Gay Parenting

Thanks, Con.Re: Important Parenting Factors Con says love is the most important variable in parenting. While I agree, love is an indescribable and subjective term. Parents have different values and dissimilar methods of raising kids and expressing love. There's no absolute way to define love, so I did not say love was the most important factor in parenting. Instead I outlined very specific attributes and circumstances that are the most significant variables to good parenting. Con has not contested any of this research. Con has not argued that sexuality is more relevant to parenting than ANY of these factors, nor has he negated any of the research claims or methodology on the studies relevant to good parenting. As such, extend all of my arguments backed by scientific data that prove these things and not sexuality are the most important factors to raising children effectively: financial security, marriage stability, community support, empathy, affection, discipline, boundaries, kindness, laughter, compassion and consistency. Con argues that a mother and father are important because men and women offer different types of nurturing. In other words, Con is saying two specific gender roles are paramount to parenting. But the majority of Americans no longer feel gender roles are relevant or necessary [1]. In addition, studies show married couples and parents who forgo traditional gender roles are happier then their conventional cohorts. It also shows same-sex couples share responsibilities more equitably, and have more parental satisfaction [2]. Gender is related but not identical to sex. While there are observed differences between males and females, not all people abide by the norm. Fluid and ambiguous terms like love and gender are not consistent or reliable indicators of good parenting. In this entire debte, noting the importance of gender is Con's only attempt at proving how sexuality remotely affects parenting. However not only is it irrelevant because gender is fluid and on a spectrum for both gay and straight people [3], but many same-sex relationships do in fact adopt traditional gender roles [4]. I've already explained that kids with gay parents can still be exposed to male and female role models, making this entire point irrelevant and already addressed anyhow. Re: Other Households Con says that in R1 he proved "adopted families, single parents and divorced families almost always do better than homosexual households." That is patently and unequivocally false. I've discounted all of Con's research as biased, flawed and considered intellectually irresponsible by the science and academic community at large. I've also provided more reliable research stating the opposite. Here is another study proving two gay parents are better than single and divorced parents [5]. In previous rounds, I've explained why two parents are happier, healthier and better off than one and how that's true regardless of sexuality. Con never challenged or discredited my reasoning. The Williams Institute measured aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive contexts in relation to child adjustment. It included 120 two-parent adoptive families: 40 female same-sex, 35 male same-sex, and 45 different-sex couples who adopted their children. The key findings include what I have emphasized in previous rounds - that parental success and child happiness were NOT relevant to the sex of the parents, but instead what was relevant were factors like stability, preparation and happiness [6]. Re: Marriage BenefitsCon agrees that gay marriage would benefit families, but repeats that gay couples are more likely to divorce. Once again, gay marriage has not been legal long enough in Scandanavia to have remotely reliable measures of long-term marriage rates for a comparable study. The very first country to legalize gay marriage, Switzerland, didn't do so until 2000. Sweden didn't even legalize gay marriage until 2009. Not enough time and other cultural factors negate this premise along with previous arguments.Re: Gay Lifestyles I've argued that even if certain demographics were observed to have particular tendencies, it doesn't mean those people should be forbid or discouraged from marriage on the basis of innate characteristics like sexuality or race. Black people are more likely to engage in domestic abuse [7], child abuse [8] and have significantly less money than white people [9]. However we can't assume black people are worse people or parents than whites just because of innate factors like race and extension sexuality; we must consider outside influential factors. My opponent says racial disparity exists due to cultural issues like poverty. I've argued that similarly, cultural implications in response to gay relationships and parenting will cultivate and affect a gay family's well being. While Con suggests discrimination, hatred, violence, homelessness and being outcast (all common amongst gays - which Con did not dispute) do not affect a person's mental state, all legitimate scientific research disagrees. In fact all of these things are extremely significant and directly relevant to rates of depression, suicide, drug abuse and violence among the gay commuity [10, 11, 12]. Con's supposition that gay people are wealthier than their peers is another myth; indeed gays face specific obstacles that contribute to increasing rates of poverty [13]. This makes sense given their lack of federal protection against discrimination and other challenges. It is outright asinine to suggest that a population which is observably and demonstrably ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, bullied and harassed would not be more depressed and engage in risky behaviors than their peers. Extend all of my arguments about sexuality itself being irrelevant to one's health and happiness outside of environment. Re: Research on Gay Parenting In attempting to prove my research uses a "convenience sample," Con presents an article which actually supports my side of the argument and does not prove that. It says that while questions have been raised about the sample size of research in support of gay families, a cross-sectional survey was done to compensate and concludes exactly the same findings [14]. It does note the stigma of gay parenting is what causes harm for kids with gay parents, and NOT anything that has to do with the sexuality of the parents itself. Ergo, extend my argument that increasing support and acceptance of gay parenting from the community is eradicating the stigma of gay parenting. Gay parents themselves are not the problem. Only the hate and ignorance of gay parenting causes problems for gay families - backed by Con's very own resource.16K suggests my research is flawed because it looks at "elitest" gay parents, and apparently gays with money have kids who are better off and therefore do not represent the demographic as a whole. In other words, Con admits that if you account for financial security, parents - including gay parents - rate a whole lot better! Nevertheless none of the sources Con used to support this claim of a "convenience" sample (his #6 and #7) actually said this was true. Con presents research by Professor Doug Allen, however Allen has a known anti-gay bias [15]. If Con says suggests lesbian authors cannot write truthful articles about gay parenting, then we must also discount Allen's authorship based on my arguments about bias skewing research outcomes. Apparently Allen has another study Con mentions that discredits gay parents, but there is no internet link to read his specific claims. The audience must ignore them since we cannot read/challenge them. More to discredit the Canadian study bunk:"Allen et al."s finding... is due to their conflating the initial disadvantage of children who come into same-sex couple families (a disadvantage that appears to be substantial) with the progress children experience during the time when they are actually being raised by same-sex couples (progress that is excellent). There is no statistically significant difference in making normal progress through school between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual married couples after family socioeconomic status is taken into account (see Table 1, column E). Allen et al. noted that even if the difference is not significant, the children of heterosexual married couples appear to be faring better. By the same logic, the children raised by unmarried heterosexual couples appear to be faring worse (with higher rates of grade retention) than children raised by same-sex couples (all of whom were unmarried according to U.S. law), though the difference in grade retention is not significant after socioeconomic controls are applied" [16]. Innumerable academics rip Allen's studies apart further, for failing to account for basic consideraitons like how long the children in his research lived with the parents in question [17, 18]. All of his conclusions are all outright irresponsible. ConclusionI have discredited each study Con presented with explanations detailing their invalidity. The studies he presented fail to measure equally comparable households. They did not take into account factors like equal economic circumstance and parental relationship longevity. On the contrary, I've presented larger, random (non convenience) sample sized studies accounting for these and other variables, that have concluded practically no difference in gay vs. straight parenting in similar households; they've even noted some benefits to gay parenting. Con has failed to justify why gay parents cannot provide love, support, nurturing and care taking to raise happy and healthy kids. I've proven sexuality has no bearing on one's ability to be a good parent.That said, I'd like to again thank my esteemed opponent for a solid and respectful debate, and of course the judges for reading. Cheers.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...