Do You Support Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage In Thailand?

[endure]

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

[manarak]

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

good point - what uprising makes better people in the end? the orphanage or a homosexual couple?

[endure]

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

good point - what uprising makes better people in the end? the orphanage or a homosexual couple?

An alternative question might be - which is better for a child - growing up in an orphanage surrounded by people who are paid to take care of him/her or growing up with a couple (of either or both sexes) who are bringing the child because they love him/her.

[surayu]

People should free themselfes from useless dogmas and stop being slaves of their habits, which involves a "mechanical reflex" rather than objective thinking.

I admit that for many things i find myself slave of my habits too, but i try to keep them to a minimum and make sure others would be almost unaffected by this, things like the love for my parents for example.

There is much to be said about procreating and putting another individual which never asked for it trough all the sufference a life will inevitably give, however, i try to stay on topic and will just reconfirm my vote, there is absolutely nothing wrong on the same sex unions, personally i am ethero, but that's just a choice, i think if i was born female i was going to be a lesbian from how much i like females so i am not giving a judgement to make a favour to my personal preferences, i am simply trying to rationalize.

I don't know if science has found an answer yet as why some people prefere sweets and other like saulty instead, but for sure everyone should be able to see, without much effort that if something is not causing a damage, then a damage will be done by forbidding it if someone else want it, that's all...

[samurai]

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

good point - what uprising makes better people in the end? the orphanage or a homosexual couple?

An alternative question might be - which is better for a child - growing up in an orphanage surrounded by people who are paid to take care of him/her or growing up with a couple (of either or both sexes) who are bringing the child because they love him/her.

... or that gay couple who think they got only the 'difficult' child that no-one else wanted?

[manarak]

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

good point - what uprising makes better people in the end? the orphanage or a homosexual couple?

An alternative question might be - which is better for a child - growing up in an orphanage surrounded by people who are paid to take care of him/her or growing up with a couple (of either or both sexes) who are bringing the child because they love him/her.

Well, I preferred to eat in restaurants rating high in Gault-Millau than what my mother cooked with love. Meaning well does not guarantee good results.

[trisailer]

The bottom line is EQUAL rights. What part of EQUAL do people not understand?

I don't understand why some people are gay, but they are. They are also citizens who pay taxes and manage their lives (some would argue better) like everyone else.

Being gay has been accepted by humans for MILLIONS of years. The church hijacked that tolerance for their own ends and convinced everyone to be afraid of gays.

My daughter is gay and in a long term relationship. She is denied her constitutional rights because of it not to mention the social stigma from small minded people. Don't like gays? Don't be one. Don't associate with them, but don't think that you can deny them their rights.

There were a couple of gay guys in my Army unit in the 70's. They made the same commitment that I made to fight and die if necessary, but they could not be who they were born to be.

[Jingthing]

Pro legal gay marriage wins! Fabulousity.

[Richard4849]

"Abnormal" because less than 66% of the population are a certain way?

So...let me get this straight...left-handed people are "abnormal" and thus not deserving of the same rights as right-handed people?

Bald people are "abnormal" and don't deserve the same rights as people with hair?

People who can't curl their tongues are "abnormal" and don't deserve the same rights as people who can?

Seriously...some of the views displayed in this thread are just plain downright disturbing.

Luckily, they are in the small minority. Which, of course, makes them "abnormal" and thus inconsequential. LOL.

[luckizuchinni]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'. Sexual organs are designed for reproduction - any other use is not natural.

So I take it you don't urinate?

[happyrobert]

....There is no Truth....

So, uhm, you're lying?

If there is no foundational Truth (note the capital T) then how can it be a lie?

What I am saying is the truth.

This is perhaps not the forum to explain this. It is **staggeringly complex** but you need to look at the epistemological arguments made by Wilfred Sellars and Wittgenstein's argument of 'hinges'. These books are not books that can be read at the departure lounge at Swampy.

Wow philosophy. Staggeringly complex? Nah.

Bull$hit of this nature is always complex. They chose a conclusion to meet their needs, then wrap crap in complex, highfalutin double speak with lots of polysyllabic words to "prove" that conclusion and are then considered intellectuals.

