According to a recently released study, children from homes with single or coupled lesbian mothers do better academically and have fewer behavioral problems than children with heterosexual parents. This came as a surprise to the researchers who expected no differences.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

The issue is that in some states, gays or lesbians or even single straight people cannot adopt. The states that prevent this by law are states with strong Christian influence.

Considering the huge number of foster children in this country, it is a shame that the states are not more open to gay adoptions.

I don't have a problem with gays adopting kids, so good for them for being good parents!

I don't really care about lesbians adopting, can't be much worse than some parents here. However, studying 74 people or whatever low number it was isn't much of a study to me. And they didn't say who they compared them to. Also, I think two gay men adopting would be a lot weirder than two women.

Major flaw in the study that is quite apparent, typically lesbians don't have unplanned pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies.

A better comparison would be with children of couples who have planned pregnancies, particularly via in vitro. If you can afford $20 large for an in vitro procedure and are willing to spend it, you probably have a better ability to raise a kid properly.

let them have kids, thats ok with me
but these results are questionable from the get go
Manhattan point is well taken about the groups being compared, the results in this project seem to have been pre determined
interesting nanette gartrell and henny boz
oh did you know that Nanette Gartrell
" In 2008, she was named one of the Ten Most Powerful Lesbian Doctors by Curve magazine"
she is married to Dee Mossbacher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanette_Gartrell
Henny Boz, dutch lesbian and researcher
had in 2004 had already decided
"The desire to have children appears to be stronger in lesbian parents"
"Happiness is more important to lesbian mom than it is to heterosexual parents"
Lesbian moms were more concerned and emotionally involved with their childrens welfare, they wanted their children more than heterosexual fathers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9bc_2qEB2cUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=henny+bos&source=bl&ots=tYm1uBqLx5&sig=Vsma63QEP6hLfr8pWxSzZE-O-Vw&hl=en&ei=zykSTLmAEc7VngfNgqmRAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
in Boz's 2004 study she claims to get her heterosexual group she claims that all dutch heterosexual births were planned.

Have to agree with iclfan and manhattan. I don't really have issue with lesbians adopting, but this study seems to fall short of anything that should be taken seriously.

Do they breast feed? If so OK

That was a good one Belly.

But like everyone else has said, I don't have a problem with lesbians or gays adopting kids. Especially when you consider all of the foster children they could potentially help.

Manhattan's point is, by far, the most important in all this.

Teenage pregnancies have a strong link to poverty, and poverty is a major factor in households that have more problems, including kids getting into trouble.

So comparing those with births that are planned and include one or two parents that very likely can well afford to take care of their child isn't a valid study.

That said, I know a couple lesbian parents and they did an excellent job raising their two daughters. So that lesbians can be good parents is not a huge surprise to me -- and I would suspect that, generally, this is the case.

As for adoption laws preventing gays from being parents: they're stupid. So long as the parents pass the basic background checks given to everyone else, they should be allowed to adopt.

Manhattan Buckeye;386463 wrote:Major flaw in the study that is quite apparent, typically lesbians don't have unplanned pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies.

A better comparison would be with children of couples who have planned pregnancies, particularly via in vitro. If you can afford $20 large for an in vitro procedure and are willing to spend it, you probably have a better ability to raise a kid properly.

That's a fantastic point there MB, well done. By definition, parents in these situations HAVE to had planned in advance, thus increasing the chance of being responsible, loving parents.

The issue here isn't whether gay/lesbian people can be involved, interested, and loving caretakers of children. No doubt they can and are. The question is: what is the ideal situation for children to be raised in? By definition, gay parents omit a mother or father. While many heterosexual people have damaged many kids through divorce and dysfunction, the ideal reamains. No one has proved, or will prove, that there is a better arrangement than a father in love with and married to a mother where they raise their children with love and discipline in a stable home.

Pariah;387591 wrote:The issue here isn't whether gay/lesbian people can be involved, interested, and loving caretakers of children. No doubt they can and are. The question is: what is the ideal situation for children to be raised in? By definition, gay parents omit a mother or father. While many heterosexual people have damaged many kids through divorce and dysfunction, the ideal reamains. No one has proved, or will prove, that there is a better arrangement than a father in love with and married to a mother where they raise their children with love and discipline in a stable home.

So unless people are in what you call the "ideal situation" they shouldn't be able to adopt? It's not like we have a shortage of kids out there.

Pariah;387591 wrote:No one has proved, or will prove, that there is a better arrangement than a father in love with and married to a mother where they raise their children with love and discipline in a stable home.

Nor has (or will) anyone prove that other family configurations aren't equally good arrangements. See how that works?

Both of you missed the point. As to qcb's point, the nuclear family has all of recorded history to rely on. It is the method that has delivered us to this point. Any other arrangements are theoretical in terms of applying them to large sections of society. Take a look at any social situations where the nuclear family I described does not exist in high numbers and note the social ills that result. It doesn't mean that untraditional families can't raise a good kid, but there is plenty of social science research that supports what the ideal is - what has worked and will work for the most people. And I understand, if you are on the other side of this debate, that pesky ideal has to be done away with - which is why I said it is the real issue - which is also why there was no substantive refutation that the traditional nuclear family is that ideal. See how that works?

