Gay Marriage and Raising Children: The Elephant in the Room

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Sinny

 

Like if gays can have children (which i think they should, but with much consideration into the childs thoughts)

does that means transexuals should?

Like that bird, that had a sex change to be a bloke, who married a women who also had a sex change to be a man, , and then the bird/man had a child...


THATS SO MESSED UP ITS UNREAL.

I mean seriously, whats that kids head gonna be like?!

I'm glad you head a great time at the Pride event.



Any person or individual should have the automatic right to be a parent.

You're right, the thoughts when wanting to become a Parent should always be about the future child's welfare.

However, with that in mind, do we prevent poor people from becoming parents, how about those with criminal records? What about those people that have had an abortion, or already have a child and buggered off leaving them with one Parent? What about those people with violent tendencies or those that have low IQ's? etc etc... he list can go on and on.

Kids are resilient and so long as you surround them with unconditional love, support and guidance everything else is unimportant.

reply to post by FailedProphet


Lots of generalisations.

What about the individual?

What can a female give that a male can't, when you take away every individual characteristic of the 'self' you only have the physical bits.

There's lots of really bad Mothers and Fathers out there with no maternal or paternal instinct, they still pop babies out and are allowed to rear children.

Explanation: Hmmm?

Maybe there is another angle that can be taken ... let me see now ...

What could possibly be a more vital social issue to debate than a possible change to the most foundational building block of society - the traditional family? And why aren't we having this debate more vigorously?

Editing to redact unrequired text ... [aka the art of cherry picking]

What could possibly be a more vital social issue to debate than a possible change to the most foundational building block of society - the traditional family?

Editing some more ...

--- vital social issue -- debate -- change to the most foundational building block of society - the traditional family?

Rewrite ...

Vital Social Issue: Debate change to the most foundational building block of society - the traditional family?

Now to go ahead and answer my own edits!

ANSWER: There is no need to debate at all ... the traditional family was never set in stone to begin with!

OR

ANSWER: There is no need to debate at all ... the traditional family isn't going away anytime soon and anything non-traditional just adds to it and the more foundations the better I say!

Personal Disclosure: Furthermore ...

The traditional one-man-one woman family is the most ancient building-block of society. It is found all over the globe, albeit with some variation. Sometimes it is in an extended family pattern, sometimes not. There are cases such as polygamy among the upper classes in some cultures, but by and large these are exceptions rather than the rule.

Maybe we just need to qualify it as a specific exception to a general rule?

Because life isn't all B&W ... it's also colourful!

While I can see a few have already pulled out the homophobia card, I will attempt to add to this discussion in an objective matter. I do feel that it is self-evident that any societal adjustment be examined from all conceivable angles.

The reason that little exact information exists on the consequences to children raised in homosexual households is that, obviously, few have been raised such with any documented evidence. Homosexuality is not an invention of the 21st century, but the amount of overt homosexual activity is unique to the 21st century. As such, it becomes impossible to obtain a sufficient sample size of documented examples to make a definitive prognosis on how a child's societal future might be affected by gender-preferential differences in their early home life. Ergo, we must look not at absolutes (this is good; this is bad) but rather to theories based on observation of different roles in child development.

There is no evidence and no realistic reason to presume future evidence that a homosexual parent will provide any more or less love and support than a heterosexual parent. It seems clear from observing society that this attribute has little to nothing to do with sexual preference. It would follow then that this attribute would be more a function of the personality of the parent and that there would be loving and caring as well as negligent parents regardless of sexual preference.

While at one time financial considerations would be apt in this discussion, the traditional roles of father and mother in that regard have blurred sufficiently to render this consideration moot as well. The days of the male being the sole financial support for the family unit are long gone, and I do not subscribe to the theory that income indicates parental ability in any case.

There is the societal acceptance consideration. For many years, interracial children were shunned by their peers for the most part during childhood. I discount this as well based on the fact that societal evolution has already removed the vast majority of this from existence and interracial children today tend to experience little difficulty in that area as a general rule. To use this excuse solely as a basis for denying parental rights would be to only postpone the issue and would potentially deny a freedom to individuals without just cause in the process.

