No doubt. I agree VinnieNY. This article is tainted with BS. Yet another feeble attempt to try to convince the American public of something that is unnatural and wrong, is right, and should be accepted by all.

How about the part that says, "lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher..."

Well, I think my 6-year-old should get a scholarship to MIT, too, and I'm objective.

So you (## 1, 1.1, 1.2)think there are flaws in the study. OK, what are they? Are there competing studies that show differently? It looks like your problem with the study is that it was spearheaded by people with a vested interest in the outcome. OK, that's a signal to review the data closely and verify the methodology. But until you DO those things, your criticism is nothing more than speculation.

Ugghhhh...... how else should I feel MSNBC? Nice try, feelings unchanged. Next.

University of Cal at San Francisco. Does anyone expect a different result? That's like the Family Research Council doing a study on abortion and concluding that abortion is bad.

Kids of lesbian guardians or parents do well in Women Studies 101 classes.

And you know this for a fact.

Lori,

But no so well in play-on-word contests or sarcasm cognition. You are the proof.

A report funded by gay and lesbian groups. Yea, no bias there at all...

This article is tainted with BS. Yet another feeble attempt to try to convince the American public of something that is unnatural and wrong, is right, and should be accepted by all.

Once again, the homophobes are making claims without a single shred of evidence to back them up. Why am I not surprised?

"The things we know that make for good parenting are love, resources and being very involved in your child's life."

This is the foundation for raising a successful child. Whether its a mom and dad, a single mom or dad-gay or not, two gay moms or two gay dads, a dad a stepmom and a mom, a mom and stepdad, etc., etc., etc. Why is this such a difficult concept for you people? It should be a no brainer (meaning even most of you should be able to understand)!

I know several lesbians with children, including one who has taken custody of her sister's mixed race children plus several from her partner's earlier relationship. Her little girls are lovely, vibrant, joyful children who will grow up in a better world than we did. I am the product of a single mom and as an adult male I can see in my own psyche where the lack of a father figure has influenced my sense of masculinity. It does not make a lesser man and the children of gay couples are not being denied anything precious. Quite the opposite, as the article mentioned at the end, when a couple CHOOSES a child, either through natural methods or adoption, those children will grow up knowing they were wanted. That is what is precious, and when I met the right woman someday that is how I will see my entry into fatherhood.

A few flaws in the study:

-If there were any psychological deficiencies, it's much too soon to tell. Such things may not manifest themselves until early adulthood or beyond.

-Obvious sampling bias. The mothers of these children were asked to complete a survey regarding their own kids.

There is hardly anything scientific about this study at all.

But there isn't any solid evidence that homosexual parenting is any worse or better than its conventional counterpart, according to Gartrell, who is in a same-sex partnership.

I was thinking there was a connection when I began reading the article, then I read the above...right, no bias whatsoever!

Billy,

There is hardly anything scientific about this study at all.

Yea, but I'll bet they received a boat load of our tax dollars to perform the study...

It's a study, it will undergo peer review, more studies will follow.

You can pick apart anything.

From my experience the study is indeed correct. I'm a family therapist that has worked with hundred of gay/lesbian families. On the whole, in my opinion, they are better adjusted than mother/father families.

Vinnie..Where do you see any facts to back your assumption that any money for the study came from pro-gay advocacy groups?

It's funny. I just read a similar study funded by the Taliban and it concluded they should all be put to death.

No matter how you look at it , It is still a SIN.

OOPS ,I forgot today there is no such word as SIN.

If it feels good do it.

I don't care what kind of study or who did it, IT IS A SIN.

Put Gays on an Island some where and in time there will not be any more , that is because it wasn't suppose to be that way. But that is like PISSSSSS in the wind. falls on Deaf Ears.

This is America John, your concept of 'sin' has no bearing on other's lives. You can sit in your own dark little mind and judge others all you want though. See where it gets you.

John...your grasp of the absurd is amazing.
Even if you were to remove all existing gay folk from the planet, the next day you would have replacements. Why? Because, John, the children of the heterosexual community ARE THE GAY FOLK.

SIN is the response of a diseased mind that is incapable of accepting the banality of one's own insecurities and insignificance. You may find that modern, secular societies' abandonment of such mental filth to be profane. Which is, to be honest, how many of us on this side view your beliefs. If being gay is truly an affront to the anthropomorphic universe creator, why are they such lovely and vibrant people?

I have observed same sex couples raising children. The children are healthy and happy. The bias against gay and lesbian couples come from the public not having the benefit of being "friends" close enough to observe the gay lifestyle.

When a woman can "choose" when to have a child society is better off. Forcing women to be mother's out of guilt and pro life laws is not in the best interest of society.

Hello John, I don't believe we've met. I am curious...can you please show me in the Bible where it says long-term monogomous, same-sex relationships (with or without the joy of children) are a sin? Chapter and verse, please. Also, please show me anywhere that Jesus speaks directly of this.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to back up your claim. So many will just spew hate without evidence.

I stopped reading after I got to "San Francisco,"

So you don't want to refute with any proof.

What facts do you have to back up your irrational assumption, proamerica?

Proof? Since when do fanatics use proof?

It's hard to ask for proof when the study was concoted by an extremist in the most liberal city of them all...and only 77 couples since 1986? how many americans are there, 300 million? i'm going to take what 154 people do with their lives as proof?

Have any evidence to refute anything from the article?

"..Have any evidence to refute anything from the article?..."

Proof? How about using deductive reasoning? Or at least, a link to the entire report, with footnotes? An amended 21st century version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Deductive reasoning isn't proof, it's a tool to examine proof.

You want a link to the entire report? So you haven't read it? And you're dismissing it outright?

How.....scientific of you.

I wonder how their numbers would compare to an intact Male/Female MARRIAGE.

Bass1952: Of course they do - the article doesn't say otherwise. It simply says that according to this study, children of lesbian couples do just as well as those from two parent heterosexual homes.

I'd be willing to bet the kids of MM or FF parents rate at about the same level as kids of older parents, and for the exact same reason. Neither group necessarily thought they'd able to have children and did the absolute best they could. It's sad to say that some "conventional" parents take parenthood for granted...

