Bwah ha ha ha: Lesbian parent raise healthier children than breeders!!!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The challenges faced by homosexual parents could play a role in how well their children ward off psychological problems
Children with lesbian mothers have a lower risk of developing psychological illnesses than children growing up with a father and a mother, a recent University of Copenhagen study finds. The study is the first of its kind in Denmark.
The study found that while five percent of children from traditional families developed conditions such as depression or anorexia between 1992 and 2008, the number was two percent among the 387 children of lesbian parents participating in the study.
Linky. (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45811-mental-illness-less-likely-for-lesbians-kids.html)

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!

[Morrigan]

Is a difference of 3% really statistically significant?

[IMST]

Morrigan is resisting our sinsister agenda! Destroy!

[BonkingBear]

Is a difference of 3% really statistically significant?

No ....but 60% is.

[thaiboxerken]

Why hasn't Denmark been destroyed by Jesus and his supernatural mob yet?

[JFrankA]

Linky. (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45811-mental-illness-less-likely-for-lesbians-kids.html)

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!

....so are if my ex-wife turned lesbian, it would make her a better mother?


.....How do I sign her up?????? :D


(sorry, couldn't resist.....)

[GreyICE]

2% of 387 is 8 kids. 5% is 19.

As much as my statistical methodology is saying this is okay for a highly skewed sample size, I'm not sure that you can conclusively say that the 11 missing kids are statistically significant. They probably are, though, as much as I loath the math that went into that.

Did they cross-reference versus versus income distributions and make sure to only compare lesbian couples to heterosexual couples (the effects of divorce/single-parent homes are well documented)?

A better test would be to compare adopted kids in straight families with adopted kids in lesbian families. I'm not sure they did that.

[Meadmaker]

Is a difference of 3% really statistically significant?


It's extremely significant. Taken at face value, it would mean that children of heteros were 2.5 times more likely to develop those disorders.

In fact, it's so significant it makes my skeptic's ears pop up. I've seen other studies that show no statistically significant difference, and a few that show more anxiety among those raised by homosexuals, attributed to bias against the families. How could such an extreme difference come about, and how could it go unnoticed?

There are several possible explanations. The whole subject of raising kids by an openly homosexual couple is so new that it's hard to sort out the influence of the parents from the influence of a generally disapproving society. As societal attitudes change, it wouldn't be surprising to see a few years differnce produce dramatically different outcomes. Studies conducted in Denmark may very well have different results from those in Great Britain. Another possibility, though, is methodological bias or small sample size exaggerations.

I haven't read the article yet to see if there are any hints of bias in the results.

Studies like this are extremely important, though. As many know, I'm not exactly a huge fan of gay marriage, but I was convinced to be a supporter by studies that showed there wasn't any significant difference between children raised by heteros or homos. As long as the scientific concensus supports that position, I think that it is inevitable that gay marriage will be accepted among the educated community.

[The Painter]

Isn't it fun making fun of Heteros??? Almost as much fun as making fun of Fags!!

[GreyICE]

It's extremely significant. Taken at face value, it would mean that children of heteros were 2.5 times more likely to develop those disorders.

In fact, it's so significant it makes my skeptic's ears pop up. I've seen other studies that show no statistically significant difference, and a few that show more anxiety among those raised by homosexuals, attributed to bias against the families. How could such an extreme difference come about, and how could it go unnoticed?


Once again, it's not noticeably much different between the couple/single parent dichotomy, so until we know they accounted for that, I'm inclined to chalk it up to that. Remember, adoption is couple-only.

[arthwollipot]

I would be concerned about their controlling for other variables.

[Cavemonster]

What's the general rate of unplanned pregnancies? It seems pretty likely that it's significantly lower in same gender couples, with only unplanned kids from previous, heterosexual relationships in the mix.

[Dr Adequate]

Isn't it fun making fun of Heteros??? We'll let you know when we start.

[Redtail]

Linky. (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45811-mental-illness-less-likely-for-lesbians-kids.html)

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!

Swings like a girl though. Thus I'm in charge of my lil cousins sports training. :p

[Puppycow]

Linky. (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45811-mental-illness-less-likely-for-lesbians-kids.html)

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!

What about the dog that didn't bark here: Why no mention of male-male couples?

