At age 25, kids in the longest-running study of same-sex parenting are doing just fine

[phands]

Another claim by religiturds debunked....

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) has been following a contingent of lesbian families since they first started to plan to have kids in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those children are now about 25 years old, and the researchers have confirmed that they’re doing swimmingly.
Compared to their peers who were not raised by same-sex couples, researchers found no significant differences with respect to “adaptive functioning (family, friends, spouse or partner relationships, and educational or job performance), behavioral or emotional problems, scores on mental health diagnostic scales, or the percentage of participants with a score in the borderline or clinical range.”
In short, the longest running study of same-sex parenting found that kids raised by same-sex couples turn out pretty much the same as everybody else. The NLLFS has a number of limitations, including that there were no same-sex male couples, that it was not a random sample, and that the families were not racially or economically diverse. It nevertheless jibes with countless other studies that have found children raised by same-sex families turn out just fine.

read the rest here.....

 

[Opoponax]

You were raised by two lesbians? You must be doing ... pretty damn alright

I wasn't sure where to put this, so apologies in advance if this isn't the most appropriate place. I think it is though because fear of the non-hetero comes first and foremost from religion. That doesn't mean there aren't atheist homophobes, but when floods hit, tornadoes strike, and hurricanes devastate, one need not look far to find a significant number on the religious right blaming the LGBTQ crowd. However, it was the adoption of kids by LGBTQ parents that really sent them into a rocket-powered pants-shitting when the practice was first allowed, and it still garners the same reaction. The kids are gonna be fucked up (like maybe even influenced to be gay or something), their peers will ridicule them, etc. However:

Compared to their peers who were not raised by same-sex couples, researchers found no significant differences with respect to “adaptive functioning (family, friends, spouse or partner relationships, and educational or job performance), behavioral or emotional problems, scores on mental health diagnostic scales, or the percentage of participants with a score in the borderline or clinical range.”

And even:

One of the world’s largest studies of same-sex families, conducted in Australia, found that the children raised by same-sex couples were actually happier and healthier than their peers. This was true even across families with different levels of parent education and household income.

Sadly:

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in favor of marriage equality, same-sex families are still under attack. Several states have passed laws granting adoption agencies the right to discriminate against them, and Republicans in Congress recently adopted a similar amendment that could create such a license to discriminate at the federal level.

So fuck school lunches, babies and their parents after the kid's born, and dammit, fuck orphans too! And why is this? Because Jesus hates fags, that's why! Or something. But anyway, this is great ammunition for groups like the ACLU to take to court with them. Courts want evidence and this is great evidence that same sex couples are clearly capable parents.

https://thinkprogress.org/same-sex-parenting-study-age-25-677fa483b1c3/

 

[Jobar]

Two similar threads merged.

 

[Lion IRC]

Children should not be separated from their parents...Children also have the right to know their parents...Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children...

Note the plural - parentS
Gender balanced parenting by your biologically related parentS is best.

How do artificial, adoptive lesbian parenting arrangements meet the UN declaration that children are entitled to be raised by their biological mother and father?

Also, the flawed (pro-gay) study of kids adopted by lesbians is using subjective, blinkered measures of health and happiness deliberately avoiding any rubrics that might risk exposing unfavourable responses.

 

[Ford]

Children should not be separated from their parents...Children also have the right to know their parents...Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children...

Note the plural - parentS
Gender balanced parenting by your biologically related parentS is best.

Based on what?

I mean, my daughter's "biologically related" sperm donor (I don't call him a father) skipped town literally the day she was born, and every time her mother tracked him down for child support he vanished.

But because he's a man and "biologically related" you figure he's a far better father than I've been to her.

How so?

 

[Lion IRC]

We seem to agree that it would have been better had he NOT abandoned her.
Right?

 

[bilby]

We seem to agree that it would have been better had he NOT abandoned her.
Right?

You seem to be trying to oversimplify the situation to the point where you can claim agreement; But it is very clear to me that Ford thinks it was better that the guy who didn't care fucked off elsewhere and let someone who did care take his place and be a real parent. (Ford, please correct me if I am mistaken).

The sole point of your interjection in this thread appears to be to make the very obvious (and undisputed) claim that children do better with two loving parents than with one or none. And the whole 'biological' part is a pointless red herring that adds nothing other than your prejudices and is NOT a part of the The United Nations Convention on The Rights of The Child.

Because you seem to have added that word unilaterally and for no other reason than to allow you to exercise your prejudices.

A child with two loving parents is better off than one with only one, or none; And as the OP study shows, it matters not one whit whether those parents are biologically related to the child, nor whether they are of different or similar gender.

If you have some evidence to the contrary, now would be the time to present it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some people will just insert the dumbest damned distinctions.

A friend of my grandparents was bragging about going overseas to visit her son, stationed in Germany. And he had "two children, and two adopted children."
No, bitch, they have four children.
I mean, unless two are chained in the basement, chances are all four are loved the same, supported the same. The distinction is important go you, but not the family.

My grandfather and my uncle argued for an hour about whether my cousin got her nose from her dad's or mother's side of the family. My aunt pointed out that she was adopted... halfway thru the argument, not at the end.

