Lesbians Raise Great Kids 20 Year Study Finds

[3113]

Not news to us, but nice to have it confirmed:

When compared to teens of the same age, adolescents raised by lesbian parents are doing just fine socially, psychologically and academically, new research finds. Not only that, they have fewer social problems, and less aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors than other teens.

The nearly 20-year study has followed 78 teens since their lesbian mothers were planning their pregnancies, and concluded that these children "demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment." These findings stand in contrast to what some vocal opponents of gay or lesbian parents might have expected.

"One of the things that opponents of the equalities of gays and lesbians -- in marriage, parenting, adoption and foster care -- often bring up is the so-called gold standard of parenting, which defined by them is the traditional family where children are conceived in traditional ways and not through insemination or surrogates. But, when we compared the adolescents in our study to the so-called gold standard, we found the teens with lesbian mothers were actually doing better," said study author Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the Williams Distinguished Scholar at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

As to why these teens are doing better, Gartrell said, "Moms in the lesbian family are very committed, very involved parents."

Gartrell said she expects that these findings would also translate to the children of gay male parents as well...."Good parenting makes for healthier children, regardless of your sexual orientation. Whether you're gay, straight or lesbian, good parenting is good parenting," said Roffman.

Results of Gartrell's study will be published in the July issue of Pediatrics.

Full article here.

Not that this will make any difference to the homophobes who can't stand the idea of gays being parents, but it does take the wind out of one of their most important sails and gives gay parents ammunition when it comes to court cases, unfair laws, and refuting child psychologist "experts" who try to argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to raise kids.

 

[egelante]

Something about this doesn't surprise me. I have often thought that it is rather unfortunate that so many potentially excellent parents are unable to enter that role, particularly when so many who shouldn't can and do, simply by virtue of having different sexual preferences.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The 'study' was self reports made by the children of lesbian mothers and kids from a control group. No sample of the self-report is in the article, so we have no idea what the kids were asked or if they were quizzed apart from the parent. No mention is made of how the lesbian mothers were selected for the study; they could be prisoners or chronic psychiatric inpatients for all we know. Terms like 'commitment' are logical nominalizations, that is, the thing doesnt exist, because its a process not an object. We have no idea how 'commitment' is defined.

It seems like feel-good bullshit to me. I wanna see school report cards and police reports and medical-developmental records and where they live, etc.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Something about this doesn't surprise me. I have often thought that it is rather unfortunate that so many potentially excellent parents are unable to enter that role, particularly when so many who shouldn't can and do, simply by virtue of having different sexual preferences.

In fairness, based on my experiences with lesbian foster mothers, none of them posed any risks to the kids they sheltered; I did find lesbians to be in it for the money, and many provided the minimum 3 hots and a cot but little else. Gay males were in it for the access to boys.

 

[egelante]

The 'study' was self reports made by the children of lesbian mothers and kids from a control group. No sample of the self-report is in the article, so we have no idea what the kids were asked or if they were quizzed apart from the parent. No mention is made of how the lesbian mothers were selected for the study; they could be prisoners or chronic psychiatric inpatients for all we know. Terms like 'commitment' are logical nominalizations, that is, the thing doesnt exist, because its a process not an object. We have no idea how 'commitment' is defined.

It seems like feel-good bullshit to me. I wanna see school report cards and police reports and medical-developmental records and where they live, etc.

James, first you say that diplomas and degrees are worth nothing, then you say you want reports and certifications. Do you believe in institutions or not?

As to the particulars here, self-report is a fairly important thing: how we perceive ourselves - both strength and weakness, good and bad, and in particular our views on our background - is highly significant in how we feel we can function within society. If the children say they're ok and they feel they're doing fine, then perhaps it is best to trust that they are and not tear that apart for the sake of proving or disproving a banal argument: that one sexual orientation is superior to another simply because of that orientation.

 

[egelante]

In fairness, based on my experiences with lesbian foster mothers, none of them posed any risks to the kids they sheltered; I did find lesbians to be in it for the money, and many provided the minimum 3 hots and a cot but little else. Gay males were in it for the access to boys.