[thaiboxerken]

While I'm skeptical of the significance of this studies conclusions, I think it does demonstrate one thing. Children raised by homosexuals are not impaired in anyway, except from bigotry. And that bigotry is not something that should be accounted for in parental laws.

[The_Fire]

What about the dog that didn't bark here: Why no mention of male-male couples?

Because in Denmark it's been quit possible for a female to get an artificial insermination for quiet a while, while in a same sex couple situation, while adoption by a same sex couple weren't possible until march 17th 2009.

ETA: *Reads what I just wrote* Hope you got my meaning....I'm not sure I do....

[Brainster]

Even in that small a sample size and with such small percentages, the difference between 5% and 2% appears to be statistically significant. Still, there are some red flags:

1. "Conditions such as depression or anorexia"? Anorexia is certainly not common and the idea that it's the second condition listed makes me a little suspicious that perhaps the researchers chose the conditions being monitored after finding out which ones the lesbian parents did best on.

2. Psychological problems are not the only troubles kids face. What percentage of the kids raised in lesbian households had trouble with the law? Dropped out of high school? Indeed, these types of problems are much easier to monitor and confirm.

3. As Puppycow noted, the study is silent on the psychological problems children raised by gay male parents may (or may not) have relative to the norm. If it turns out that children raised in gay male households have higher rates of psychological problems, will Tsukasa suggest that gay males should never be allowed to adopt, for the sake of the children?

[Jaxe]

While I'm skeptical of the significance of this studies conclusions, I think it does demonstrate one thing. Children raised by homosexuals are not impaired in anyway, except from bigotry. And that bigotry is not something that should be accounted for in parental laws.

Hear hear

[Meadmaker]

Even in that small a sample size and with such small percentages, the difference between 5% and 2% appears to be statistically significant. Still, there are some red flags:

1. "Conditions such as depression or anorexia"? Anorexia is certainly not common and the idea that it's the second condition listed makes me a little suspicious that perhaps the researchers chose the conditions being monitored after finding out which ones the lesbian parents did best on.


The link was to a newspaper article which had almost no information in it.

One thing I have seen in the past is that a reputable scientist publishes a paper, makes some unremarkable conclusions, and includes some raw data that, taken by itself, suggest some much more powerful conclusions. The media then pick up and report the tentative finding as if it were the main part of the story.

In other words, the study could have said, "An analysis of data from this study demonstrates no significant difference between children raised by lesbians vs. children raised in traditional families. Table 1 shows the frequency of various anxiety disorders and mental illnesses among teenagers raised in traditional families and those raised by lesbians. ...(next page) Considering anorexia, we note that there is a substantial difference in rates between the two types of families.....(page 21) When adjusting for income rates we note that anorexia occurs primarily among high income teens. Median income levels for lesbian families were 16% lower. When readjusing for income distribution and applying (insert complicated statistical correction method not understood by most people, especially journalists) we find that the significance level drops. More study is needed to determine if this trend is legitimate, or an artifact of the data collection method. We recommend significant funding increases for psychology reseach."

[HansMustermann]

Is a difference of 3% really statistically significant?

It depends on how you look at it. The difference between 2% and 5% is 2.5 times, or an 150% difference.

Well, at least that's how the media would report it if it were the other way around.

[tyr_13]

We'll let you know when we start.

Well the label of 'breeder' really is a slur. Besides, did this study not do any adopted children on either side?

I just tangentially agreed with the Painter. I feel dirty.

[Toke]

It´s a pretty small study, but still, it looks good.
No reason whatsoever to restrict lesbians as parents, or stop the healthcare sponsored inseminations. (And the danish birthrates are too low)


Breeders?
I can´t take that serius as a slur:), even if it was meant that way.

[Cicero]

"One reason for the lower rate could be that their mothers have encountered more resistance in their lives than heterosexual parents have.

‘Resistance makes you stronger, and that could be passed on to their children,’ Lauberg said."

Once there is total acceptance of Danish lesbians having children through IVF or adoption their brood will be as maladjusted as heterosexual couples?

[GreyICE]

"One reason for the lower rate could be that their mothers have encountered more resistance in their lives than heterosexual parents have.

‘Resistance makes you stronger, and that could be passed on to their children,’ Lauberg said."

Once there is total acceptance of Danish lesbians having children through IVF or adoption their brood will be as maladjusted as heterosexual couples?

Oh Cicero... you didn't. Really? Are you making it that easy for us?