A lot like some detectives I used to work with who drew a conclusion as to what happened, and who did it, and then look only for evidence to support that conclusion.

But in the end, $hit is $hit. And nobody but the bull$hitter benefits.

Just look at the recently released "Peaceful Countries" study put together by a group of intellectuals. Thailand was ranked a poor 107 while the US was rated a peaceful 82. Uh-huh.

You can make "facts" fit any conclusion you want, but it's a lot easier to do with fancy words 'cause it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

These are books that should be left at the departure lounge.

[Richard4849]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'. Sexual organs are designed for reproduction - any other use is not natural.

So I take it you don't urinate?

HAHAHAHA.

He also regularly turns down bj's, as it is unnatural and an abomination.

[saraburioz]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'. Sexual organs are designed for reproduction - any other use is not natural.

So I take it you don't urinate?

HAHAHAHA.

He also regularly turns down bj's, as it is unnatural and an abomination.

What makes you say that? I have perversions like most people.

[Richard4849]

A bj is not a "perversion", unless you're some fire-and-brimstone Baptist preacher.

It is all part and parcel of the great spectrum of completely normal and harmless human activity.

[saraburioz]

The bottom line is EQUAL rights. What part of EQUAL do people not understand?

I don't understand why some people are gay, but they are. They are also citizens who pay taxes and manage their lives (some would argue better) like everyone else.

Being gay has been accepted by humans for MILLIONS of years. The church hijacked that tolerance for their own ends and convinced everyone to be afraid of gays.

My daughter is gay and in a long term relationship. She is denied her constitutional rights because of it not to mention the social stigma from small minded people. Don't like gays? Don't be one. Don't associate with them, but don't think that you can deny them their rights.

There were a couple of gay guys in my Army unit in the 70's. They made the same commitment that I made to fight and die if necessary, but they could not be who they were born to be.

Accepted for MILLIONS of year? Says who? I seriously doubt it. It's only in the last few years that medical experts took 'homosexuality' off the list of mental disorders and for the reason you can read about here http://www.tradition...rban/eleven.php

Should people with mental disorders be allowed to adopt kids? Are homosexuals more likely to have other mental disorders? Yes.

Are homosexuals more likely to have more outrageous perversions? Yes.

I had a thread a few years ago about my katoey brother in law looking after my kids.

Would anyone here allow a katoey to look after their son? If not, why?

[Richard4849]

Homosexuality is NOT considered a mental disorder in ANY modern country and hasn't been for decades. Your link is absolute <deleted>.

Being a katoey does not automatically make someone unfit to be around kids, just like being straight doesn't automatically make someone FIT to be around kids.

A person should be evaluated on the basis of personal qualifications.

And, from what I gather from the above, I'd much rather leave my kids in the hands of a well-grounded and responsible katoey for the weekend than in yours...

[saraburioz]

Homosexuality is NOT considered a mental disorder in ANY modern country and hasn't been for decades. Your link is absolute <deleted>.

Being a katoey does not automatically make someone unfit to be around kids, just like being straight doesn't automatically make someone FIT to be around kids.

A person should be evaluated on the basis of personal qualifications.

And, from what I gather from the above, I'd much rather leave my kids in the hands of a well-grounded and responsible katoey for the weekend than in yours...

No need to resort to personal attacks. Why are you so annoyed about my opinion?

I've never in my life met a well-grounded, responsible katoey.

[gregb]

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

What if the alternative is spending their formative years in an orphanage with no parents at all? Here in the UK gays are allowed to adopt but are usually offered the 'difficult' children that no-one else wants.

I understand this is just starting. It will take 50 years before we can see the results of this experiment. I suspect right now the reason this is being done has much more to do with the financial realities of raising the children in an orphanage vs. any real thoughts for the children.

