No, I would not support this study. Nor would I support a study that tried to find differences in children of poorer families or different culture families, if the goal was to take away the right to parent children. It is a fundamental right to be able to parent children as long as you are not a unfit parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are an idiot

Wow that's some intellectual gravitas you've displayed. Coach a debate team in your free time?

I think OP's premise is idiotic, too. There's nothing to debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The research has already been done. Read the following technical statement by the AAP:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT

Did you just discover Science? Review articles are how you gather data in situations when it's impossible to do a RCT. Like this one.

Anonymous wrote:The research has already been done. Read the following technical statement by the AAP:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

NOT A RANDOM EXPERIMENT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, some serious crickets in this thread.

YES or NO. It's easy. Would you folks support doing a very careful randomized study to answer this question. Either you're pro-science or you're not. Let's let the NIH do it. It's not like I'm calling for the Heritage Foundation to do it.

Science has already spoken. Two homosexuals can not reproduce using their own bodies. You should take a hint from that.

+1

Same for infertile couples. Right?

The research has already been done. Read the following technical statement by the AAP:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

8:52 here

To be clear to everyone else, when I talked about known poorer outcomes, I advocate fixing the causes of the issues -- poverty, racism, access to quality medical care & education, a livable wage, etc.

Anonymous wrote:
. 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.

If this is your criteria then the only people who should be allowed to have children are white women from upper SES where the mother is about 22-28yo and the father is no older than 35. Anything outside of those parameters and you start incurring greater likelihood of genetic issues, problems during birth, premature birth, lower access to quality care & education, and racism.

You do realize that there are groups that, considered at large, have poorer outcomes than others. I'll give you a clue .. it's not gay or lesbian couples. We, as a society, have finally come to the point where we recognize that it is immoral to control people's reproduction. Oh, and before you go off on gay and lesbian couples can't reproduce, most children of same-sex couples are the biological child of one of the couple. You are on such a slippery slope and you're so full of yourself, you don't even recognize it. It would be sad if it wasn't so scarily common among a certain set of people.

So, no, ad hominem attacks of "you're against science" are not going to make most people engage with you.

On the issue of all the things that a surrogate baby lacks, and whether those things justify banning surrogacy, note that you would then be denying that baby life. With a parent or parents who truly want the baby.

I would not advocate for someone to have a surrogate child, my point is just that I don't feel I have the right to make the decision for someone else.

Human beings are not outcomes. If there is developed a concern with any family identity issue relating significantly to the health or safety of a child, then I would look into that particular issue and work to solve it first from other angles than restructuring the family. The world needs people with all kinds of views, thoughts, and experiences, and families. In my view, we are all richer for this diversity.

This is not to fully dismiss the original poster idea of looking as children in connection with some of their parents characteristics. If, for example children of overweight parents are significantly more likely to be overweight themselves, with associated health and early death concerns, we could use that information in a positive and productive way to educate parents and to focus on the obesity epidemic. I've never think of disallowing people from having children, though, because they are overweight.

As a PP pointed out, there are far too many variables to do such a "study". Is is like asking Jewish parents to be compared to Catholic parents as far as outcome without taking anything else into consideration (ie IQ, education level of parents, financial health, etc).

Anonymous wrote: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.

Okay. And I'll find links of articles by unhappy children of straight parents, Christian parents, adoptive parents, etc... Newsflash, sunshine: the Internet is for unhappy people to write about why they're unhappy. And then for some people to exploit that for political purposes.

Don't we have tons of data about children of married straight couples who are victims of abuse and neglect? Aren't the Child Protective Services Agencies in nearly every state up to their ears in cases involving crimes against children being raised by married straight couples?

Anonymous wrote:If we did a randomized experiment and randomly assigned children who need homes (adopted kids) to married same sex couples and married hetero couples and the kids did better with the hetero couple families...would you change your mind about:

1) gay adoption
2) surrogate parenting among gays (i.e., bringing a kid into the world for 2 daddy's who otherwise wouldn't be born)?

Just curious. I hate the climate deniers on the right. But we should be scientific about this, no?

Here's the specific thought experiment/proposal:

Randomly assign infants (so that they are, in expectation, average on all traits) to gay vs straight MARRIED couples. We can even do some matching pre-hand to make sure families are of similar SES. Then sit back and watch the process unfold. If there are significant differences, we change family law policy to reflect what is in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

This shouldn't be about adult desires.

What is "better"?
Better behaviorally?
Better intellectually?
Better socially?
Better emotionally?
How do you determine what's "better" between 2yr old Johnny who was raised by hetero parents and is at an advanced reading level but frequently throws tantrums versus 2yr old Jimmy who was raised by gay parents and shows advanced problem solving skills but is very quiet?
Would race be a factor?
Would religion be a factor?
Would things like house vs apartment, city vs suburbs, siblings vs no siblings, meat eaters vs vegetarians, classic music vs rock music played in the home, etc. be taken into consideration?
As a PP said too many variables and no clear way of determining just what the hell "better" is so to answer your question OP the answer is NO!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are an idiot

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

Not only that, but this type of “experiment” would be against the law. There are ethical considerations.