[Cicero]

Oh Cicero... you didn't. Really? Are you making it that easy for us?

Merete Lauberg seems to be making the case how "homophobia" is directly linked to a positive impact on the mental health of Danish lesbian children. If Danish lesbian children show any sings of ADHD, anorexia, or dyslexia, it might be because their parents were not subjected to sufficient doses of discrimination.

[GreyICE]

Merete Lauberg seems to be making the case how "homophobia" is directly linked to a positive impact on the mental health of Danish lesbian children. If Danish lesbian children show any sings of ADHD, anorexia, or dyslexia, it might be because their parents were not subjected to sufficient doses of discrimination.

ADHD, Anorexia, and Dyslexia. All lumped together. Do you see what you did wrong there?

We'll get to your other silliness in a moment, but really. Do you see how massively you failed?

[tyr_13]

ADHD, Anorexia, and Dyslexia. All lumped together. Do you see what you did wrong there?

We'll get to your other silliness in a moment, but really. Do you see how massively you failed?

Not to defend Cicero, but the study lumped them all together.

[GreyICE]

Not to defend Cicero, but the study lumped them all together.

Nope! Really doubt it did. ADHD and Dyslexia are not considered disorders that you 'develop.' You merely diagnose them.

If you read the article, it has the following:
The study found that while five percent of children from traditional families developed conditions such as depression or anorexia...

Both of those are developed conditions, as opposed to ones that you are born with.

Cicero lumps them together in his head, because the article mentions neither of those. Lumping developed and curable conditions together with genetic/environmental non-curable (but treatable) ones is pretty fail. Moreover, neither ADHD nor Dyslexia is considered a mental illness, so that's yet ANOTHER point of failure (they are developmental disorders).

There's a possibilty they added in genetic/environmental mental illnesses (Bipolar disorder, serotonin imbalance, etc.) but we'd have to see the study to see what, if anything, they did to account for that. I will continue to be amused by Ciccy's firm grasp of medical procedure.

[Cicero]

So as long as this is confined to depression and anorexia, should Danish lesbian children show any sings of these, it might be because their parents were not subjected to sufficient doses of discrimination? Merete Lauberg is truly a genius.

Other than a vasectomy , what are these "medical procedures" you grasp?

BTW:

ADHD is classified as a mental illness.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/05/22/how-do-you-cure-mental-illness/

"Children can be born with a predisposition to developing anorexia through genetics and temperament. There has been shown a direct correlation between inherited addictions and the development of clinical eating disorders, including both anorexia and bulimia."



"Inherited Depression Linked To Brain Cortex Thinning"

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/143618.php


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/watchdrama8jm.gif

[Toke]

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!:D:D:D

I would like to point out a small flaw in your masterplan to rule the world.

Is there any indication whatsoever that these children are more or less gay that others?

Back to the drawingboard Dr. Budda:D

[GreyICE]

So as long as this is confined to depression and anorexia, should Danish lesbian children show any sings of these, it might be because their parents were not subjected to sufficient doses of discrimination? Merete Lauberg is truly a genius.


No Ciccy, it was 'such as' depression and anorexia. And it was a study. Read into it what you will. You certainly seem to have picked the 'dramatic' explanation. Ninty-nine people will agree that when they take 10 minutes to find their car in the parking lot they probably forgot or misremembered where they parked it. But there's always got to be that hundredth that's sure aliens are using their tractor beams to rearrange the parking lot. :rolleyes:

[Cicero]

No Ciccy, it was 'such as' depression and anorexia. And it was a study. Read into it what you will. You certainly seem to have picked the 'dramatic' explanation. Ninty-nine people will agree that when they take 10 minutes to find their car in the parking lot they probably forgot or misremembered where they parked it. But there's always got to be that hundredth that's sure aliens are using their tractor beams to rearrange the parking lot. :rolleyes:

Good to see that you have given up on your notion that ADHD isn't a mental illness and that it is also inherited as well as depression and anorexia. Would that constitute a "massive" failure on your part or just par?

Merete Lauberg might as well spent his time studying why Danish Pastry is called "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad" by Iranians.

[GreyICE]

Good to see that you have given up on your notion that ADHD isn't a mental illness and that it is also inherited as well as depression and anorexia. Would that constitute a "massive" failure on your part or just par? I've given up on the notion that a developmental disorder isn't considered a mental illness by, y'know, the people who define what mental illness is? Because they're not.

But great job in scattergories. Epic fail.

[MattusMaximus]

Clearly this is evidence that society should be encouraging more hot girl on girl action :D

[Epok]

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!

I don't really know what to say about studies 'cause numbers cause me to develop dyslexia, but, aren't there way more straight couples raising kids in the first place? It just doesn't seem like a rational or plausible study to me.

[tyr_13]

Can we get off this derail here? ADHD is classified as a developmental disorder that is most likely genetic. There are no known environmental risk factors after birth apart from the weakly evidenced lead exposure theory. Any difference between gay and lesbian couples and straight couples children's rates of ADHD would be more indicative of reporting of ADHD than of actual occurrence. This is unless the homosexual couples adopted older children and had a tendency to stay away from the hyper kids, in which case selection bias could be a factor. (This last part is all speculation by the way and please don't try to twist it into me accusing homosexual parents of something.)

This study isn't about that however.

[Toke]

This study isn't about that however.

In my unqualified oppinion this is a small study that does not show any disasters in lesbians ability to rear children. It may also be that they are better parents than the population at large.

There is a selection bias involved as lesbians are less likely to get pregnant by accident than straith women. So the ones with kids are likely to be the more resourcefull ones.

[MG1962]

Well the first question I have - was the study conducted in a place that allows gay marriage - Cause if not - no wonder the kids are better adjusted not having to put up with their parents dealing with the misery of marriage ;)

[Darat]

Cicero & GreyICE, stop the bickering, dumped your bickering to AAH, any further such posts will result in a suspension.

ETA: And keep to the topic of this thread.

[Cainkane1]

Linky. (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45811-mental-illness-less-likely-for-lesbians-kids.html)

Clearly, we need to ban heterosexual adoption. For the children, of course.

Surrender now! Darwin's batting for our team. The Gay Agenda shall rule the world with our healthier, indoctrinated children!!!
Quit being absurd. Straight couples make much better parents. They need to make a better poll.

Let me tell you a story. I'm an old man so I like stories. This one is true. I dated a girl whose older sister was what we call a lipstick lesbian. She was beautiful and she looked and acted striaight. She was a secretary at Georgia Tech. She wanted a baby but not a man to go with it. She studied the situation and came up with a plan. She checked the records of the students and she found a blond haired, blue eyes football player who made straight A's. She seduced him and they had sex until she found out she was pregnant. She had it planned out. She quit Tech, moved out of her apartment and broke off all contact with the babys father. She has what she wanted. A beautiful baby with no man to go along with it. I'm sure shes a great mother.

[ponderingturtle]

Is a difference of 3% really statistically significant?

If accurate it would be a 60% decrease in the rate. But I would not trust a study of a few hundred to be fully representative of such low probability events.

[Lithrael]

She has what she wanted. A beautiful baby with no man to go along with it. I'm sure shes a great mother.

Which has what to do with this discussion? AFAIK nobody here is claiming single parents of any orientation have any kind of general kid-raising advantage over your precious hetero couples. I'm pretty sure there is no argument here with the idea that single parenthood makes it much more difficult to raise a kid.

[GreyICE]

If accurate it would be a 60% decrease in the rate. But I would not trust a study of a few hundred to be fully representative of such low probability events.

For what it's worth, low-probability events above a certain threshold actually decrease the required sample size for accurate data. The standard error formula is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/8/5/285265cbedc09f97b3c98762a3433393.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error)

This obviously reaches maximum % error at p = 0.5, with declining percent error for smaller probability events. A small note is that especially with low-probability events (p=0.05) the curve is probably going to distort from bell into other statistical distributions, just because of the nature of random.

Or, in other words, when the media reports Gore at 48%, Bush at 49%, and Nader at 2%, Nader's margin of error is vastly smaller than Bush or Gore's - you have MUCH better information on the number of people who will vote for Nader (assuming no confounding factors).

[Cainkane1]

Which has what to do with this discussion? AFAIK nobody here is claiming single parents of any orientation have any kind of general kid-raising advantage over your precious hetero couples. I'm pretty sure there is no argument here with the idea that single parenthood makes it much more difficult to raise a kid.
Did I touch a nerve? I just wanted to share a story of a lesbian single mother and how she achieved her goal.

[Skeptic]

But I thought all families are equal? And that it is evil disrcimination, racism, chauvinism, whatever, to suggest that some families are better than others in raising children?

