Why Gay Parents May Be The Best Parents

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1326812729' post='2370473']
It doesn't change that there are ALSO statistics that show that it's ideal for kids to grow up in a two parent, heterosexual, committed to their marriage, household.
[/quote]

wheres?!

[missionseeker]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=3]"A recent study seems to confirm long held assumptions that heterosexuals are more easily able to reproduce than homosexuals."[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][size=3]I found it interesting that homosexual couples "rarely" had accidental pregnancies, meaning occasionally they DO? lol. [/size][/font][/color]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326826022' post='2370547']
wheres?!
[/quote]

Somewhere.

BUT

Wikipedia tells us that no actual credible research has been done comparing homosexual parents in a stable relationship to heterosexual parents in a stable relationship.

[quote]According to a 2001 review of 21 studies by Stacey and Biblarz published in [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sociological_Review"]American Sociological Review[/url][/i]: "[R]esearchers lack reliable data on the number and location of lesbi-gay parents with children in the general population, there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of such families. Most studies rely on small-scale, snowball and convenience samples drawn primarily from personal and community networks or agencies. Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature, and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states."[/quote]

[quote]According to the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Social_Workers"]National Association of Social Workers[/url] and National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter, [b]it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons when comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting[/b]. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally finds that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies cited do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, [b]and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders[/b].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-S14799-40"][41][/url][/sup] According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, "It is scientifically untenable to use studies about the effects on children of divorce or being raised in one parent households, to draw conclusions about the children raised in two parents households whether the parents are same or opposite-sex gender."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#cite_note-aapmch-41"][42][/url][/sup][/quote]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Misrepresentation_of_research

The thing is, the only substantial research that has been done is by comparing 2 parent, heterosexual, stable couples to single parent or divorced couples, and it's obvious that the kids do better. But there's just not enough research done to compare stable homosexual parenting to stable heterosexual parenting.

[BG45]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326823224' post='2370531']
in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews.
[/quote]

More like, for me at least, an abiding knowledge that what is correct data wise is not always published because it is no politically correct. I've seen a lot of stuff that flies in the face of "common knowledge", including critiques of certain groups statistics that show them to be literally impossible to be real; no one will publish such things though, because they don't wish to go against the politically correct groups and the groups that have money.

An example. One researcher I know did a series of studies that showed there is no significant correlation between restrictive underage drinking laws and traffic accidents. Methodology is sound, every journal he submitted to agreed. However, all wanted him to change the wording of his conclusions so that it would still mostly support the party line, and to cherry pick what statistics were used to be more supportive of the party line.

Another was turned down by some journals for saying that the best fathers in her study were not the ones who were visited in prison by their children, but the ones who kept their kids from visiting because they didn't want them exposed to such an awful environment. I think she eventually got it published and became decently successful in the field, despite it flying in the face of what everyone "knows to be true".

This sort of stuff happens all the time. That's part of why I say I want the raw data and to run it myself before I trust statistics that could have been pulled out of thin air. Especially if there's a chance they've made their own construct and named it what they want; a Factor Analysis, which could have been run on all the variables that were collected, could have determined there was an underlying construct to some of the questions. You can sieze on that and name it whatever you want, as long as you make an argument for why the name works.

We like to call those "fishing expeditions", "the kitchen sink", and "voodoo science". Not Factor Analyses, but just tossing everything (and the kitchen sink ) into a factor analysis, figuring out what holds together, and then doing the rest of the research process from that point on. It's not that I only distrust this study's data, I tend to distrust every study now to an extent, because I know just how easy it is to bull-poopy one.

[brianthephysicist]

83% of all statistics are made up. Including this one.

Edited January 17, 2012 by brianthephysicist

[sixpence]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326823224' post='2370531']
in this thread:

People who wont accept a study because the result doesnt conform with their worldview [b]AND/OR have some ability to determine when a study is poorly designed [/b]complaining about doctors that they assume wont accept results that dont conform with their worldviews [b]as seen on their website banner[/b].
[/quote]

that being said, occasionally people post not-so-well-designed studies on PM that support the Church's stance on whatever it is and there are usually fewer complaints

[fides' Jack]

Also, the study implies a theme of normality, as in, "these kids are just fine or are more normal than other kids."

