Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Misleading Headline?
Is the Mail on Sunday trying to stir up hatred against gay people (again)?
http://
http://
Answers
Yes it is misleading but what else do you expect from the Daily Wail ? The Wail always has to slip in an anti Gay, anti immigrant, anti benefit claimant or what ever is on their current 'hate list' slant to every story. With this one they have managed to get an anti gay and anti benefit claim slant by mentioning 'tax payer funded' and ' gay' in one sentence.
12:11 Sun 03rd Aug 2014
"Healthier" is a peculiar choice of word for a scientific study to use. It is such a broad term that we'd need to know precisely in which way the researchers made it a measurable quantity (as opposed to a qualitative term).
It is still interesting because it may be a reflection of the way (I hear that) sperm banks apply health screening to their donors and do reject those with an… erm, medical history.
I don't know if they subject egg donors and/or surrogate mothers to the same sort of screening but the healthier-ness could be entirely due to the genetic stock and conditions during pregnancy, not the quality of parenting by the adoptive couple. Sorry, sp.
By the way, how did they correct for such effects? Was it a like for like study, gay vs. straight adoptive couples or was it adopted kids versus the general population?
It is still interesting because it may be a reflection of the way (I hear that) sperm banks apply health screening to their donors and do reject those with an… erm, medical history.
I don't know if they subject egg donors and/or surrogate mothers to the same sort of screening but the healthier-ness could be entirely due to the genetic stock and conditions during pregnancy, not the quality of parenting by the adoptive couple. Sorry, sp.
By the way, how did they correct for such effects? Was it a like for like study, gay vs. straight adoptive couples or was it adopted kids versus the general population?
AOG
At 14:23, you wrote:
Sperm Bank???? Almost a Sperm Supermarket, "where is the blonde blue eyed aisle please"? Or "do you do mixed race varieties"? or "have you any from the rich and highly educated, I am willing to pay extra"?
You're probably aware that women make these choices all the time when seeking a mate right?
So would it not make sense for the sperm to be labelled by donor? I assumed you realised this. If a white couple go to a sperm bank, because (say) the male partner is infertile, don't you think they should have the option to have a baby which is racially similar to themselves?
The reason I didn't address your point of 14:23, is because I didn't think it had any value...because as I say - this is how *all* sperm banks have operated...always.
At 14:23, you wrote:
Sperm Bank???? Almost a Sperm Supermarket, "where is the blonde blue eyed aisle please"? Or "do you do mixed race varieties"? or "have you any from the rich and highly educated, I am willing to pay extra"?
You're probably aware that women make these choices all the time when seeking a mate right?
So would it not make sense for the sperm to be labelled by donor? I assumed you realised this. If a white couple go to a sperm bank, because (say) the male partner is infertile, don't you think they should have the option to have a baby which is racially similar to themselves?
The reason I didn't address your point of 14:23, is because I didn't think it had any value...because as I say - this is how *all* sperm banks have operated...always.
Hypognosis
I don't know whether the full report is available online, but here's the abstract:
http://
I don't know whether the full report is available online, but here's the abstract:
http://
Thanks, sp
"Methods
A cross-sectional survey, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, was distributed in 2012 to a convenience sample of 390 parents from Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted and had children aged 0-17 years. Parent-reported, multidimensional measures of child health and wellbeing and the relationship to perceived stigma were measured."
Interestingly, stigma was "negatively associated" with mental health. Negative seeming (to me) to suggest that they had lower incidence of mental health problems than population standard.
Which is weird. A bit like saying being picked on is good for your psyche!
"Methods
A cross-sectional survey, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, was distributed in 2012 to a convenience sample of 390 parents from Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted and had children aged 0-17 years. Parent-reported, multidimensional measures of child health and wellbeing and the relationship to perceived stigma were measured."
Interestingly, stigma was "negatively associated" with mental health. Negative seeming (to me) to suggest that they had lower incidence of mental health problems than population standard.
Which is weird. A bit like saying being picked on is good for your psyche!
sp, As I understand it in order to assess the well-being of children of same sex couples, 390 questionnaires were given out to parents, 315 of whom completed them. Do you really think those people would have made negative comments about either their abilities as parents, or their children’s welfare? Had this been a purely observational study, it might have been more convincing. You seem to be doing what these parents were doing – abandoning objectivity in favour of a cause.
naomi24
But what about the other studies I linked to?
I believe in those studies, the children were directly questioned.
And you're right. I'm not being objective here. I'm being subjective, because this is something in which I believe. Others here have been equally subjective because they do not believe that same sex parenting can raise happy, well-rounded children. I believe it does.
There's no point being scrupulously objective when making a point you believe in...especially not in a debating forum.
But what about the other studies I linked to?
I believe in those studies, the children were directly questioned.
And you're right. I'm not being objective here. I'm being subjective, because this is something in which I believe. Others here have been equally subjective because they do not believe that same sex parenting can raise happy, well-rounded children. I believe it does.
There's no point being scrupulously objective when making a point you believe in...especially not in a debating forum.
Sp, I'm not sure that's exactly true. A male and female has balance and representation of both sexes- in a positive or negative way. However, i don't agree that heterosexuality equals good parents. All families are different and most importantly, it is the interaction between parents and child. It's immeasurable as far as i can see.
sp, Mmmm.... I assume you're talking about parents? Assuming couples are happy together, I think mixed sex couples do have an advantage as parents simply because they are a mum and a dad. The adopted children I mentioned earlier love their two dads, but they clearly crave female attention, so I think there is always going to be something missing in the life of a child raised by single sex parents.
//who claimed that "that children of same-sex parents have some sort of an advantage over the rest".
Was it someone on this thread? //
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. You posted a reference to what you called a “load of studies” indicating that children of same sex relationships are healthier than those of mixed sex parents.
//who claimed that "that children of same-sex parents have some sort of an advantage over the rest".
Was it someone on this thread? //
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. You posted a reference to what you called a “load of studies” indicating that children of same sex relationships are healthier than those of mixed sex parents.
I'd always be slightly wary of any study saying anything definite about family life because I do think it's far too much of a personal thing. In particular even if there is a general trend that, say, this particular practice benefits children, it might be that in one specific case it turns out to be anything but helpful.
As an example, in general two-parent families are better than one-parent families, but particularly attentive single parents are just as capable of bringing up healthy, happy, well-rounded children as other families. So the sweeping statement risks missing a whole lot of subtlety.
I expect a similar thing to be true here. Even if, as has been claimed earlier, there is some apparent correlation between improved health and having same-sex parents, I highly doubt that this is specifically due to the genders of the parents. A far more likely idea might be that, given it's necessary for same-sex couples to specifically plan to adopt/ go through some lengthy paperwork process to allow for Artificial Insemination or some such, that the children will therefore be most definitely wanted. The same is true, of course, of the vast majority of two-parent families, but the statistics might just be skewed somewhat by various unplanned children, or children who were planned but born to parents who never had to go through a vetting process that might have shown them to be unsuitable parents or the like.
In the end, the best thing for children is to be brought up in a loving, caring environment. There is every reason to believe that same-sex couples are equally capable of providing this, and it's therefore a shame that the DM headline puts the emphasis on "Lesbians" as if somehow this would be a particularly bad thing.
As an example, in general two-parent families are better than one-parent families, but particularly attentive single parents are just as capable of bringing up healthy, happy, well-rounded children as other families. So the sweeping statement risks missing a whole lot of subtlety.
I expect a similar thing to be true here. Even if, as has been claimed earlier, there is some apparent correlation between improved health and having same-sex parents, I highly doubt that this is specifically due to the genders of the parents. A far more likely idea might be that, given it's necessary for same-sex couples to specifically plan to adopt/ go through some lengthy paperwork process to allow for Artificial Insemination or some such, that the children will therefore be most definitely wanted. The same is true, of course, of the vast majority of two-parent families, but the statistics might just be skewed somewhat by various unplanned children, or children who were planned but born to parents who never had to go through a vetting process that might have shown them to be unsuitable parents or the like.
In the end, the best thing for children is to be brought up in a loving, caring environment. There is every reason to believe that same-sex couples are equally capable of providing this, and it's therefore a shame that the DM headline puts the emphasis on "Lesbians" as if somehow this would be a particularly bad thing.
naomi24
I wrote:
divebuddy
When I put the following search into Google:
"children of same sex parents"
All I get is a load of studies which claim that children of same sex parents are healthier than those of mixed sex parents.
Can you let me know what *you* searched for, so we can see which studies you're referring to.
I wrote:
divebuddy
When I put the following search into Google:
"children of same sex parents"
All I get is a load of studies which claim that children of same sex parents are healthier than those of mixed sex parents.
Can you let me know what *you* searched for, so we can see which studies you're referring to.
