Thursday, March 29, 2012
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