Summer, the article does say otherwise: "... lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father."

So the conclusion of this paragraph is; lesbian parents = good, straight parents = bad.

So the conclusion of this paragraph is; lesbian parents = good, straight parents = bad.

No, that is not the conclusion. There will be enough homophobes here, no need to enflame them.

Allen you have clearly misread this article. The word "lower" is an arbitrary qualifier that in no way says "straight parents = bad".

There will be just as many HETROPHOBES and we would'nt to inflame them either now would we!!

That's exactly the conclusion. If group A is higher in social and academic skills and group B demonstrates rule breaking and aggression, how would you characterize the influences that shaped each group?

Heterophobes? Hmmm, that's a new one.

That's exactly the conclusion.

Allen you're making a jump in the thought process that simply doesn't exist. You can have that opinion if you like, but there's nothing in the article to support it.

What a crock of BS! You can make a survey prove any agenda you want by the way the questions are asked. This article was obviously written by a gay person trying to sell their agenda!

Ya..Thats obvious..(looks for eye rolling button)

"The researchers interviewed the lesbian mothers about their kids and then rated the teenagers on the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized assessment that has been used for decades."

I'm gay and even i know that this study is a bunch of crap....of course lesbians are going to rate their kids better overall....they have something thing to prove in a society that sees their behavior as questionable, where heterosexual parents will see their children objectively, because they are not seeking social acceptance of their sexuality....there is no way anyone can take this bit of non-science as anything but political crap....since none of the children were actually assessed by a psychologist, the researchers cannot validate the conclusion they are making...thus this research is bogus.....it only proves that lesbians are more inclined to rate their children better than heterosexuals, but there is no way to exactly determine why that is...or if their children are actually rated better by objective non biased outside observers.

So, who are they supposed to ask?

How about the part that says, "lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher..."

I think my 6-year-old should get a scholarship to MIT, too, and I'm objective.

Having been beaten on multiple occasions by redneck "hetero-sexuals", merely because I am transgendered...

you're damn right I'm a hetero-phobe.

When haters stop violence (never) then perhaps we could live in confidence and without fear (never)....

they are supposed to "directly" assess the children themselves, and then speak to outside observers like school teachers and councilors and peers...they are supposed to control for social bias....relying on the opinions of parents has never been regarded as a methodological sound way to determine the psychological state of children because it is a well know fact that most parents are clueless about how well their children are actually doing,..well over 50 percent don't even believe their children have sex or use drugs or have eating disorders, the very vast majority don't know if their child is being abused or bullied or whether they've been molested or not.....but of course those who are desperate to prove something will glom onto this study as proof that lesbians make good parents....but unfortunately whether or not that is true ...this study does nothing in the way of proving it.

The child behavior checklist controls for rater variability. So differences in ratings are due to true group differences. They did not say if the results were statistically significant.

The study will be peer reviewed and other studies will be done.

From my experience as a family therapist, I would agree with the study.

At first, I kind of reached the same conclusion that Allen did about the study (that the study concludes that lesbian parents were somehow better than straight parents, because that's how the information was presented)...and then I re-read the article.

I absolutely have to agree with OK: this study is a bunch of crap. If they wanted to do a real study...why are they just surveying the parents? Include in your study some data that's less subjective, such as school records (getting permission from the study participants of course) and other type documentation such as interviews from outside parties. OK is right on the money. People slam religious groups studies for using just this type of "opinion" information as a basis for their conclusions. This is fine if you just want to get the feel for people's opinions and personal expericene studies, but really, if you want your conclusions to be taken seriously, you really have to produce some hard data.

Lesbian couples report the highest rate of physical assault within any of the varied committed relationship groups. No one has done a study that has assessed what effect the high level of conflict and assault in lesbian couples has on children that they are raising. Maybe it is time to fund a study that does more than just attempt to legitimize this self-reported & politically laden drivel.

And straight women have the highest death rate at the hands of their heterosexual husbands.

So what's your point?

Lesbian couples report the highest rate of physical assault within any of the varied committed relationship groups.

Michael, that is a new one to me, and I've worked with domestic abuse shelters. Stats? Links?

I'll admit, I've been on a few calls for same sex violence, but the cases are overwhelmingly male on female abuse.

"I'll admit, I've been on a few calls for same sex violence, but the cases are overwhelmingly male on female abuse"

that because 90 percent of the population are overwhelmingly heterosexual....only half of the remaining homosexual population are lesbiens....around 5 percent...thats if we believe that 10 percent of the population is gay....some studies put it as high as 30 percent....but the most credible research puts the number of homosexuals in the population at well under 10 percent,...not only that,.. but its also possible that homosexual couples who do experience domestic violence maybe less inclined to report it because of fear that nothing will be done by law enforcement, because of perceived homophobic bias.

The stats regarding the exceptionally high frequency of assault in lesbian relationships came out in a study of domestic violence in California in the early 1980s. I don't have a copy of the study but the rate of woman on woman violence was 3-5 times that seen in heterosexual relationships. The study also provided insight into what became know as "gay rage" - violence in male homosexual relationships that is fueled by anabolic steroids and drugs like methamphetamines. Another interesting factoid that came out of the study was that women in a heterosexual relationship are 3-5 times more likely to assault their partner. The data was derived from an extensive review of California emergency room records.

The study obviously left out the most important question - Are these children more likely to be homosexuals than the general population.

Probably not but they will be severely damaged from the socialization and relationship modeling they were exposed to throughout their childhood.

Uh, no Michael Bishop. Good parents will not raise severely damaged children unless other people around them torment them for having homosexual parents. If that is the case, then the blame lies with the bigoted bullies and the rest of society for refusing to accept homosexuality and is not the fault of the parents.

artistfloor9 Too bad you cannot be more objective and provide relevant information that will add to the discussion. The discussion has been about the lack of integrity the authors have demonstrated in publishing this garbage and if the high level of violence in Lesbian relationships is good modeling for children. You are using the same old drumbeat (that of the perennial victim) we have heard for decades to discount any opinions you do not like and it gets you no where.

