Thread: Same-sex couples won't benefit children

A topic of interest I believe:


LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Same-sex couples won't benefit children » Kitsap Sun

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

A topic of interest I believe:


LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Same-sex couples won't benefit children » Kitsap Sun

That's nonsense. More than half the children in the US are in single parent homes or in homes where parents are interchangeable. Such as: Mom has two guys and so the dad of the moment is at the home. Dad sleeps with different women and in the morning the child never knows who is home.
They don't need a specific mom or dad. Two moms or two dad's work fine as long as the child has love.

This letter contains absolutely no scientific evidence, only guesses. If you would look up scientific articles, you would know that children of same-sex couples do as well as other children.
This means there is no good reason for the government to disallow adoption by same-sex couples. It's actually discrimination.
Honestly, you have to be either a homophobic or just very stubborn to be against it. And even if you're homophobic, you have no right to take an equality right like this from them.

There's plenty of scientific evidence that a sperm and an egg are required to make a child. Nature, it seems, thinks that one mother and one father are ideal. Anything else is human invention.

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

There's plenty of scientific evidence that a sperm and an egg are required to make a child. Nature, it seems, thinks that one mother and one father are ideal. Anything else is human invention.

Said human invention goes back to the dawn of time. In a lot of societies, children are raised just as much by extended family as they are by their bio parents. In some places, the woman's brother takes the role of father; not the biological father. Adoption and fostering also goes back to the dawn of time. After all, the leading killer of women used to be childbirth (and still is in some places) so the mother often wasn't around to raise the child anyway.

While biology may require a man and a woman, it seems that the human psyche doesn't really care who raises it, as long as it has a healthy environment.

As Taylor mentioned, all scientific evidence points to the conclusion that this is true for gay couples, too. Children raised by gay couples turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexuals couples under similar circumstances.

Another day.....another anti-gay post from Navy Pride. A poorly written link too. yawn.

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

There's plenty of scientific evidence that a sperm and an egg are required to make a child. Nature, it seems, thinks that one mother and one father are ideal. Anything else is human invention.

Problem is that most kids don't have the benefit of both parents, so what exactly is your point. You would outlaw divorce or force any single woman to have an abortion so that children have both parents?

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

Said human invention goes back to the dawn of time. In a lot of societies, children are raised just as much by extended family as they are by their bio parents. In some places, the woman's brother takes the role of father; not the biological father. Adoption and fostering also goes back to the dawn of time. After all, the leading killer of women used to be childbirth (and still is in some places) so the mother often wasn't around to raise the child anyway.

While biology may require a man and a woman, it seems that the human psyche doesn't really care who raises it, as long as it has a healthy environment.

As Taylor mentioned, all scientific evidence points to the conclusion that this is true for gay couples, too. Children raised by gay couples turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexuals couples under similar circumstances.

Humans are quite plastic and can learn to adapt to unideal situations. Should government intervene and declare unideal situations identical to ideal ones?

As to children raised by gay couples meeting the same statistical markers as children raised by heterosexual partners, in another thread I said: A mix of heterosexual reared children will include many who were not planned for and as a result are raised in homes where there is tension over their rearing or perhaps outright hostility to their presence. Same sex couples cannot, by design, have unintended children. Also, same sex couples looking to adopt or to have a surrogate, etc. are likely better educated than the average heterosexual couple, and would tend to raise kids that tested better. That's not an advantage of homosexuality though.

Were we to compare apples to apples, that is, children raised by heterosexual couples and same sex couples that were equal in all regards, at best it would be a statistical dead heat, and I seriously doubt that any study of any reasonable sample size or length of time would show same sex couples as superior. http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...post1060222367 (Gay Myths: Exactly how does homosexuality affect your life?)

...and I think it bears repeating. I'm not convinced that homosexual couples are in every way the equal of heterosexual couples when it comes to child rearing, and I certainly don't buy the suggestion that they are in any way superior.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

Problem is that most kids don't have the benefit of both parents, so what exactly is your point. You would outlaw divorce or force any single woman to have an abortion so that children have both parents?

Funny you bring up divorce...it's been my belief that no fault divorce is one of the single worst things that happened to American society. It effectively renders the marriage contract meaningless. It's no wonder that 50% of all kids are born to single parent households, when the stability and bond of marriage is considered irrelevant by our government.

Science proves that this is not true. /end thread.