• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously demonstrating that you have nothing. YOU have no understanding of the human reproductive system, and seem to be one of those who believe that procreation and genetics are the same. You also have shown that your understanding of sexual orientation is minimal at best. You have, thus far, offered nothing to prove your position. Let me know when you have garnered more information on this topic.

Uh-huh, sure. Guess you got me. Have a nice day, and I surely hope you are a spokesman or lawyer for a pro-GM movement.
 
Natural selection is external to the species. It is not internally driven and is not controlled directly or indirectly by the actors. Read Darwin.

I think YOU need to read Darwin. Natural selection can occur through genetic of physiological changes that can affect the growth of the species. Species will adapt to their surroundings. This is not external to the species, but internal adjustments. It is not controlled by the actors.
 
Uh-huh, sure. Guess you got me. Have a nice day, and I surely hope you are a spokesman or lawyer for a pro-GM movement.

No, just someone who understands the issue. Have a nice day. Let me know when you would like to do this again.
 
I think YOU need to read Darwin. Natural selection can occur through genetic of physiological changes that can affect the growth of the species. Species will adapt to their surroundings. This is not external to the species, but internal adjustments. It is not controlled by the actors.

False assumption. The strongest and most adaptable survive. That's an external factor, regardless it doesn't suggest a species will attempt to limit it's own population for survival.
 
False assumption. The strongest and most adaptable survive.

That's an external factor, regardless it doesn't suggest a species will attempt to limit it's own population for survival.

You seem to be saying that I am claiming that this is directive. I am not.
 
You seem to be saying that I am claiming that this is directive. I am not.

There is no natural benefit to the species provided by naturally occurring homosexuality, nothing you've said proves otherwise. Further, claiming the legitimacy of heterosexuality needs to be proven when it's obviously paramount to species propagation is ludicrous. Your assertions are without merit.
 
There is no natural benefit to the species provided by naturally occurring homosexuality, nothing you've said proves otherwise.

You do understand that there doesn't necessarily have to be a natural benefit. There is no natural benefit to blue eyes. There is no natural benefit to red hair. Natural diversity could be a reason... and that in itself is a benefit. Further, there are theories that suggest that homosexual behavior amongst animals MAY have a population growth basis and/or alter the "tone" of a population. Of course these are postulations, but since we do not know, conclusively, the causes of sexual orientation, we do not know, conclusively, the reasons for it's development.

Further, claiming the legitimacy of heterosexuality needs to be proven when it's obviously paramount to species propagation is ludicrous. Your assertions are without merit.

You are making the classic error of mistaking sexual orientation with sexual behavior. ANYONE can procreate... straights, gays, or other. This is BEHAVIOR. Why we are attracted to one of the same or other sex is what sexual orientation is about. This is ORIENTATION. I am still waiting for you to show links that demonstrate the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality. I am not disputing the need for heterosexual BEHAVIOR to propagate the species. But show the causes of heterosexual orientation. Links, please.
 
And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in? Seriously, if you can justify gay marriage, it is hard to imagine how you could justify denying the same rights to polygamists, group-marriage, line-marriage, or basically about any damn thing anybody wants. The very same pro-SSM arguments would be used against you.

Hence why, despite my support for same sex marriage, I typically find myself arguing against other people who support it. It isn't that I consider same sex marriage a threat to the institution of marriage-- as obviously, I do not-- but that I consider the arguments supporting it to be a threat.

No. The criteria should be fair. It shouldn't be arbitrarily decided by what might be right or wrong. A good, fair criteria is harm to people or property. Financial considerations are fair, especially when we are talking about the government.

Fairness is subjective, and based on arbitrary ideals of right and wrong. It isn't enough to say that the criteria must be "fair"; obviously, people opposed to same sex marriage believe that the criteria are already fair. What is it that makes your criteria for marriage "fair" and Goshin's criteria "unfair"? For that matter, I have a number of criteria I believe are essential to preserving the functions of marriage-- chiefly relationship by affinity-- that apply to neither "harm to people or property" nor to "financial considerations". Is it unfair that, given the choice, I would not allow adopted cousins or siblings to marry?