Really? A study done on the psychological well-being of children growing up in lesbian households and that's the most important question- whether or not the children are homosexual? I really hope you're trolling, I honestly can't tell on this site.

Anyway.

I'm all for homosexual rights and everything, but I really wish some other group did it who wasn't affiliated with LGBT rights. I wonder what people would complain about then....

Oh okay Michael Bishop. Because there have been cases of lesbian couples who are violent, that means that lesbian couples in general are not good models for children!

Oh wait, there have also been cases of heterosexual couples who are violent, so I guess that means that heterosexual couples in general are not good models for children either! In fact, even moreso since there are many more cases of heterosexual violence since there are many more heterosexual couples in the world!

Your logic is astounding and your opinion deserves to be discounted because it's baseless. Please continue to try to disguise your bigotry under the thin veil of "research."

but the man, father have to be there to make the impression, not off impregnating another female.

Absolutely Bass 1952 and another thing; what about conducting a test in an area of the US where same sex parenting may not be tolerated? Did some ot these kids suffer anykind of backlash from their peers? I.e., bullying, taunting, etc.? These sort of surveys are often squewed and usually withhold other evidence to the contrary. It maybe tolerated in some parts of the country, but not all. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Mom or Mr. and Mrs. Dad would bode too well.

Backlash from peers is not the fault of the homosexual parents. It is the result of a stupid and bigoted society where some so-called "parents" instill hatred of all things different into their children.

If children bully another kid for having one black and one white parent, does that mean it's evident that interracial couples make bad parents? No. The only thing that is evident that they live in a racist community.

fathershipism????

Gender roles in the last 20 years are blurring, even among children of heterosexual parents. How many dads stay home to care for their kids now vs. 1970's? A lot of women are the major wage earners in their families now.

Sounds good to me Jane. I would cherish being a house-husband. Unfortunately ...

I am a transsexual woman. I have raised three perfectly normal; open minded and passifist children. Two of whom have wonderful children of their own. All are well raised, well rounded and respect me at the highest level.

So THERE!

You Go Gabbie!

"fathershipism"

Is that a Palinism?

Hey Gamma, what parent (straight or homosexual) would broadcast information regarding their children that was contrary to what you said. Even if your children were a total terror, why would you post it? Your statement is meaningless regarding the arguments presented here.

First off, I'm transsexual... if you don't know the difference.. then shut up and research.

Second off... as a parent, yes; I put my kids on a pedestal... but I won't hesitate to tell them *(or others) if they are screwing up.

For example... YOU'RE prejudice has YOU all screwed up inside.. take a break and learn to love your fellow humans.

Classy response. Yes, I know the difference. What prejudice? I never said I don't love my fellow humans, you derived that from pure conjecture. My point is that people will always paint a positive light on those they are biased toward, such as the researchers in the article. Humans are inherently flawed, and data like in this article and in your statement cannot be taken as definitive proof of anything. Try to understand this from a mature perspective without the rash generalizations and baseless insults; it makes you look juvenile.

Juvenile? Now who's throwing insults. I admit I "read more" into your posts than what was said; however, HONEST people don't mind admitting their childrens' faults.. nor do they mind admitting their own. (Much like I am willing to admit when I made a mistake in my interpretations).

While I realize there are few HONEST people left, to just toss aside a perfectly good example as "trivial" would naturally be read as bigoted...

I stand corrected. And I ADMIT it.

I know somebody who has a mother (hasnt seen her for six years though), bisexual father, and gay stepfather, and everything works out for them pretty damn well. The friend is a straight-A student and is going to Westpoint even, gonna be an Infantry CO and volunteer for Afghanistan, and then become a teacher (most likely kindergarden)

So, yeah, clearly gay parents make them horrible people with the intention to end all humanity

It goes against their main argument of homosexuals raising kids. As long as it damages kids then it gives them ammo to fight with. They may claim this is a fluff or bias but I havn't seen any proof otherwise. Loving and caring families make happy children. It doesn't matter if it is a man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man.

I assure you it will get easier for homosexuals as todays kids grow up and the homophobes die off. Most kids don't care at all about gay or straight unless they have homophobe parents passing on the hate.

The report is BS. I have a lot of experience dealing with a Lesbian mother and can tell you that the people who think it is no big deal are the lesbian parents and friends. They have no idea or can even begin to understand what their kids will/are going through, nor can they understand how they think or feel about it.

The kids don't want to talk about it at all let alone answer a survey about it. All they will regurgitate is all they've ever heard from their "parents' about how it's no big deal and how "normal" and wonderful everything is. You people go ahead and keep your heads up your asses thinking everything is just fine.

I really don't care about what people do or who their partners are. I do have an issue with the fact that these people want everyone to think that having gay parents is a normal way of life to a child. It isn't and comes with a lot of extra stress, peer pressures, and situations that the parents never even hear about.

"They have no idea or can even begin to understand what their kids will/are going through, nor can they understand how they think or feel about it."

"It isn't [normal] and comes with a lot of extra stress, peer pressures, and situations that the parents never even hear about."

Care to elaborate?

I don't think the article is trying to make us believe that all situations are going to perfect for the children of lesbian couples. It clearly states that the pressures from outside of the partnership are real and intense and have adverse effects on those children. It is claiming that children in families with two parents, in this case two women, who are involved in the lives of their children tend to do better with those pressures. I would think that this holds true with any set of parents. You have involved parents, you have happier and more successful children.

I think the article is merely exploring the idea that children from lesbian/gay parents have the potential like any other family to have "normal" (whatever normal is), happy, and successful lives independent of their parents sexuality.

The report is BS. I have a lot of experience dealing with a Lesbian mother

So you say a report is BS, when it was based on a longitudinal study with what appear to be fairly sound methods and appropriate reporting (based on the glimpse the article gives of it). Your conclusion that this fairly meticulous study is BS is based on your anecdotal experience with ONE person. There is BS here, but you've got backward who is perpetrating it.

Vinnie, more and more people are disagreeing with you all the time. TraceyG can tell you why:

I assure you it will get easier for homosexuals as todays kids grow up and the homophobes die off. Most kids don't care at all about gay or straight unless they have homophobe parents passing on the hate.

I think Vinnie, that you are the one full of BS. Fortunatly more and more people are coming to realize it. I'm curious to know what qualifies you as knowing anything about this subject other than your obvious bias against homosexuals.

I'm sorry but we ALL have our issues. My mom did this, my dad did that, he cheated on her, she was in love with someone else, he hit me, she touched me, etc etc etc.

We will ALWAYS have problems with our parents, whether they be man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man.

Children are smart and strong, and if they are loved and cared for, it honestly doesn't matter the sex of the parents.

And the whole not knowing one's gender role is a silly argument. What would you say to single parents, or to homes in which the gender roles are reversed? Gender roles don't exist anymore.

I would think that a child raised by a lesbian or gay couple would be proud of knowing that his or her parents are open minded, in love, and wanted him or her so much that they fought in order to adopt or conceive. Love is love, no matter who gives it.

I hope poepl start opening their eyes and stop criticizing others who do nothing wrong to anyone around them. Different does not mean bad.

Please look up the word "homophobic" in the dictionary. I resent being called that, not only because it's inflammatory and you're using it to discredit and belittle those who do not share your beliefs, but because it's entirely inappropriate in this context. A more appropriate word would be "bigoted", which is the type of behavior YOU are exhibiting by lashing out against anyone who may oppose you, i.e. those who believe in traditional marriage. No offense, you're just not helping your case any!

Thank you Billy. And just in case anyone wants to read the actual definition, here it is: Homophobia - unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Just because someone disagrees with same sex parenting doesn't mean they have unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. On the other hand, clearly DragonWagon5 is a homophobe, or a 12-year old playing on his parent's computer.

kudos to you....

But there is nothing to 'believe' in... Marriage is marriage... Same sex or not, it's a union. If you don't like it, do not do it, and shame on anyone who would try to force you. But why would you criticizing an article that offers you proof about this marriage's validity?

I'm sorry but when you blindly argue against results jsut because of a belief, then yes, that is homophobia! I'm not saying everyone has to like gays, you have your right to be a biggot, but still, you cannot deny facts: this kids are just fine with two mommies as they are with one. Period. Arguing this (unless you yourself are the child of a gay marriage, or if you are in one) is the very definition of homophobia.

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation."

It isn't just fear or hatred of homosexuals that makes you homophobic. If you are activly engaging in behavior to demean, oppress or limit the rights of homosexuals, you are a homophobe.

So are kids who have interracial parents not normal? Are kids that have one really old parent and one young parent not normal? There are many forms of what defines a family and who is to say what's normal and what's not. As long as a kid has a loving home, whether it be single-parent or gay or straight, all that really matters is that the kid is loved.

TracyG wrote "It goes against their main argument of homosexuals raising kids."

Which is that children and the future relationships of those children *are* influenced by sex of their parents. This study on lesbian parents is trying to say that children with no live-in male role model are not worse off and probably not even different. In other words, paternal culture is optional, and that there is nothing that a father can teach his son that a lesbian mother can't teach better.

It's amazing how people blow things out of proportion.

You are right, there is NOTHING that adad can teach his child, that a mom can't, lesbian or straight. And there is nothing a mom can teach her child that a dad can't.

It all depends on the person, not the sex... You'd think this was obvious.

You have yet to separate yourself from those who use words they do not understand.

You can replace "believe in" with "support", "practice", "respect" or whatever else, the point remains the same--you are attacking those who disagree with you and that makes YOU guilty of bigotry.

I have said NOTHING that is demeaning or oppressive, yet you are determined to belittle me and anyone who disagrees with you.

I have respectfully argued against this study and I've been attacked for it. That's bigotry. I have posted facts but they are part of threads which have conveniently been "collapsed".

Please understand that you will never get anywhere in life by insulting those you hope to persuade. We are all entitled to an opinion in this great country but nothing gives you the right to harass the opposing camp.

I support gay rights but I think that this study is flawed and have tried to post my opinion on that. My goal now, however, is to persuade YOU to stop being so abrasive and insulting to those around you.

No one has attacked you Billy, get a grip. Disagreement does not equal attack or disrespect.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

Maybe you should take your own advice.

"when it was based on a longitudinal study with what appear to be fairly sound methods and appropriate reporting"

wrong...the methods are not sound...they ask the parents to assess their children....which is inherently biased against heterosexuals who do not have anything to prove about their sexuality in society lesbians do......non of the children were directly assessed by a psychologist ,and they did not control for social bias....thus this research proves nothing but how incompetent the researchers are, and that lesbians are more inclined to rate their children better than heterosexuals, but they fail to actually look at the possible reasons why that is, and since non of the children were assessed by a psychologist they cannot make their conclusions stick.....which is the case with all of the studies done in this area....they ask the parents to assess their children then expect us to buy the results as empirical evidence?.....sorry,..but not even on a good day.....when they actual do some serious studies with reliable methods, then ill bite, until then this study is baloney.

Billy- Thing is, you say it is flawed cause the mothers were the ones to give info on the kids. But please keep in mind that this info was compared to info given by STRAIGHT couples about their children, therefore, it is acceptable and concrete. If the study was comparing what the lesbians said to actual results from straight couples, then it would be biased.

So... What's your next argument? :)

@ok so im gay: they ask the parents to assess their children[,] which is inherently biased against heterosexuals who do not have anything to prove about their sexuality in society [as] lesbians do

So you're telling me that homophobes have no motivation to exaggerate their own kids' well-being in contrast to the kids of lesbians? So you're saying gays are biased against straights but straights aren't biased against gays? WOW. I suppose you have some study data to back that up...? In other words, even assuming you're right that gay people are willing to lie without reservation, if there is bias on one side, it's easily canceled out by bias on the other.

when they actual do some serious studies with reliable methods, then [I'll] bite

I understand there are several out there already.

But hey - given your handle, I'd think you'd know: no biting.

missrighteous,

Thank you for an intelligent reply! I agree that comparing one biased method to a similarly biased one is appropriate but it still does not validate the source. Sampling bias is an issue in both cases.

Jane,

I've read your other posts... you are in no position to be name calling. You've gone from aggressor to now being defensive.

I would wait around for your proof of "intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs" in my comments, but I fear that we'd be here all day.

You, on the other hand, are doing a wonderful job in demonstrating those same qualities in each and every single statement you make.

There's no reasoning with an individual, such as yourself, after such a poor display of rationality and congeniality.

I feel like I've made my point and will not waste further time and energy on this topic.

Good day to you.

I've read your other posts... you are in no position to be name calling. You've gone from aggressor to now being defensive.

Billy, you're reading more into it than is there. I haven't done either of those things. It isn't my fault if you misinterpret.

The very saddest part is to think of the children that could have loving, nurturing homes if ALL states allowed same sex couples adopt.

How can anyone believe that going from foster home to foster home and then being dumped at 18 is a recipe for a better life? Poor kids...poor same sex couples.

"So you're telling me that homophobes have no motivation to exaggerate their own kids' well-being in contrast to the kids of lesbians"

who said the heterosexual parents are homophobes?....the heterosexual parents are not told that they are being compared to lesbian couples....so its highly likely that lesbians will over exaggerate because they know why they are in the study...the heterosexual don't, its called blatant sample bias,....its imperative that psychologists directly assess the children....not rely on parents opinions of the mental health of their own kids, its a well know fact that most parents regardless of their sexual orientation have little knowledge of the mental health issues their children face, most do not know if their children use drugs , have eating disorders, or if they were sexually abused, or if they are being bullied in school,...which is why they need to interview school teachers and councilors and peers....these methods will give more sound results.....sorry....this research is utter crap.

Billy- I agree with you that there is nothing concrete here, nothing, well, mathematical, if you will. But I do think that this information should be taken as an indicator. After all, I would say that it is impossible to correctly measure a gay couple's influence on their child, there are too many factors to concider! Income, house hold religion, personal beliefs, any childhood trauma, and on and on. Yep, the more I think about it, the more impossible it seems.

What I resent though is people coming out and saying: "this is bull s**t!" It shows how closed minded they are, completely unwilling to even concider the idea. And it's sad if you really think about it: why is it so hard to believe that others can do it in a different way, but just as good?

But you are right in demanding a good and fair argument, I would demand no less. I do hope you will get to see my side though!

Billy, you ASSUME "facts" not in evidence.

I'm just tired of hearing about the gay community saying this or that. Why is it necessary to define a group by their sexuality? If you are gay that is your sexual preference. Why does it need to be broadcast and why does a group demand that they receive equal rights based on their sexual preference? I'm just tired of the issue. Be who you are without pushing it in my face. You are no different than any other group and if you didn't draw attention by writing stupid articles like this no one would care who you wanted to sleep with or love. Good parents are not defined by sexuality only by the love and support that they give.

Now I get your name, Tiger. It's because you have these stripes of sharp contrast in what you say, right? The way you contradict yourself over and over? You say:

Why is it necessary to define a group by their sexuality?

Then you say:

why does a group demand that they receive equal rights

And THEN you say:

You are no different [from] any other group

Which is it? Are gays just like everyone else, and therefore entitled to the same rights as everyone else, or are they so different that they're not entitled to equal treatment? (And if so, please explain.)

It's being pushed into your face because homosexuals are STILL not treated as equals in America. Homosexuals have every right to take a stand and speak out nice and loud.

They are not the ones who define everything about themselves by their sexuality, the bigots do. That's why homophobes care so much about who people have sex with.

If you are gay that is your sexual preference. Why does it need to be broadcast and why does a group demand that they receive equal rights based on their sexual preference?

would you say the same thing about people who prefer to be straight? I mean, if anyone pushes their sexuality in the faces of everyone, it's the straight people, isn't it? I mean, how often do you see them walking down the street holding hands? Kissing? Having big, lavish weddings? How many TV shows are there dealing with these people's lives, their marriages, their interactions, etc? Isn't it a problem that they're pushing their sexuality in your face?

What right do they have to demand more rights than everyone else, those straight people?

You are no different than any other group and if you didn't draw attention by writing stupid articles like this no one would care who you wanted to sleep with or love.

I'm absolutely sure they'd like to agree with you on that one. Problem is, they've been castigated to second class citizenry based on who they'd like to kiss and/or marry. This necessitates the university longitudinal study upon which "stupid articles" like this one are based. If it's a controversial question, science is called upon to answer it.

VERY well said!!!!

absolute bull is the rigid idea that your way and your way alone is the right way to live.

square peg... round hole. Nuff said.

We're talking about people, not pegs.

I think you missed the point. It's simple, think about it. : )

I agree with you that children need love and care. I don't, however, understand your statement about children in state custody. Do gay/lesbian couples adopt a proportionally larger percentage of these children compared to straight couples? Most adoptive parents want babies, not children. I don't understand your point.

I think what he is saying is that there are many blind people who would rather a child stay in state custody than be adopted by a gay couple.

Really? Are people so afraid of what is different from them that they would rather see a child suffer and have no family then give them away to a home with love?

Are people so afraid of what is different from them that they would rather see a child suffer and have no family then give them away to a home with love?

Yes. Many, MANY people are exactly that afraid.

I don't buy the implication that children sit miserably in state custody until gay/lesbian couples come along to save them. I've watched family members try for years to adopt a baby. There's no shortage of adoptive parents. I'm not saying that gay/lesbian couples can't be good parents. I just resent the implication that they are somehow saviors to children above and beyond straight couples because it's simply not true.

Nobody is saying that homosexuals are the lone saviors. Every parent who gives an orphaned child a loving home is a savior to that child, regardless of their sexuality. Denying homosexuals the right to adopt children severly limits the pool of adoptive parents, however.

It's not biased. I'm surprised others haven't seemed to have understood the essence of the "study". Based on the article, there is nothing that was studied that said kids of lesbians do better than kids of straights. The only issues addressed was a "mother's" reported perception. In other words, it doesn't mean or say anything. On any given day, a parent's perception of their kid is likely to change depending on what has been going on that day. Me thinks that who ever funded the "research" got ripped off.

The standardized tests were used and the kids raised by same sex couples did well. THAT IS THE POINT!

Standardized tests? Asking mothers their opinions of how well their kids are doing?

"In fact, lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father." That's the gist of the study, at least according to the article.

And what "objectivity" of standardized tests are we talking about? Nothing says that kids raized by same sex couples did well. It says that the parents of kids raised by same sex couples think their kids did well. There's a bid difference.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing gay couples for raising kids. In fact, that whole argument is ridiculous. The theory is that kids raised by a mother and a father do better. The assumption in the theory is that the parents are Ward and June Cleaver. Kids who are raised by a father and mother where the father is beating the crap out of the mother and kids and is constantly cussing are not better off than kids raised by a good lesbian couple. But, if you listen to the christian right, you'd think that they are. So, I'm just saying that the "study" is misleading unless there is more to it, in which case the reporter ought to be fired.

It's not an alternate lifestyle to have two parents whom love their kids to raise them. OMG they turn out "normal"??? STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Propaganda is untrue. The report cites pretty extensive verifiable evidence that children of lesbian parents do just fine. What is your evidence to the contrary, on which you conclude that the results of the longitudinal study make no sense? As far as I can tell, all you're going on is your own biases and prejudice.The study makes perfect sense to me (and I'm a straight father of two).

This isn't the only study to show this result. There are several others studies that were not funded by gay and lesbian groups (e.g., Add Health). Children of gay and lesbian families tend to be more empathic than other children, possibly because they know what it's like to be the target of hate and discrimination.

Dave in NM-10.2- The evidence to the contrary is simply these, pre-concived notions, personal bias and the fear that this article is in all likelyhood true.

If you don't want to believe it, then they could do a thousand studies and the homophobes would ignore them all.

Yes. It will be difficult to convince most that there is no value to having a biological father living in the household.

And yet there are children who do indeed grow up and do just fine without a male role model in the household, just as there are children who grow up in a vast range of living conditions that are not an example of the nuclear family who do just fine as well.

Can we please break free of the stereotypes?

Yes. It will be difficult to convince most that there is no value to having a biological father living in the household.

I don't think that's the point, really. Certainly there are things a man can bring to the raising of a child that a woman isn't likely to, just like there are things that two women can do that a man and a woman can't, etc.

the point is that this configuration of parents yeilds healthy, well-adjusted children as well as any.

As an old lady, mother, grandmother and great grandmother, I can attest to the truth that having a male presence and father in the home makes all the difference in how kids turn out. Stability, security, strength, reliability, respect, purpose, good work ethic, trust, honor are just a few of the traits that I see not only in my own children, but in other families with good father figures in the home as well. My daughters and grand daughters display the same strength of character as my sons and grandsons, so I don't think one gender benefits over the other. Women are too caught up in the emotions and worry too much about damaging kids psyches. If you see the same traits in generation after generation, there has to be something to be said for it.

Kids just need to be able to be kids and to grow up and mature at their own pace rather than be caught up in all the emotional bruhaha that adults create.

The bigger issue is that, while trying to justify gays having children, you have to tear down straight families and especially straight men to do it. Kids deserve better.

The bigger issue is that, while trying to justify gays having children, you have to tear down straight families and especially straight men to do it.

Who? How? I am a straight man, and acknowledging the legitimacy of lesbian parents doesn't "tear me down" at all.

I'm not old enough to consider myself an "old man," but I've lived long enough to have learned that there are a thousand paths from start to destination, and each of them is valid as long as it does more good than harm. Generalizing helps no one. Many fathers are abusive, or distant, or dishonest, and do more harm than good to their children. I'm not about to say a father in the home is per se any better than having two mothers. It matters far more who the individuals are, how much they care for the children, and how committed they are to the children's well-being. We do ourselves a disservice by painting people we don't know with all the same brush, based on one fact about them, and pronouncing some more fit parents than others, when we don't know the individual facts. Kids deserve better.

I recommend a stronger prescription of glasses for you then.

Sort of like the homophobic agenda?

What agenda exactly? To be given the right to raise a child? That is God's agenda, by the way.

All research could be said to be an agenda, the agenda is answering the question. The question is: How does the psychological make up of a child raised by two women in a relationship compare to that of children raised by a man and a women when measured using standardized testing instruments. If a research group takes issue with the question asked, feel free to create your own study to answer a different question. Sucks for you when the answer isn't what you want it to be though...

It's ironic that everyone here compares these children to those raised by 2 hetero parents, when actually, truth is that most of us are raised by ONE parent. Look at divorce rates or single mom rates. Much higher than married couples. So, what exactly are we comparing these kids to? Definitely not reality.

miss righteous ... you are stupid ... if God wanted homosexuals to raise children he would have given them the ability to reproduce together. ... and btw you are the one who brought God into the argument ...

So Jeff, what do you say to heterosexual couples who are infertile? I mean, God only wants heterosexuals to raise children by your argument, and yet there are some who can't have children at all!

Homophobic is such a stupid term; it implies that I am afraid of something. I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I just don't approve of their lifestyle.

Spider,

Molly wasn't accussing YOU of being homophobic. You just identified with it on your own and then got defensive about it. I think you know the answer now.

Homophobic is such a stupid term; it implies that I am afraid of something. I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I just don't approve of their lifestyle.

well if you JUST don't approve of their lifestyle, that's not homophobia.

It's when you stand in the way of their freedom (and I don't know if you do) that expresses fear of them.

Haha, Good James! Spider, you don't get to approve or disapprove anything other than yourself.

And by the way, homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it's a sexual orientation. You'll find all sorts of people in every type of lifestyle. Your approval doesn't matter to them either.

Why do advocates of the alternative lifestyle constantly feel the need to justify the lifestyle by comparing it with heterosexual lifestyle?

Because no one is attacking the rights of heterosexuals and saying that they are unjustified. There's no need to defend what's not being attacked.

Don't heterosexuals have rights, too?

Um ... what? Is someone trying to take rights away from heterosexuals? As a straight guy, I'd like to know about that. You sound like smokers saying that, by banning smoking in restaurants, municipalities are giving non-smokers "special rights." No, they're just making the same set of rules for everyone. Doing the same for gays takes NOTHING away from you and me.

You also never hear or read where heterosexuals make public statements or file lawsuits against persons of alternative lifestyles on any issue, but persons belonging to the alternative lifestyle are known to make public statements and even sue persons of heterosexual lifetlye on myriad issues. Why?

Uhhh...because there's no reason to? What possible motive would a hetero have to file a lawsuit over the homosexuality of some other person or couple? What "heterosexual" rights are being infriged upon by homosexuals? Really, I'd love to hear an example.

Wait a second. Since when throughout the past 2000 years have both the parents raised the kids. It's usually one parent that raises the kid and the other parent is rarely even seen by the kid. Take a look at military families for example.... Often times it's only the mother and sister or mother and grandmother raising the children.

Also, many family structures, some very ancient, often had several females raising kids in a group rather then a single mother/father pair doing it. The males would be out hunting most of the time while the females would be raising the children.

Finally, take a look at other mammal species.... .The female groups raise children together in packs while the single male has very little to do with the child rearing.

What "heterosexual" rights are being infriged upon by homosexuals? Really, I'd love to hear an example.

Me, too. It would have to shed some light on the closely related question of how gay marriage "threatens" straight marriage, and I've been asking for that explanation for YEARS now.

No argument can be offered without interjecting "GOD" into it... they know thus; faith is opinion, thereby making their argument moot... No one wants to argue when they already KNOW they're wrong.

So if they are not given the right to raise children, what about drunks and murderer, chaters, rapists, or just plain mean people. What about them? Can you begin to imagine the mental damages THOSE people cause to children? So what, we should all be screened and get a special license in order to have children?

Fact is, disgusting people have children all the time, and you have the nerve to get online and say that kids belonging to gay couples would come out screwed up? Might as well give a histerectomy to any woman who earns less than the poverty line... Come on, get out of the dark ages and join the rest of society.

433rivers, see post #5.13 above.

433rivers: As I read many of these posts, and then yours, I have put considerable thought into this 'homophobic bs" you mention. If I do not feel threatened by a specific group of people, whether physically or emotionally, I do not generally put too much thought into how they lead their lives or who they spend time with; I pretty much get along or not with them on an individual basis. I can't think of a specific group that I have ever actually accused them of 'living their lives in an immoral way' or that as a group their "genetic wiring is screwed up". Well, maybe I have thought of that about serial killers as a group, so I guess I'm phobic in some way about serial killers, not individually, but as an entire group of people. But, in regards to heterosexuals or 'breeders' as I like to call them, as a group, I don't feel threatened by them, or to be honest, I don't feel much about them one way or the other as far as their chosen lifestyle. I have too many friends who are heterosexuals to say that I don't like them as a group, in fact, I was raised by heterosexuals, and I think I turned out ok, even though I did turn out to be a lesbian....are you getting my point here? Homophobia is something that was created by heterosexuals, not gays; for whatever reason, deep down inside, its more than just being turned off by us, because if that were the case, most people simply would ignore what we do in the bedroom and either like us or dislike us because of our individual personalities. And that would be the end of the discussion. So, with that thought, I would say there are definitely some homphobic people who have posted here on this topic. I don't get what the threat could be, but its pretty obvious they are feeling it.

Not every study can do everything. This one focused specifically on moms who had artificial insemination, which obviously is a different population than gay dads. This is a relatively new area of research. I'm sure that research on fathers is forthcoming.

Sure. My point is why just focus on lesbian couples and not gay (male) couples? I know lesbian couples who are doing a great job with their child. IMO, a sigular focus on lesbians is odd to me.

In the end, they would have found out that sometimes you get great kids. Sometimes you get great parents. Neither are guranteed, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I find that very interesting also. The truth is that this is one (biased) study confirming their opinion - many more are needed for an actual conclusion. While it would be impossible to study the situation from pregnancy to adulthood (ie: males are not properly equipped), for men, it would be most enlightening to have such groups included. Also, at the age of 17 most are still considered minors.

Camino1

How about the part that says, "lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher..."

Well, I think my 6-year-old should get a scholarship to MIT, too, and I'm objective.

It's interesting that the PARENTS rated their own CHILDREN. (This is where the biased comment comes into play). I can guarantee you that I would rate my children absolutely fabulous.

this is one (biased) study confirming their opinion

If you're going to claim bias, you have to show how it affected the methodology and the results. If you think there is bias, show us how the study itself was flawed.

It's interesting that the PARENTS rated their own CHILDREN. (This is where the biased comment comes into play). I can guarantee you that I would rate my children absolutely fabulous.

But the study didn't just look at the children of gay parents. It surveyed straight parents, too (otherwise there would have been no comparison to be made). So your bias argument goes out the window at the outset: the study was unbiased because it used an objective sample.

A few flaws in the study:

-If there were any psychological deficiencies, it's much too soon to tell. Such things may not manifest themselves until early adulthood or beyond.

-Obvious sampling bias. The mothers of these children were asked to complete a survey regarding their own kids.

There is hardly anything scientific about this study at all.

-If there were any psychological deficiencies, it's much too soon to tell. Such things may not manifest themselves until early adulthood or beyond.

no, not things like defiance and aggression. It's true if they were looking for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, maybe depression they'd want to look into adulthood, but what they were measuring certainly is measured in childhood and adolescence.

When facts are inconvenient, they are ignored.

Why did the study only focused on female same-sex couples and left out male same-sex couples?

Uhhhh, time?? The study clearly states the first generation of measurable amounts of lesbian offspring are now coming to high school age. Wait a few years for tha all-male counterparts. They did not have the advantage of being able to gestate on their own.

yeah, since the study controlled for adoption (which may or may not bring a whole host of other potential issues to light) it's kinda hard for the dude to get knocked up so that two dads could be studied.

Thats ridiculous.

Evidence?

For some people the truth will never be enough because they aren't interested in the truth.

Truth? University of California at San Francisco did the study. Oh please!! This is the same city which pays for sex changes with taxpayer money.

Well, if the Republican congress can go to a strip club on our dime....

...then it's ok to have a sex change on my dime.