Traditional gender role models, then, would become the only remaining consideration. Despite repeated experiments and studies, the debate of "nature or nurture" still rages on unresolved. Personal experience tells me that boys and girls (I have raised one of each) do exhibit somewhat traditional roles despite attempts to not reinforce those roles from a parental position. As an example, my daughter, while feminine, can run a concrete mixer with the best of the boys because I taught her to. Yet, she also exhibits a more nurturing and less aggressive attitude outside the family unit than my son does. While in my mind, that does give some credence to nature over nurture, it is impossible to know all her experiences outside the home and how much of those experiences were reinforcing a traditional female role.

I do know that as a rule, mothers are more important than fathers during early childhood and fathers are more important than mothers during later childhood/adolescence. In between lies a sliding scale, and the exact details of when this transition happens and how fast it happens appears to vary with each child. Societal observation of the single-mother household appears to back this up, as children of such households typically run into trouble around adolescence when it would be expected that the paternal role importance would be emerging.

The question becomes, then, is this need based on gender or family position and attitude? If the former, we could expect to see lesbian households exhibit similar results to single-mother households and male-only households have problems with younger children. If the latter, this would not necessarily be the case.

Since it is physically impossible for two males or two females to have a traditional child, a potential solution presents itself. A gay couple can have a child either through a previous relationship of one of the participants, adoption, or artificial insemination/surrogate birth. It would be simple enough to examine the results of children raised in homosexual households where the child is the biological offspring of one of the participants. This upholds parental rights, allows the children to remain with their biological parents, and provides some chance to study the effects of such arrangements. If no major problems are then found, I see no reason why adoption and non-traditional births would be an issue.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

1) I havent said theres an issue with gays having babies,

My mistake then, it seemed you were saying that.

just that i think the child should have a choice fom an early age.

Not following. How would they ask the child if it would like to be born?

2) Im a firm believer all children that currently live should be homed before any test tube babies are brought into the world.

Fair enough but that should imply heterosexuals adopt before they have their own as well.... if that's the real issue you would support that.

ETA: "Wild speculations of whats going to far" (?!?)

Okay, I want a mokey kangeroo child.

Like I said WHEN they come up. You are speculating on a possible boundary that doesn't even exist yet!...
I don't partake in extreme slippery slope arguments like this. They are just silly.

Do I think allowing homosexuals to have biological children through technology is that boundary. No I don't.

reply to post by FailedProphet

Will it change the way little boys and girls think of and relate to themselves? The other gender?

My two friends are 25 and 28. They have normal jobs, normal hobbies, normal relationships. They didn't relate to people of either gender any differently then one would expect as individuals. Nothing out of the ordinary. If you met them you wouldn't know they were raised by same-sex unless they told you. For both it was two mothers.

It's not proof, but if you believe me it's at least something to consider

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yea, the issue of the child making its own choice means gay wouldn@t be able to have a child from being born, like i said in a previous post, about the age of 5.. It sucks but thats the only solution i can see to the child being able to have its own say.

And yes, the same applies for hetrosexual couples,, regarding the test tube babes.

Also, how do you feel on the example i presented about the 2 he/shes having a child?

a persons sexuality has no bearing on what kind of parents they will make, how many times do we see on the news of some poor child being beaten or abused by parents or other family?

I am getting very tired of all the talk of sexuality on here, why do straight people insist on discussing my life choices and what that says about me?

I'm gay, would love children, have no urge to marry, have been in a stable relationship for over 3 years, I have a management job with a national company that makes £994 million a year, i have never been in trouble with the police.

Why is it that suddenly the most important part of that discription is the first 2 words?

For people who are so fast to believe things that cannot be proved, why is it so hard to believe that a persons sexuality is one of the least important parts of a person/personality?

Originally posted by TheRedneck


Traditional gender role models, then, would become the only remaining consideration. Despite repeated experiments and studies, the debate of "nature or nurture" still rages on unresolved. Personal experience tells me that boys and girls (I have raised one of each) do exhibit somewhat traditional roles despite attempts to not reinforce those roles from a parental position. As an example, my daughter, while feminine, can run a concrete mixer with the best of the boys because I taught her to. Yet, she also exhibits a more nurturing and less aggressive attitude outside the family unit than my son does. While in my mind, that does give some credence to nature over nurture, it is impossible to know all her experiences outside the home and how much of those experiences were reinforcing a traditional female role.

I do know that as a rule (Emphasis Mine), mothers are more important than fathers during early childhood and fathers are more important than mothers during later childhood/adolescence.

A well reasoned response, Redneck, as always.


I did, however, wish to point out this part of your posting.

With regard to the percieved "importance" of the mother v. father presence at certain stages of a child's development; could this, too not be anything more than a manifestation of traditional "gender role" imposition?

In other words, both parent and child (which, we must remember, do Not exist in isolation from the society at large) may merely be responding to internal (family) and external (percieved societal) expectations at the "appropriate" times in the child's development.



As I see it, the OP, whether conscious of it or not, is exhibiting a deep, underlying "fear" that any variation from a percieved "norm", vis-a-vis "Tradional Society" is, somehow a potential source of risk to the fabric of society.


A perfect example of the "The Unknown is Dangerous" school of thought.


And where would humanity be as a species if that philosphy had flourished?

like i said in a previous post, about the age of 5.. It sucks but thats the only solution i can see to the child being able to have its own say.

What if the child of a heterosexual couple at the age of 5 decides they wanted a homosexual couple as parents instead?

Also, how do you feel on the example i presented about the 2 he/shes having a child?

he/she? Does this mean transgender or?...

I wouldn't discriminate on that basis alone. Are they good people?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Scary strange people!
aha.

and in regards to the child and the hetro couple, if it was born to them, its got no choice, if it was test tube, or adopted, it should have a choice

I'm amazed that this is a thread pretty much asking for research articles and yet no one has attempted to do any research (including the OP). There's a pretty healthy literature regarding the what effects living with same-sex parents can have on a child. In just a few minutes of searching I have turned up three articles on the topic. There were tens of thousands of other hits for my search.

This first article I find to be extremely applicable to this thread as the OP compared same-sex households to single parent households:

Thirty-seven school-age children reared in 27 lesbian households were compared with 38 school-age children reared in 27 heterosexual single-parent households, with respect to their psychosexual development and their emotions, behaviour and relationships. Systematic standardized intervews with the mothers and with the children, together with parent and teacher questionnaires, were used to make the psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. The two groups did not differ in terms of their gender identity, sex role behaviour or sexual orientation. Also, they did not differ on most measures of emotions, behaviour and relationships-although there was some indication of more frequent psychiatric problems in the single-parent group. It was concluded that rearing in a lesbian household per se did not lead to atypical psychosexual development or constitute a psychiatric risk factor.

Source

This next one is pretty much a summary of all research done on the topic. It even goes ahead and makes the claim that allowing same-sex marriage would be beneficial to children in these households:

Same-sex marriage, barely on the political radar a decade ago, is a reality in America. How will it affect the well-being of children? Some observers worry that legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that same-sex parenting and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may lead to different outcomes for children. To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting affects children. After considering the methodological problems inherent in studying small, hard-to-locate populations-problems that have bedeviled this literature-the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing about as well as children normally do.

Source

This final one looks at psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescent children who have been raised by same-sex parents:

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.

Source

You will note that in each one of these studies it is found that children with same-sex parents fair just as well as children with different-sex parents. You could also argue that children with same-sex parents are better off than children from single parent households. What seems to be the biggest factor however is the support of the family. If you come from an unsupportive family, regardless of the sexual orientation of your parents, you're going to be worse off than a child from a supportive family.

Well let us question everything.
That is good.
However when a title exhorts me to question one thing (gay marriage), and what I find is totally different (heterosexual failures) then I do wonder on the process behind it all, because it is not directly linked or clear.
In fact it, this seems obfuscated now into what could be ...

