Consistancy is one thing but virtually identical results is something else. here, contrast the results of your studies with these concerning the length of homosexual relationships. These are very similar findings from different studies, but there are variances among them. That is exactly what one expects from different studies from different researchers in differents countries. One would expect to see variations in studies especially those concerning human behavior. I'm not getting that from many of your studies or the ones I'm familiar with. Just why is that and just why aren't you concerned about that too?
· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."
· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years
I'd say the vast majority. You understand that point too. Yet for some reason you don't see a problem. and this after making the same point in an earlier article I offered concerning gays in large cities.Most but not all.
Once again, I don't as yet have those links. I agree further research is seriously needed but some of these issues already constitute red flags for sceptics such as myself.That's true. The samples are overly representative of whites. However, further research, and I believe it is in the link that I provided, has demonstrated similar findings amongst other ethnicities. This, however, does need to be looked at further.
Gosh, not according to this article from slate.This is not accurate. Control groups for the studies tend to be based on either biological, intact families, or adoptive intact families, depending on the study.
....The problems don't stop there. A chunk of the gay-parenting literature dates to the 1980s, when researchers drew mostly on children born in heterosexual marriages that dissolved before or after a parent came out. (It was a decade during which studies of divorced- and single-parent families in general multiplied.) With this "transitional generation," it's impossible to disentangle the effects of parents' sexual orientation from those of divorce, of the revelation of homosexuality, and of re-partnering. And whatever impact social stigma had then, it's surely changed somewhat now that same-sex parenthood is more visible.
Finding suitable control groups is tricky, too. In the past, children of divorced single mothers have often served as the point of comparison, even though once-married lesbian mothers are more likely than their heterosexual peers to be living with new partners. Only in the 1990s have some (small) studies matched up children of homosexual and heterosexual donor-insemination couples. Given the limitations of such shaky cross-sectional research, longitudinal studies would be very useful—especially since there's so much interest in developmental issues, including the evolution of kids' gender identities and sexual orientations when they grow up with gay parents. Almost nobody, however, has tracked gay and lesbian families over time......
Well, is this "fact" or "opinion" on your part. If it is a "fact" shouldn't you provide something to support your position or am I to simply accept it as fact......because you say it's so. By the way one or two studies don't constitute "a lot." (that would be an opinion)Because most of the research around homosexuality was faulty, especially that of homosexuality and child molestation. As that information has been found to be non-credible, the amount of gays who rear children have gone up. If I recall correctly, there is at least one, if not two longitudinal studies that I did list.
Yes, about all those findings that indicate lesbian couples raise children who are better adjusted than those raised in homes with a mother and a father. This article suggests the "repeatability" of many of these studies exist for a reason....bias on the part of the researchers themselves. Of course we both know that could never happen. (that sarcasm on my part not fact)Mostly, but the key factor in their reliability is the repeatability of the studies.
.....But Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies: the idea that it would be damning to discover that kids of gay parents deviated in any way from kids growing up with moms and dads. As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science. (The hypothesis that both groups of kids are alike is hard to rule out, but that doesn't mean you've established that there are no differences.) That "heterosexist" bias, Stacey argues, has also encouraged researchers to fudge results, anxiously claiming homogeneity where there's actually some variety. Why, she asks, buy into the view that "differences indicate deficits"?.....
Mostly not?? Is that "fact" or your "opinion?" Could you quantify the term "mostly?" Is there any way we can determine the exact figures? Are there large populations of child rearing lesbians out here in the rural areas of the country?This is not accurate. I would say that the samples are mostly NOT from urban areas.
No, I do agree with you on the subject of repeatability. What I do question is that these findings "lesbians raise better behaved children, better adjusted children" without men. This alone puts to question all of those studies over the last 100 years or so that indicated children from homes with a mother and father raised better adjusted and better adapted children. This article references a study by norma radin that supports the idea of the positive influences of males in raising children and suggests one mom is just fine, a second mom could be redundant. Just which set of studies is more valid? They would seem to contradict each other. (that would be me pointing out something you already understand)Not at all. It demonstrates the repeatability of this hypothesis, a cornerstone of research validity. If you do a test and your hypothesis is proven each time, you can say that your hypothesis is valid. I find it interesting that you would question repeatability.
......Can the "second mommy" compensate for the absence of a father? There is substantial evidence that children benefit from having a second sex represented in the home -- not just a second person. Developmental psychologist Norma Radin and her colleagues studied the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren born to adolescent unwed mothers living with their parents. The young children who had positively involved grandfathers displayed more competence than those with an absent or uninvolved grandfather. The presence of the grandmother, on the other hand, did not have a clear-cut impact, suggesting a redundancy between the two forms of maternal influence.(11) Children, especially boys with involved grandfathers, showed less fear, anger, and distress.(12)......Well, I don't know about your four factors but this article referenced a study that suggested some researchers have their own ideas about what constitutes "well adjusted."There are four factors and I believe they were listed at the beginning of my first post.
.....There were differences: children raised by parents with SSA showed empathy for "social diversity", were less confined by gender stereotypes (so far so good that's my opinion btw).....and......more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behaviour. Stacey and Biblarz characterized these as positive differences, suggesting that same-sex parenting may in fact be superior........(yikes )So......according to your statement fathers aren't needed in rearing children. I disagree (my opinion, not fact) This article references another article that make this point;No, it doesn't show that at all. What it shows is that two parents, of any gender or sexual orientation, will rear children equally as well.
I agree with this one. I believe children need both men and women in order to develop properly. But that's just me, and my opinion.In an article entitled, "A Boy and Two Mothers", Toni Heineman reports that in spite of the pretence that two "mothers" were the same as a mother and father, families had to cope with the reality of an absent father.(13)
Men and women grow up with certain natural expectations about what it means to be a man or a woman. Although activists may claim that these feelings are mere social constructions which they can overcome, in practice nature will always have its way.
Provided.So, where are your sources?