Quick point to consider here:

The same-sex parents in these studies are, I’m thinking, probably almost all adoptive parents.
And, because adoptive parents have to:
A: be fairly well off, or at least very stable, financially.
B: pass rigorous background checks and meet other qualifications.

Point being, adoptive parents tend to be the “cream of the crop” so to speak.

Whereas biological parents could include everybody from a very emotionally stable, healthy, well-educated married couple to a pair of shacked-up meth freaks living in a van down by the river, it stands to reason that at first blush, the scale will tip in favor of the adoptive (gay) parents to begin with, esp. with small sample sizes.

As to this whole notion that “both a mother and father don’t matter,” hmmmmm… I have to be more than a little dubious about that. Hell, just type “the importance of having an involved father” into Google… and you’ll get a gaggle of hits --- many of them from exhaustive studies by a wide range of experts.

To just give one example, I think it’s been shown over and again that a girl’s relationship with her father, esp. during her teenage years, will set the pattern for her relationship with men for the rest of her life. Too often, an absent, or cold, distant father, will lead to a young woman who sluts herself out just to get attention from men, and/or constantly ends up in abusive relationships.

So, to just say, “oh, it makes no damn difference at all whether kids have both a Mom and Dad” is, IMO, utterly insane.

That’s not to say a gay couple can’t raise a healthy child. But I think it’s a good alternative model, not a substitute for the real thing.

Children have been raised well in “alternative” circumstances from the beginning. (Example, mommy and daddy got eaten by a cave bear – so old Uncle Og -- himelf a widower -- raised the kids.)

Likewise, their have been plenty of children made miserable by their “natural” parents.
(Mommy and daddy drink like sailors and fight all the time.)

Be that as it may, I don’t think anybody with a lick of sense can deny having a family with mom and dad at the core is what’s going to work the best most of the time, the bond between children and their biological parents is just too strong and too obvious to deny as mere “tradition.”

By the same token, shutting of access to any good, viable alternatives for those children not fortunate enough to have good biological parents is both mean-spirited and foolish.

If a gay couple can pass the tests and scrutiny we’d put any other adoptive couple through, then I see no reason why they should not raise children.

I am frequently amazed at how you can't comprehend simple English.
I have REPEATEDLY stated that ALL the research proves that gays are just as capable parents as straights are, and that NONE of the research done by ANYBODY shows any detriment to the child.

So with that noted, how the heck could you possibly think I was talking "last resort"?
It should be painfully obvious I was in no way saying that...

And predictably enough, you DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
This question is with regards to your statement that in your opinion, single parents should not be able to adopt.
Which is better for a child?
Being adopted by NO parent, or being adopted by a qualified parent?


Can you show me WHY that matters?
Can you show ANY study which shows "mother and father" are superior to "two men" or "two women" raising a kid?

Your response is a complete non-sequitur.
It's like saying we can't hire a man as a secretary because he won't come with boobs...


No. It isn't.
You have shown NO EVIDENCE which shows a "better interest" for "man and woman" as opposed to two people of the same gender raising a kid.
And since you CANNOT show ANY reason for why "man and woman" provides a benefit to the kid, it becomes obvious that your only reason for discriminating is based on PREJUDICE.


These studies have been given to you repeatedly.
Have you forgotten already?

And WHEN are you going to "cough up" ANY studies to validate ANY of the assertions you make?
WHERE are the studies which show it is in the "best interest" of the child for a man and a woman to raise the child as opposed to two men or two women?


To quote you: What "studies" can you cough up to validate that ludicrous assertion??


You keep making up the "laws of nature" because you have nothing better.
And of course you want to ignore the constitution because it asks you to prove your claims. And you know you can't...


Christian "morality" considers worshipping another god as a sin.
Jews? Buddhists? Atheists? All immoral.

You seem to have this oppressive mentality where you presume that YOUR definition of morality supercedes everybody else's rights and privileges.
Thank god you have no say on American policy.


Again, who is this "we" white man?
You can't even vote in this country.
When anti-gay adoption initiatives have been attempted in other states, they are habitually SHOT DOWN!
Even in states like Oklahoma!

You talk of "tolerance", when the truth is that you are desiring discrimination...

The root of the issue comes down to the GENDER of the parents.
If we had "two fathers" as opposed to a "mother and a father", would that cause problems?
Is there anything inherent to gender that a man could not take care of, if he were to replace a woman as the parent?
(Note, this is not the same question as if the number of active parents went from 2 to 1.)

You talk of "absence" issues and I agree. If a parent is absent, then that can cause problems.
However, that is an entirely separate issue then if the parent was of a different gender.

