'Gay people should not be allowed to raise children.'

Great Debates
41

In my life experience, on cloudy days that I forget my umbrella, it rains, and on cloudy days I remember my umbrella, it doesn’t.
Accordingly, in my life experience, I control the rains.

In case that didn’t make the point, there are three logical fallacies in your extrapolation of life experience to a conclusion about the mental state of homosexuals.

First, you have insufficient data about your control group. It is highly likely that you have met several homosexuals who did not reveal to you their sexual orientation. Their mental state is therefore not evaluated in making your conclusions. Similarly, it is highly likely that several of the emotionally and psychologically disturbed people that you assumed were homosexual in fact were not homosexual.

Second, your life experience suffers from researcher’s bias. If your conclusion is that homosexuals are disturbed, this leads to two negative impacts on your study. #1 - you are more likely to interpret behaviors and attitudes in homosexuals as evidence of disturbance, where you would interpret the same conduct in heterosexuals as quirks or as insufficient data to draw a conclusion. #2 - believing homosexuals are disturbed, you are unlikely to seek out the acquaintanceship of other homosexuals. Quite naturally - who wants to hang out with the emotionally disturbed? However, it means that your life experience is based upon a narrow study sample, and therefore that your conclusions are not supportable.

Third, barring psychological testing, your life experience provides insufficient data to make an accurate assessment of the mental state of homosexuals. It is extremely difficult to get a homosexual to take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory over the lunch table at work or in a bar, and even if it were possible, such circumstances are considered to be unlikely to provide an accurate result. This could explain why the results of the MMPIs you have given to your homosexual acquaintances have presented a uniform result of emotional and psychological disturbance.[sup]1[/sup]

In summary, it would appear that your conclusions are based upon an invalid and overly narrow control group and improper evaluation of that group. Accordingly, we will be unable to publish your paper. But thank you for your submission.

Sua

[sup]1[/sup] We assume that you have tested these homosexuals with the MMPI or other standardized psychological assessment techniques. Otherwise, you would be talking out your ass, and of course you wouldn’t do that.

42

Why is it that anecdotal evidence of people’s personal experience with the wonderfulness of gay life passes unchallenged, but a personal experience leading to the conclusion that gay people should not adopt is instantly met with a clamor for cites?

SuaSponte’s objections could be made about almost every post saying “Oh, but a lot of straight couples are messed up, too” or “the lesbians I know are doing a great job with their kids”.

Fair’s fair - isn’t it?

Regards,
Shodan

43

Suasponte did set out several well thought-out reasons why this particular piece of anecdotal evidence is not very useful (‘researcher prejudice,’ for example). Personally, I believe that anecdotal evidence does have some value in discussions where hard date is difficult to come by, but such anecdotal evidence should be backed up by something else - logic, reference to indirect data from psyhcology, etc - if it is to be used as the basis for such a grand statement as ‘gay people have serious emotional problems, and they are gay because they were abused as children.’

44

The posts made about the wonderfulness of gay life were made to prove that there are exceptions to Lord Ashtar’s rule.

“All the gay people I’ve met are unfit to raise children, therefore all gay people are unfit to raise children” is Lord Ashtar’s extrapolation in a nutshell. All you have to do to disprove it is produce one example of a sterling gay parent and you have to concede that not all gay parents are unfit. Nobody is saying that all gay people would be parents on a par with Ward and June Cleaver, all we’re saying is that generalizations about all gay people from one limited sample is invalid.

45

I thought his reasons were well-thought out as well, but I don’t see why “researcher bias” only applies to those on one side of the discussion. Same for his other points.

And I wonder if references to “indirect data from psychology” would be met with anything other than accusations that the poster was accusing gay people of all being Evil, Child-Recruiting Conspirators or whatever.

I would appreciate anyone who reads Swedish to tell us if the studies cited by Iteki(actually) have a valid sample size, or are long-term enough to actually show anything about children raised by gay couples. Or did they set out to prove something, and (surprise) find it?

OK, put it this way. Pretend the studies were done by the Family Research Council, and showed that children of gay couples tended to have a higher than average incidence of something bad or other. What objections would you make to them in that case?

Regards,
Shodan

46

Magetout made a comment which got me to thinking:

Did anyone ever lose custody back in the “old days” for being gay or even being accused of it?
How would they have proved it anyway?

What states have laws that prevent children from being adopted by parents of the same sex?

47

You’re not getting it, Shodan. Lord Ashtar’s error is that he makes an extrapolation based upon insufficient data. The “other side” has not presented a universal assertion based upon limited observation. Instead, they have presented limited assertions based upon limited observation.

Thus, your statement

is patently incorrect. Neither statement is an extrapolation - one may have personal and direct observations of a large group of straight couples and one lesbian couple, and present conclusions limited to the directly observed group, which is exactly what both statements do.
If anyone had asserted that “all homosexuals are mentally stable” or “all straight couples mess up their kids,” based upon limited observation, you would have a point. As it is, you don’t.