See how lame that sounds?

Its pretty lame to pay for a lap dance with taxpayer dollars too. How hard did you protest that?

Interesting point. So I assume you are against gay couples raising kids because then the kids have to deal with the parents' "sexual issues".

So, I assume you would also be against adulterers raising kids, or divorced parents, or single parents who date, or even happily married couples who have sex? After all, these parents are all exposing their kids to their parents' "sexual issues".

No parent should be discussing their personal sex life with their kids, gay or straight. I highly doubt gay parents do any more of that than straight parents - some parents will always be inappropriate in what they expose their children to, but it has nothing to do with being gay or straight. In general, gay couples strive to expose their kids to what heterosexual couples expose their kids to - a model of a loving relationship and a loving family.

Sex education becomes a bit more complicated.

What "sexual issues" are you talking about, exactly? You think they have a trapeze swinging from the dining room chandelier?

Sex education becomes a bit more complicated.

How so? Do you and Mrs. Pepper demonstrate the concepts at the dinner table? I mean, what can a straight couple teach that a gay couple can't, or vice-versa? My kids (1st and 3rd grade) know there are gay people. It's a bit early to get into the mechanics (and some things are obviously best left for them to discover on their own), but I can't imagine I'll teach my kids anything a gay couple wouldn't.

Is it possible for someone to disagree with same sex parenting and not be called a homophobe?

Is it possible for someone to disagree with same sex parenting and not be called a homophobe?

Maybe. Try raising arguments based in fact, not hate, fear or mythology. Of course there don't appear to be any such arguments, but I'm not going to say it's not "possible." Give it a shot.

There are plenty of legitimate postings not based on hate, fear, nor mythology. If you can't see them then I encourage you to set aside your agenda and reread more closely. However, after reading several of your posts it's evident you're just bucking for a fight. Methodically moving from post to post challenging anyone with a differing opinion is not the stuff of good Newsvine citizenry.

Allen, I have yet to see an argument against parenting by homosexuals that has any objective merit. If you believe some here do, please identify them. All I've seen is people claiming the study is wrong, but citing no evidence, or making conclusory pronouncements about how wrong it is for gays to raise kids. None of these arguments is rational; they are all based in irrationality, such as fear, mythology, hate, prejudice, etc. Please draw my attention to any post here that presents a rational, objective case opposing gay parents. One.

As for "challenging anyone with a differing opinion," the purpose of these discussions is just that: to discuss. I think I'm right, but if I'm not, I want to be shown how I'm wrong. I'm challenging people to show how I'm wrong. My goal here is as much to learn as it is to educate. If you can't see that, then I encourage you to set aside your agenda and read more closely.

Is it possible for someone to disagree with same sex parenting and not be called a homophobe?

Not if your only reasoning that they are bad parents is because they're gay. Do you have any real support for your point of view other than your opinion? Any studies? Any polls? Psychological or medical evidence?

Because it compared self-ratings across the lines it was studying (i.e. it looked at the self-evaluations of kids raised by straight parents too).

It's called "self-reporting" and is used in thousands of studies ranging from your brand of toothpaste to opinions on political candidates to how you feel about your college campus. It's reliable, but not entirely valid, and can be statistically controlled with a well-designed survey. That said, I doubt they simply asked the parents if their kids were smart and socially comfy.

katie - FYI, instrument validity is merely answering the question: Does the instrument measure what it intends to measure. A self reporting instrument can certainly be measured to be both reliable and valid, and if this is peer reviews research you can bet it has been to some degree.

"It's reliable, but not entirely valid, and can be statistically controlled with a well-designed survey."

its reliable only in assessing the opinions of the participants....its however is not reliable in psychological evaluations of children because self reports are notoriously subjective and in this case parents notoriously over exaggerate the well adjustment of their children....even when they may actually have severe issues...like drug addiction, eating disorders, problems at school, sexual abuse, bullying, promiscuous sex, which are things parents are likely the last to know about....this study has no way to objectively control for variances here because they do not directly assess the children, and not do the talk to teachers and councilors and peers......and another issue with this study is we do not know how the parents are recruited for the study and if there are adequate controls for economic and education backgrounds....which has been a problem with previous research in this area....often they will recruit lesbians from a pool of higher educated higher payed individuals....but the heterosexual couples are recruited from the general population and represent all economic and education levels....sample bias.

Richard, I think you and many people have actually misread the statement..... It was "In fact, lesbian mothers rated their 17-year-olds higher in social and academic skills, and lower in rule-breaking and aggression, than did mothers of teenagers who also had a father."

The point wasn't to state that lesbian mothers think their kids are great but to state then when lesbian mothers compared their kids to others they rated them higher then when straight mothers compared their kids to others. Basically saying that on average lesbian mothers had a higher opinion of their kids social behavior then straight mothers.

Also it went on to state that the children actually rated themselves on these issues and weren't doing any differently then the ones that knew their biological father. You see... if the child has some social problems they often rate themselves very low when compared to a child that doesn't have social problems. The point was to show that children raised in a "lesbian" family had the same self image as those raised in a "straight" family. And... the only way you can really measure a childs self image is through their on reporting on various psychological questionnaires.

Every time I read the posts from an article I die a little bit inside due to the sadness at people's reading comprehension and logic skills......

Lots of hetero couples "buy" babies as well when they can't conceive one naturally. So actually your comment is bordering on plain stupid. I guess some REAL MEN just can't produce the juice.

It can be the woman who cannot conceive in some of the cases. I think Floyds's point was that there is a good reason why same sex couples cannot conceive a child. You figure it out.

So? Some people can't have children. Should they NEVER adopt children due to biology or medical problems?

And so what if a woman can pop out children? That doesn't make them a good parent just because they are able to give birth. You can have a man and a woman having kids, but that doesn't mean they are good parents. In the past in RI, there was a family where the man BEAT his children and wife. It only stopped when he beat his wife to death. Good parents! The father was a beater and the mother never thought of the safety of her children when they were being beaten.

Hell, you can look up articles where parents refused to have their kid treated for something cureable or simple and let them die instead. Good parents! And they were the ones that created this child together.