In fact, I have said multiple times that I am not against polygamy, but would rather it be looked into before automatically made legal. From a logical standpoint, marriage becomes more complicated, especially when talking about civil marriage, the more people that the contract involves.

If you'll excuse my wording, I'd say that's a fair position to take. Legalized polygamy would certainly demand more investigation than same sex marriage to ensure that it did not damage the institution of marriage. I have always considered same sex marriage to be a necessary first step towards legalizing polygamy-- and it was this fact that initially drove my support for it.

Second, matters of sexuality shouldn't be taught at all in school. It's simply not their business.

And that is why teen pregnancy, and STD's are rampant within high school students.

People seem to forget that the entire purpose of the welfare schools is to provide an education for the children of parents who are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. I'd argue that applies as much to sex education as it does to English, science, and mathematics. If you're not capable of educating your children in the fashion you consider appropriate-- and conforming to the minimum standards of society-- then you should have no choice but to settle for the education that the welfare schools provide. Of course, as adults within our society, people have every right to advocate for what they think the welfare schools should and should not teach, but people who strenuously object to what their neighbors have decided should take responsibility for the education of their own children.

I've debunked the "what about polygamists" slippery slope argument, several times in the past, Goshen. I'll go look for the post, if I need to, but in essence there is are two major differences. Polygamy is NOT a sexual orientation and though research has show the benefits of gay marriage, research has shown the opposite with plural marriage.

I have never seen these arguments before, and I would be keenly interested in seeing them. Aside from forced marriage, which already is and should remain illegal, I am hard pressed to think of examples of how plural marriage would harm the institution of marriage or the people engaged in it.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that there doesn't necessarily have to be a natural benefit. There is no natural benefit to blue eyes. There is no natural benefit to red hair. Natural diversity could be a reason... and that in itself is a benefit. Further, there are theories that suggest that homosexual behavior amongst animals MAY have a population growth basis and/or alter the "tone" of a population. Of course these are postulations, but since we do not know, conclusively, the causes of sexual orientation, we do not know, conclusively, the reasons for it's development.



You are making the classic error of mistaking sexual orientation with sexual behavior. ANYONE can procreate... straights, gays, or other. This is BEHAVIOR. Why we are attracted to one of the same or other sex is what sexual orientation is about. This is ORIENTATION. I am still waiting for you to show links that demonstrate the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality. I am not disputing the need for heterosexual BEHAVIOR to propagate the species. But show the causes of heterosexual orientation. Links, please.

The term "Sexual Orientation" is simply a description of ones self identified sexual preference and:

"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass'n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini ["The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . . . (W.E. Craighead & C.B. Nemeroff eds., 3d ed. 2001)"],"

There being no evidence that there is any cause for any sexual orientation, it leaves me confident in relying on nature to determine what is right. Further, what you deemed homosexual acts by other animals has never been shown to be sexual in nature but social as no actual intercourse is performed.
 
The term "Sexual Orientation" is simply a description of ones self identified sexual preference and:

"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass'n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini ["The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . . . (W.E. Craighead & C.B. Nemeroff eds., 3d ed. 2001)"],"

Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. This is precisely what most studies and research has determined. No one is really sure how sexual orientation is created.

There being no evidence that there is any cause for any sexual orientation, it leaves me confident in relying on nature to determine what is right.

And since homosexuality occurs in nature as does heterosexuality, that means you see both in the same light... in order to be consistent and logical of course. And, of course, the moment you place a value judgement on either orientation because of your perception of what their existence means in nature, you commit an appeal to nature logical fallacy.

Further, what you deemed homosexual acts by other animals has never been shown to be sexual in nature but social as no actual intercourse is performed.

No, that is not accurate. Plenty of animals have been documented to have had homosexual intercourse. Bisons, giraffes, and dolphins are just three that I can think of.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. This is precisely what most studies and research has determined. No one is really sure how sexual orientation is created.



And since homosexuality occurs in nature as does heterosexuality, that means you see both in the same light... in order to be consistent and logical of course. And, of course, the moment you place a value judgement on either orientation because of your perception of what their existence means in nature, you commit an appeal to nature logical fallacy.



No, that is not accurate. Plenty of animals have been documented to have had homosexual intercourse. Bisons, giraffes, and dolphins are just three that I can think of.

No, I see it as a choice. I also see Heterosexuality as natural, and homosexuality as unnatural and there is no evidence available to prove me wrong. Therefore, it's up to society as a whole what it will accept.
 
No, I see it as a choice.

Nothing but your opinion. No conclusive proof, either way... interestingly enough, just as the information you posted in post #1634 said. So, you are contradicting your own information. Good to know.

I also see Heterosexuality as natural, and homosexuality as unnatural and there is no evidence available to prove me wrong.

Of course there is. Both occur in nature, therefore both are natural. That was REAL easy.

Therefore, it's up to society as a whole what it will accept.

This is always true, regardless.
 
Nothing but your opinion. No conclusive proof, either way... interestingly enough, just as the information you posted in post #1634 said. So, you are contradicting your own information. Good to know.



Of course there is. Both occur in nature, therefore both are natural. That was REAL easy.



This is always true, regardless.

If a conclusion based on analysis of available evidence is an an opinion, then sure, it's my opinion.
 
If a conclusion based on analysis of available evidence is an an opinion, then sure, it's my opinion.

Yet, you already posted the available evidence. Here, I'll post it for you again, in case you forgot:

The term "Sexual Orientation" is simply a description of ones self identified sexual preference and:

"Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. See generally Am. Psychol. Ass'n, 7 Encyclopedia of Psychol. 260 (A.E. Kazdin ed., 2000); 2 Corsini ["The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences . . . (W.E. Craighead & C.B. Nemeroff eds., 3d ed. 2001)"],"

I placed the key point in bold. So, since this is a good analysis of the available evidence... as you posted, I must conclude that your opinion is the same as mine. That we do not know conclusively what determines sexual orientation... be it heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Good to know we are on the same page at last.
 
Yet, you already posted the available evidence. Here, I'll post it for you again, in case you forgot:



I placed the key point in bold. So, since this is a good analysis of the available evidence... as you posted, I must conclude that your opinion is the same as mine. That we do not know conclusively what determines sexual orientation... be it heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Good to know we are on the same page at last.

You are interpreting that to fit your agenda. What it tells me is that there is not natural evidence supporting lack of choice in regards to homosexuality. I understand where you are confused, since it doesn't say that the study specifically say heterosexuality is natural. However, this statement combined with human anatomy, natural selection, the history of ur species and many other factors is proof that homosexuality is natural and heterosexuality (which has no natural function) is not.
 
You are interpreting that to fit your agenda.

No, I am taking what it said as quoted. YOU are the one interpreting it to fit your agenda.

What it tells me is that there is not natural evidence supporting lack of choice in regards to homosexuality.

See, it says this about homosexuality AND heterosexuality. You are omitting a part because it contradicts YOUR agenda. For someone who has claimed to have analyzed research, this would be considered a very poor type of analysis. Ignoring information just because you don't like it. Shame.

I understand where you are confused, since it doesn't say that the study specifically say heterosexuality is natural.

This is not confusion on my part. It is ignoring what the study DOES say on yours.

However, this statement combined with human anatomy, natural selection, the history of ur species and many other factors is proof that homosexuality is natural and heterosexuality (which has no natural function) is not.

Back to this. I thought we had resolved this issue. OK... firstly, please link me to the designer's website, or anything that shows what, precisely, human anatomy was designed for. Since we know that many parts of anatomy have several functions, it is key to go to the source for this information. Secondly, I already showed how the natural selection argument does not hold water. There are certainly reasons for homosexuality in nature, both with humans and with non-humans. Further, a function can be natural diversity, like eye color. And thirdly, since both occur in nature, and both are have functions, both are natural.

