Studies AGAINST Homosexual Marriage and/or Adoptions by Homosexual couples

As a strong supporter of homosexual marriage and a fairly convinced supporter of the right for homosexual couples to adopt children, I have lately been involved in many, many discussions and debates over these issues, especially the second one, which seems now the terrain gay marriage opposers have fallen back to. I have been presented with all sort of garbage articles, studies and reviews which was all too easy to debunk, usually with a quick Google source, if not by sheer application of logic and/or common sense.

I now ask the wise men and women of Forumosa (out of curiosity and some twisted form of intellectual honesty): REGARDLESS of your position on the matter, do you know any peer-reviewed study by a serious institution or researcher that showed proof or at least hints that homosexual marriages and/or adoptions by homosexuals couples have negative impacts on society, children or anyone else? Please note I am not interested in stuff that has been published but later thoroughly debunked or retracted (e.g. the infamous Regnerus paper).

Thank you.

PS I cannot but state the fact I am not posting under any kind of agenda, nor am I trying to start an explosive thread. I really am just curious to see if someone can point me to something I might have missed, either by not looking hard enough or by falling prey of my own confirmation bias. Also, please note I DO NOT mean this to be a thread about whether one is pro or contra homosexual marriages. I believe there are many other threads dedicated to such debates.

I think gay marriage should be legal, and gays should be allowed to adopt.

But here is the question I like to pose: All things considered equal, would you rather a child have a mother and father, or two mothers/two fathers?

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]I think gay marriage should be legal, and gays should be allowed to adopt.

But here is the question I like to pose: All things considered equal, would you rather a child have a mother and father, or two mothers/two fathers?[/quote]

I think your message is OT, but I like the question, though I think it is not possible to answer it without the burden of a HUGE experience bias. I personally would like to have a mother and a father, but while I formulate this answer I have the clear image of MY parents in mind, telling me I wouldn’t do away with any of them. I believe it is akin to asking someone if they’d prefer to have had a parent of a different race and/or culture than what they actually had.

[quote=“Novaspes”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]I think gay marriage should be legal, and gays should be allowed to adopt.

But here is the question I like to pose: All things considered equal, would you rather a child have a mother and father, or two mothers/two fathers?[/quote]

I think your message is OT, but I like the question, though I think it is not possible to answer it without the burden of a HUGE experience bias. I personally would like to have a mother and a father, but while I formulate this answer I have the clear image of MY parents in mind, telling me I wouldn’t do away with any of them. I believe it is akin to asking someone if they’d prefer to have had a parent of a different race and/or culture than what they actually had.[/quote]

Yeah I agree, but to be fair there are lots of gay couples that would do a better job parenting than many hetero couples.

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”][quote=“Novaspes”][quote=“Deuce Dropper”]I think gay marriage should be legal, and gays should be allowed to adopt.

But here is the question I like to pose: All things considered equal, would you rather a child have a mother and father, or two mothers/two fathers?[/quote]

I think your message is OT, but I like the question, though I think it is not possible to answer it without the burden of a HUGE experience bias. I personally would like to have a mother and a father, but while I formulate this answer I have the clear image of MY parents in mind, telling me I wouldn’t do away with any of them. I believe it is akin to asking someone if they’d prefer to have had a parent of a different race and/or culture than what they actually had.[/quote]

Yeah I agree, but to be fair there are lots of gay couples that would do a better job parenting than many hetero couples.[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more.

I’m all for gay marriage. Any way to reduce the umber of children born is a step in the right direction.

[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]I think gay marriage should be legal, and gays should be allowed to adopt.

But here is the question I like to pose: All things considered equal, would you rather a child have a mother and father, or two mothers/two fathers?[/quote]

Honestly? Two mothers.

I think the number of homosexuals who would choose or be coerced into having children if they weren’t allowed to married is completely negligible. At the same time, how would this influence heterosexual couples one way or another? I don’t see your point. How would legalizing gay marriages influence the birthrates??

I like where this is going.

If you asked me DD’s quesiton, I’d say it doesn’t matter as long as their good parents. My argument for gay adoption has always been that there are plenty of straight couples out there with kids they didn’t want and don’t know how to raise, but they apparently have a god-given right to hold onto them because of genetics. If you have a gay (lesbian) couple who are capable providers and want to raise a child that doesn’t have a family, why on earth wouldn’t you allow that child to grow up in a loving family???

The birthrate argument, btw, is one I’ve heard a lot, coming as I am from a very conservative family that loves Fox News. Naysayers argue that allowing open gayness to become mainstream will encourage young people to consider that as a “lifestyle choice,” which means people who would be straight otherwise will experiment with homosexuality and gasp may like it.

(I’m looking at it from an American perspective here) There’s a recent meme going around FB that says marriage existed long before Jesus did, so the Bible shouldn’t tell us who can and can’t get married. I give it a big thumbs up. After all, I think a Christian marriage between two gay men would be more recognizable to the average American then, let’s say, a traditional Chinese marriage (I mean back in the day) between a man and a woman, but where the man is allowed to keep concubines and the women have basically little to no autonomy over themselves. When you think about how every culture has a different idea of what marriage is, and the US is a melting pot of different cultures, you realize just how silly it is to try and argue that there is anything called “traditional marriage.”

I don’t think you’re going to find the argument you’re looking for, OP. Gay marriage is rapidly gaining in popular support, and so even if there were a study with legitimate criticisms, I think it would be downplayed by the media and society in general, sadly. And I say this as a militant supporter of marriage equality.

I think that attachment theory is in there at the roots of the problem. There is some form of social discourse which pervades our lives and it shifts and turns over time. In the 1960’s the idea of attachment to the mother became a very hot topic. Studies were conducted into how children attach to the parent, how this may or may not lead to psychopathy, if children attach in the same ways in different countries, which mechanisms promote attachment, the paternal bond etc. From this sprang the idea that the child is more important than it was being given credit for. I grew up as these things were changing. My parents were more permissive of my behaviours, my grandparents were still whacking me with a stick for sitting with a hunched back. Certainly I was never allowed to talk when adults talked. The childrens charter was the final nail in adults telling kids what to do in the UK. This has shifted, but I digress. Attachment theory was very popular and of course invited in discussions about homosexuals raising children. Homosexuality was illegal at that point. So I guess it wasn’t really much of a leap to assume that the ‘unnatural and unlawful,’ (as they saw it at the time) union of homosexuals was certainly no place to raise a child. Being homosexual was something you could catch, according to thought at the time, just like AIDS lived on the toilet seat in the 80’s and having an MMR jab gives you autism in 2013 :unamused: Ergo, two ‘gays’ would raise a new ‘gay.’

Put simply, we were fucking idiots then and we are fucking idiots now, but at least we’ve finally started to learn that you can’t catch ‘gay,’ that heterosexuals are equally as idiotic as homosexual people and that we all have the right to be happy and be in love.

My feeling on gay men is that I’m depressed to know that a whole nother section of society who could find me sexually attractive find me sexually repulsive. :slight_smile:

And if you don’t agree with what I say, well, it’s just like, my opinion, man. I’m pro homosexual marriage. I’m pro homosexual adoption. I have no issue with anyone who does or doesn’t want to stick their genitals in places I might or might not want to stick mine.

And no, to my knowledge there are no serious papers proving two gay people will raise a gay child, because it is dumb, insulting and troglodytic. :laughing: Plenty of evidence that two heterosexuals will raise monsters and nutters though. Just open your paper.

Are there any studies that say straight couples make poor parents for gay children? :laughing: Because, you know, the vast majority of gay children are born to heterosexual parents.

As long as there is food on the table, a loving environment and a little discipline where needed most kids grow up fine. The influence of parents is overrated I reckon (or we underestimate the ability of children to work stuff out for themselves). There are probably online forums devoted to straight children growing up with gay parents, with FAQ like, “Oh no! I think I might be straight! Should I tell my parents?”

Everyone should just chill, it’s all gonna be just fine. :sunglasses:

Thought I would just throw my opinion in here, which is absolutely irrelevant to what the OP asked, but what everyone is doing: I like chocolate (just as relevant as to what the OP asked as your personal stance on the issue).

But this WOULD be an interesting thread if there were more relevant replies.

The attachment theory issue though, that was relevant.

[quote=“Confuzius”]
The attachment theory issue though, that was relevant.[/quote]

Cheers. I do my best with my limited capacity. :smiley:

I have no idea of the veracity of this, it is not a journal I subscribe to, but here’s what I found with a quick search:

psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=sea … -07024-001

There might be some fruit borne there, though the overwhelming majority of articles I found note no detrimental impact on the children of gay and/or lesbian parents. I’d be at least somewhat concerned about their results since at n=17 one is probably using a t test which requires high quality data, and I’m not convinced that they had that considering the data is purely based on questionnaires (keeping in mind it’s been years since I’ve done research, so my stats are rusty at best). I’m concerned with words like “disproportionate” as opposed to “statistically significant” but I don’t have access to the full text to see what analysis was done or how disproportionate those fractions were (and thereby the statistical power of the analysis considering the low n).

Finally, among the 74 times this article was listed as cited by Google Scholar I would expect to find at least one article, not by any of the original authors, which agreed with the results if they were valid. I did not.

Please keep in mind that this was a quick and cursory look into the literature and I don’t have access to full texts of any of the articles so I can’t really state with any authority how well the studies were conducted or the results analyzed. I don’t think it would cost you more than a few hundred dollars to get the full texts of the most relevant articles if you really want to look them over.

Thanks for giving the first OnTopic answer. I am always skeptical of articles investigating the outcome of the upbringing of children with “an homosexual parent”. Pretty much as yhe infamous Regnerus paper, these usually focus on families that were torn apart when one of the parents discovered (or admitted) his/her non-heterosexual orientation after having had children and getting married or single homosexual parents, rather than couples.

I will try to access the article and read it fully beforr commenting more.

[quote=“Novaspes”]Thanks for giving the first OnTopic answer. I am always skeptical of articles investigating the outcome of the upbringing of children with “an homosexual parent”. Pretty much as yhe infamous Regnerus paper, these usually focus on families that were torn apart when one of the parents discovered (or admitted) his/her non-heterosexual orientation after having had children and getting married or single homosexual parents, rather than couples.

I will try to access the article and read it fully beforr commenting more.[/quote]

Certainly. Please don’t mistake my posting the article as agreeing with it. I frankly have no idea about the impact since I haven’t really researched it. It’s just not something I’m terribly interested in.

[quote=“skoster”][quote=“Novaspes”]Thanks for giving the first OnTopic answer. I am always skeptical of articles investigating the outcome of the upbringing of children with “an homosexual parent”. Pretty much as yhe infamous Regnerus paper, these usually focus on families that were torn apart when one of the parents discovered (or admitted) his/her non-heterosexual orientation after having had children and getting married or single homosexual parents, rather than couples.

I will try to access the article and read it fully beforr commenting more.[/quote]

Certainly. Please don’t mistake my posting the article as agreeing with it. [/quote]

I didn’t assume or think that. :slight_smile:

Skoster, as you say you’ve been out of research for a while…terms like statistically significant are being phased out as they are meaningless. The growing trend is to report the p value and let the reader interpret sig for themselves. Ideally. But yeah, questionnaires are dreaded and N is a touchy subject. Stats are inferential at best in these cases. Shame.

Fair enough, good to know. I guess I dated myself a bit there. :blush: