Anonymous wrote:You are an idiot

Seriously, OP, you have far too many variables to make any sort of comparison.

Infants aren't all the same at birth. What happens for the 40 weeks before birth plays a big role in shaping them. Even before conception, mom and dad's lifestyle choices and ages can impact their future offspring.
That said, I know two gay couples who took in disabled infants. Kids are doing beautifully and exceeding expectations.

So an unplanned pregnancy at age 15 or a brutal rape is the "normal natural way". I know that a child is better with one or two educated loving parents that really want to raise a child. These posts that 2 parents ( one male and one female ) is the best and only way to raise a child are crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The honest truth is that all human beings have a biological father and mother.

And most of us probably want to know who this most important people are...

And ideally, most of us want to be raised by our biological mothers and fathers (assuming of course they are normal non abusive people.)

So, I do think there is sadness for children of gay couples who were conceived in odd ways - not the normal natural way.

Ultimately, they are missing out on their true biological parents and that very important connection.

Yes, I fully agree. Denial is rampant here.

Another in agreement.
Bottom line is that it takes a male sperm and a female egg to procreate. There is a reason for that.

Anonymous wrote:The honest truth is that all human beings have a biological father and mother.

And most of us probably want to know who this most important people are...

And ideally, most of us want to be raised by our biological mothers and fathers (assuming of course they are normal non abusive people.)

So, I do think there is sadness for children of gay couples who were conceived in odd ways - not the normal natural way.

Ultimately, they are missing out on their true biological parents and that very important connection.

Yes, I fully agree. Denial is rampant here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/06/the_spermdonor_kids_are_not_really_all_right.html

BZZZZZT thanks for playing, but that study is funded by a biased source:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/06/15/spermdonor_kids_are_more_likely_to_donate_their_own_sperm_or_eggs.html

It's also not a randomized experiment. Wow, for a bunch of DC folks, knowledge about social science is very weak. Big diff between observational analyses and gold standard RCTs.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/06/the_spermdonor_kids_are_not_really_all_right.html

BZZZZZT thanks for playing, but that study is funded by a biased source:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/06/15/spermdonor_kids_are_more_likely_to_donate_their_own_sperm_or_eggs.html

The honest truth is that all human beings have a biological father and mother.

And most of us probably want to know who this most important people are...

And ideally, most of us want to be raised by our biological mothers and fathers (assuming of course they are normal non abusive people.)

So, I do think there is sadness for children of gay couples who were conceived in odd ways - not the normal natural way.

Ultimately, they are missing out on their true biological parents and that very important connection.

The only biological difference between mothering and fathering is pregnancy and lactation. Everything else is culture...EVERYTHING. A cockamamie study like OPs would show this as every other study does. Quality of nurturing is not determined by gender.

signed, PhD biologist (at NIH no less!) who is also a stepdaughter and whose DH SAH

I have read articles about children raised by single mothers by choice who were born from sperm donation who have psychological issues.

They feel like they missed out on having a real, true father.

I'll find the links.

I think a lot of the kids who are being raised by two gay dads who are the product of random egg donation plus random sperm donation plus gestational carrier may have issues too.

I mean -- it is nice to know who your parents are - mom and dad. That is important. Even if you are adopted or your parents died when you were young, people are made up of genetic components and people want to know where they came from.

So, yes, I think a lot of kids of gay parents who have odd parentage are going to have issues later. Truth.

Every time I open this thread I get more confused about what it is that OP is actually debating. It's ok though because I just learned that all atheists are rich and all religious people are poor hicks from Alabama.

Anonymous wrote:You are going to find that the variation between family types (gay vs straight) is nothing compared to the variation within family types.

If you care about the well-being of children, focus on the actual issues that threaten children: generational poverty, drug abuse, lack of quality affordable childcare.

You're right. Children are doing so well today because we've focused on creating a culture that promotes stable, married, mother & father families. It's high time we added to that run of success by adding some additional reconfigurations of ideal family environments. Eye roll.

You are going to find that the variation between family types (gay vs straight) is nothing compared to the variation within family types.

If you care about the well-being of children, focus on the actual issues that threaten children: generational poverty, drug abuse, lack of quality affordable childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Sure. That's fine. It wouldn't show that. You forget that any differences arising between how kids in Manhattan whose parents are atheists do versus Ma and Pa Kettle's kids in Alabama is income-based. Not religious based. But sure, I'm game.