Pariah;387661 wrote:Both of you missed the point. As to qcb's point, the nuclear family has all of recorded history to rely on. It is the method that has delivered us to this point. Any other arrangements are theoretical in terms of applying them to large sections of society. Take a look at any social situations where the nuclear family I described does not exist in high numbers and note the social ills that result. It doesn't mean that untraditional families can't raise a good kid, but there is plenty of social science research that supports what the ideal is - what has worked and will work for the most people. And I understand, if you are on the other side of this debate, that pesky ideal has to be done away with - which is why I said it is the real issue - which is also why there was no substantive refutation that the traditional nuclear family is that ideal. See how that works?

In the scope of history, the notion of the nuclear family and monogamy are relatively new phenomenons.

I know two people that were raised my their mom and her partner, and both turned out better than plenty of other lowers I've met.

My dad died when I was ten and I was raise my mom and three sisters....so that's a lot of estrogen too haha

I really don't have a big problem with it.

where is it most dangerous for children, most likely to become fatalities

"Frequently, the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s, without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence firsthand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caregivers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm#perps

You have all brought up some interesting points.

My reason for bringing this issue up in the first place was because I like to share good news about the gay world. We get knocked pretty hard, especially by people who tell lies about us. It makes me feel good to see some good information out there.

I have doubts about the particular study you cited for the reasons listed above but I think children are better off in homes straight or gay where they are wanted, the partners are stable, and have the resources to provide for them.

Pariah;387661 wrote:Both of you missed the point. As to qcb's point, the nuclear family has all of recorded history to rely on. It is the method that has delivered us to this point.

Not true. Various societies have had little or no such concept as a nuclear family. Others have worked where the parents don't have any more involvement in the raising of a child than that society at large.

See how that works?

Yeah, you make shit up to support your opinion.

I doubt few kids growing up in AMERICA dream of being raised by a single parent, or two dads or two mommies. That doesn't mean those households are inferior, and certainly not incompetent...and broken families are a part of life. We're a diverse group in this country, you have people like me who was raised by parents that just celebrated their 45th anniversary, and you have folks like my wife who has a gay father, has a mother that has divorced twice (one divorce with the gay father....duh) and has been married to my stepfather-in-law for about 25 years with a half sister we treat as a daughter. I don't think my wife has been permanently scarred by her family situation vis a vis mine - but on the other hand she wouldn't wish her experiences on anyone and at times gets very upset about her father and his inability to really connect with her...that is a lot of stress for a young person to handle. And it isn't anyone's fault. It just happens.

Adoption however, is controllable and there is no shortage of willing and able couples that can provide a strong male and female role model and parental figure. It is a complex issue, and although there are kids that languish in foster care, IMO that goes beyond any sort of sexual orientation issue with potential adoptive parents, but rather with educational matters and how people can deal with children with severe behavioral and developmental issues and in extreme cases independence questions - my brother adopted a child that most likely will never be able to live on her own, sexual orientation of the parents shouldn't even enter the picture...the child isn't cognizant of the situation. Fly4Fun is correct in that there isn't a shortage of children that need homes, but in virtually every case those children need special help from adoptive parents. The market for a healthy child - well, there is a reason why Russian/Chinese adoptions are so popular and fertility clinics are a big business. There isn't a shortage of willing and capable couples.

The subject really hits home for us, our best friends had 4 failed in vitro attempts and took 2 1/2 years to adopt, my wife and I failed twice in vitro and just heard that the third attempt will likely be successful (with twins!) but there still is a higher than normal chance of miscarriage. The process isn't easy, in terms of expense and stress. The two worst days of my life were when my wife told me the in vitro didn't work. I don't have anything against gays or lesbians or single parents, but if anyone wants to discuss wanting something.....I can assure you there are plenty of good male and female couples that want this more than anything.

MB, good luck and God bless!

Manhattan Buckeye;388011 wrote:The subject really hits home for us, our best friends had 4 failed in vitro attempts and took 2 1/2 years to adopt, my wife and I failed twice in vitro and just heard that the third attempt will likely be successful (with twins!) but there still is a higher than normal chance of miscarriage. The process isn't easy, in terms of expense and stress. The two worst days of my life were when my wife told me the in vitro didn't work.

Congrats/good luck! Mrs. FFT is also pregnant and due in about a month here (July 13). We went through the ordeal of an ectopic pregnancy/miscarriage last year, which is a tough thing to go through, but we're very excited that things seem to have worked this time around.

Re the topic, we have very good friends who are a gay couple in the process of adopting. They're quality guys, good jobs (engineer and a lawyer), smart, friendly, religious, etc. They actually asked Mrs. FFT if she'd surrogate for them, but we declined. Gay adoptions are an interesting thing, and we're generally on the fence about it. I think the gay/not gay thing is less of an issue than alcoholic/abusive vs not acoholic/not abusive.

FairwoodKing;387916 wrote:You have all brought up some interesting points.

My reason for bringing this issue up in the first place was because I like to share good news about the gay world. We get knocked pretty hard, especially by people who tell lies about us. It makes me feel good to see some good information out there.

No offense FWK, but if you only wanted to "share good news" you wouldn't have brought up "Christian influenced states" in your OP. You always tend to degrade Christianity on every single thread regarding homosexuality.

On topic I agree with most on this thread, the study was extremely flawed/biased. I don't know if lesbians are better or worse parents, but I also agree with most that a home that actually wanted/meant to have kids with 2 loving parents will always tend to have "better" kids (on average) than unwanted pregnancies or single parents.

They also give good back rubs and really know how to please a woman.