Next thing you know some people might suggest single mothers are not, on average, as good for the children as two-parent families...

It seems that all families are equal, but some families (traditional ones) are less equal than others.

[Skeptic]

She quit Tech, moved out of her apartment and broke off all contact with the babys father.

Hey, I know a guy who did the same thing. He's gay, so seduced a woman, she gave birth, he took the child from the hospital and disappeared with it. He has what he wanted: a beautiful child with no woman to go along with it.

Okay, not really. I made it up. But I fail to see why the behavior of such a person would be worse, or at least a lot worse, than what she did. To use other people, deliberately hurting and misleading them so that you can get something you want, is sociopathic behavior.

[GreyICE]

But I thought all families are equal? And that it is evil disrcimination, racism, chauvinism, whatever, to suggest that some families are better than others in raising children?

Next thing you know some people might suggest single mothers are not, on average, as good for the children as two-parent families...

It seems that all families are equal, but some families (traditional ones) are less equal than others.
Wait a second. You've stuck the cart in front of the horse again.

The claim was, from groups like "Focus on the Family" that homosexual couples are not fit to be parents. The kids will have all sorts of disorders, etc.

Scientists take these ramblings and rantings, and instead of discarding them as coming from the rear end of a male cow, they decide to do an actual scientific study. They decided to be fair and impartial, and do an actual study.

The actual study finds not only no evidence that homosexuals make worse parents, but slight evidence that they make better ones.

Needless to say, if it had been a 3% margin in favor of heterosexuals, FotF would be dancing in circles saying that homosexuals are obviously unfit to be parents.

Since it went the other way... they're being persecuted?

Study shows one thing - they're right.
Study shows the opposite - they're being persecuted!

And you wonder why people talk about the right's persecution complex and reality's well-known liberal bias.

[Skeptic]

To the point, the problem with most such studies is that they are often far too small, or otherwise flawed, but once they fit someone's political agenda their result, not matter how often later disproved, is considered solid gold.

Creationists have studies "proving" snakes are more closely related to men than apes. Racists have studies "proving" black IQ is lower. Gays have studies "proving" 10% of the population is homosexual. Once the study is published, no matter how flawed, nobody is supposed to say anything: it was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY, and you're not against SCIENCE, are you?

So, sorry, not convinced. The study might well be accurate. But a much higher standard of proof is needed before one accept results that support a current political agenda. This study isn't there yet, I am afraid.

[GreyICE]

To the point, the problem with most such studies is that they are often far too small, or otherwise flawed, but once they fit someone's political agenda their result, not matter how often later disproved, is considered solid gold. But this one is mathematically a fine sample size, and otherwise so far appears solid.

Creationists have studies "proving" snakes are more closely related to men than apes. Racists have studies "proving" black IQ is lower. Gays have studies "proving" 10% of the population is homosexual. Once the study is published, no matter how flawed, nobody is supposed to say anything: it was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY, and you're not against SCIENCE, are you?

So, sorry, not convinced. The study might well be accurate. But a much higher standard of proof is needed before one accept results that support a current political agenda. This study isn't there yet, I am afraid.Poisoning the Well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_Well)

See, every time I see argument from logical fallacy as the primary debate style, I get worried. Discuss the failings of the study, people have been doing that for the entire thread. But don't engage in logical fallacies, and poisoning the well most certainly is exactly that.

The problem is, 'Skeptic' that you don't appear to be engaging in Skepticism. There is no reason at all to believe homosexuals make worse parents. You lack any concrete, scientific reason for that belief.

Yet you must be CONVINCED that that belief is not true.

[Jorghnassen]

But this one is mathematically a fine sample size, and otherwise so far appears solid.

The sample size is too small in this case to estimate such a small proportion reliably. Looking up the story, it's 1.8% of 387 children, thus exactly 7, the number of cases is too small to apply the Central Limit Theorem, and I wouldn't try any logistic regression with such a low count. With no information on how the sampling was done, I wouldn't be so quick to say that children of lesbian couples have lower rates of whatever the study was examining than the general population, though I would say that it provides evidence that they do not fare worse than children of heterosexual couples. And I certainly would not extend whatever conclusions to children of homosexual male couples.

[tyr_13]

In my unqualified oppinion this is a small study that does not show any disasters in lesbians ability to rear children. It may also be that they are better parents than the population at large.