Nevertheless this is not the first generation of gay and lesbian people to raise kids.
So as far as there are true concerns, one can help dispose of anxieties.

Even the Christian Right has failed to produce anything of consequence that should raise any general panic on gay parenting.

I'd also have some skepticism that single-parent households are necessarily bad.

However the OP problem is about the gender in same-sex households.

I'd say that gender examples come from many places and not just one parent.

Both a straight or a gay parent can be a bad or good gender example.

Gender examples are everywhere, from adverts to sports and film.

Just like a vegetarian child won't run out of protein, a child will never run out of "gender".

But the truth is we all create gender types and stereotypes every day, and we all consume gender stereotypes, so perhaps I'd say let us create and support good ones for the kids looking at the adults, and not abusive examples.

Sometimes it's better to have a single parent than to have an abuser - we cannot judge individual relationships.

Ultimately what makes gender is you and me and everybody in society.
So you tell me whether you're happy with your performance of masculinity or femininity.
That's all that matters, because we make the village for the next generation.

Originally posted by FailedProphet

The traditional one-man-one woman family is the most ancient building-block of society. It is found all over the globe, albeit with some variation. Sometimes it is in an extended family pattern, sometimes not. There are cases such as polygamy among the upper classes in some cultures, but by and large these are exceptions rather than the rule.

This simply isn't true. This is an assumption that is built on your argument that a one-man-one-woman family is ideal for raising children.

A study in anthropology would enlighten you. You must be careful when throwing out terms like "ancient" and "traditional."

reply to post by FailedProphet


1.Noted
2.Noted
3.Noted

The traditional one-man-one woman family is the most ancient building-block of society. It is found all over the globe, albeit with some variation. Sometimes it is in an extended family pattern, sometimes not. There are cases such as polygamy among the upper classes in some cultures, but by and large these are exceptions rather than the rule.

What could possibly be a more vital social issue to debate than a possible change to the most foundational building block of society - the traditional family? And why aren't we having this debate more vigorously?

The family is hardly traditional today.

The truth of the matter is that the "traditional" family of the day was mommy stayed at home and daddy went to work. You what isn't the traditional family unit?

Single Parents
Divorced Parents
Alcholic Parents
Both Working Parents

The list goes on and on. So we can hardly argue that the structure of the "family unit" hasn't already been drastically changed in the last 60 years.

Now can we both agree than any of the things listed above, effect children in a more negative fashion than their parent's sexuality? I would think so.

Now for full disclosure I've raised 4 children in a same sex relationship. My children, had VERY normal upbringings. They now range from 5 to 21.

They've had the same kind of upbringing I had with straight parents. They've been no better, or no worse than any other group of kids I've met that came from loving homes.

The fact remains that the ony people who wish to "investigate" the effects of same sex relationships on children, are those who do not trust that same sex couples can raise children as effectively as straight couples can.

This is fallacy, and I have proven in my own personal life, that it is completely untrue. All that's required is love, and opportunity to grow and experience the world.

~Tenth

reply to post by Bhadhidar

Thank you.

The "as a rule" was intentionally placed there, because it appears self-evident to me that individuals can and do exist far outside social norms. There will be exceptions to every rule. The trick will be to not allow any rules to be based on those exceptions, but on the social norms so as to be as inclusive as possible.

Social issues are indeed difficult to pin down to an exact science because of this inherent variance. Yet, I feel that providing children the best possible rearing is an important enough cause to make an attempt to understand the repercussions surrounding this issue imperative.

So far as the roles of the parents, that is also a generalization, but one that is borne up by societal evidence as I mentioned earlier. Adolescence is easily one of the most trying periods of life, and those who do not have a strong father figure tend to fall victim to a myriad of troubles during this time. Note that, in consideration of the topic of this discussion, the term may not refer to a male but to anyone who can provide discipline and direction during such a hard time. Again, as a rule, that role is traditionally fulfilled by the father.