How will you react if 50 years from now we see a non negligible percentage of those children who were adopted by gay couples suffer emotional issues from their childhood? Love isn't necessarily the only thing that matters in a child. Role models of both genders are equally important. You might find that this aspect of being raised in an orphanage actually creates a better child in the long run. Most orphanages also provide on staff psychologists to recognize problems early. Will a gay couple also be required to adopt an experienced, live in psychologist? Single parents are almost never allowed to adopt children, even the difficult ones. I don't see any valid reason why we should bend the rules for gay couples.

It is well established that the healthiest environment for a small child is one where he has loving parents of both sexes. There is simply not enough information on children raised by a homosexual couple to justify risking a child to that environment. I would say until that research does become available, I would not agree to letting gay couples adopt children. The children are too important. We know what kind of damage an orphanage causes, and how to mitigate that with varying degrees of success depending on the child. We have no idea what kind of damage growing up with gay parents may cause, and we can't risk innocent children to find out.

[Richard4849]

Homosexuality is NOT considered a mental disorder in ANY modern country and hasn't been for decades. Your link is absolute <deleted>.

Being a katoey does not automatically make someone unfit to be around kids, just like being straight doesn't automatically make someone FIT to be around kids.

A person should be evaluated on the basis of personal qualifications.

And, from what I gather from the above, I'd much rather leave my kids in the hands of a well-grounded and responsible katoey for the weekend than in yours...

No need to resort to personal attacks. Why are you so annoyed about my opinion?

I've never in my life met a well-grounded, responsible katoey.

Where is there a personal attack? I'm just saying that you do not come across as someone I would want my children to be influenced by. I guess you feel the same way about gays and transgenders.

If you haven't met any well-grounded, responsible transsexuals/transvestites then you apparently don't get out much.

I have met some who are doctors, lawyers, and CEO's of corporations. Both Thai and farang.

You seem to be imagining that all transgenders are shrieking bar girls -- which, to be fair, is possibly all that enter your personal sphere. (That is not a personal attack, by the way -- so please don't accuse it of being one).

[Richard4849]

Scientific research, blah blah blah.

What would the rabble say about "scientific research" that said that children who grow up with mixed-race parents are more likely to grow up unbalanced? You know, it wasn't that long ago when people were saying such stupid things.

Or that children who grow up with parents whose ages are more than 10 years apart are unbalanced? Or children who grow up with a single parent are unbalanced?

Would anyone support banning these kinds of relationships or these kinds of people's rights to raise kids the way they want? I don't think so...

[gregb]

Scientific research, blah blah blah.

What would the rabble say about "scientific research" that said that children who grow up with mixed-race parents are more likely to grow up unbalanced? You know, it wasn't that long ago when people were saying such stupid things.

Or that children who grow up with parents whose ages are more than 10 years apart are unbalanced? Or children who grow up with a single parent are unbalanced?

Would anyone support banning these kinds of relationships or these kinds of people's rights to raise kids the way they want? I don't think so...

Apples and Oranges.

The difference being that there are thousands of mixed race children living in the homes of their biological parents to prove that there is nothing wrong with this. If this were not the case, if there were no mixed race children, and a mixed race couple were looking to adopt and there were thousands of scientific studies showing that the healthiest environment was a couple with the same ethnicity, then anyone who thinks of the child first would have to be concerned.

As it stands, there is nothing that supports this contention, so it can be dismissed. There is no corresponding data on children adopted by homosexual couples, and therefore this can not be dismissed. The difference here is largely whether you put the needs of the child first, or the adult couple first. My position is based strictly on the needs of the child. What two consenting adults do is their own decision, but when it involves an innocent child, their needs and desires are irrelevant to me.

[jdinasia]

Apples and Oranges.

The difference being that there are thousands of mixed race children living in the homes of their biological parents to prove that there is nothing wrong with this. If this were not the case, if there were no mixed race children, and a mixed race couple were looking to adopt and there were thousands of scientific studies showing that the healthiest environment was a couple with the same ethnicity, then anyone who thinks of the child first would have to be concerned.

As it stands, there is nothing that supports this contention, so it can be dismissed. There is no corresponding data on children adopted by homosexual couples, and therefore this can not be dismissed. The difference here is largely whether you put the needs of the child first, or the adult couple first. My position is based strictly on the needs of the child. What two consenting adults do is their own decision, but when it involves an innocent child, their needs and desires are irrelevant to me.

Actually the research has been done on the children of gays, gay/lesbian couples. etc ..... It is out there for you and I have included links in this thread or the other thread (not sure which ...) along with information from several of the world's largest groups of Psychiatric/psychological and social work organizations. Your data is outdated ...

Note -- that prior to the increase in numbers of mixed race children or even more rare adoptive parents of children from another race all the "data" available said that it was a bad thing ... and was simply based upon bigotry and not real research.

[gregb]

Apples and Oranges.

The difference being that there are thousands of mixed race children living in the homes of their biological parents to prove that there is nothing wrong with this. If this were not the case, if there were no mixed race children, and a mixed race couple were looking to adopt and there were thousands of scientific studies showing that the healthiest environment was a couple with the same ethnicity, then anyone who thinks of the child first would have to be concerned.

As it stands, there is nothing that supports this contention, so it can be dismissed. There is no corresponding data on children adopted by homosexual couples, and therefore this can not be dismissed. The difference here is largely whether you put the needs of the child first, or the adult couple first. My position is based strictly on the needs of the child. What two consenting adults do is their own decision, but when it involves an innocent child, their needs and desires are irrelevant to me.

Actually the research has been done on the children of gays, gay/lesbian couples. etc ..... It is out there for you and I have included links in this thread or the other thread (not sure which ...) along with information from several of the world's largest groups of Psychiatric/psychological and social work organizations. Your data is outdated ...

Note -- that prior to the increase in numbers of mixed race children or even more rare adoptive parents of children from another race all the "data" available said that it was a bad thing ... and was simply based upon bigotry and not real research.

There were no mass adoptions of children by gay couples 50 years ago, which is what is required to see any effects. So no, the data is not yet available.

[Richard4849]

There are also now thousands and thousands of families with same-sex parents. My siblings' kids back at home all have classmates with two mommies or two daddies.

This is nothing new, there are thousands of these kids who are adults already, and I don't think I've seen a single case where one of them has grown up to be an ax-murderer. I even have contemporaries (in their forties and fifties) who were raised by gay parents.

On the other hand, almost every ax-murderer, tyrant, and mass murderer in history has been raised by heterosexual parents.

There are lots of gay people who are fit to be parents, and there are lots of straight ones who wouldn't be in a thousand years.

Adoption agencies/authorities should evaluate each cases on the applicants' personal merits -- regardless of whether they are a single person, straight person, or gay person, straight couple, or gay couple.

And I think that's pretty much the end of the story.

[gregb]

There are also now thousands and thousands of families with same-sex parents. My siblings' kids back at home all have classmates with two mommies or two daddies.

This is nothing new, there are thousands of these kids who are adults already, and I don't think I've seen a single case where one of them has grown up to be an ax-murderer. I even have contemporaries (in their forties and fifties) who were raised by gay parents.

On the other hand, almost every ax-murderer, tyrant, and mass murderer in history has been raised by heterosexual parents.

There are lots of gay people who are fit to be parents, and there are lots of straight ones who wouldn't be in a thousand years.

Adoption agencies/authorities should evaluate each cases on the applicants' personal merits -- regardless of whether they are a single person, straight person, or gay person, straight couple, or gay couple.

And I think that's pretty much the end of the story.

This is your argument to lose. I have no personal preference one way or the other, but all I have seen from anyone here are anecdotal tales. Please show me a study where a statistically significant number of adults now in their late middle age were studied and psychological results compared against a control group of similar adults raised by heterosexual couples. (Statistically significant is several thousand adults.)

I object to this for the same reason I object to GMO foods. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. I don't feel something as important as the food chain for humanity should be risked to genetic engineering, and I don't think something as important as a child's life should be risked to an unknown home environment. Even if preliminary results seem intriguing.

I have no problem what consenting adults want to do in their private lives, and if it was possible for gay couples to have children by themselves then I would not object to that either. But when it comes to adoption, a higher standard is set. Even for heterosexual couples they have to jump through hoops to prove they will be good parents. Gay parents right now simply do not rise to that level of proof.

