• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On average would straight couples make better parents then gay couples?

On average would straight couples make better parents then a gay couple?


  • Total voters
    37
Here's a question that maybe someone with more knowledge on these statistics than I (looking at you CC) can provide.

I have a feeling that on average any parents who want to adopt end up being better parents than a good percentage of biological parents.
 
Here's a question that maybe someone with more knowledge on these statistics than I (looking at you CC) can provide.

I have a feeling that on average any parents who want to adopt end up being better parents than a good percentage of biological parents.

Great question. I had some statistics on that...I'll need to go find them. My recollection is that your premise is accurate.
 
I think when it comes to adoption, fostering, etc. they probably are equal when you're comparing stable homes and stable relationships.

However when you get into gays and lesbians having their own biological children with a partner unless both biological parents are somehow involved in the upbringing of the child things can never be equal. Nobody wants a sperm donor father and nobody desires a surrogate mother. Whenever either biological parent is completely absent from a child's life there are some repercussions. There will always be some form of an emotional hole as the child ages and realizes that one of their biological parents is completely absent.

So I'm all for allowing gays and lesbians to adopt. But when it comes to creating their own children I heavily advocate that they find a biological parent who wants to be involved with the couple on some level so the child never has that missing piece emotional hole. Lesbians can do a great job raising a kid but they will do a far better job if they utilize and support the active involvement of the man who biologically fathered the child. Likewise with gays. It may be far more convenient to create a child with someone who will opt out of their parenting rights but it's a selfish practice that diminishes and makes light of every little child's need to feel loved by the two adults that created him or her.

You would think this to be true. Early age abandonment can be innately traumatic. This goes along with early deaths of biological parents, too. I had always operated under the assumption that an adoption must cause some sort of distress. Guess what? Not usually. This goes along with the nature vs. nurture theory. From what I've seen, nurture wins out. This has been a fascinating issue to me, so I've done some "light" research with clients I've worked with. Not empirical by any means, it's based on my observations over the years...and coming from a hypothesis that you would be correct. Most kids I've worked with, who were adopted and never had contact with their biological parents, couldn't give a hoot. Psychologically, the abandonment issues that they had were no more significant than kids who were raised mostly by nanny's. In fact, from my experience, the incidence of significant abandonment issues translating to psychological problems, especially personality disorders is no greater than kids of biological parents. However, However, the few kids I've had that had contact with biological parents, had a greater incidence of identity disturbance, creates uncertainty in the solidity of their relationship with their adoptive parents, and worsens the "fantasy" imagery of the biological parent. Research I've read supports this.

Though my premise was the opposite, everything I've seen is that nurture is more powerful than nature. Does this mean that biology is meaningless? No. If you are a good parent, your parenting will transcend whether your children are biologically yours or not.

This discussion leads into my next post, an answer to ROC's question.
 
Do adoptive or biological parents parent better? Maximus would say that common sense would say biological parents. And of Maximus said that, he would be consistent. Consistently wrong. Let me start by saying that YMMV. The best indicator of a positive outcome for a child is that child growing up with two caring, loving, parents, regardless of biology or sexual orientation. Stats may show one thing, but if you are a loving, caring parent, you are giving your child the best chance at a positive outcome, regardless of your family structure. Even a single parent, caring and loving, would do better than a pair of biological parents who beat their child. Individual response and relativity, ultimately, rule the day.

One last disclaimer. Most of the research that I've seen does distinguish between family structures. Statistically, children of single-parent families do worse. Fewer resources are often cited as the reason. Children in blended (step) families tend to suffer from confusing parental roles. Also the impact of divorce affects them. These factors, especially those in blended families can be mitigated, but it requires a lot of work...sometimes more than the parents are willing to exercise. In my 20 years of working with thousands of kids, my experience matches what the research shows. Kids of single parents or divorced parents tend to have more difficulty, not universally, but statistically, Many of the problems with divorce can be lowered with a lot of parental work.

That being said, on to the research. In empirical studies comparing biological parents to adoptive parents several componets are looked at. Data was looked at to consider whether Kin Theory or Compensation Theory would do better to describe the outcomes for children in a variety of familial structures.

