Gay Parenting

1. Other important factors Pro claims love is the most important thing for parenting. I agree. But mother and father love, although both important, are qualitatively different. Throughout developmental changes, children either need the nurture of the mother or the more laid back position which fathers tend to have. As infants and young children, having a mother is extremely important. But later in development, the existence of a biological father becomes extremely important. Even in societies—like ancient Greece—where homosexuality was widely supported, child rearing tasks were still left to stable heterosexual couples because even they recognized the differences in which both sexes brought to the table [1]. I am not disparaging love, but I am arguing other factors are also extremely important for child development. Pro notes how many children see their mother as the person who raised them. This makes sense, as mothers are the most important in infancy, before these people can remember. Babies actually do best when nurtured by their biological mother and not any other mother figure. This may lead to subtle, but long term, emotional bonding issues. Those in the survey will not recognize this, as they are far too old to remember and cannot link any issues they may have due to the lack of a biological mother. The literature strongly supports the relationship between a biological mother and her child’s development [2]. To claim the studies I am citing do not account for love is false. They merely highlight other important variables. 2. Other households Pro claims I must prove other households—such as step-families—do better than homosexuals. As noted in R1, step families, adopted families, single parents, and divorced families almost always do better than homosexual households. Both Allen and Potter include other family types in their datasets. I have negated the resolution based upon Pro’s criteria. A strong study by Sarantakos (1996) observed the educational proficiency levels of children raised in same sex, married, and cohabiting relationships. In all subjects tested—math, history, and language—children raised by heterosexual married couples and heterosexual cohabiting couples scored significantly better than children raised in homosexual relationships. No matter the type of relationship, children do best when raised in an environment by heterosexuals [3]. This refutes the father figure argument, as step-families and single parent families do worse than biologically intact ones. I have presented strong evidence to support my case. 3. Marriage would help homosexuals I do not doubt that homosexual marriage would likely increase homosexual stability slightly. As noted, gay marriage divorce risks are about twice as high as straight marriages in Scandinavia, which is the most progressive region in the world [4]. This argument goes ignored, and is merely countered with how marriage benefits people—something I obviously agree with, since I argue intact biological married homes are the best environment for children. The argument continues to have less merit in this debate when you recall that I cited a study from Canada, and it concluded that children in married same-sex households were less likely to graduate [5]. If you recall, many of the studies regarding homosexual mental disorders are published in the Netherlands. This argument was preempted, arguably my strongest evidence comes from countries where gay marriage is legal. 4. Research on homosexual parenting Pro begins by claiming she has a study with a larger sample size than the Regnerus study. What must first be noted is my study from Canada reviewed 20% of Canada’s census, and is arguably the *most* representative study. Second, I followed Pro’s sources. The study’s sample was 500 kids but it was a convenience sample [6]. Convenience samples are less representative than random sample studies like the NFSS, Doug, or Potter’s research. Most convenience samples recruit 'elitist' gay parents which is not representative of their demographic as a whole [7]. Pro claims the Canada study misrepresents data. I actually contacted the author about this claim. The responses presented existed due to a bloggers misinterpretation of the study. Keeping the sample size to 17 – 22 year olds was actually suggested by one of the reviewers. He had to use that age group as most of them had graduated high school. The blogger Pro cites must have not read the study, as different age groups were actually tested, and age didn’t affect the reslts. He also uses a different definition of graduation rate—which he explicitly states and warns about in the study. He was looking at the *fraction* of children who graduated highschool—so the critique is semantical. The study’s conclusion still stands [8]. Pro cites a the Biblarz review. I preempted it. The authors are lesbian. The authors ignored the strongest research. They ignored the 1996 study cited above. The review also ignored research by Sirota 2007. Sirota found daughters of gay men had more attachment issues than daughters of straight men. The difference was not due stability differences. The results showed how children of homosexuals had attachment issues. It is striking that the study ignores Sirota’s research, as it is one of the only studies focusing on gay fathers. The research also found higher drug usage rate in homosexual households. The ‘review’ by Stacey and Biblarz ignores huge amounts of research which contradicts their opinion, at least 8 studies are missed [22][23]. A second review concluded Pro's position is “scientifically incorrect… there is evidence, which has largely been overlooked … that lesbian mothers … may harm the interests of their children relative to comparable heterosexual parents” [9]. Pro claims a long run study claims no abuse occurred in lesbian relationships. Her link does not specify author, journal, or date of publication--I question its existence. Studies using the US census have found children raised by homosexuals are worse off. Children raised in homosexual homes fared worse in most measurable categories [10]. Divorce in *some* cases may be the preferable option, on balance, divorce is detrimental for children. Divorce lowers children’s educational attainment, increases crime, harms a child’s health and increases suicide risks as well as other emotional and behavioral problems, and reduces household income [11]. Divorce in limited situations *can* help children, but research overwhelmingly demonstrates how divorce *harms* children. The major reasons for divorce include infidelity (55%), arguing (56%), and lack of commitment (76%). Most married couples “wished they or their ex-spouse had tried harder to work through their differences” [12]. Divorce harms the child. Most scientific bodies according to Pro support same sex parenting. A review of the research notes that these conclusions are not valid, as all of these organizations cite studies which fail to meet basic sociological research standards [13]. Another review trumpets the same findings [7]. The research Pro relies upon is not strong enough to make conclusions. I have cited 4 different studies which use nationally representative and random sampling supporting my position. I also cited three studies using smaller samples which find many negative aspects related to same-sex parenting [9][13]. I cite 7 methodologically rigorous studies proving my case. Many other studies conceal their harmful differences due to libera; bias, and often prove children raised by heterosexuals are superior when re-analyzed [9]. Pro cites blogs which refer to weak studies. I cite the studies directly, and you can read them yourself. A recent meta-analysis sums it up perfectly, “studies conclude that children raised by gay parents perform as well, if not better, than their counterparts in heterosexual families … This conclusion … is not scientifically warranted due to the limitations of the studies” (emphasis mine) [7]. 5. Reasons for instability The social norms tend to be from the gay community and not bigots like me [14]. The lack of pressure for stability comes from within. My data from progressive countries would have less discrimination. 6. Homosexual lifestyle Pro claims no homosexual lifestyle exists. This is why the NFSS asked about sexual behavior, not orientation. This essentially controls for Pro’s criticisms, meaning this doesn’t really harm my case [15]. As noted, homosexuals have much higher tendencies than heterosexuals to do drugs, be violent, etc [14]. This is pretty much a cop out by Pro. Minorities having higher abuse rates does not contradict my assertion. Minorities have higher domestic abuse rates due to higher poverty and unemployment rates [19]. Homosexuals tend to do this—in part—due to their nature. Research concludes, “[discrimination] in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems [in homosexuals]” [20], indicating their lifestyle is due to their nature, not social pressures. Homosexuals are slightly wealthier than heterosexuals, and should be less violent [21].Children raised by heterosexuals have been found to have lower rates of ‘emotional disturbance’ (4%) whereas about children raised by homosexuals had disturbance rates of 20-25% [22][23]. Conclusion I have provided 7 studies directly--NFSS, Allen et al., Allen, Potter, Sirota, Schumm, Sarantakos, and Sullins which prove my case. All of them use more rigorous methodologies than any study claiming 'no difference'. I have indirectly refered to at least 15 studies [22] which support my position. Pro has cited research, too, but all of her research has fatal methodological errors. 30 years of sociological research concludes the same thing: Children do best when raised by a biological mother and father [16][17][18]. I thank Danielle for one of the best debates I have had. Vote Con. :D http://bit.ly...;