For the same reasons, your assertion that Lord Ashtar’s reasoning is “well-thought out” is also patently incorrect. Do you honestly believe that a reasoning process that (a) extrapolates from a limited, non-random control group, (b) of unstated number, © about which it cannot be determined that it represents the entire corpus of Lord Ashtar’s gay acquaintances (simply because Lord Ashtar cannot know the sexual preferences of everyone he’s met), and which (d) relies upon the untutored observations of Lord Ashtar to make psychiatric diagnoses, is a “well-thought out” reasoning process?
C’mon, you’re smarter than this.

Sua

48

No, it’s not supposed to be a two-sided debate. We’re discussing people’s lives, not tax rates. The burden of proof falls on those trying to restrict the freedoms of a select group of people.

49

While that is true, it is unnecessary to worry about where the burden of proof lies. Lord Ashtar’s thesis has already been successfully rebutted.
Lord Ashtar’s objection to gay adoption is based upon his conclusion that all homosexuals are emotionally or psychologically disturbed. A single example of a well-adjusted homosexual, such as already been provided here, voids his premise and requires an individualized assessment of the mental state of homosexuals before they are allowed to adopt.
'Course, that’s also what is required of straights before they can adopt. Shocking, isn’t it? :wink:

Sua

50

While that is true, it is unnecessary to worry about where the burden of proof lies. Lord Ashtar’s thesis has already been successfully rebutted.
Lord Ashtar’s objection to gay adoption is based upon his conclusion that all homosexuals are emotionally or psychologically disturbed. A single example of a well-adjusted homosexual, such as already been provided here, voids his premise and requires an individualized assessment of the mental state of homosexuals before they are allowed to adopt.
'Course, that’s also what is required of straights before they can adopt. Shocking, isn’t it? :wink:

Sua

51

Didn’t the Psychiatric Society consider homosexuality a mental disorder before 1971?
Why?
And what made them decide to change it?
( I know why-because it isn’t a disorder, but what study exactly made them officially change it?)

52

So, Ashtar - what did you think of the ATGG threads?

I daresay they would, on the whole, contradict your limited personal experiences.

Esprix

53

Hi, Sua.

When I said “I thought his reasons were well-thought out as well”, I was referring to your objections to the use of anecdotal evidence, not Lord Ashtar’s post. Hence my reference to “researcher bias” from your earlier post. Sorry for being unclear; the intervening posts made my reference confusing.

Having re-read Lord Ashtar’s posts, I find them carefully qualified with “My belief is…” and “In my experience…” and especially

EchoKitty, Homebrew, ricecake, Seven, and others did not include such disclaimers, and passed unchallenged. I would presume that they were, in fact, suggesting that their personal experiences amounted at least to anecdotal evidence.

Researcher bias, as you (SuaSponte, I mean) pointed out, is one of the major problems with anecdotal evidence and personal experience. With all anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which is what I wanted to point out.

As regards the OP, I would hope that the government and/or social service agencies would not intrude into a family to remove the children based only on the fact that one or the other parent decided they were gay. And confronted with the choice of a stable gay couple in a long-term relationship, and (for instance) Mr. and Mrs. Fred Phelps, I cannot imagine a rational person choosing the unpleasant Mr. Phelps as adoptive parents.

If there were some kind of perfect process of selection that could be applied, such that all problematic couples, gay or straight, could be weeded out before being considered for adoption, I would imagine that there would be no distinction to be drawn between the two types. But that is almost tautological. Would applying the same selection criteria to gay couples as to straight couples discover a higher percentage of problems disqualifying for adoption in couples of one kind or the other?

I frankly don’t know. I suspect, however, that if we say “all gay men are child molestors”, we will make a serious mistake. In the same way, if we say “My brother-in-law knows a guy raised by his gay father, and he turned out fine - therefore go ahead with gay adoption”, we could be making an almost equivalent mistake.

If we rely on anecdotal evidence - in one case or the other - we will never know what is really likely to happen.

Which is why I wish I spoke Swedish.

Regards,
Shodan

54

Awrighty, Shodan, now I understand. I was worried for a second - your post, as I first read it, didn’t sound like you.
Now that we are on the same page, I generally agree with your latest post, but I think there is one crucial distinction about the value of anecdotal evidence that needs to be made - Anecdotal evidence is a valid means of rebutting a universal assertion.

Sua

55

Great answer, shodan (once we figured out what you were answering). BTW, I agree with your analysis of Lord Ashtar’s posting – he was explicitly expressing opinion based on experience and deserved fair answers, not flames – which I hope I and others gave him. (I.e., “your anecdotal experiences constitute a skewed sample.”)

Super, Sua, and I agree with the specific point made. Aside from Lord Ashtar’s generalizations, which were expressed as opinion and founded on his own experiences, were there any generalizations made here that required rebuttal?