Kin Theory (Hamilton) goes with "common sense";
parental investment as a form of reproductive survival in which parents display discriminative parenting”. Altruistic behavior in humans is adaptive when it increases the genetic fitness of individuals. Because parents incur economic, physical, and mental costs in raising a child, they purportedly invest the most in those who have the greatest amount of shared genetic material—their biological children.

Makes sense, eh? But wait, how does this explain the data that shows that on several scales, stastistically, adoptive parents do better than biological parents? Compensation Theory:

Some scholars contend that although adoptive families encounter unique barriers to family functioning, they also have particular psychological and social strengths (Cohen, Coyne, and Duvall 1993; Lansford et al. 2001).
For example, Kirk (1984) suggests that adoptive parents often have intensified commitments to creating an ideal family—particularly if their
path to parenthood is long and costly. Adoptive parents also may have a more positive view of their children and experiences as parents (Priel
et al. 2000). Lending support to compensation theories, these strengths tend to coexist with low self-evaluations of parenting ability that
may reflect feelings of ambivalence, doubt, and guilt surrounding adoptive parenthood (Priel et al. 2000; Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-Den
Bieman 1990).

What is found is that in an effort to compensate for societies view of adoptive parents, to compensate for concerns for the children being adopted, these parents will compensate by being more attentive, more involved in their child's school, and more involved in their child's activities. There is a confound to many of the studies. It is factual that parents with a higher socioeconomic standing tend to be better at all of the things mentioned above. However, when the data is examined taking this variable into consideration, the adoptive parents still perform better. In my analysis, I believe that the socioeconomic factors may be underestimated. However, even if I am correct, the results support what I have been saying all along:

Children in two parent households will do as well regardless of biology or sexual orientation. And, yes, the implications of the research is extended to gay parents, as these parents fall under compensation theory...in fact most of the research I have posted in the past, mirrors what Compensation Theory asserts. Gay parents do not fall under the blended family...at least in the context that we are discussing.

I'm sure that there will still be some that will shout "common sense"!!! Deaf ears, folks. Common sense is that two loving, caring, involved parents regardless of biology or sexual orientation will produce, statistically, the best functioning children. It's what I've seen. It's what the research says. I see nor have heard nothing to convince me otherwise.

Links used in this and the previous post include the multitude of links I have used in the past, and include the following, additionally:

http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/Feb07ASRAdoption.pdf
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol3no1ART9.PDF
http://www.iaccenter.com/adoptive_investment.pdf
Adoptive Parents Invest More: Parenting Styles Differ If Children Are Adopted or Biological

I also remember posting more information.links in another thread, about a year ago. It's late, so if y'all would like me to locate them, I'll do it tomorrow.
 
That might be valid if you could prove that not one single homosexual ever raised a kid during the last 10,000 years, and didn't raise them just as good as a heterosexual.

GL with that. ;)

Edit note: made a clairification.

Well, you prove to me that gay couples, two men for example have raised children, and that they have done it better than straights.. If they havent its highly unlikely they are even equal good parents, because a man & a man is not the same as a woman & a man, and therefor unlikely equal at raising a child either..

How about a childs right to grow up with a mother? Only the most unfortunate children do not, if their mother die or something. Its the most natural human relationship.. You want to take that away?
 
Did I not explain that pretty well with the whole God example?

Unbelievable, after Captain completely disassembled your argument, all you can counter with is one over simplistic analogy.

Good to see that you have also avoided my follow up post as well.

Keep this up and you could get yourself a place on the Harvard Jessup Moot team.....
 
Unbelievable, after Captain completely disassembled your argument, all you can counter with is one over simplistic analogy.

Good to see that you have also avoided my follow up post as well.

Keep this up and you could get yourself a place on the Harvard Jessup Moot team.....

Thats why people like you care more about statistics than common sense.. CC says he do not even know what common sense is..

"Statistics and proof" all the time over common sense.. Thats just ridiculous. How about a childs right to have a mother? How about that? Please prove that that is bad, for a child to have a mother, and its better to have 2 dads, prove that with statistics and a bunch of silly internet article..

You people drive me crazy.
 
Dont you think adopted children deserves to have a mother?

Irrelevant, your original argument was that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt as they would most likely make worse parents than heterosexuals.

Captain has suggested otherwise. You next move is to either correct your position in light of Captains evidence or alternately to rebut his argument.