 

[phands]

Children should not be separated from their parents...Children also have the right to know their parents...Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children...

Note the plural - parentS
Gender balanced parenting by your biologically related parentS is best.

Based on what?

I mean, my daughter's "biologically related" sperm donor (I don't call him a father) skipped town literally the day she was born, and every time her mother tracked him down for child support he vanished.

But because he's a man and "biologically related" you figure he's a far better father than I've been to her.

How so?

As always, LIRC makes a sweeping statement that is just garbage, plus he distorts the words of others to suit the twisted unreason of religion, including the legal definition of "parent".
And, as usual his claim is instantly demolished by facts. There are (too) many examples of biological parents treating their kids horribly, and distorting their minds or ruining their ability to function as normal human beings. I could cite the awful brainwashing that is done in religious inculcation from an early age to most children, because lying to children by people they trust is OK if it's for gawd. I can also cite those horrendous islamic madrassas with kids rocking back and forward like demented parrots (to quote Richard Dawkins) while memorizing toxic garbage. I can similarly add those filthy scumbags in New Jersey who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation.

In other words, good parenting depends on how the child is reared by parents, not by parental gender mix....and this assertion is supported by evidence.

 

[Shake]

This reminds me of the guy from Iowa who spoke publicly defending his 2 moms several years ago and is now running for office.

 

[Lion IRC]

Based on what?

I mean, my daughter's "biologically related" sperm donor (I don't call him a father) skipped town literally the day she was born, and every time her mother tracked him down for child support he vanished.

But because he's a man and "biologically related" you figure he's a far better father than I've been to her.

How so?

As always, LIRC makes a sweeping statement that is just garbage, plus he distorts the words of others to suit the twisted unreason of religion, including the legal definition of "parent".
And, as usual his claim is instantly demolished by facts. There are (too) many examples of biological parents treating their kids horribly, and distorting their minds or ruining their ability to function as normal human beings. I could cite the awful brainwashing that is done in religious inculcation from an early age to most children, because lying to children by people they trust is OK if it's for gawd. I can also cite those horrendous islamic madrassas with kids rocking back and forward like demented parrots (to quote Richard Dawkins) while memorizing toxic garbage. I can similarly add those filthy scumbags in New Jersey who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation.

In other words, good parenting depends on how the child is reared by parents, not by parental gender mix....and this assertion is supported by evidence.

The World Health Organisation says that breast feeding provides the best health outcomes for children. How can two gay men make just as good 'parents' when neither has lactating breasts?
#facts #science #reasoning

BTW I thought phands had me on ignore

 

[bilby]

Based on what?

I mean, my daughter's "biologically related" sperm donor (I don't call him a father) skipped town literally the day she was born, and every time her mother tracked him down for child support he vanished.

But because he's a man and "biologically related" you figure he's a far better father than I've been to her.

How so?

As always, LIRC makes a sweeping statement that is just garbage, plus he distorts the words of others to suit the twisted unreason of religion, including the legal definition of "parent".
And, as usual his claim is instantly demolished by facts. There are (too) many examples of biological parents treating their kids horribly, and distorting their minds or ruining their ability to function as normal human beings. I could cite the awful brainwashing that is done in religious inculcation from an early age to most children, because lying to children by people they trust is OK if it's for gawd. I can also cite those horrendous islamic madrassas with kids rocking back and forward like demented parrots (to quote Richard Dawkins) while memorizing toxic garbage. I can similarly add those filthy scumbags in New Jersey who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation.

In other words, good parenting depends on how the child is reared by parents, not by parental gender mix....and this assertion is supported by evidence.

The World Health Organisation says that breast feeding provides the best health outcomes for children. How can two gay men make just as good 'parents' when neither has lactating breasts?
#facts #science #reasoning

BTW I thought phands had me on ignore

Just as soon as nutrition is the only important factor in raising children, and minor nutritional setbacks, due to having to feed babies with formula, are the sole element of parenting that ever needs to be considered, you will have an important point here.

As that's never going to happen, you don't.

 

[phands]

BTW I thought phands had me on ignore

I do have you on ignore, but I still see your garbage when others reply.

And the point about breastfeeding also betrays lack of actual knowledge, because while it IS best, breastfeeding rates are very low in developed countries, making the poor attempt to devalue same-sex parenting nothing other than laughable. Or....maybe the BEST parenting would then be a lesbian couple, both of whom are lactating.

 

[Opoponax]

Based on what?

I mean, my daughter's "biologically related" sperm donor (I don't call him a father) skipped town literally the day she was born, and every time her mother tracked him down for child support he vanished.

But because he's a man and "biologically related" you figure he's a far better father than I've been to her.

How so?

As always, LIRC makes a sweeping statement that is just garbage, plus he distorts the words of others to suit the twisted unreason of religion, including the legal definition of "parent".
And, as usual his claim is instantly demolished by facts. There are (too) many examples of biological parents treating their kids horribly, and distorting their minds or ruining their ability to function as normal human beings. I could cite the awful brainwashing that is done in religious inculcation from an early age to most children, because lying to children by people they trust is OK if it's for gawd. I can also cite those horrendous islamic madrassas with kids rocking back and forward like demented parrots (to quote Richard Dawkins) while memorizing toxic garbage. I can similarly add those filthy scumbags in New Jersey who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation.

