W
WinterBorn
Guest
The psychcentral mentions several times that the adverse effects of discrimination may well be the cause of many of the problems. Which means, you and your ilk, have a hand in causing harm to others, whereas they have done you no harm at all.
In addition, allowing gay marriage may well remove many of the social stigma that effect gays, thereby removing the root cause (or at least the suspected root cause) of the higher levels of mental illness.
But still no contradiction of my claim that kids raised by gays turn out just the same as kids raised by straights.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Oh, so you think that higher rates equate to reasons gays should not be allowed to marry or raise children??
Do we take children away from straights who have substance abuse problems? No, not unless they threaten harm to the children.
Do we allow straights to marry if they have substance abuse problems? Hell yes we do. We even allow them to get married when they are drunk. But you think this study shows a reason why no gays should marry.
And no study has shown it to be all gays, just a higher percentage. But you want it to be a reason to not allow any gays to marry and to not allow any to raise children.
And I notice you still haven't gotten the balls to answer my question. Why is that?
dixon76710
New member
Your characterization of healthy mothers and fathers raising healthy children together in a nuclear family as out of Goebbels playbook. Wouldnt this playbook be more to your liking?
dixon76710
New member
Revealing, all the studies comparing children raised by "straight" parents to children raised by gays, when the assertion they seek to disprove is that BIOLOGICAL parents present an advantage for children. Biological parents are not preferred because they are always heterosexual, but instead because they are BIOLOGICAL. A heterosexual male lion will fight to the death to protects its own offspring, while a heterosexual male lion will likely kill another male lions offspring. Some kind of evolutionary adaptation to ensure a continuation of the species.
Who paid for this study, and where is the link? At Phelp's website?
Alias
Banned
Oh yes, it's all our fault that gays have higher instances of drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness, etc. So who do the heteros blame for their alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, etc? Can we blame the queers for calling us "breeders"?
That's a good reason right there to exclude queers from raising children. Human beings are too valuable to be used in your sick social agenda.
dixon76710
New member
Where did you ask me before? Just the first thing on google I see.
http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working papers/wp-mclanahan2.htm
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I have asked several times if you have any evidence to show biological parents (human parents) present any significant advantages over step-parents or adoptive parents. You have never answered, and yet you keep making the assertion that biological parents are better.
I would face certain death to defend my stepdaughter, and would do so without a moments hesitation.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
That study shows differences between two parent families and single parent families. Good answer. But not an answer to the question I asked.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So we should exclude ALL gays from parenting because SOME suffer from mental illnesses and substance abuse issues?
While we do not prevent straights who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse issues from parenting children.
But you want to even prevent gays who do not suffer from mental illness or substance abuse issues from parenting children.
And you wonder why people call you a bigot?
dixon76710
New member
Ive seen them go as far as to argue that the reason that 57% of the HIV cases in the US are among men who have sex with men, about 2-3% of the population, is also due to societies views on homosexuality that has pushed them into the shadows and risky sexual behavior.
dixon76710
New member
Did he suggest gays should be excluded from parenting, or you just busying yourself, slaying a strawman? I dont think anyone wants to exclude them and instead just have a problem with giving gays a preference. There is an advantage to biological parents raising their own children, opposed to the alternative of one or neither of them doing so. There is no advantage to gay parents raising children as opposed to the alternative of only one or neither parent being gay. AND YET, you demand that gay parents be given the identical preferences given to biological parents.
dixon76710
New member
No, they were comparing to children with their BIOLOGICAL parents, not 2 parents.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
He posted "That's a good reason right there to exclude queers from raising children". So yes, I believe he did suggest that gays be excluded from parenting.
I have used the scenario in which a lesbian, using artificial insemination, gives birth to a child. Now she and her partner would prefer that BOTH of them be legally responsible for the child. But you seem adamantly opposed to allowing them to marry. They fit the "the gov't encourages marriage to provide two parents for a child" ideal that you keep espousing. And yet you do not want them to marry. In fact, without some legal protections, the partner could walk away from her responsibilities completely. But both of the women want to raise this child. And should they stay together, and the birth mother dies, her partner has no legal rights to continue to raise the child.
I am not asking for preferential treatment but equal treatment.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
All of the tables and charts compared two parent families with one parent families. And discussed an absent father, not a stepfather. The article even mentions that one of the likely issues is the lack of the father's financial contributions.
dixon76710
New member
I dont fear them, I pity them. And always revealing when gay rights advocates view labeling someone gay to be an insult.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Our investigation has been going on for over 10 years now and covers more than 10 data sets. The most important of these are the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), the High School and Beyond Study (HSB), and the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). All of these surveys are large enough to allow us to distinguish among different types of single parent families, including families headed by never-married mothers as well as families headed by divorced or separated mothers and remarried mothers. These surveys also allow us to compare differences between boys and girls raised in one- and two-parent families as well as differences between children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and different social classes
To summarize briefly, we find that children who grow up apart from their biological fathers do less well, on average, than children who grow up with both natural parents. They are less likely to finish high school and attend college, less likely to find and keep a steady job, and more likely to become teen mothers. The differences are not huge. Indeed, most children who grow up with a single parent do quite well. Nor are they large enough to support the claim that father absence is the major cause of our country's most serious social problems. However, the differences between children in one- and two-parent families are not so small as to be inconsequential, and there is fairly good evidence that father absence per se is responsible for at least some of them.
Why would this be so? Why would the loss of a biological father reduce a child’s chances of success? We argue that when fathers live apart from their child, they are less likely to share their incomes with the child, and, consequently, mothers and children usually experience a substantial decline in their standard of living when the father moves out. We estimate that as much as half of the disadvantage associated with father absence is due to the economic insecurity and instability. Another quarter is due to the loss of parental time and supervision, and the rest is probably due to a loss of social capital attributable in large measure to the higher incidence of residential mobility among single mothers and remarried mothers. Stated differently, if parents who decide to live apart were able to cushion their child from the economic instability and disruptions in neighborhood ties that often accompany the breakup of a family, and if single mothers were able to establish and maintain regular routines and effective systems of supervision, their children would likely do just as well as children raised in two-parent families. The problem is, these objectives are very difficult to achieve.
To summarize briefly, we find that children who grow up apart from their biological fathers do less well, on average, than children who grow up with both natural parents. They are less likely to finish high school and attend college, less likely to find and keep a steady job, and more likely to become teen mothers. The differences are not huge. Indeed, most children who grow up with a single parent do quite well. Nor are they large enough to support the claim that father absence is the major cause of our country's most serious social problems. However, the differences between children in one- and two-parent families are not so small as to be inconsequential, and there is fairly good evidence that father absence per se is responsible for at least some of them.
Why would this be so? Why would the loss of a biological father reduce a child’s chances of success? We argue that when fathers live apart from their child, they are less likely to share their incomes with the child, and, consequently, mothers and children usually experience a substantial decline in their standard of living when the father moves out. We estimate that as much as half of the disadvantage associated with father absence is due to the economic insecurity and instability. Another quarter is due to the loss of parental time and supervision, and the rest is probably due to a loss of social capital attributable in large measure to the higher incidence of residential mobility among single mothers and remarried mothers. Stated differently, if parents who decide to live apart were able to cushion their child from the economic instability and disruptions in neighborhood ties that often accompany the breakup of a family, and if single mothers were able to establish and maintain regular routines and effective systems of supervision, their children would likely do just as well as children raised in two-parent families. The problem is, these objectives are very difficult to achieve.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
And that is quite revealing too.