Do you always create RED HERRINGS when your statements prove to be nothing more than unfounded assumptions based on fear?
 
Thats why people like you care more about statistics than common sense.. CC says he do not even know what common sense is..

"Statistics and proof" all the time over common sense.. Thats just ridiculous. How about a childs right to have a mother? How about that? Please prove that that is bad, for a child to have a mother, and its better to have 2 dads, prove that with statistics and a bunch of silly internet article..

You people drive me crazy.

No people like you drive me crazy. You make claims that relate to the real world that can be objectively measured. You are not making claims as to what is your favourite colour, ie subjective claims. You are making objective claims that can be measured empirically. And one way of backing up claims is using empirical studies, aka statistics.

Secondly you are moving into legal arguments of rights... Don't confuse rights with x is better at parenting than y. Which I must add was the original premise of your argument.

Rights are a legal and ethical construct. Saying that x is more likely to be a better parent than y is a claim that can be backed up with empirical studies.

Anyway back to the argument....
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant, your original argument was that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt as they would most likely make worse parents than heterosexuals.

Captain has suggested otherwise. You next move is to either correct your position in light of Captains evidence or alternately to rebut his argument.

Do you always create RED HERRINGS when your statements prove to be nothing more than unfounded assumptions based on fear?

Of course two men would make worse parents, the child would grow up without a mother. I have seen no proof that gays make BETTER parents, and since gays and straights are not the same, the likelyhood that they are equal parents are very low..
 
No people like you drive me crazy. You make claims that relate to the real world that can be objectively measured. You are not making claims as to what is your favourite colour, ie subjective claims. You are making objective claims that can be measured empirically. And one way of backing up claims is using empirical studies, aka statistics.

Secondly you are moving into legal arguments of rights... Don't confuse rights with x is better at parenting than y. Which I must add was the original premise of your argument.

Rights are a legal and ethical construct. Saying that x is more likely to be a better parent than y is a claim that can be backed up with empirical studies.

Anyway back to the argument....

So YOU think it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother? Thats your opinion, not mine.. I never made objective claims such as that.. We all know that children needs a mother, if you do not, I suggest you stop debating on the internet and just withdraw for a few weeks and start thinking for yourself for awhile.

As for lesbians I have said all along they would make better parents than two gay men.
 
Of course two men would make worse parents, the child would grow up without a mother. I have seen no proof that gays make BETTER parents, and since gays and straights are not the same, the likelyhood that they are equal parents are very low..

And yet you cannot provide any proof that children that did not grow up with their biological parents would be worse off. So we go back to a circular argument.

So first you make a claim about homosexuals being worse than heterosexual couples at parenting.

When that falls apart, you go to the next argument, that homosexuals will be worse parents because it denies a child a right to a mother.

But hay if you want to change the premise of the argument, because your original argument has been refutted, lets go there.

So I ask you to present data that suggests that children brought up without a mother grow up worse than children with a mother. Very simple, you make the assertion back it. Stop making common sense comments that prove **** all.

I might as well say this: gays tend to have a lot more money than most heterosexuals, thus it makes common sense to allow them to adopt as they will have more resources to invest in the child...... See how useful common sense is?

Anyway provide me with the evidence and not just your claims of common sense.
 
So YOU think it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother? Thats your opinion, not mine.. I never made objective claims such as that.. We all know that children needs a mother, if you do not, I suggest you stop debating on the internet and just withdraw for a few weeks and start thinking for yourself for awhile.

As for lesbians I have said all along they would make better parents than two gay men.

No I am not making any claims that it is logical or rational for a children to grow up without a mother. What I am asking you is provide empirical evidence that a child with homosexual parents would be worse off compared to a child that has a mother.
 
So YOU think it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother? Thats your opinion, not mine.. I never made objective claims such as that.. We all know that children needs a mother, if you do not, I suggest you stop debating on the internet and just withdraw for a few weeks and start thinking for yourself for awhile.

As for lesbians I have said all along they would make better parents than two gay men.

I would like for you to be intellectually honest and actually quote directly any passage where I have said that it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother.

I dare you to. And I invite that fellow posters to ask that Maximus finds this quote.

Do you know the difference between someone saying:

it makes sense that x would be better than y,

as opposed to what I have said:

do you have evidence that suggests that a child growing up with their mother will do better than a child that does not have a mother?
 