That is the end of the story in my opinion. When the data is available, I will modify my position accordingly. But nobody has yet shown me a convincing study. Please don't take an antagonistic position and make me try and defend myself. Simply provide the data and I will acquiesce. If you don't provide the data, my position stands. I am thinking of and care about the children. Not about the adults or their lifestyle choices.

Edited June 1, 2011 by gregb

[jdinasia]

The bottom line is EQUAL rights. What part of EQUAL do people not understand?

I don't understand why some people are gay, but they are. They are also citizens who pay taxes and manage their lives (some would argue better) like everyone else.

Being gay has been accepted by humans for MILLIONS of years. The church hijacked that tolerance for their own ends and convinced everyone to be afraid of gays.

My daughter is gay and in a long term relationship. She is denied her constitutional rights because of it not to mention the social stigma from small minded people. Don't like gays? Don't be one. Don't associate with them, but don't think that you can deny them their rights.

There were a couple of gay guys in my Army unit in the 70's. They made the same commitment that I made to fight and die if necessary, but they could not be who they were born to be.

Accepted for MILLIONS of year? Says who? I seriously doubt it. It's only in the last few years that medical experts took 'homosexuality' off the list of mental disorders and for the reason you can read about here http://www.tradition...rban/eleven.php

Should people with mental disorders be allowed to adopt kids? Are homosexuals more likely to have other mental disorders? Yes.

Are homosexuals more likely to have more outrageous perversions? Yes.

I had a thread a few years ago about my katoey brother in law looking after my kids.

Would anyone here allow a katoey to look after their son? If not, why?

I would have no issue at all allowing a "katoey" to look after any child all things being equal. I would choose a 'katoey' over a heterosexual in many cases, such as the 'katoey' being a person known to me and having a genuine love and concern for a child's safety and well being. I would absolutely choose a 'kathoey' that was sober over a heterosexual with a drinking problem etc etc etc

BTW --- This year is 2011 ---- the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM2 in 1973 .... That is thirty-eight years ago ---- not as you suggest "the last few years" Your link to an extreme right wing organization really has no bearing on the issue But for the members of TVF to have some background ------

Traditional Values Coalition

The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) is a small but influential organization that appears to consist mostly of the Rev. Lou Sheldon and his daughter Andrea Sheldon Lafferty. Both are mainstays on the conservative circuit, though their reputation has been damaged by revelations that Lou Sheldon took money from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to help kill an anti-gambling bill that would have hurt one of Abramoff's clients.

Traditional Values Coalition 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard - Suite 320 Anaheim, CA 92805

Traditional Values Coalition 139 C Street SE Washington, DC 20003Website: www.traditionalvalues.org

Chairman/Founder: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Executive Director: Andrea Sheldon Lafferty Date of founding: 1980 Membership: Claims over 43,000 churches nationwide representing 12 denominations Publications: Monthly letters are sent to pastors of member churches, along with action alerts and special letters from Founder "Lou" Sheldon. Occasionally publishes reports. Revenue: Traditional Values Coalition, its 501©4 organization - $6,389,448 (2004) [According to tax forms, TVC carried nearly $4 million in debt at the end of the year]; and Traditional Values Education & Legal Institute, its 501©3 arm - $716,032 [nearly $80,000 in debt] Media: Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty have appeared on many mainstream news programs to discuss the TVC perspective on social issues. TVC also runs television ads during political campaigns.

Affiliate organizations: Traditional Values Education & Legal Institute, the foundation arm of TVC, and the Task Force for the Preservation of the Heterosexual Ethic in America (defunct)

source http://www.rightwing...alues-coalition

Using an extreme right-wing nutjob website to promote an agenda ...... tsk tsk

Edited June 1, 2011 by jdinasia

[Richard4849]

There are also now thousands and thousands of families with same-sex parents. My siblings' kids back at home all have classmates with two mommies or two daddies.

