Another Study Disproves the Hate.

catlover · May 1, 2008

Teenagers raised by lesbian mothers show no developmental differences compared to those brought up by heterosexual parents, according to the first large national study in the US.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6670-lesbian-couples-raise-welladjusted-teenagers.html

Phinehas2 · May 1, 2008

Might I suggest 44 out of 12000 thankfully isn’t much evidence to go on.

While the national study seems consistent might I question whether the report link would even know what to look for?
Teenagers raised by lesbian mothers …
How many mothers do teenagers have? I only know a teenager who have one mother not two. A mother is a woman who has given birth to a child, the sexual attraction of a woman is irrelevant to her being a mother or not except to note she must have conceived with a man.

IamRedeemed · May 1, 2008

44 out of 12000? Wow, that is a serious deficiency of evidence!

Phinehas2 · May 1, 2008

When the spokesperson said there is no evidence to suggest teenagers of same-sex parents are no worse, he was right, there is comparatively no evidence.
And we must be careful as governments and pressure groups fund research which they want to show what they think.
Google "gay gene" and one gets about 129000 hits, google "straight gene" and one gets about 1500.
Funny how if a gene causes sexual orientation few are looking for one which causes 'straightness'

It is all very well posting study after study but I wonder why everyone seems so determined to justify 'gay'

IamRedeemed · May 1, 2008

" Funny how if a gene causes sexual orientation few are looking for one which causes 'straightness' "

catlover · May 1, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Might I suggest 44 out of 12000 thankfully isn’t much evidence to go on.

While the national study seems consistent might I question whether the report link would even know what to look for?
Teenagers raised by lesbian mothers …
How many mothers do teenagers have? I only know a teenager who have one mother not two. A mother is a woman who has given birth to a child, the sexual attraction of a woman is irrelevant to her being a mother or not except to note she must have conceived with a man.

So what is do you call a female who adopts or a female who is a foster parent?

I am sorry but your narrow view of what is a family is misguided.

By your view two spinster sisters living together are not a family or not legitimate...sorry you are wrong.

wannabeadesigirl · May 1, 2008

Hey, I don't care about 44 out of a million. I know the kids that I took care of who had lesbian parents were the most well behaved and polite children I ever took care of

Texas Lynn · May 1, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Might I suggest 44 out of 12000 thankfully isnt much evidence to go on.

Most social science research uses samples smaller than that.

Research is never conclusive in and of itself.

IamRedeemed · May 1, 2008

The Sample wasn't 44. The sample was TWELVE THOUSAND which they said they
interviewed but they only published the results of 44 of them.

Unless I missed something major......

You all find that to be newsworthy? I think it is probably more newsworthy that they failed
to give any information regarding the other 11,950 teens, that's ELEVEN THOUSAND,
NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY, they interviewed don't you?

(we know that 6 were eliminated as they were not being raised by two women, but by
two men, which leaves 11,950 (44+6=50) others they claimed to have interviewed,
yet there is no data. Strange.

My only point it is an odd thing to publish in light of the purpose it was hoping to serve.

I mean really...in light of the fact that there were 12000 interviewed and
published results on only 44 of them, how has this helped the cause it
was apparently meant to help?

Doesn't anyone besides me want to know what the data results were on the other 11,950 qualified teens they claimed to interview?

cheese007 · May 2, 2008

You did miss something. There were 12,000 couples, but only 44 of them were Lesbians.

IamRedeemed · May 2, 2008

Well actually it does not say 12000 couples either. lol It does say 12000 teens but in rereading the article I can see that the way in which it is written can cause confusion of various sorts.

Unless you are focused on that and that alone (which is rare in my case) you can easily miss little words that change the whole of what you thought you read, such as the word "sifting".

Anyway, it is a little confusing because they say they "Russell and colleagues Charlotte Patterson and Jennifer Wainright at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, US, came to this conclusion after sifting through interviews from 1995 with about 12,000 US teenagers and their families. The teens were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the largest and most comprehensive study of the age group in the US."

Then this part:

"The researchers found 44 teens being raised by two women in a "marriage-like" relationship. Only six teens reported living with two gay men, so male single-sex families were excluded from the study. Each teen studied was matched with a counterpart from a heterosexual family, who shared the same sex, age, ethnicity, adoption status and family income, among other factors."

This is truly not credible. It could be considered hopeful at best, but it cannot be considered credible and conclusive. We do not even know how old the teenagers are that were studied and lots of other pertinent information that could change the way "their results" are viewed or could skew their results altogether.

I would be interested in the last part of the article which actually supports one of my points which is:

"Russell says future studies could see how the same group of teens fared in young adulthood."

cheese007 said:
You did miss something. There were 12,000 couples, but only 44 of them were Lesbians.

David Brider · May 2, 2008

IamRedeemed said:
Then this part:

IamRedeemed said:
"The researchers found 44 teens being raised by two women in a "marriage-like" relationship. Only six teens reported living with two gay men, so male single-sex families were excluded from the study. Each teen studied was matched with a counterpart from a heterosexual family, who shared the same sex, age, ethnicity, adoption status and family income, among other factors."

This is truly not credible.

In what way is it not credible? It makes perfect sense to me.

I would be interested in the last part of the article which actually supports one of my points which is:

"Russell says future studies could see how the same group of teens fared in young adulthood."

Sorry, which point does it support?

David.

Apollo Celestio · May 2, 2008

I still don't understand this, mothers are mothers. They vary in degrees of parenting. Most people are content with what they have. I mean, my parents divorced when I was a teen, and I'm not going to whine about it.

IamRedeemed · May 2, 2008

I agree. Children are resiliant generally speaking and many many things affect and influence our lives throughout in one way or another. And it isn't necessarily based on the situation itself, but our reactions to the situations we encounter that can influence the outcome.

Two kids in the same household that experiences divorce for instance can go down two very separate paths. Or two kids in the same house with parents who are alcoholics or two kids with the completely ideal situation that anyone might imagine such as a Brady Bunch scene or the Waltons or Little House on the Prairie or whatever one might classify as ideal in their own mind and have completely different results. One child could end up being a serial killer and the other a Nobel Prize winner...... so all of that is nothing more than useless rhetoric in my opinion overall.

PS.. my parents divorced when I was 10 Ishida, so I can relate to what you are saying.

Ishida said:
I still don't understand this, mothers are mothers. They vary in degrees of parenting. Most people are content with what they have. I mean, my parents divorced when I was a teen, and I'm not going to whine about it.

Texas Lynn · May 2, 2008

IamRedeemed said:
This is truly not credible. It could be considered hopeful at best, but it cannot be considered credible and conclusive. We do not even know how old the teenagers are that were studied and lots of other pertinent information that could change the way "their results" are viewed or could skew their results altogether.

Which is standard in social science research and not claimed to be other than.

I would be interested in the last part of the article which actually supports one of my points which is:

"Russell says future studies could see how the same group of teens fared in young adulthood."

Another standard concluding remark.

Phinehas2 · May 2, 2008

Dear catlover,

So what is do you call a female who adopts or a female who is a foster parent?

I call them a female or a woman. What do you the female?

I am sorry but your narrow view of what is a family is misguided.

I think a family is a man and a woman and children evident in nature.

By your view two spinster sisters living together are not a family or not legitimate...sorry you are wrong.

No right. Indeed, I see a landmark legal case in the UK denies them the rights of two men living together in civil partnership. Seems one’s relationship has to be sexual to be recognised.

Texas Lynn · May 2, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
I think a family is a man and a woman and children evident in nature.

Nature is a poor refuge for those seeking to claim LGBT relationships are "unnatural" and in childrearing patterns even more so.

The anthropologist Helen Fisher noted that throughout societies people tend to separate after four years together, enough time to carry a single infant through infancy. Very few species mate for life. Instances of things like two male penguins raising a youngling and so forth belie such question begging.

Marriage customs and the like are the creation of the powerful to seek to impose a social unity. The claim of divine impranteur on it is just icing on the cake.

Another Study Disproves the Hate.

catlover

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Phinehas2

Guest

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

catlover

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Regular Member

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Deal with it.

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency