Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;17(3):309-12.
Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Same sex couples are steadily becoming more open about their relationships. One consequence of this growing openness is that more couples of the same sex are choosing to have children and infertility treatment centers are increasingly faced with requests for assistance in creating these families. The aim of this review is to address new trends in reproduction in same sex couples, to consider the quality of parenting in lesbian mother and gay father households, and to review the literature on the development of children raised by same sex couples. RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature on these families is limited by small sample sizes and a predominance of studies of lesbian mothers and their children, with few studies of gay fathers and their children. A recent study of adolescents living with same sex parents recruited from a large national sample supports the notion that adolescents raised by same sex couples are doing well psychologically and are not more likely to be homosexual. The authors concluded that it was the quality of parenting, not parental sexual orientation that accounted for developmental differences. SUMMARY: The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity. Larger longitudinal studies of same sex parents, particularly gay men, are needed, including those who choose to become parents through the use of assisted reproduction.
Future Child. 2005 Fall;15(2):97-115.
Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America's children.
Meezan W, Rauch J.
Same-sex marriage, barely on the political radar a decade ago, is a reality in America. How will it affect the well-being of children? Some observers worry that legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that same-sex parenting and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may lead to different outcomes for children. To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting affects children. After considering the methodological problems inherent in studying small, hard-to-locate populations--problems that have bedeviled this literature-the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing about as well as children normally do. What the research does not yet show is whether the children studied are typical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. A second important question is how same-sex marriage might affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples. Meezan and Rauch observe that marriage confers on children three types of benefits that seem likely to carry over to children in same-sex families. First, marriage may increase children's material well-being through such benefits as family leave from work and spousal health insurance eligibility. It may also help ensure financial continuity, should a spouse die or be disabled. Second, same-sex marriage may benefit children by increasing the durability and stability of their parents' relationship. Finally, marriage may bring increased social acceptance of and support for same-sex families, although those benefits might not materialize in communities that meet same-sex marriage with rejection or hostility. The authors note that the best way to ascertain the costs and benefits of the effects of same-sex marriage on children is to compare it with the alternatives. Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples, Vermont and Connecticut are offering civil unions, and several states offer partner-benefit programs. Studying the effect of these various forms of unions on children could inform the debate over gay marriage to the benefit of all sides of the argument.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005 Jun;26(3):224-40.
Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review.
There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers.
Obviously, Mary needs to get married to a closeted gay neocon, sadly, most of those are now unemployed in DC.
That or go to BC and marry her girlfriend ...
He's a moron. Good job on attacking him point by point.
Groth, A. Nicholas; Birnbaum, H Jean. “Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 7 no. 3 (1978): 175-181.
A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.
Also, the blog Box Turtle Bulletin has links to a lot of the stuff you're looking for.
More . . .
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995 Apr;65(2):203-15.
Adults raised as children in lesbian families.
Tasker F,Golombok S.
A longitudinal study of 25 young adults from lesbian families and 21 raised by heterosexual single mothers revealed that those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well in adulthood in terms of psychological well-being and of family identity and relationships. The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings.
Oh, and here's one - totally unbiased, I'm sure - by Dr. Cameron himself:
J Biosoc Sci. 2006 May;38(3):413-8.
Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual.
Do the sexual inclinations of parents influence those of their children? Of 77 adult children of homosexual parents who volunteered for three different investigations, at least 23 (30%) were currently homosexual: twelve (55%) of 22 daughters and three (21%) of fourteen sons of lesbians; five (29%) of seventeen daughters and three (17%) of eighteen sons of gays; none of six sons with both a gay and a lesbian parent. At least 25 (32%) were currently heterosexual. Of the ten with transsexual parents, one of nine daughters was currently lesbian, one was currently heterosexual, and one was transsexual. The son's sexual preference was not reported. These findings suggest that parents' sexual inclinations influence their children's.
Great stuff—URLs? Links? Let me have 'em!
All mine are from pubmed, so you probably can't dl the actual articles unless you're at the UW like me. Or pay money, I suppose.
Pubmed is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
Mary Cheney's pregnancy might turn out to be the best thing she's ever done for GLBT rights - or at least a very definite blow to the GOP wall of resistance towards gays and lesbians.
I hope they come out in favor of taking the baby away from her. That could be our own Terri Schaivo, except with a living, sentinent being, and her child.
Your boy likes Slayer? That's awesome! Little due has great taste.
should be: "little duDe..."
By the way, would someone please bring Mary some more raw liver? She was up all night eating what I left her yesterday.
I need to run out now and pick up some tannis root for her again. She seems to have "misplaced" what I already brought her.
Note that the stuff from the APA (American Psychological Association) that I linked to there is multi-page, which isn't entirely obvious at first glance.
From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Explanation of AAP support of gay marriage, including discussion of fitness of gay parents.
This article is based upon how discrimination leads to bad health in same sex couples, especially if not allowed to marry.
"The authors argue that legal and social recognition of same sex relationships may reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships, and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people."
So it could be said that people who discriminate are the cause of harm to many couples. So the ripple effect would be stress in the family caused by people who do not support same sex unions and discriminate.
In this next article it is best to read the Summary so as to get the idea of what the article is about but is cross referenced and is a positive article.
I can't do this anymore I am finding so many religious sites with no references for their hateful findings. They are so exhausting to read even though I thought they are still interesting reading just for their insane justifications for discrimination.
Oh, c'mon Dan. Just a few hours ago, you were complaining about the hypocritical near-silence coming from the National Review (a sure sign of heads exploding in their cubicles).
Sure, Cameron is an asshat, but at least he's a consistent asshat. His press release is about as surprising as rain in Seattle in November. So predictable, I could have probably written it for him.
Still, good job refuting his arguments point by point. You should put that in your own press release and send it out, on the off chance that any mainstream publication actually contemplates publishing his ridiculous screed.
#4 from your source...."There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."
tell that to the gay pedophile prick who shoved his member into my ass when I was 8 back in 1979 and made me give him and his other victims blowjobs. I hated everything gay after that, but eventually found that not all gay folk are predators and the hate....well,its all behind me now. no pun intended. I do hate however psychological (Groth, A. Nicholas; Birnbaum, H Jean. “Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 7 no. 3 (1978): 175-181. and its statistics and BS about how all nice gay people are but straight people are crazy predators as the above quote seems to suggest.
I have an obssesion with the sex allure and beuty of the female body probably because of the past infliction
because of the past infliction(the rape) of me by that man, that male , that bastard.
If you have a UW grad in the office, and they're a UWAA member, they can probably log on and access pub med.
Or you could wander over to the SCCC campus .
As for #6, I couldn't find a study refuting Cameron's and giving the actual median age at death for lesbians, but I did find an article that points out the reasons why Cameron's study is bullshit and shouldn't be taken seriously:
It may not be a scholarly article, but it gives all the common sense reasons for why no one should be attention to Cameron's study.
What exactly is Paul Cameron a doctor of, and which university in the Bahamas did he attend?
(Must be one that doesn’t require citations or, you know, facts).
hey batshit crazy @17
.the argument for gay adoptive rights isn't that there aren't any gay pedophiles,it's rather that the idea that homosexuality is the inevitable gateway that leads to pedophilia. that pederasty is an inextricable element of being gay.the quote you mention doesn't suggest in the slightest that all gay people are nice and all straight people crazy predators. read it again. " the POSSIBILTY emerges that homesexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive"..that is to say that they're two different behaviors that may or may not have anything to do with each other. the rest of us who are not 'batshit' understand the second part of the quote suggests hetrosexual molestation of all children, not just same sex ones. girls AND boys.as to what orientation has to do with being molested.. that's a complex deal for any victim of molestation or rape.
i'm a gay a suvivor of pederasty and molestation. my gayness isn't a result of being molested (i did experiance a few horrible dark confusing years of bitterness and confusion following the incidents, but it's all behind me now) and i doubt that your 'obsession with the sex allure and beauty of the female body' has that much to do with your reaction to your victimization either.
but then again you did say you were crazy...
#6. I think he meant Lesbian Bed Death, rather than Lesbian Death, on average, happens in one's 50s. Maybe that's why all those lesbians are grabbing and humping little children.
Cameron's study that showed that lesbians only live on average into their 50's (and gay men to 43) also showed that lesbians were about 800% more likely to die in auto accidents.
Explain that one.
Well, this is why. He did the study by pulling a bunch of obituaries from free gay publications in cities (like Frontiers, Bay Windows, etc.) and averaged the ages at death.
This is why this doesn't work scientifically. First, the obits usually featured gay people known to the urban gay communities they served, and thus skewed, for example, younger. Also ibits in papers like this would be more likely to feature "newsworthy" deaths, meaning people who die young from accidents, disease, gay bashing, etc. Cameron, of course, also conducted this study during the height of the plague.
In other words, this is pure, unscientific running drivel. It was this kind of pseudo-science that got Cameron rightly ejected from the American Psychological Association. Of course, deciding on the outcome in advance and trying to fix the facts to it has become modus operandi for the right these days. Why should this asshat be any different?
It seems possible that true pedophiles (those who seek out children to abuse rather than abuse children as crimes of opportunity) don't really have a sexual orientation. They're sexually attracted to kids and adults don't do it for them. So, why wouldn't pedophiles "identify" as straight? Why take on potential discrimination when it's boys, and not adult men, that interest them?
But, I may very well be misinterpreting Dan's description of most pedophiles identifying as straight. Do they just claim that or is there reason to think that they are actually sexually attracted to adult women?
Dignifying Paul Cameron with a response partially legitimizes his assertions--though certainly NOT because they contain a hint of academic integrity or scientific validity. Cameron is best ignored. The late Stephen Jay Gould advised Richard Dawkins not to engage religionists on atheism because they don't care if they win or lose a debate. To acknowledge their views in a public forum exposes them to those who may never have heard them before, and perhaps never would have heard them if not for that acknowledgement. In addition--and perhaps worse--that who many perceive as a credible source of information is writing about a bigoted quack like Paul Cameron imparts a degree of significance to his views that to put it mildly, is undeserved. I believe the same reasoning applies to this blog entry.
Who were you hoping to convince that Paul's assertions are nothing more than the irrational ravings of a damaged person? The knuckle dragging troglodytes who subscribe to his "findings"? They'll continue to believe--as he does--whatever conforms to their prescientific bigotry in spite of a total lack of evidence and methodological soundness. Those that know he's a fraud and a joke? Or how about those that have never heard of him, and if they were to, would, if rational, come to the same conclusion that the APA did when it terminated his membership long, long ago?
Now, I can understand being upset, but if people like Paul are to fade into obscurity, knee jerk reactions need to be overcome, and gay activists need to learn how to choose their battles. Dan, the guy's not been published in a peer reviewed journal in several decades, and never will be for the remainder of his pathetic, evil life. He thrives on controversey, and this is precisely the kind of response that gives him a reason to delay putting a bullet in his empty skull. No matter how tempting, please refrain from helping him again.
P.S., I'd like to qualify the above by stating that I am not a parent, and do not know how I would have reacted if I were one.
The comments about median death age of lesbians are bogus for another reason: the older you get, the older your life expectancy. As a simple example, the life expectancy of people who are 100 is not the same as the life expectancy of the population in general.
Anyone who has reached 45 has a longer life expectancy than the population in general. They have already proved, for example, that they won't die in an auto accident when they are a reckless teenager.
I was linked to here from TP and it's been a pleasure to read this blog. As to the lower life expectancy of lesbian women, I've rarely heard such bs. If you look at today's 80 year old women. Even if they had been lesbians they wouldn't have been able to live that life. We souldn't know, they are deep in their closets and won't come out of it. Many are loving and caring mothers who had their children by an act, that was really rape. This rape was imposed upon them by a society which insisted upon the heterosexual relationship as a norm, no matter what the people involved feel. Same goes for homosexual males. I am lucky enough to live in Europe, where most gay people nowadays have a chance to live their lives in relative peace and I still wish for the days when a persons sexual orientation, or the color of their skin or their religious beliefs, doesn't influence the way we think about a human individual.
It may be a little past deadline, but I looked into these claims. The real scoop is here:
I'd like to emphasize that the claims that children of gays and lesbians are more disposed to crime is statistically stupid. The claim is based on studies that show that children in two parent (mother and father) households fare better than children in single parent households. The argument seems to be "Studies (including those by the "ultra-liberal" Urban Institute) show that a mother and father are better than only a mother. Since a single mother is morally equivalent to homosexuality, a mother and father must also be better than a father and a father or a mother and a mother." The only problem is that these studies are completely silent on the question of gay parentage. There are no gays in either the experimental or control groups. Thus, you can't draw any conclusions one way or the other. To use these studies in this way is idiotic at best, but more likely disingenious.
Aaron, I've never liked the argument that responding to a kook's assertions dignifies them by suggesting they merit response. It's very true that the ideas of someone like Cameron don't merit academic response, don't have a role in the communal construction of knowledge that is scientific inquiry. If the academic community has refused to publish his work or welcome him in professional associations, that's great. He's refused to play by well founded rules of valid data collection and interpretation, and therefore his voice has no worth in a scholarly context.
But scientific exclusion is entirely different from refusing to respond to him in a non-academic, popular forum. Responding outside the academy to all kinds of kooks -- Holocaust deniers, white supremicists, religious fundamentalists, whatever -- is really important, because non-scholars often do not understand why or how some people or ideas get excluded from the scholarly community. They apply vague generalities ("Hey, everyone has a right to say his piece!") to the workings of the scientific community, and not understanding how that community works, or why the way it works is important, may be apt to read non-engagement as haughty or fearful, and thus see it as an implicit endorsement of the kook's ideas.
Actually, I think popular forums like this one provide an invaluable place to remind non-scholars of how the scholarly community works and why what Cameron says doesn't have a place in that conversation. Disputing people like Cameron allows those who understand and embrace science to raise essential questions in the minds of people who've never thought about what it is scientists do: Why is anecdotal data not a good foundation for knowledge? Why are a researcher's personal reputation or views not the most important element of her scholarship? Why is reproduction of findings so important? How come peer review matters? Why are some people welcomed as part of a scholarly conversation, while others are not? What I mean is, yes, responding to people like Cameron is a way of disputing their ideas in the minds of a credulous public -- and I wouldn't for a moment believe that no out out there is ambivalent, that everyone is 100% decided and therefore no one can be reached. But perhaps more importantly, popular refutation is also an opportunity to remind people of why our society should -- must -- embrace a scientific attitude toward many forms of knowledge if it is to prosper in the long run, and of what, exactly, such an attitude entails.
P.S. I'm a great admirer of Gould's, but if he thought that a zealot's debate with an atheist could be somebody's first introduction to religious zealotry, he must've been refering to some country other than the U.S. The idea that there are happy, healthy, moral people out there who don't believe in God would be a bolt out of the blue for many Americans, perhaps a substantial majority, sadly enough.
Some actual court rulings and comments about scientific "evidence" regarding gays:
He quoted the rulings of:
The Vermont Supreme Court in 1999: "If anything, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against."
The Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003. "Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of ‘a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."
He noted that: "...there are no scientifically valid studies tending to establish a negative impact on the adjustment of children raised by an intact same-sex couple as compared with those raised by an intact opposite-sex couple. The offered studies, anecdotal experiences and opinions regarding children from broken homes or children raised by a single parent have no logical relevance. Unlike the documented impact of children’s exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse in the homes of lawfully married heterosexual couples, as to children raised by intact same-sex couples there is no science, only questionable assumptions based on stereotypes."
one more supportive link...
"The analysis, "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children" is published in the July Pediatrics (2006;117:349-364). It examines demographics, public policies on marriage and adoption, and the legal and financial effects of public policies on the children of same-gender parents."
Thank you for this. This needs to be done more often. I disagree with Aaron and agree with A in NC. Savage is in no way dignifying his argument but rather exposed it as idiotic and (as evidence has shown) probably the ramblings of a self hating closeted faggot.
Savage also provided a great laugh about this and a forum for discourse which is a wonderful community service.
I especially love that his son is teaching him heterosexual tastes (e.g. throwing a football correctly) and his examples of how lesbians might be dying at an early age (e.g. mullet in the machinery).
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).