Anything else?
 
No, I am taking what it said as quoted. YOU are the one interpreting it to fit your agenda.



See, it says this about homosexuality AND heterosexuality. You are omitting a part because it contradicts YOUR agenda. For someone who has claimed to have analyzed research, this would be considered a very poor type of analysis. Ignoring information just because you don't like it. Shame.



This is not confusion on my part. It is ignoring what the study DOES say on yours.



Back to this. I thought we had resolved this issue. OK... firstly, please link me to the designer's website, or anything that shows what, precisely, human anatomy was designed for. Since we know that many parts of anatomy have several functions, it is key to go to the source for this information. Secondly, I already showed how the natural selection argument does not hold water. There are certainly reasons for homosexuality in nature, both with humans and with non-humans. Further, a function can be natural diversity, like eye color. And thirdly, since both occur in nature, and both are have functions, both are natural.

Anything else?

No, unless you can prove you have some evidence that says homosexuality is not a choice.
 
No, unless you can prove you have some evidence that says homosexuality is not a choice.

Please show where I made this claim. I'll give you a hint... I asked you to show where I made this claim, yesterday, and you couldn't find it. I haven't made it. I have consistently said the same thing. We do not know how sexual orientation formulates. Researchers state that it is probably a combination of biology, genetics, hormonal chemicals, and environment, but there is nothing conclusive. I have said this, or something like this, repeatedly.

So, since I've never made the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice or not, since we have no conclusive evidence proving either, your question is irrelevant.

So, anything else?
 
Please show where I made this claim. I'll give you a hint... I asked you to show where I made this claim, yesterday, and you couldn't find it. I haven't made it. I have consistently said the same thing. We do not know how sexual orientation formulates. Researchers state that it is probably a combination of biology, genetics, hormonal chemicals, and environment, but there is nothing conclusive. I have said this, or something like this, repeatedly.

So, since I've never made the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice or not, since we have no conclusive evidence proving either, your question is irrelevant.

So, anything else?

Isn't the title of the site debatepolitics.com? And the title of this thread is "gay marriage, is it right to stop it?" My opinion is yes, it's right to stop it. You've offered no credible evidence that tells me my opinion is incorrect. I am seriously anti-discrimination. I believe that every consenting adult has the right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, and that society dictates what is acceptable in public. Were there compelling evidence that showed me that homosexuality was not a choice then I would determine that it was only discrimination that stood against legalizing gay marriage. I don't believe that to be true, and all that's been offered over the last few pages are personal interpretations of studies that are claimed to say something they do not. You've certainly offered no compelling evidence to prove that I, and the majority of the American voters, are wrong on this issue. To be honest, I wish you had.
 
If you're anti-discrimination, Mac, on what basis do you oppose gay marriage then?

Of course your right. My point is if we can redefine marriage, we can redefine pedophilia as well as anything else. Why would anyone want to? For the same reasons they want to redefine marriage...for their own benefit.

That's a horrible argument that simply doesn't make sense, Mac.



What I've gotten out of this, Mac, is that you oppose gay marriage and while you claim you're anti-discriminatory, I don't see that actually coming through.

You seem to oppose gay marriage on the basis that it's gay marriage and nothing more.

I think you try to present yourself as logical and open, empirical and pragmatic, but when your arguments are finally pulled out and examined, they don't seem to pass those tests of reason.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the title of the site debatepolitics.com? And the title of this thread is "gay marriage, is it right to stop it?"

These are both true statements.

My opinion is yes, it's right to stop it.

OK.

You've offered no credible evidence that tells me my opinion is incorrect.

You have offered no credible evidence that tells me that your opinion is correct. And I've just gotten started. I can post TONS of stuff that demonstrates why GM benefits society. I've just been focusing on demonstrating that your positions have no merit.

I am seriously anti-discrimination.

Good. So am I. And I NEVER argue the pro-GM position from a discriminatory place. It's a loser argument.

I believe that every consenting adult has the right to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own home, and that society dictates what is acceptable in public.

I agree completely.

Were there compelling evidence that showed me that homosexuality was not a choice then I would determine that it was only discrimination that stood against legalizing gay marriage.

There is no compelling argument that shows that any sexual orientation is or is not a choice. This is why your argument has no merit. You cannot prove that heterosexuality is or is not a choice, either. Therefore, the discriminatory argument goes out the window. Just one of many reasons that I NEVER argue this issue from a discrimination standpoint. Both sides are simple to refute.

I don't believe that to be true, and all that's been offered over the last few pages are personal interpretations of studies that are claimed to say something they do not.

No, the studies have been show to be precisely what they say they are. The only one that is interpreting them with an agenda is you. You cannot claim that the discrimination argument does not work, when you cannot show that there is a difference in causation between heterosexuality and homosexuality. You have not proven this; in fact, you have proven the opposite. Therefore your "it is not discriminatory argument has been proven false at the essence.

You've certainly offered no compelling evidence to prove that I, and the majority of the American voters, are wrong on this issue.

I have proven that there is no logic in the reasoning behind your argument. The discrimination argument is a loser argument from both sides of the coin. I can beat it arguing either from the pro or from the anti side. I respect the American people voting in the direction they want,.. even if they are wrong, logically.

To be honest, I wish you had.

OK. Perhaps it is time for you to see MY position and argument. Folks around here have seen me do this several times before. My links are in Firefox, which is not formatting appropriately, so I have to reformat and rewrite (somewhat) for Safari. I will post MY position and evidence, tomorrow.

For those who have seen me do this before, I apologize in advance for the repetition, but I have to do this periodically.
 
Again, this is in no way an adequate explanation...


This is the one accurate sentence in your entire post.
 
If you're anti-discrimination, Mac, on what basis do you oppose gay marriage then?



That's a horrible argument that simply doesn't make sense, Mac.



What I've gotten out of this, Mac, is that you oppose gay marriage and while you claim you're anti-discriminatory, I don't see that actually coming through.

You seem to oppose gay marriage on the basis that it's gay marriage and nothing more.

I think you try to present yourself as logical and open, empirical and pragmatic, but when your arguments are finally pulled out and examined, they don't seem to pass those tests of reason.

Well, since you got me to answer your question and then went back afterwards and edited your post, I'll simply say this: It would be discrimination if it were based on something the person had no control over. I don't believe that to be the case regarding homosexuality. Therefore, it's not discrimination. As to your last statement, the same could be said for anyone else's positions here.
 
Last edited:
First and foremost I believe that the American family is on the decline for many reasons, and that it is leading to the major weakness we see in our society. I feel that it affects everything from our economy, to our health, to our safety, etc.

I agree, and the gist of my argument focuses on strengthening the family. As we know, the family is the basic building block to society. First the family.... then a community... then a society... then the country. So, if we strengthen the family, we strengthen the country.

There are a few premises that my position operates from. They are all research based. We know that people who are married do better than those who are not. They live longer, they are healthier, and they are more stable monetarily and socially. This is a statistical analysis of data. It does not mean that ALL who are married do better, but it means that it is statistically significant that those who are married to better. As can be seen by this, a healthier, more stable family structure creates a healthier more stable country... as is shown by my building blocks progression.

Next, why does government want to sanction/encourage marriage. Well. as we see, it creates a healthier, wealthier, more stable society, but the primary reason is for the successful rearing of children. One must remember that when a child is reared successfully, he/she becomes a healthy, productive, and stable member of that society/country and can the perpetuate this success. Again, we are talking statistics, here, not absolutes.

Lastly, what we know about families and the rearing of children. Children do better in two parent households than they do in single parent households. Again, research is pretty clear on this, and again, this is statistically significant, not absolute.

