• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes : Why?

No : Why?
 
Last edited:
I would say straight couples, on average, would make better parents but that's just my personal bias speaking. I don't think one can discount the importance normative biology plays in raising offspring.
 
The average what?

The average civil union'd/married straight couple making 100k with 2 parents working living in a suburb v. Average civil union'd/married gay couple making 100k with 2 parents working living in a suburb?

Or the "average" straight "couple" v. the "average" gay "couple"?
 
This is a slightly unfair question.
It is not about whether the parents enjoy penis or vagina. It is about whether or not they are responsible parents.

Drawing conclusions and calling them statistics is effing lunacy.

To whom it may concern: you can take you statistics and shove them up your ass.
 
Yes, but the ideal situation is not the only way children can have a good upbringing.
 
The average what?

The average nothing. I said on average.

The average civil union'd/married straight couple making 100k with 2 parents working living in a suburb v. Average civil union'd/married gay couple making 100k with 2 parents working living in a suburb?

Sure. Let's use that comparison.
 
Considering virtually 100% of gay people had straight parents, I would say that gay parents couldn't do any worse.
 
I punted on the poll... because I think you could substitute any 'non-typical' couple in the question and come up with the same dilemma. For instance, on average, would normal sized couples make better parents than dwarf couples? On average, would same-race couples make better parents than mixed race couples? On average, would religious couples make better parents than agnostic or atheist couples? On average, would natural-born couples make better parents than immigrant couples?

I think what it boils down to is that every 'couple' has some obstacles to deal with. And in many cases those obstacles are going to impact the children to some degree or another. So our responses to this poll are going to be dictated by our beliefs rather than measurable data of any kind.

Interesting exercise, perhaps. I honestly don't know. That's my answer.

;)
 
Sure. Let's use that comparison.

Okay, well in that case, I think it'd probably be close. All other things being equal, the kid being raised by a male and a female would probably have a more balanced set of influences than one being raised by two people of the same gender. I don't think it's a huge deal though.

Considering virtually 100% of gay people had straight parents, I would say that gay parents couldn't do any worse.

This of course assumes that you're measuring parental success on a "gay/not gay" scale.
 
As long as the parents are loving and instill good values in the child, I could care less whether they were a man and a woman or a man and a man.
 
Yes, because straight couples can marry, thus there is a statistically higher likelihood of their family staying intact while the kids are being raised than a couple that cannot marry.
 
Yes, because straight couples can marry, thus there is a statistically higher likelihood of their family staying intact while the kids are being raised than a couple that cannot marry.
Why is marriage necessary to raise a child successfully?
 
Why is marriage necessary to raise a child successfully?

It is not. However, family stability goes a long ways toward raising a child successfully and while a lot of marriages end in divorce, you are still statistically more likely to stay together if you are married to your partner than if your not.

That said, I would imagine that in the few states where same sex couples can marry, then a married same sex couple in a stable home would statistically fare just as well as parents as a married heterosexual couple.
 
Simply on the basis that having both a mother figure and a father figure is, to my knowledge, psychologically advantageous, I voted yes. That being said, of course there is no reason why a gay couple can't be great parents, and for male couples there's plenty of parentless children to go around. It's great for female couples to adopt as well, but they have the benefit of the option of artificial insemination.
 
My standard for good parents is how successfully their child is able to integrate into and be come a productive member of society. Due to the stigma surrounding homosexuality I don't think a child raised by a gay couple will be able to do so as well as a child raised by a straight couple.
 
Below are links to two posts I have made that contain a ton of information on this topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057847882-post57.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057847883-post58.html

If we look at outcomes and ability to function, and we look at these from the aspects of socialization, academics, emotional functioning, and sexuality, children reared from straight parents and children reared from gay parents are, statistically, the same. The aspects examine are, also, excellent predictors of future outcomes.

So, on average, if one considers both sets of parents to be stable and loving, there would be no discernible difference.
 
I already said what y'all can do with those statistics.
 
I already said what y'all can do with those statistics.