I would also like to point out that just because one parent is needed more than another at a particular stage of life, it certainly does not follow that the other parent is not needed! The situation is one of prominence, not one of absolutes. Fathers can nurture; mothers can discipline and direct. What I am referring to are the traditional roles, while asking the question in the OP: are these roles interchangeable under a homosexual arrangement, or indeed are they a necessary part of growth and development as opposed to a societal pressure we have not been able to isolate?

I do not know the answer to those questions; I doubt anyone does at this point in time. I simply think we should be examining the questions.

TheRedneck

reply to post by tothetenthpower

You bring up some great points. The traditional family has changed greatly, but then again, so has our society. Crime has increased, leisure time has decreased, and while income may have increased as well, I believe societal contentment (a difficult concept to quantize, so this is of course anecdotal) has decreased. That indicates that perhaps the traditional family of today is somehow inferior to the traditional family of 50 years ago.

Will the presence of single-gender households affect societal evolution? And if so, in which direction? Those are the real questions. The answers could be surprising to either side of the gay marriage debate; as long as the answers are correct (as opposed to politically expedient), I for one will have no problem accepting them whatever they show.

Xcalibur254 has some interesting information posted above that I need to find more time to review. At first read, it does indeed sound like the maternal/paternal roles are interchangeable. It also appears (as I suspected) that gender preference pales in comparison to single-parent households. I have absolutely no problem believing this result.

The fact remains that the ony people who wish to "investigate" the effects of same sex relationships on children, are those who do not trust that same sex couples can raise children as effectively as straight couples can.

I deny that as a fact. There is no doubt some of those who wish to consider this aspect have agendas; there is rarely a conversation that does not contain some such participants. However, to lump all those who wish to consider possibilities into such a category is to appear selfish and uncaring toward those whose well-being is under consideration. I know that is not the case with you, but it can be the impression shown.

Your anecdotal evidence sheds much light onto the issue for me. Thank you for that.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

You bring up some great points. The traditional family has changed greatly, but then again, so has our society. Crime has increased, leisure time has decreased, and while income may have increased as well, I believe societal contentment (a difficult concept to quantize, so this is of course anecdotal) has decreased. That indicates that perhaps the traditional family of today is somehow inferior to the traditional family of 50 years ago.

I do believe it to be inferior, but not because of the gender of both parents. Mostly because of the socio-economic troubles that families suffer these days. Both parents working full time to put food on the table is wrong, and leaves your children to raise themselves, or worse, have the TV or others raise them.

Now I was never one to believe this in the past, I ALWAYS said that we could work full time and still be around enough to raise kids properly. Since I've retired however and been home 100% of the time, I realize how important it is to have one parent at home.

Homemaking is a very important aspect of the family unit, but I don't see the gender of the person as having any impact on it's effectiveness.

Xcalibur254 has some interesting information posted above that I need to find more time to review. At first read, it does indeed sound like the maternal/paternal roles are interchangeable. It also appears (as I suspected) that gender preference pales in comparison to single-parent households. I have absolutely no problem believing this result.

I'll need to read his info a bit further before I opine on it, however as far as gendder roles being interchangeable, I think they can be, it's wether or not that is also an effective thing to do.

For example, my daughter is now 21. Now having two fathers and no mother was a bit of a problem when she came of age. Talking to her about body changes and things of that nature was difficult, not because we didn 't have the knowledge ( my husband is a doctor) but because we could not relate.

However since she had aunts, grandmothers and a host of other strong female support in her life, she was able to lean on them for those situations and when I ask her about that stuff, she says in her opinion that it would have probably been the same with a mom.

Now truth is, I worry deeply about the impact of my relationship on my kids, as much as I have evidence to state that it had no effect on them, I still worry. Mostly about what others think and the consequences of not being vigilant.

For example, I"m currently dealing with Social Services. They have made us agree to "surprise" visits over the next year to make sure our household is "viable" to raise children in after a neighboor of mine complained of 'suspicious' activity in our home.