Would you care to elaborate on your experiences? If you could manage to do it without the inflammatory comments, we might even manage to make an interesting discussion out of your experience rather than an argument out of your opinion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

James, first you say that diplomas and degrees are worth nothing, then you say you want reports and certifications. Do you believe in institutions or not?

As to the particulars here, self-report is a fairly important thing: how we perceive ourselves - both strength and weakness, good and bad, and in particular our views on our background - is highly significant in how we feel we can function within society. If the children say they're ok and they feel they're doing fine, then perhaps it is best to trust that they are and not tear that apart for the sake of proving or disproving a banal argument: that one sexual orientation is superior to another simply because of that orientation.

Children are notorious liars. And they lie both ways. I want evidence of their claims.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Would you care to elaborate on your experiences? If you could manage to do it without the inflammatory comments, we might even manage to make an interesting discussion out of your experience rather than an argument out of your opinion.

My experiences go back to 1966.

 

[egelante]

That's a "founded in" sign, not elaboration...

99% of persuasion is showing how you get to your view point, or at least showing that you have arrived at it in a considered way. Persuade me. Treat it as a challenge, if that helps.

 

[TxRad]

My experiences go back to 1966.

How far back does your shitty attitude go?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

How far back does your shitty attitude go?

When did I first meet you?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's a "founded in" sign, not elaboration...

99% of persuasion is showing how you get to your view point, or at least showing that you have arrived at it in a considered way. Persuade me. Treat it as a challenge, if that helps.

Persuading you is a fool's errand; people only accept what they experience, and that rarely. Your average alcoholic knows that booze is bad for them but they cling to it until it damn near kills them. This is how people are. You included.

 

[egelante]

But at least we will have reached a point where I can feel that I respect your opinion and hopefully where you might respect mine, and respect in a fuller sense than saying "yeah well we think differently, we don't agree so we won't agree".

As to changing opinion and basing it on experience, that was my point with talking about sharing experience. And, surprisingly, we're not all entirely addicted to our opinions. If my views are seriously undermined, I'm quite happy to accept that I'm wrong and change them. I try to make a bit of time each week to question myself and see if I still think what I think I think.

Take that as you will.

 

[3113]

But at least we will have reached a point where I can feel that I respect your opinion and hopefully where you might respect mine, and respect in a fuller sense than saying "yeah well we think differently, we don'

Ah, you've so much to learn about JBJ He has only one rule. He gets to scorn and disrespect your opinion, and you, in turn, shall respect his even if he must bludgeon you with it till you do. Logic, reason and persuasion are not part of his vocabulary.

Which is why so many of us have him on ignore. His way of arguing and thinking becomes very tedious very fast.

 

[sr71plt]

This study is taking hits because it was funded by a lesbian group. Also note that this isn't about "gay" parenting; it's about "lesbian" parenting. The study is also taking hits because it's being talked about in "gay" terms and gay male parenting wasn't included--the assumption, I assume, is that if you had two males rather than two females in the mix, the stats would spiral down.

That said, I can hardly be surprised that kids with two mothers do well. That's surely easier to pull off than kids with only one parent--and that group is heavily populated and on the rise.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

The article does not disclose how the study was done...period. Studies arent even legitimate or valid for research purposes because no hypothesis is tested. The most you can say for this study is its an unscientific sample of opinion.

Youre right that I dont join the mob and whoop for bullshit, and thats your problem with me.

 

[3113]

This study is taking hits because it was funded by a lesbian group.

Fair enough--though I imagine that given where most of those hits are coming from there a bit of a pot-calling-the-kettle-black element. Most of the "gays-can't-be-good-parents" experts are funded by anti-gay groups. And I don't see any studies from them to support this assertion, let along objective studies.

It is certainly valid to question the objectivity of the study if it was funded by lesbians--but I still hope there's enough to it that it carries some weight against the nay-sayers.

