4 ms·

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

by joubert 17y ago

devinj 17y ago
Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.
- joubert 17y ago
  I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?
  - tsally 17y ago
    Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee the children will be raised appropriately. It is a human right of the children. In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. Yes, homosexuals are a disenfranchised group as well, but there are homosexuals who serve openly in Congress. It's not quite on the same level as children, who do not yet have the ability to speak English. I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.
    - joubert 17y ago
      So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?
      - tsally 17y ago
        The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario. To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption. Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area. EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant. "Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".
  - tome 17y ago
    How is this even in debate? Of course boys learn how to be a man, to a significant degree, by observing their father (not emulating, but observing) and girls by observing their mother. I think there's a tendency for people to underestimate the exposure they get to their families as compared to the exposure they get to anyone else in the world when it comes to close emotional contact. Some of use who are aware of having had emotionally withdrawn fathers (or mothers) realise this better than others.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

by joubert 17y ago

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

devinj 17y ago

Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.

joubert 17y ago
I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?
- tsally 17y ago
  Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee the children will be raised appropriately. It is a human right of the children. In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. Yes, homosexuals are a disenfranchised group as well, but there are homosexuals who serve openly in Congress. It's not quite on the same level as children, who do not yet have the ability to speak English. I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.
  - joubert 17y ago
    So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?
    - tsally 17y ago
      The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario. To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption. Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area. EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant. "Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".
- tome 17y ago
  How is this even in debate? Of course boys learn how to be a man, to a significant degree, by observing their father (not emulating, but observing) and girls by observing their mother. I think there's a tendency for people to underestimate the exposure they get to their families as compared to the exposure they get to anyone else in the world when it comes to close emotional contact. Some of use who are aware of having had emotionally withdrawn fathers (or mothers) realise this better than others.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]