What is normal? If it's defined by societal standards, then it doesn't count, anyway. Instead of telling me that they're better, tell me [i]how[/i] they're better. Then I can argue with something. What makes them more mentally stable?

[Papist]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Have you not heard of [color=#000000]Diederik Stapel?[/color][/font][/size]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326837991' post='2370637']
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Have you not heard of [color=#000000]Diederik Stapel?[/color][/font]
[/quote]
I've heard of Stapel. What's the connection here? Just curious.

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326838715' post='2370639']
I've heard of Stapel. What's the connection here? Just curious.
[/quote]



That researchers can produce whatever they want regardless of the data...just as long as the results tells what peers want to hear.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326839498' post='2370646']
That researchers can produce whatever they want regardless of the data...just as long as the results tells what peers want to hear.
[/quote]
Stapel's behavior was not tolerated and the guy is completely discredited and facing criminal prosecution. Sure, a scientist can theoretically be dishonest and make something up, but this is about as far as you can get from the general ethos of scientific research. I still don't quite get your point. Is there an actual connection with the research pertinent to this thread?

Edited January 17, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1326837168' post='2370628']
Also, the study implies a theme of normality, as in, "these kids are just fine or are more normal than other kids."

What is normal? If it's defined by societal standards, then it doesn't count, anyway. Instead of telling me that they're better, tell me [i]how[/i] they're better. Then I can argue with something. What makes them more mentally stable?
[/quote]

I believe in another thread about the gays, or one the derailed into homosexuality, someone talked about how one criterion of a mental illness/disorder is that it inhibits one's ability to function. Some were saying that there was a little colluding among lobbyists/political groups and the APA to get homosexuality off the list of disorders, while Jaime (I think) said that since being a homosexual in today's culture no longer is as inhibitive in terms of functioning as it was, that it cannot be rightly diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder in general.

That thread also mentioned that psychology is a soft science and the standards change along with the culture. That's the issue with being "normal" if you live in a screwed up place normal can be pretty wrong, but the majority sets the standard of behavior. Watching porn and masturbation are ubiquitous ills of our present culture, and championed by "progressives." And while we as Catholics know that behavior is abhorrent, it's commonplace and therefore: normal.

That was a bit of a tangent, but I hope I helped answer your question, or shown how it's not really aquestion that can be answered by psychology alone. Sorries.

[BG45]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1326835329' post='2370609']
that being said, occasionally people post not-so-well-designed studies on PM that support the Church's stance on whatever it is and there are usually fewer complaints
[/quote]

I haz a sad I can only prop once.

[Ice_nine]

I guess the reason I posted this, which I only realized in retrospect, is how can we Catholics defend the faith without sounding like callous arse portals? This does not appear to be a rigorous study. Well, at least the article itself didn't provide any hard data, but with some research maybe someone could if they had the time. And even if there was substantial data the article itself seems to revel in its own inconsistency "The report didn't compare the adoption preferences of gay couples directly with those of heterosexual couples . . . But research suggests that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to adopt older, special-needs and minority children."

More likely than whom? The heterosexual couples that you didn't compare them to?

But how do you respond to someone saying "so you'd rather have a kid raised by heterosexual crack addicts than a loving and committed gay couple?" without raging at the absurdity of the question, sounding like an arse portal, and getting your point across without people getting all self-righteous (which they will most-likely accuse you of being)?

[LilyLou]

I don't agree with the premise of the study for many of the previously mentioned reasons. It compares adoption by gay parents (a process that almost ensures that the couple want the child) to a whole slew of situations that result in heterosexual parenting. This isn't to say that all heterosexual parents don't want their children we all know that's not true. Though I agree that it would be more interesting to look at gay adoptive parents alongside heterosexual adoptive parents. They went through similar processes. BUT how many stories have we heard of wonderful parents who raise children who don't turn out the way we would expect them to. Does this success rate make them "bad parents?" No, IMO. Raising children can be hard for even the most devout parents and there isn't a guidebook. To say they are "better" parents is completely subjective.