And you'd be wrong about that. The statistics give good information about functioning and status. Which gives us good information about how these children did based on their parenting.
 
I already said what y'all can do with those statistics.

Does that mean that we can do the same for any of your other statements?

Point being is that just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. Unless of course you can show proof that those statistics are in error then you really have no ground to stand on.
 
Below are links to two posts I have made that contain a ton of information on this topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057847882-post57.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057847883-post58.html

If we look at outcomes and ability to function, and we look at these from the aspects of socialization, academics, emotional functioning, and sexuality, children reared from straight parents and children reared from gay parents are, statistically, the same. The aspects examine are, also, excellent predictors of future outcomes.

So, on average, if one considers both sets of parents to be stable and loving, there would be no discernible difference.
Interesting studies. I'm not sure it is so clear cut though.

The research on gay parenting. - By Ann Hulbert - Slate Magazine

But wait: All the evidence—as both sides acknowledge—is seriously flawed and doesn't begin to supply anything like solid support for either the hopes of gay family harmony or the fears about scarred children and skewed
parenting.


USATODAY.com - Looking straight at gay parents

There is precious little research on the children of gay families compared with that done on the children from heterosexual unions. The studies are often small, conflicting and controversial.


Briefing on homosexual parenting

In the same way that many of the "accepted facts" from Freud and Kinsey have been found to be seriously flawed, so the current accepted wisdom about gay parenting appears to be flawed. It claims reassuring conclusions that are hard to justify from current research. In many cases it is true that studies do not show significant differences, but numbers are small and lesbian mothers are often from a more advantaged socio-economic group than the single heterosexual mothers used as controls.

It seems up in the air to me. Some of those like yourself reviewing the research come up with certain conclusions and others like those above come up with different ones.
 
Last edited:
Yes : Why?

No : Why?

YES.

Its best for a child to have input from both a mother/female and a father/male, that will best prepare him for life.

Aside from that it would be awful and input in a child's life to have any of his parents be one of those "gay pride"/"outrageous gay behaving" peoples input. No one could benefit from that. Imagine the damage it could do over time. That would pretty much be worse than any mom/dad parents, even drug addicts.

I would rank two "not gay pride/outrageous" gay parents as better than having drug addicted mom/dad parents. I would also rank two females as better parents than two men, naturally.
 
Last edited:
Interesting studies. I'm not sure it is so clear cut though.

The research on gay parenting. - By Ann Hulbert - Slate Magazine

But wait: All the evidence—as both sides acknowledge—is seriously flawed and doesn't begin to supply anything like solid support for either the hopes of gay family harmony or the fears about scarred children and skewed
parenting.

Much of this article centers around Stacey and Bilbartz. I have debunked that information in another thread as taken out of context. Stacey herself has stated that she is often taken out of context in this matter.
USATODAY.com - Looking straight at gay parents

There is precious little research on the children of gay families compared with that done on the children from heterosexual unions. The studies are often small, conflicting and controversial.

And again, this article uses the Stacey and Bilbartz study...already debunked. Further, even though the article makes the above comment, every piece of evidence it quotes, contradicts that comment.

Briefing on homosexual parenting

In the same way that many of the "accepted facts" from Freud and Kinsey have been found to be seriously flawed, so the current accepted wisdom about gay parenting appears to be flawed. It claims reassuring conclusions that are hard to justify from current research. In many cases it is true that studies do not show significant differences, but numbers are small and lesbian mothers are often from a more advantaged socio-economic group than the single heterosexual mothers used as controls.

I reject this on two levels. Firstly, any Christian website is going to go with their anti-gay agenda. Secondly, And I will have to re-review the Golomok/Tasker study (haven't looked at it in a while), the article takes out of context and spins some of the wording to make gay parenting look less favorable. This is one of the studies I used in my overview, and the research was sound.

It seems up in the air to me. Some of those like yourself reviewing the research come up with certain conclusions and others like those above come up with different ones.

I will agree that more research needs to be done. However, current research is positive, and the methology is sound.
 
Back
Top Bottom