, that straight parents raise criminals. Anytime there has been a mass shooting they all had messed up childhoods with straight parents.

[Anonymous]

My gay friends have adopted kids from foster care, and I swear they are far better parents than I am.

So what if your experiment proves that gay couples are better parents than heteros?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great! Then we can do a study seeing if the children of the secular do better than the children of religious folk, and legislate accordingly? Because there's a good deal of evidence that they do.

I assume you'll support that, and if the evidence comes out in accordance with prior studies, you'll support banning religious people from using reproductive technology and preventing them from adopting. Right.,

my argument is not about adoption. it's about surrogacy when it comes to raising a child in an environment without a mother and a father. can you name one reason how this is in the absolute best interest of a child? you can't use adult-focused arguments. focus on the child. why deprive him or her a mother and a father from day 1? Think about it this way. You don't think a father provides a unique set of fathering abilities when his son is learning how to shave, feeling his hormones come on, etc. etc or a mother with a daughter who needs to buy her first bra? What's the optimal thing for a child. Clearly having both a mom and a dad. If it weren't why would it take a mom and a dad to create one?

You're dodging my question. If such a study showed -- as is indicated by the current data -- that the children of secular couples had better outcomes, would you then ban religious people from surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Kids need loving guidance from role models of both sexes. That doesn't mean that person needs to be a parent. We are a female gay couple rais ing a daughter and she has a godfather who is involved and a grandfather who is involved. That is more than a lot of straight parents provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My gay friends have adopted kids from foster care, and I swear they are far better parents than I am.

So what if your experiment proves that gay couples are better parents than heteros?

then traditional marriage/child rearing advocates have nothing left to stand on. let's let science beat their silly religious book. if it does, then less to worry about!