Ultimately, of course, we come back to the argument that there is no reason why Lesbians or Gay men should be held to higher standards than heterosexuals when it comes to parenting children, foster or otherwise, and it's too bad that such studies have to be done at all. Prove that they breed criminals and serial killers and we'll talk. But if their kids are as good citizens, as relatively happy and well adjusted as any (and that includes whatever quirks, ticks and issues any "normal" person might come to have thanks to how they were parented), then that really should be that.

 

[sr71plt]

Fair enough--though I imagine that given where most of those hits are coming from there a bit of a pot-calling-the-kettle-black element. Most of the "gays-can't-be-good-parents" experts are funded by anti-gay groups. And I don't see any studies from them to support this assertion, let along objective studies.

It is certainly valid to question the objectivity of the study if it was funded by lesbians--but I still hope there's enough to it that it carries some weight against the nay-sayers.

Ultimately, of course, we come back to the argument that there is no reason why Lesbians or Gay men should be held to higher standards than heterosexuals when it comes to parenting children, foster or otherwise, and it's too bad that such studies have to be done at all. Prove that they breed criminals and serial killers and we'll talk. But if their kids are as good citizens, as relatively happy and well adjusted as any (and that includes whatever quirks, ticks and issues any "normal" person might come to have thanks to how they were parented), then that really should be that.

The study is taking a hit on exactly that in the public media too--the defensive nature of it. It's legal for a lesbian couple to raise kids. So, why do they have to do a study to prove anything? (Which is really sort of nonseniscal anyway. Parents are good or bad because of their skills, not their gender. And, on an individual basis, lesbians can be just as skilled/unskilled as anyone in any other cut at gender catagory.)

 

[3113]

The study is taking a hit on exactly that in the public media too--the defensive nature of it

But to be fair there, since the study started when these women were preggers--at least, what 15 years ago?--its defensive nature, wrong though that may be, might have been seen as necessary and realistic. If you live in a time where you need to defend, then you start creating that defense--and you don't take for granted that within 15 years the courts/society will finally realize the fallacy of the argument.

 

[sr71plt]

But to be fair there, since the study started when these women were preggers--at least, what 15 years ago?--its defensive nature, wrong though that may be, might have been seen as necessary and realistic. If you live in a time where you need to defend, then you start creating that defense--and you don't take for granted that within 15 years the courts/society will finally realize the fallacy of the argument.

I heard that it was started twenty-five years ago. That's not when results were released, though. That would be now. And I think bringing it up now is probably unnecessarily leading with the chin (which is pretty much what a segment of the lesbian movement does, I think. Souring the atmosphere and making yesterday's point--just as sort of a "stick it to you" move--more interested in the "in your face" gesture than a usable result.)

 

[3113]

I heard that it was started twenty-five years ago. That's not when results were released, though. That would be now. And I think bringing it up now is probably unnecessarily leading with the chin (which is pretty much what a segment of the lesbian movement does, I think. Souring the atmosphere and making yesterday's point--just as sort of a "stick it to you" move--more interested in the "in your face" gesture than a usable result.)

I don't know if that's really fair. I mean if you started a study 25 years ago would you say, after 25 years, "Well, not needed any longer let's drop it"? After that long you might as well put out the results.

And let's remember that Prop. 8 folk DID use the argument about gays as parents--ridiculous thought it was as no-marriage doesn't mean no-kids. Still they did use it. The study can hardly be said to be outdated or useless if the argument against gays as parents is still being used to pass laws like Prop. 8. It would seem to be quite timely, in fact.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know if that's really fair. I mean if you started a study 25 years ago would you say, after 25 years, "Well, not needed any longer let's drop it"? After that long you might as well put out the results.

And let's remember that Prop. 8 folk DID use the argument about gays as parents--ridiculous thought it was as no-marriage doesn't mean no-kids. Still they did use it. The study can hardly be said to be outdated or useless if the argument against gays as parents is still being used to pass laws like Prop. 8. It would seem to be quite timely, in fact.

It would be interesting to know who put the story into the public media. It hasn't been published in the journal being cited yet. That probably wouldn't influence what you thought about it (which is fine with me). It would influence what I thought about it. (Which is my privilege.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT is correct about the defensive aroma of the endeavor.