There is a selection bias involved as lesbians are less likely to get pregnant by accident than straith women. So the ones with kids are likely to be the more resourcefull ones.

I'd call this a fine pilot study. To base a conclusion off of one small study is a bad move. Still, it is more evidence that there probably isn't any good reason to ban homosexual couples from adopting. I certainly can't think of one.

[Cicero]

I'd call this a fine pilot study. To base a conclusion off of one small study is a bad move. Still, it is more evidence that there probably isn't any good reason to ban homosexual couples from adopting. I certainly can't think of one.

As long as these lesbian couples were subjected to sufficient doses of discrimination before their IVF/adoptions, their children will be less plagued with depression and anorexia than children of heterosexual couples. How this works when these problems are mostly based on genetics is truly a mystery. But how can one argue with Merete Lauberg, the greatest Danish scientist since Niels Bohr.

[Skeptic]

It is not at all surprising that ADOPTING parents are better on average than natural parents, given the hoops they have to jump through before they get a child (for good reason of course -- namely, the child's welfare.) But again -- iteresting pilot study, but certainly not strong evidence.

[Cicero]

It is not at all surprising that ADOPTING parents are better on average than natural parents, given the hoops they have to jump through before they get a child (for good reason of course -- namely, the child's welfare.) But again -- iteresting pilot study, but certainly not strong evidence.

What about foster parents? How many hoops do the celebrities jump through to adopt any child from any country?

[GreyICE]

It is not at all surprising that ADOPTING parents are better on average than natural parents, given the hoops they have to jump through before they get a child (for good reason of course -- namely, the child's welfare.) But again -- iteresting pilot study, but certainly not strong evidence.

Is there any evidence they make worse parents?

I'm fine with the neutral assumption that any two average people are going to be more or less average parents.

[Skeptic]

Like in many cases, it seems that we have here a perfectly legitimate scientific study -- which is then twisted by the media or by activists for their own ends.

The problem is that with gay activists, it's a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose sort of argument: if a study shows gays are better X (students, parents, painters, whatever) than heterosexuals, then it "proves" how misinformed and ignorant about gays those don't agree with the gay activists are.

But what if the study shows heterosexuals are better X (parents, marriage partners, mathematicians, whatever) than gays? Well, in that case, it's all the fault of the awful disrcimination gays suffer from, of course -- so the study "proves" how evil and homophobic society is.

This sort of "argument" is not limited to gay activists, of course. It is also true for all other sort of political activists who wish to distort science for their own end.

P.S.

Something else: Churchill said that one should be steadfast in defeat and generous in victory. Some regulars in this thread are always either whining in "defeat" (when someone disagrees with their point of view in a thread, they go ballistic over how opressed they are) or gloating in "victory" (when they think they've found evidence for their view and post a thread about it starting "bwah hah hah", or agree with the sentiment)

If this is the way these folks act online, at more-or-less imaginary "defeats" and "victories", how do they act in real life?

[GreyICE]

Hey skeptic, instead of ranting about stuff that no one besides you has said, simple question:
Is there any evidence they make worse parents?

I'm fine with the neutral assumption that any two average people are going to be more or less average parents.

Yes, people are feeling a little happy that after nearly two decades of countering the efforts of bigots and small-minded self-righteous wanna-be dictators like Dobson and the Christian Right, science has gathered the evidence necessary to corroborate and support some of what we've claimed, over their strident and hysterical objections.

Two decades of active persecution. Countless decades of passively-accepted persecution. And now you're feeling a burn because some people are celebrating the start of the final chapter in this sad, stupid saga of destructive, reactionary bigotry?

You're right. I'm feeling generous in victory. I don't feel like starting any claims that Christians make worse parents. Turnabout being small minded and petty and all that. But sorry, I don't feel like spilling a few drops of wine for these bozos. Burn a red clown nose in remembrance, perhaps.

[mikeyx]

It's extremely significant. Taken at face value, it would mean that children of heteros were 2.5 times more likely to develop those disorders.



and you all booed and hissed when I made a point about a breeder's license, there's screening for adoption, there should be screening for the underclass.

[ponderingturtle]

Any one know if this study is more than just anomaly hunting? With that small a sample group the scale of these differences might just be basic variation, and they were looking for the variation that fit the results that they wanted to prove.

I can see both sides of this one.