It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gate13
reply to post by kaylaluv
even poor kids know whats right and wrong and will not be confused from having two dads or two mums.
Originally posted by gate13
The day two gay people can have sex together and pop out a baby 9 months later will be the day i also turn gay and believe that two gay parents are just as good as MUM(female) and DAD(male).
if god or evolution or whatever intended two of the same sex to be able to have a child or raise a child then it would have been the case but its not.
i would love to see two gay males breast feed a chile that would be amazing.
Talk about confusing a poor child.
it is not right and it should not be happening.
Originally posted by wiser3
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
If people like you would quit "stigmatizing" homosexuals then the whole issue of the child feeling victimised etc would NOT EXIST!
Thats what you people don't get, YOU create the hate that is the root cause of the stress etc that the child is going through and then you blame the gays for the existence of the hate that you created and are perpetuating!
Originally posted by bokonon2010
D'oh! Sounds like novel scientific hypothesis?
Since there is enough studies on the well-being of children coming from more affluent homes vs. poor homes, it is very likely that the deficiencies on the Lesbian couple's kids are higher in a more balanced demographic--which sucks for women having kids without a man.
Problems with the APA-cited studies were their tiny size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and a failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide.
No, not penis and vagina, but Testosterone-induced brain functions and Estrogen-induced brain functions. There is a huge difference in the way men think, and the way women think. For the overwhelming majority, even in gay couples, the women have a woman's brain and the men have a man's brain (maybe a bit modified). For instance, you have 2 women raising a boy, and they are not fully nuanced about how visual men usually are, they won't be able to tell the boy he is normal for being automatically turned on by jiggling womenflesh, and that this does not automatically make him a pervert, nor does he have to follow down the pervert's path in life. They likely don't have the personal experience to relate this to him. It can be alienating. This doesn't mean it's an automatic deal-breaker for same-sex parenting, but to deny that something that makes a penis a penis or a vagina a vagina as being important? That's off.
I forget how how a child needs penis and a vagina in its life, makes a huge difference eh?
Well, are they? I know of 1 study that shows if a father's not putting at least 70% of his income towards raising his child, that child is likely to have a worse future. Those who are in and out of prison don't have the luxury of 70% income, for one. Drug users are more likely to use 70% of their income on drugs. The only thing that makes it worse is that giving them over to the foster system doesn't always increase their chances.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
By your logic, prostitutes, drug abusers, people who are in and out of prison all the time are also selfish for reproducing and letting there children inherit their social stigma. Glad we cleared that up.
I did, in college. And to this day, some of the stuff still resonates with me...but I was never just one thing, so I had options.
No one would willingly submit themselves to the stigma you know so well.
While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.
In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?
Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and law. Ever since same-sex marriage started to become a reality in the U.S., conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute, which helped fund the Regnerus study, have cited research that — it's claimed — shows that gay parenting is a bad idea. In 2003, Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of NOM, wrote in the Weekly Standard of "a consensus across ideological lines based on 20 years' worth of social science research" that children do better with a married mother and father. Writing in The Times in 2004, Pepperdine University professor Douglas Kmiec claimed that children who grow up in gay households "are more likely to be confused sexually" and to "face a heightened chance of being the victim of sexual abuse." Citing such research, opponents of same-sex marriage have settled on the talking point that "children need a mother and a father" to thrive.
The trouble is that no scholarly research, including the Regnerus paper, has ever compared children of stable same-sex couples to children of stable different-sex couples, in part because an adequate sample size is hard to come by. (Regnerus acknowledges he was unable to find an adequate sample size, but he went ahead and made the comparison anyway.) Like the Regnerus paper, all these studies show is that divorce and single-parenthood raise risks for kids. Indeed, the basis of the 20-year "consensus" is that two parents are better than one, not that parents have to be different genders.
I agree. I just think that maybe a list of pros and cons should be looked at? There's very little chance at an "oops" in a homosexual lifestyle. This means that they can weigh the pros and cons long before the stork arrives. It's when they don't, just because they have the right, that I'm bothered by it. Heck, I wish more heteros would do this.
Originally posted by Daughter2
Even if she isn't you can't say who can and can't be a parent.
Each situation is different and people should be able to choose what's best for them in THEIR life.
No, you control sheep by leading in front of them. You get behind cattle and drive them. Herding cats winds up coming from the middle--and is bloody.
Originally posted by nakiel
-One cannot control a flock of sheep from within!
Originally posted by deepankarm
I find it sad that western society has come to this.
Is it because most of you didn't had a stable natural family, i wonder.
You don't know the distinctions of a mother and father and judging by the comments made by ladies here, they also are ignorant of motherhood.
Years of feminism and sexual gratifying has led you into spiritual blindness.
You don't see any matrialistic,biological,spiritual difference between a mother and father??? how apalling.
edit on 12-6-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
No we do see it, we just dont see things the way YOU want us to see it.
Times have changed, you either move with it or get left behind, simple really.
Originally posted by gate13
The day two gay people can have sex together and pop out a baby 9 months later will be the day i also turn gay and believe that two gay parents are just as good as MUM(female) and DAD(male).
if god or evolution or whatever intended two of the same sex to be able to have a child or raise a child then it would have been the case but its not.
i would love to see two gay males breast feed a chile that would be amazing.
Talk about confusing a poor child.
it is not right and it should not be happening.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
People are people, anyone can raise a successful family regardless of their orientation.
edit on 12-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
www.baylorisr.org...
[S]ociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president-elect of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”
I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.
Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.
Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.
Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
I'm glad we have these studies to tell us these things.
Because they aren't easily apparent by walking around with ones eyes open.
But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.