I know a 19-year-old who has virtually no ambition and gets wasted at raves and such on a regular basis. He happens to have fathered a daughter, whose mother is being very restrictive on his visitation rights – not because she is using the kid for a weapon against him but because she is fearful of the baby’s safety if he were to take her for any extended period of time, due to his irresponsibility. He’s a classic example of a straight man who should not have a child.

Change his sexual orientation and you have a perfect example of a young gay man who should not be entrusted with a child (at the moment; people do change).

I’m assuming that everybody participating in the thread is united on the idea that sexual orientation is not in and of itself a ground for denying custody. Now can we move on to the idea that not every person, of whatever orientation, will make a satisfactory parent. And, perhaps, to the additional point that in most cases, you do not have the luxury of finding the ideal parent but rather of choosing the person or persons who will be the best parents of those available and willing to parent this child.

56

Keep in mind, though, Shodan, that the evidence as researched points to the fact that kids adopted by gay couples turn out just fine, so if nothing else, Ashtar’s “anecdotal evidence” is just plain off-base. And if you read even just a couple of pages of the ATGG threads, it also overwhelmingly contradicts him.

His MMV, of course, but them’s the facts.

Esprix

57

I cannot find a word to disagree with in either Sua’s or Polycarp’s posts.

Also, I think Polycarp is making a useful distinction.

In custody disputes, I guess the judge is making a choice between the two closest relatives of the child - father or mother. The idea of somebody choosing one based on the sexual orientation of the other is one against which I rather strongly reacted - somewhat to my own surprise. This would be especially true if the judge were saying something like, “Sure the mother is a deranged alcoholic. But she gets the kids, to protect them from the gay lifestyle of the (much more stable) father.”

So far, so good - being gay is not (in my opinion) a conclusively disqualifying factor in assigning custody among blood relatives. Certainly not so dreadful as to overrule the tie of blood relation.

On the other hand, suppose you have two couples. Both are emotionally stable, financially comfortable, and somehow you could magically tell that they would stay together for life, had no skeletons in their respective closets, and were generally nurturing. One is a straight, married couple; the other two gay men.

For some reason, I don’t react nearly as strongly against the idea that the married couple being the adoptive parents of first choice. And I can’t tell if I am just being bigoted, or why I react as I do.

It is possible that I am just identifying emotionally with the straight couple waiting to adopt, and am afraid of the “competition” of gay people (both my children are adopted). Or maybe I am just afraid because you cannot magically tell that people are going to be emotionally stable enough to raise children. Or maybe I am just being prejudiced. Can’t tell.

I don’t want to sound condescending. Nonetheless, I do have some gay friends. Some are mature, well-meaning people who would no doubt make great parents. Some are definitely not. Two of them are in a relationship that has lasted longer than my own marriage has. But none of the rest of them stay together for more than a few months.

And I am honestly unsure if my experience is warped by my presuppositions of gay life, or if it accurately reflects a reality that a disproportionate number of gay people are not as emotionally stable as they might be.

God knows my experience is not definitive, and God forbid I should be insulting to any gay people on this board or IRL. If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies.

Is my perception of the gay people I know accurate? Don’t know.
Is the screening process of adoption enough to filter out the unqualified, gay or straight? Don’t know.
Would excluding gay people from adoption make it any more likely that children were placed in nurturing, loving homes? Don’t know.

I have to think about this some more.

Regards,
Shodan

58

Hi, Esprix -

Your post came in while I was composing mine.

What are ATGG threads? Do they have translations of the Swedish studies mentioned earlier?

Sorry, I am not up on all the acronyms.

Regards,
Shodan

59

Well, ATGG is either:

(a) the sound made by Esprix whilst being choked, or

(b) the acronym for “Ask the Gay Guy” – long-running series of threads on the general topic of what questions people would like to know about gay people, up to four (with an abortive fifth thread lost during the Winter of Our Missed Content).

60

Shodan, I must respectfully disagree about the anecdotal evidence. This is what you said in your original post:

But I checked through the thread again, and nobody had said anything like that. Lord Ashtar spoke vaguely of several gay people he had known, while others spoke of specific friends, their parents, and their own situations. Using specific cases as anecdotal evidence is different to lumping all the gay people you’re supposed to have known into one group and never even saying how you knew them. It’s so much easier to lie (even without intending to) about those vaguely clumped-together groups than it is about specific cases.

As I said before, IMHO, anecdotal evidence is of value in this kind of topic, because we simply don’t have enough research. If we don’t relate our logical (or illogical) reasoning to our experiences, then all we are left with is vapid, meaningless assertions. We must simply take the anecdotal experiences with a pinch of salt and be as objective and specific as we can be.

It’s not tautological, it is the point of my argument regarding adoption. The selection process may not be perfect, as it never can be, but, as you must know yourself, it is strict and strongly enforced. It would rule out gay couples with severe emotional problems the same as it would for straight couples. So saying that some gay people have emotional problems and therefore should not be allowed to adopt is the tautology here. Therefore the reason for disbarring gay people from adoption can’t be because they are too mentally unstable to be parents, but because they are gay and that is somehow inherently bad.