So, this is what we know. Marriage produces increased health, wealth, and stability. This progresses to the community, society, and country. We know that government has reasons to sanction and promote marriage... the factors I mentioned and, most importantly, the rearing of children. Finally, we know that children do better in two parent households than those in single parent households.

So, why should government promote GM? Because, all of the information I just provided applies to both straight marrieds AND gay marrieds. The most important component of this is the rearing of children. As this is key in the continuation of a stable society, it behooves the government to promote scenarios that create the successful rearing of children. Currently, the research that has been done demonstrates that children reared by gay parents do equally as well as those by straight parents.

For your viewing pleasure. The studies, with commentary:

Here are the studies supporting my position that children in same-sex households do, at least, as well, overall as those in heterosexual households. Universally, studies show that not only do same-sex parents perform as well as straight parents (whose children would probably be biological), but do better at times. As far as children's emotional health goes, studies show that, on 4 important scales, there is little or no difference between children reared from single-sex families and those from straight parents (whose children would probably be biological). The 4 components examined were Gender Identity, Gender Role Behavior, Sexual Orientation, and Other Aspects of Personal Development, such as Social Relationships. One difference they did find was that children raised by single-sex parents tend to be more flexible and less closed-minded in their thinking.

The studies I am posting are peer reviewed and reproducible, certainly based on the number that produce similar results.

Studies:
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.

Reviewed 23 empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty studies reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5-44 yrs.) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires, or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
615 offspring from gay parents; 387 controls from straight parents. No differences in 7 types of functioning.

That's ONE.

Gottman, J. S. (1990). Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family relations (pp. 177-196). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Reviews research literature on children of homosexual (HS) parents, including comparisons with children of heterosexual parents. Children of HS parents did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation, or social adjustment. Issues that emerged during their upbringing related more to society's rejection of homosexuality than to poor parent-child relationships. Most social adjustment problems occurred in both groups and were commonly related to family history of divorce. Results are supported by J. Schwartz's (unpublished manuscript) investigation of the above variables in adult-aged daughters in relation to mothers' sexual orientations, with a focus on role modeling theory.
No difference between children raised by gay parents vs. straight parents on 3 scales. Only issue was society's issue with homosexuality; parenting was a non-issue.

That's TWO.

Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J., & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 14, 81-87.

Reviews the literature on the impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases. As a result of the relatively high rate of divorce in the United States and the increasing awareness that many parents (an estimated 1.5 million) are homosexual, the courts and divorce mediators have become actively involved in child custody placement decisions involving homosexual parents. While custody decisions have tended to reflect stereotyped beliefs or fears concerning the detrimental effects of homosexual parenting practices on child development, the research literature provides no evidence substantiating these fears. Several specific custody issues are discussed as well as social factors relevant to lesbian motherhood.
Interesting study. No significant issues when homosexual parents obtain custody when a divorce occurs.

That's THREE.

Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456-479.

Reviews 56 studies (published from 1971 to 1994) on lesbian mothers and their children. Three main family patterns and some common misconceptions about these families are addressed. Research suggests there are no differences between children of lesbians and children of heterosexuals with regard to their emotional health, interpersonal relationships, sexual orientation, or gender development. Psychological adjustment and parenting skills were not significantly different for lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Implications for school psychology practice and training are discussed.
No significant difference in important emotional health issues between children raised by lesbian parents vs. straight parents.

That's FOUR.

Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989b). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 173-186). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Compared the responses of 33 homosexual (HMS) fathers with those of 33 heterosexual (HTS) fathers on the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory. HMS subjects did not differ significantly from HTS subjects in their reported degree of involvement or in intimacy level with children. HMS subjects tended to be more strict and more responsive to children's needs and provided reasons for appropriate behavior to children more consistently than HTS subjects. Possible explanations for these similarities and differences in parenting styles are explored.
Homosexual parenting vs. Heterosexual parenting is explored. No significant differences were found, though homosexual parents tended to be more strict, more responsive, and more consistent with their children.

That's FIVE.

Continued...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom