Gay Parenting

Thanks, Con.I will make my arguments and include my rebuttal in a conversational context due to character limits.While evolution creates biological ties to our immediate family, biology is not anywhere near the most important factor in good parenting. In the last round, I gave an example of identical twins being raised in different households. I noted that if one lived with their parents, but the other lived in a household that was better off (with more support and resources), the latter would have greater success and more happiness despite not being raised by their biological parents. This went uncontested by Con.Psychologists and anthropologists have studied the most significant factors in good parenting. Their findings note married households are more financially stable and create security for children [1]. Innumerable studies confirm that financial security not only affords opportunity, but decreases stress and anxiety. It is more likely to keep a marital relationship healthy, and this creates less problems and more positive experiences for children [2]. Science also suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion [3]. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key [4]. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite sex relationships. While 16,000 books have been published on parenting, psychologists from the University of San Diego have empirically identified the essential qualities in order of importance for effective parenting. This capacity is reflected in the ability to attend, respond, identify or empathize with a child; manage day to day stress and personal emotion; and to do so sufficiently and enduringly in adult relationships within the family [5]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to sexuality. In fact my opponent has failed to cite a single factor (quality or trait) that is limited to heterosexuality, and/or that a gay parent could not provide their child. Con must explain why gay parents are either incapable or more unlikely to provide things like financial security, empathy and other factors that are actually relevant to parenting. In reality, the factors that most determine a good parent have nothing to do with sexuality.My opponent has argued that limited exposure to both genders could inhibit development. While having ties, support and relationships with both sexes is very important, kids with gay parents can have access to these relationships by developing bonds with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other role models to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender affiliation. Research shows that having a "father figure" in lieu of a biological father for example can provide similar benefits [6]. The biological factor is NOT as significant as having a positive role model. For instance, if one's biological father or mother was an abusive alcoholic, having them around and part of the family is not necessarily a positive thing and in fact could be a negative thing. This proves that biology nor one's sex is important in determining a good parent, but rather the nurturing support a parent provides is what's important. According to a study by Oxygen Media, 82% of people define mother as the woman who raised them vs. the 53% who define it as the woman who birthed them [7]. Sure, lack of divorce or step-parents decreases resentment and familial tension. However in tact mother-father households without divorce and step-parents are increasingly rare. This debate is about same sex vs. opposite sex parenting, without considering factors like divorce and other social repercussions involving the dissolution of the family unit. Such things could only be compared if they were measured on an equal basis, i.e. same sex divorced parents vs. opposite sex divorced parents. Con's studies all fail to compare similar same sex vs. opposite sex relationships. Again, this significantly affects and skews the outcome of the studies.In fact virtually all studies done on this subject fail to take into account and measure equally comparable households. Ignored are the most important factors in parenting and child development, with emphasis instead being placed solely on the sex of the parents involved. However there are many other things to take into consideration regarding a family's circumstance and the effects it has on child development. The level of nurturing a parent provides, the amount of involvement in their child's life, and the type of attention they give the child are all incredibly significant factors to child development [8], yet these things are not highlighted, measured, accounted for or appropriately compared in any of Con's presented studies. There are NO reliable studies indicating that a mother-father headed household is paramount to one's happiness or success, let alone highly relevant. After obliterating the merit of the Regnerus study, Con tried presenting a Canadian study which notes kids with gay parents have lower graduation rates. But a quick look at the data shows this is wrong: the author includes children who are still in high school awaiting graduation in his faulty statistics. After accounting for the real numbers, Con's study actually shows the graduation rate for kids with gay parents aligns perfectly with their peers [9]. Con is relying on horribly flawed research to present a very misguided argument. In the largest study ever done on gay parenting, research found that children from same-sex families scored on average 6% better on two key measures - general health and family cohesion - even when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income [10]. This is just one reason my research is superior to Con's. His source adds that the Regnerus study is useful because of the large sample size: 200 random kids. The sample size of my study was over 2x larger with 500 kids. Likewise, the other study Con cites (Lerner & Nagai) observe an even smaller sample size of just 49, and his own source notes the futility of questionable methodology. Other research stands entirely contrary to Con's presentations. "A five-year review of 81% of parenting studies reported that children raised by same sex parents are 'statistically indistinguishable' from those raised by straight parents in terms of self-esteem, academics and social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association all agree that same-sex couples are just as fit to parent as their heterosexual counterparts" [11]. I'm hoping this doesn't turn into a debate about the credibility of sources and stats, but I'm prepared to provide a lot more in my favor and dismantle Con's further in the next round when character space allows. Instead this debate should focus on what makes a good or bad parent rather than assumptions about "gay lifestyles."It's important to note that there is no such thing as the "homosexual lifestyle" any more than a normative "heterosexual lifestyle" exists. Individuals and their lifestyles are completely different outside the broad scope of sexuality. Some straight people are drug addicts; some gay people are hyper-charitable. One's sexuality is not a great way to judge their character or personality let alone make assumptions about their parenting habits. For the sake of debate, I would like to address some of Con's concerns. Regarding sexual abuse, in the longest running study of lesbian families to date, zero percent of children reported physical or sexual abuse - not a single one [12]. Compare this to the general population in which 26% of children report physical abuse, and 8.3% report sexual abuse. Con's entire argument relies on a lot of "what ifs" based on questionable and/or irrelevant data. For example, blacks have higher rates of child abuse than non-whites [13]. Does this mean that blacks are inherently inferior parents? Con dropped this question/argument regarding fluid cultural trends. 16K notes that gay relationships dissolve at higher rates. Staying in bad marriages makes people unhappy, and people in bad marriages are much happier after divorce [14]. This means separation can have positive effects for people and their children in some cases. The fact is the "traditional family" is evolving as separation rates in western culture increase overall. We also know the majority of Americans no longer feel traditional gender roles are necessary or even desirable. With these changes, the nature of the "traditional" family continues to evolve according to 87% of the American population [15].Con cites a source admitting it is the "lack of normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions” as one possible explanation for the dissolution of gay relationships. This confirms my point about gay relationships and families being impacted by social perception and support, contrary to Con's claims about Switzerland (where gay marriage was legalized far too recently to gauge long term marital results). Extend my arguments about the recognition and embrace of gay marriage/families promoting their likelihood of success. In conclusion, the greatest threats to the married family unit are economic instability, unemployment, lack of emotional support and residential instability [16]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to sexuality. Opposite sex households are just as likely to experience these threats as same sex households. Likewise same sex households are just as capable as providing aspects of good parenting as straight couples: financial security, empathy, kindness, laughter, compassion, consistency and discipline. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...