The issue of an "involved father" typically involves studies looking at single parenting versus dual parenting. Where the "father" being absent means there is ONLY ONE parent left.

To truly be comparative, we need to examine TWO parent house-holds versus TWO parent households.
And the research which actually did this repeatedly finds no detriment to the child if the parents happen to be of the same gender.

I certainly do have a lack of parenting experience.

However, I have read a large number of studies comparing children of gay couples to children of straight couples. Further, I have interacted many times with many children of gay couples. You can say, "I've raised a child in an opposite-sex couple, and I can imagine what it might be like for a same-sex couple", but really that's insight you get from raising a child yourself. I've actually seen the results of both sides, and I've studied the results.

But even if I had no experience at all with children of gay couples, my logic is perfectly reasonable. You cannot just brush it off by saying, "you're naive." I mean, your entire post is nothing but ad hominem: a logical fallacy.

So how can anyone expect to debate with you if this is your response? I mean, should I continue to expect this? I present a whole bunch of logic, and you simply call me names?

If you want to have a real debate, then go back and explain why you disagree with me first post. Use logic, reasoning, and evidence. If you're just going to call me names, then we shouldn't even bother trying to debate.

"To truly be comparative, we need to examine TWO parent house-holds versus TWO parent households."

As I pointed out before, if the two parent house-holds on one side tend to be mostly -- or all -- adoptive parents, that will scew things right away.

"And the research which actually did this repeatedly finds no detriment to the child if the parents happen to be of the same gender."

"No detrement to the child" is a pretty vauge term. Sounds like a fancy way of saying, "well, the kid didn't come out totally f*cked up and wanting to do things like become a crack head or climb a bell tower with a rifle..."


Again, I'm not trying to say gay couples can't raise perfectly happy children. Clearly, they can. But to say it, or any other alternative arragnement, is simply a straight-across, even trade for natural, biological parents -- well, I'm highly skeptical.

For one thing, you just can't say there's "no differences" between the genders. Men and women are profoundly different, generally speaking, in how they percieve things, react to things and communicate. Again, generally speaking, mothers bring things to the table fathers simply can't, and vise versa.

Finally, as I think I've posted somewhere before on these boards, when it comes to family structure, I'm really old-fashioned -- in the sense that I don't think an isolated couple, regardless of gender -- is the best way to raise children. A couple shouldn't have to bear all that responsibility and burden by themselves. I think a more "tribal" or "clan" structure is actually the most advantageous -- rather than dumping everything on an over-worked, over-stressed young or middle-aged couple.

In my neck of the woods, the groups of people sticking to a true extended family structure are Hispanics and Native American Indians. And I think their children might be better off -- in mental and spiritual terms -- than white children because of that.

Same-sex couples can have children through many methods: adoption, surrogate parenting, artificial insemination, godparenting, having a child from a previous relationship, etc.

As far as I am aware, studies on this subject have tended to compare opposite-sex couples with their own biological children to same-sex couples who have children from any of the above methods. These studies have all concluded that children of same-sex couples fare as well or maybe a little better than children of opposite-sex couples.

There are noticed differences between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by opposite-sex couples. However, these differences are not likely attributable to the sex of the parents and they are not negative.

For example, children of same-sex couples tend to be more tolerant toward others. This is probably not because having two male parents breeds tolerance, or something like that. Instead, it's probably because society is intolerant toward gay people. Thus, their children are raised with a first-hand view of being a victim of intolerance.

I disagree with this statement. While one might use stereotypes to say something like, "Women are more perceptive, and men are more rational," I say those traits are learned in our society, and not all men and women obey such stereotypes. This becomes even more important when understanding that gay people more often act differently than the traits commonly associated with their gender.

What this adds up to is: you can't count on opposite-sex parents having two different ways of viewing things, and you can't count on same-sex parents both having the same way of viewing things. (Not that having two different ways of viewing things is necessarily better at all).

I think you might be very correct about this.

But at the same time, I don't think our government should be advocating any one parenting method over another. Our government should give us the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for our children. And our government should let us raise our children in that fashion without being punished or denied special benefits.

No. "No detriment to the child" is a pretty all encompassing term.

Remember what you were talking about earlier with "absent fathers"? There have been studies on that. Studies which observed a SPECIFIC "detriment" to the child which was observed, documented, and studied.

But for gay couples adopting, these "detriments" are statistically no more prevalent than with straight couples.


I'm sorry, but I disagree.
What can a mother do that another man being a parent cannot?

I think you're too stuck on typical gender roles.
Father disciplinarian. Mother nurturing. etc, etc, etc...

Gay relationships have many of these dichotomies as well.