Last edited:
No I am not making any claims that it is logical or rational for a children to grow up without a mother. What I am asking you is provide empirical evidence that a child with homosexual parents would be worse off compared to a child that has a mother.

Its not a matter of evidence, this is a matter of common sense.

I have seen no proof the the contrary btw.. I have told you a number of factors which should get you thinking about this..

Mom/dad is obviously the most healthy parenting relationship(on average), its natural, you get both influence from a mother figure and a father figure, both non-confusing feminine and non-confusing masculine input. Its better than single parent houses, its better than gay parents, its right out the best solution, the natural solution..

Or would you also contest that single parent situations on average is worse for children than mom/dad parenting situation?
 
I would like for you to be intellectually honest and actually quote directly any passage where I have said that it would make sense for children to grow up without a mother.

I dare you to. And I invite that fellow posters to ask that Maximus finds this quote.

Do you know the difference between someone saying:

it makes sense that x would be better than y,

as opposed to what I have said:

do you have evidence that suggests that a child growing up with their mother will do better than a child that does not have a mother?

The best parenting situation on average for children is mom/dad.. No doubt about it. Any proof or statistics you that may show otherwise is either a shallow scratch the surface thing, or tainted by the bias and the wish that gay parents are equal. The amount of date on mom/dad vs single parents are huge in favor of mom/dad, and there is almost no credible data available on dad/dad, mom/mom parenting in comparison to either. So to prove that they are equal is just ridiculous.
 
Its not a matter of evidence, this is a matter of common sense.

I have seen no proof the the contrary btw.. I have told you a number of factors which should get you thinking about this..

Mom/dad is obviously the most healthy parenting relationship(on average), its natural, you get both influence from a mother figure and a father figure, both non-confusing feminine and non-confusing masculine input. Its better than single parent houses, its better than gay parents, its right out the best solution, the natural solution..

Or would you also contest that single parent situations on average is worse for children than mom/dad parenting situation?

Again you are making assumptions. And again you are dodging the question.

Will a child be worse off in life if they do not have a mother? You make the claim of obvious as if it is some sort of self-evident truth, but the reality is that you are not willing to test your belief or hypothesis against any empirical data. Therefore it keeps coming back to your previous remarks that claim that a child will be worse off with two gay fathers, than a child that has a mother.

All I am asking for you to do is provide some evidence, otherwise I might as well say (hypothetically speaking) that it makes sense the children be only be born into wealthy families as they have the most resources.

Lastly Maximus I am asking you to take back your comments where you claim that I said that it 'makes sense for children to have no mother'.
 
Dont you think adopted children deserves to have a mother?

Most kids without parents would be happy to have any parents. Be it two dads, two moms, whatever.

Adopted children deserve to have loving parents. It is not your place to deny them that because of the loving parents' genders and your personal views regarding that.
 
Well, you prove to me that gay couples, two men for example have raised children, and that they have done it better than straights.. If they havent its highly unlikely they are even equal good parents, because a man & a man is not the same as a woman & a man, and therefor unlikely equal at raising a child either..

How many times must we tell you that homosexuals do not make better parents? They make just as good a parents as heterosexuals. Period. Get this whole "better" crap outta here.

And as has been shown to you, just because homosexual parents are not the same as heterosexual parents gender wise does not mean that they cannot raise kids just as well as heterosexual parents. Remember the apple and orange analogy?

You see that is your whole problem here Max. The gender of a person does not matter on how well a person can parent. There are heterosexual parents that are worse parents than homosexual parents. And there are heterosexual parents that are better than homosexual parents. IE they even out. Which is why people use words like "on average" or "vis a vis". And why people use statistics.

How about a childs right to grow up with a mother? Only the most unfortunate children do not, if their mother die or something. Its the most natural human relationship.. You want to take that away?

A child has a right to a biological mother. And a biological father. But there is no such right as to just having a mother and/or a father. And when the biological parents give up their rights or have their rights stripped from them then that child has a right to a loving and secure home. Which is what the courts go by. Loving and secure. Why? Because as I said above a persons gender does not matter in how well they will raise a child. If gender did matter then the courts would only allow the child to be raised in the womans or mans (which ever gender had proved that they were better at raising kids) home after a divorce.
 
Back
Top Bottom