In other words, good parenting depends on how the child is reared by parents, not by parental gender mix....and this assertion is supported by evidence.

The World Health Organisation says that breast feeding provides the best health outcomes for children. How can two gay men make just as good 'parents' when neither has lactating breasts?
#facts #science #reasoning

Are you making an effort to say the stupidest shit you can think of? If you are, rest assured you are succeeding beyond your wildest hopes.

 

[Lion IRC]

Theres a really good topic for discussion here and it's not me.
#dnftt

 

[Lion IRC]

BTW I thought phands had me on ignore

I do have you on ignore, but I still see your garbage when others reply.

And the point about breastfeeding also betrays lack of actual knowledge, because while it IS best, breastfeeding rates are very low in developed countries, making the poor attempt to devalue same-sex parenting nothing other than laughable. Or....maybe the BEST parenting would then be a lesbian couple, both of whom are lactating.

You seem undecided.
Is breast feeding a good point or not?
Are you ignoring my posts or or not?

 

[Keith&Co.]

All three of our kids were born three months premature. My wife's lactation facilities were caught by surprise both times and never really were weapons grade producers, and we had to depend on formula.

So while breast milk would be the bestest, i have to think the bandwidth for as good as to be fairly wide. Proooooooobably including more than one single element, such as formula yes/no, to be a qualifying measure of success. It's probably a fairly scattered arrangement if dots on the chart, truth be known.
I suspoect that if someone didn't color code the dots, you would be unable to tell any of the more-, less- or un-successful gay parents from m/l/u single parents or nuclear families.

But, hey, any actual evidence to the neggies would be interesting to see.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you took and compared;
a) the best possible same-sex, adoptive gay 'parenting' arrangement (artificial)
b) the best possible gender-balanced (heterosexual,) biologically related to their offspring, parents (natural)

- both equally resourced and equally loving and equally educated

...then you would not get equal childhood wellbeing outcomes in my opinion.

And that's the point. The measures of detriment or benefit are not going to be impartially viewed by pro-LGBTQ advocates because they have their own opinions.

It's not that SSM advocates claim the absence of a father figure or mother figure makes absolutely no difference. Their claim is that any differential effect/outcome isn't a "negative". And what heterosexual (gender balance) parenting advocates claim is a benefit to children is blatantly dismissed by the LGBTQ lobby as subjective or a mere argument from nature.

 

[phands]

All three of our kids were born three months premature. My wife's lactation facilities were caught by surprise both times and never really were weapons grade producers, and we had to depend on formula.

So while breast milk would be the bestest, i have to think the bandwidth for as good as to be fairly wide. Proooooooobably including more than one single element, such as formula yes/no, to be a qualifying measure of success. It's probably a fairly scattered arrangement if dots on the chart, truth be known.
I suspoect that if someone didn't color code the dots, you would be unable to tell any of the more-, less- or un-successful gay parents from m/l/u single parents or nuclear families.

But, hey, any actual evidence to the neggies would be interesting to see.

There is much evidence. For something over 25 years, I've been involved with a UK breastfeeding charity, of which my ex wife was a founding member. Using formula, while being better than nothing (and the only right answer too often), is documented to lead to allergies, asthma and other issues. There's also less well researched suggestion that breastfeeding can add 3 - 5 points to child IQ. Further, BF has many benefits to the mother, including suppressing ovulation so that another baby doesn't come along too fast.

 

[bilby]

All three of our kids were born three months premature. My wife's lactation facilities were caught by surprise both times and never really were weapons grade producers, and we had to depend on formula.

So while breast milk would be the bestest, i have to think the bandwidth for as good as to be fairly wide. Proooooooobably including more than one single element, such as formula yes/no, to be a qualifying measure of success. It's probably a fairly scattered arrangement if dots on the chart, truth be known.
I suspoect that if someone didn't color code the dots, you would be unable to tell any of the more-, less- or un-successful gay parents from m/l/u single parents or nuclear families.

But, hey, any actual evidence to the neggies would be interesting to see.

There is much evidence. For something over 25 years, I've been involved with a UK breastfeeding charity, of which my ex wife was a founding member. Using formula, while being better than nothing (and the only right answer too often), is documented to lead to allergies, asthma and other issues. There's also less well researched suggestion that breastfeeding can add 3 - 5 points to child IQ. Further, BF has many benefits to the mother, including suppressing ovulation so that another baby doesn't come along too fast.

Sure. But as long as we accept that it's better to have two parents who love you, but who feed you formula because they are physiologically incapable of producing breast milk (as is the case with many heterosexual couples); than it is to be breastfed, but not wanted or loved, it will remain better to allow homosexual couples to adopt children whose birth parent(s) want to put them up for adoption, than it is to force unwilling or incapable parent(s) to raise them 'naturally'.

When the appeal to nature fallacy intersects with religious dogma, lots of innocents are at risk of getting hurt.

And even when natural is demonstrably best, the religious dogma can do enough harm on its own to more than compensate.