Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's a fundamental right to parent children? That's just like, your opinion man. Let me ask you, do you think the world would be a better place for children if rights were more about them having a loving mother and father than worrying about adults' rights to creating children using science.

Yes, it violates the Constitution to take a way people's reproductive rights. Legal issues around surrogacy aside, there could never be a law forbidding gay people from having children.

LOL. Clearly you don't mean to use having as an active verb here, unless you mean possessing by paying someone else to create children and then taking them away from their biological mother and father. This is the only way a gay "married" couple could "have" children outside of adoption. That's why gay marriage is like non-alcoholic beer.

You lack imagination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's a fundamental right to parent children? That's just like, your opinion man. Let me ask you, do you think the world would be a better place for children if rights were more about them having a loving mother and father than worrying about adults' rights to creating children using science.

Yes, it violates the Constitution to take a way people's reproductive rights. Legal issues around surrogacy aside, there could never be a law forbidding gay people from having children.

LOL. Clearly you don't mean to use having as an active verb here, unless you mean possessing by paying someone else to create children and then taking them away from their biological mother and father. This is the only way a gay "married" couple could "have" children outside of adoption. That's why gay marriage is like non-alcoholic beer.

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 anybody ever do a random experiment on cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer? You know, randomly assigning non-smokers to a non-smoking group, a group that smokes a pack a day, a group that smokes two packs a day...? If not, how can we possibly say with any validity that smoking causes cancer?!?!?!

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

Clearly a C- science student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's a fundamental right to parent children? That's just like, your opinion man. Let me ask you, do you think the world would be a better place for children if rights were more about them having a loving mother and father than worrying about adults' rights to creating children using science.

Yes, it violates the Constitution to take a way people's reproductive rights. Legal issues around surrogacy aside, there could never be a law forbidding gay people from having children.

If they did a study showing kids raised by gay couples fared better than kids never adopted at all would you consider shutting up?

-signed someone who cares more about kids than bigots do

1. No Institutional Review Board would approve this due to the inability of babies to consent to an experiment that will completely affect their lives among other reasons.

2. It's logistically impossible given biological mothers' desire to be involved in selecting adoptive parents, and adoptive parents' desire to have a say in the kids they adopt (i.e., willingness to adopt outside their race, various disabilities, etc.).

3. I don't have a source for the assertion that for hard to adopt kids, it's often either same-sex parents or no parents, but when we (a lesbian couple) were considering adoption, I heard and read that we should consider being open to less "desirable" kids (not infants, disabled, sibling groups). This was because birth moms and adoption agencies often preferred to go with straight couples, leaving the hard to adopt kids that straight couples were less interested in for us.

4. Same sex couples who want kids have to make an effort at this, while many heterosexuals accidentally have kids (or had them earlier than they intended, or more kids than they intended). I think this would make us better parents than straight people on average, and would be hard to tease out its influence in studies.

5. Many same sex couples are raising children from one of the partner's failed heterosexual marriage, which gets very little attention in these popular debates.

6. If you're really worried about kids today, please volunteer with an organization that helps children living in poverty.

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's a fundamental right to parent children? That's just like, your opinion man. Let me ask you, do you think the world would be a better place for children if rights were more about them having a loving mother and father than worrying about adults' rights to creating children using science.

How about a study of how middle children in large families fare as compared to only children or the oldest, with the goal of social policy that forbids having more than one or two kids? I could get behind that. Unlike for gay parents there actually IS observational evidence that the oldest or only child fares "better" by some metrics.