This is nothing new, there are thousands of these kids who are adults already, and I don't think I've seen a single case where one of them has grown up to be an ax-murderer. I even have contemporaries (in their forties and fifties) who were raised by gay parents.

On the other hand, almost every ax-murderer, tyrant, and mass murderer in history has been raised by heterosexual parents.

There are lots of gay people who are fit to be parents, and there are lots of straight ones who wouldn't be in a thousand years.

Adoption agencies/authorities should evaluate each cases on the applicants' personal merits -- regardless of whether they are a single person, straight person, or gay person, straight couple, or gay couple.

And I think that's pretty much the end of the story.

This is your argument to lose. I have no personal preference one way or the other, but all I have seen from anyone here are anecdotal tales. Please show me a study where a statistically significant number of adults now in their late middle age were studied and psychological results compared against a control group of similar adults raised by heterosexual couples. (Statistically significant is several thousand adults.)

I object to this for the same reason I object to GMO foods. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. I don't feel something as important as the food chain for humanity should be risked to genetic engineering, and I don't think something as important as a child's life should be risked to an unknown home environment. Even if preliminary results seem intriguing.

I have no problem what consenting adults want to do in their private lives, and if it was possible for gay couples to have children by themselves then I would not object to that either. But when it comes to adoption, a higher standard is set. Even for heterosexual couples they have to jump through hoops to prove they will be good parents. Gay parents right now simply do not rise to that level of proof.

That is the end of the story in my opinion. When the data is available, I will modify my position accordingly. But nobody has yet shown me a convincing study. Please don't take an antagonistic position and make me try and defend myself. Simply provide the data and I will acquiesce. If you don't provide the data, my position stands. I am thinking of and care about the children. Not about the adults or their lifestyle choices.

Can you show a study showing that mixed-race parents don't result in screwed up kids?

Or obese parents?

Or parents whose ages are more than 10 years apart?

No -- because only a bigot would even demand for there to be such a ridiculous "study".

The fact that you think gay parents need to pass some sort of scientific study is just as ridiculous.

Again, just my opinion.

PS: and gays can and do make children -- with sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogates. They're not infertile, you know... Would you suggest they be prohibited from producing children until some cockamamie "study" is prepared?

[jdinasia]

There were no mass adoptions of children by gay couples 50 years ago, which is what is required to see any effects. So no, the data is not yet available.

50 years? That is your personal criteria? In 1961 were there "mass adoptions" of black children by white parents? Even today are there mass adoptions of white children by black parents? LOL

Sorry the research is out there and available to all. Gays and lesbians have been parenting forever. I personally know the children of a gay couple (both had "beards" -- lesbian wives who were also in a relationship) that are 6 and 8 years older than I am (I am 47). The families were well ahead of their time ... as the gay couple lived in one side of a duplex (single level double home for 2 families) and the children were co-parented by all of the adults but the kids grew up living in the duplex with the fathers .... I know many children that were raised by lesbian couples after divorces, some were adopted by the 'second mother' and some were not -- depending on the law in the jurisdiction in question.

Simply, not only does it not take 50 years, the well-being of a child can be ascertained immediately and followed throughout the time they grow up and reach adult-hood.

[jdinasia]

PS: and gays can and do make children -- with sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogates. They're not infertile, you know... Would you suggest they be prohibited from producing children until some cockamamie "study" is prepared?

You are leaving out the simplest way --- they have children naturally because they are not "out" to themselves or others at the point they conceive. It is more common now to "come out" young, but years ago it was more common to marry even though you had "feelings" that you didn't know how to express/deal with.

[Richard4849]

Indeed.

You know, the Nazis just 70 years ago put together all kinds of "scientific studies" to show that Aryans were superior to all other races...and we all know where that led them.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica itself -- as recently as 100 years ago -- in their section on "Negroes", included all kinds of "scientific" information to show that blacks were a mentally inferior form of sub-species.

In many parts of the "civilized" world, mixed-race couples were not allowed to marry (for fears, obviously, they would create unbalanced and inferior mixed race kids who might be "subject to ridicule") -- and this is well within the lifetimes of most of us here.

Some people never seem to learn.