Gay Parenting

Thanks, Con.Re: Children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Children may innately respond better to their biological parents due to evolutionary pair bonding, but this debate is essentially about whether or not gay parents can effectively and successfully raise children. I'm arguing that a heterosexual couple are not superior parents on the basis of their sexuality alone. I will address the mother/father roles later in the debate outside the scope of biology. However to address the biology argument, studies show a split of nature and nurture that influence our personality and decisions. There are other and more important things to consider in the parenting process outside of biological ties. For instance, if twins were separated at birth and one lived with the biological parents who argued a lot, while the other lived with relatives who were far wealthier in a more supportive home, the latter might have a better lifestyle, more opportunities and overall happiness and success based on outside factors other than biology. So while it's true that humans have an instinctual biological bond with their immediate family, it is not paramount or highly relevant to the scope of this debate. We are judging parenting ability based on one's sexuality in general.Re: Homosexual lifestyles may pose a risk to children. Con suggests that domestic and sexual violence may be higher in same-sex households. There are several ways to address this argument. First, let's consider that men are on balance more physically aggressive and violent than women. It would therefore follow that kids with lesbian parents are less exposed to aggression than kids with straight parents or men. In addition men are far more likely to commit acts of (opposite sex) sexual aggression than women including rape or molestation [1]. Should that mean kids with lesbian parents are inherently safer than kids with straight parents? Let's be careful of the conclusions we draw from various statistics for the sake of discussion.Having LMs (lesbian mothers) and GFs (gay fathers) each present unique strengths and challenges, so criticisms vs. one group are not universal against gay parenting in general. As such noting something like "gay men tend to have more STDs" is not relevant in terms of judging lesbian headed households.However in terms of illness, it is an interesting argument to suggest that because one group might be more prone to a certain type of illness, that the group is inherently more unfit to parent. Consider the fact that 0% of households with gay fathers have had a parent die from uteran, breast or ovarian cancer. Does that mean gay men are inherently more fit to parent than straight couples because they have less risk? No, that's a silly argument. Moreover most STDs are preventable, treatable and usually not life threatening. They tend to affect the younger gay (male) community without children.In regard to Con's proposition that lesbian relationships tend to "dissolve," lesbians are known to crave physical and emotional intimacy (women do more than men, on balance) and maintain long-lasting, monogamous and committed relationships. Regardless, research shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolutions of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2]. Further, let's say it's true that domestic violence were observed more in gay couples. Similarly let's say that violence was observed more in black couples than white couples. Does that mean that behavior is linked to innate biological factors (such as sexuality or race), or rather is behavior more relevant to one's culture and individual circumstance? If the latter, Con has to prove why gay culture or biology in particular advocates or supports violence and abuse, rather than the particular circumstance that may apply to large demographics. Consider this: a disproportionate number of homeless teenagers are gay [3]. Many of them are rejected by their families and forced on the street, thus inherently burdened. Research shows that people who are homeless and poor have a tendency to be more violent, angry, anxious and depressed for obvious reasons [4]. It makes sense that gay people would have a tendency to be depressed in a society where they are likely turned away from their friends and family, told they are mentally ill or plagued by the devil, inherent sinners, unfit parents, poor, have their legal rights and protections inhibited, etc. As such we must consider the social impact outside factors have played on the gay community as a whole. We KNOW this can be changed and is changing for the better, considering gays are immeasurably more protected by both legal safeguards and social outlets than they were in generations past. This is making a positive impact on the gay community, and improving perceptions and relations with different communities and their ability to parent with support rather than judgment and abuse. Re: Research on Same-Sex Parenting It is not difficult to discredit the research findings of Mark Regnerus that my opponent relies on for his case. In fact the research and more importantly its conclusions are overwhelmingly flawed.Regnerus' study bases its sample on children who identify themselves as having a parent who has had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex, then compares them with children of opposite-sex couples who raised the child together. There is ZERO consideration given to the length of time the romantic relationships lasted, whether or not the child was raised by a same-sex couple or by a single parent, and most notably, no consideration of other factors in the child's life -- such as family drug abuse, stability of structure, step-parents, class or divorce [5]. This study compares apples to oranges and focuses on ONE differential while ignoring other, arguably far more important variables! It is completely irresponsible and falsifiable science in which no reasonable comparisons can be made. Moreover, in order to qualify as good science with valid data, the research must exist as free of bias and presumed assumptions as much as possible. On the contrary, Regnerus has a long history of anti-gay preachings, writings, attacks and public speaking ventures all showing this man's overwhelmingly anti-gay leanings [6]. This immediately reveals that his so-called "study" shows nothing more than what he had predetermined it would show through confirmation bias. Not surprisingly, Regnerus is backed by religious and conservative groups who have contributed a ton of money to funding his research, and had a vested interest in particular outcomes [7]. But we cannot discredit the findings based on his incredible bias alone. Indeed his methodology is detrimentally flawed for aforementioned reasons. His sample is incredibly problematic, and there have been innumerable criticisms from the science community regarding how irresponsibly the conclusions were formed. To reiterate, identifying a same-sex relationship tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of the relationship. Further, arbitrary decisions in dealing with overlaps between the observed categories make the LM and GF categories heterogeneous, while the other categories remain relatively homogeneous -- something Regnerus could not effectively account for [8]. In conclusion of this point, the Regnerus study is undoubtedly flawed, and has been ripped apart by researchers - including his own colleagues - as irresponsible and unreliable. In addition, Con cites another study published in the same journal by Loren Marks. Afterwards, "Both the publishing journal and independent parties launched investigations. Two hundred social scientists signed a letter citing 'serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.' The journal that published the paper commissioned an audit assessing problems with the peer-review process. The audit found 'serious flaws and distortions that were not simply ignored, but lauded' in the review process. It found blatant conflicts of interest in that 'all three of the respondents to these papers... Referring to the Regnerus study and a companion piece, the audit concluded that 'neither paper should have been published.' In a separate interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Darren E. Sherkat, the designated reviewer, dismissed the entire study as 'bullsh!t' [9].Con concludes with a psychologist's findings that gay couples are more likely to raise gay children (or rather children who are open to exploring or expressing gay tendencies). However, even if that were true because 1 - sexuality is influenced through biology, or 2 - kids with gay parents felt more comfortable exploring non-traditional sexuality and admitting to it, doesn't automatically mean they are "worse off" making this a moot point. There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay -- but that is the subject for another debate. :::::::: Pro's Arguments ::::::::Unfortunately I have run out of character space, thus I will make my arguments in the next round. To give Con a heads up, I will be arguing: - The things that most affect parenting are not relevant to sexuality- Sexuality is fluid- Kids can be exposed to both gender/gender roles even with gay parents- The traditional family is evolving and has changed throughout history- Many of the issues with gay rights and social reactions are changing for the better- There is empirical research and data supporting my position [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[4] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[5] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...