Due to the worries of one, now my family must endure the stress, not to mention the embarassement of being looked at as an 'unfit' family. People don't realize what kind of problems they give hard working, honest and loving parents when they question their parenting without any real evidence.

I deny that as a fact. There is no doubt some of those who wish to consider this aspect have agendas; there is rarely a conversation that does not contain some such participants. However, to lump all those who wish to consider possibilities into such a category is to appear selfish and uncaring toward those whose well-being is under consideration. I know that is not the case with you, but it can be the impression shown.

Forgive those comments, as they are a jab at those who do nto care about actually discussing the issue, only supporting their anti-same sex stance and rhetoric. It should not have been included ni an intelligent discussion, my apologies .

~Tenth

reply to post by FailedProphet


FailedProphet, I will not paint you in any color, level any allegations your way, or in any way imply that you are at fault for one or another misconception or discriminatory belief.

I'm here to tell everyone reading this that I have been raised by homosexuals, have been friends with homosexuals, and have dated/engaged with homosexuals during various activities throughout my lifetime...and so I have a very particular degree of experience in this topic. And I can tell you very surely, in response to this topic, it's the presence of a parent's love that counts, not the genitalia they possess nor how they use it (as long as it isn't with the child )

I have been through three foster care homes, all of which had a mother and father. Two of them were more unfit than any homosexual household I have set foot in. In all honesty, my parents have shown me more love and compassion than many heterosexual couples I've had the misfortune to witness en route of their parental demonstrations.

You said that parenting issues must be discussed. I agree. And I am here to tell the entire thread that my personal experience - 9 years of it (moved out when I was 18) - is that if there is ANY problems with parenting in ANY homosexual household, it is because of the person and not the sexual relationship.

Take it or leave it.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I would hazard to guess that the socio-economic troubles combine with a victim mentality and a selfishness that I see rapidly increasing in our society to create the problems we see. We tend to live more for what we can gain materially than what we can do to help others. Now, whether that is a result of changing family structures, a cause of changing family structures, or a combination of both acting symbiotically is a difficult question to answer.

I tend to believe it is a symbiotic relationship, but that of course is an opinion.

I do definitely agree with you that homemaking is a major component of a successful home. My mother worked at times, but also took time off at other times, so I saw both situations. The household seemed to run smoother when she was home (although my grandparents were wonderful to me when she wasn't).

And that leads to the issue of surrogate parents. Few if any manage to live through childhood without some form of outside support, whether it be grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. I think this is actually an important thing to a child, as there are some things one simply does not wish to discuss with their parents. I do not believe "it takes a village to raise a child", but I do believe it takes someone from outside the family to reinforce the morals taught inside the family.

But they still cannot replace the parent.

Now truth is, I worry deeply about the impact of my relationship on my kids, as much as I have evidence to state that it had no effect on them, I still worry. Mostly about what others think and the consequences of not being vigilant.

While the exact issues may be, the worrying about similar issues is most definitely not restricted to homosexual households. If I had a dollar for every time I worried about an impression I gave my kids or a decision I had made or a punishment I had given... well, I would probably be able to hire Bill Gates to lick my boots clean.

And on a personal note: never worry about what others think. It is an exercise in self-destructive futility.

Due to the worries of one, now my family must endure the stress, not to mention the embarassement of being looked at as an 'unfit' family.

Again, this is not restricted to your particular lifestyle. DHS has obtained far too much power, and it is far too easy for someone to cause that power to be exercised with little to no cause. I personally would like to remove this privacy feature they use, since an investigation can lead to criminal charges or loss of freedoms and I have the right to confront my accuser in such instances.

But, I tend to get into a rant on that subject, so I will simply leave it where it is.

I will say this: if being on ATS has taught me anything about this issue it is that the differences between gay and straight are minor, especially compared to the difference between socially responsible and socially irresponsible. You and I would both benefit greatly socially if we could get rid of the flamboyant examples of perversion found in most Gay Pride parades and the idiotic trailer trash that can't form a coherent thought yet get described as "redneck"... both examples of MSM propaganda.

TheRedneck