Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So in reality this is just another attempted "gotcha" against Jordan. And IMO it has failed. I watched the entire clip of him you provided. Yes he does say the things you quoted. But if you watch further it's not that he thinks same sex couples should not be parents.

Rather he thinks it would be best if these couples made an effort to expose their child to what they are missing out on. The studies you talk about show that being raised by, for instance, two lesbians is not going to impact a childs overall well being. So he is saying that in such an instance a child would benefit by also being exposed to a male role model.

Saying there will be consequences does not necessarily mean the overall well being of the child would be impacted.

Originally posted by Surtur
So in reality this is just another attempted "gotcha" against Jordan. And IMO it has failed. I watched the entire clip of him you provided. Yes he does say the things you quoted. ]

Great. So what strawmen are you going to apply to the op?


There we go!!! Do tell me where the op said he did.



Uh, it does when he literally says, "if you fragment the mother-father-child dynamic, you end up paying."
And, assuming you bothered to watch the interview, the question asked is should same sex couples raise kids?

If his response is to say that straying from mom-dad-child is "fragmenting", and then ist a bunch of challenges that wouldn't otherwise be present if the family was straight, that Peterson feels children would ideally be raised by straight couples is pretty obvious.

So he's just saying the overall obvious again to impress the easily impressed? That a child with two mothers might benefit from being exposed to a (I assume he means positive?) male role model.

Yeah, this guy is WAY overrated, glad to see more and more people are catching on it his say-the-obvious-but-use-a-lot-words shtick.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
]

Great. So what strawmen are you going to apply to the op?


There we go!!! Do tell me where the op said he did.



Uh, it does when he literally says, "if you fragment the mother-father-child dynamic, you end up paying."

No, it doesn't mean that.

But may I ask what the point of including anything about JP is in a topic about how same sex couples are no worse than hetero ones?

Originally posted by Robtard
So he's just saying the overall obvious again to impress the easily impressed? That a child with two mothers might benefit from being exposed to a (I assume he means positive?) male role model.

Yeah, this guy is WAY overrated, glad to see more and more people are catching on it his say-the-obvious-but-use-a-lot-words shtick.

Bingo about what he was saying. It's not controversial and no it's not something hard to figure out.

JP agree's with you that the stuff he says isn't ground breaking.

His smugness disagrees with that comment then, as he clearly thinks very high of what he says.

Also, a child with two mothers might NOT benefit from being exposed to a male role model. *Mind Blown* I should write a book now.

I'd prefer same-sex couples raising children over traditional genders only so that humans can evolve to move away from animal instincts.

Wut

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
]

Great. So what strawmen are you going to apply to the op?


There we go!!! Do tell me where the op said he did.



Uh, it does when he literally says, "if you fragment the mother-father-child dynamic, you end up paying."
And, assuming you bothered to watch the interview, the question asked is should same sex couples raise kids?

If his response is to say that straying from mom-dad-child is "fragmenting", and then ist a bunch of challenges that wouldn't otherwise be present if the family was straight, that Peterson feels children would ideally be raised by straight couples is pretty obvious.

You're trying far far too hard.

Yes, the best possible outcome is one father, one mother, where both are the biological parents of the children being raised in one home.



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x

That's the golden standard. Talk to any social worker or family psychologist: the best possible outcome is that golden standard.

Anything else that deviates from that will affect best possible outcomes.




But, please do, break apart each of those studies.

You need to cover the following elements if you wish to be academically honest:

1. Sample Collection - Self-reported? How were the study samples (the same-sex and hetersexual couples) collected? If it is self-reported or voluntary study where sampling contained any element of being informed of the study prior to the study being undertaken, there will be a very large positive sampling bias. We saw this with twin studies and homosexuality. When proper controls were put in place, the rates of homosexuality among twins drastically dropped which many people don't want to talk about. And it turns out that I'm right about this: They use convenience samples instead of randomized sampling. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf

But that's not all:



Seems sampling and accuracy is the end-all be-all of this particular debate with poor sampling methods and weak analytics, it should be obvious that the social sciences are rife with scientific credibility. This is known as the reproducability crisis.

2. Did they take into consideration how many partners the parents had, from either sexual orientation? Because this study showed heterosexual couples have longer relationships, on average, compared to their homosexaul peers. This is important because a stable couple in a stable home is very important for raising happy, healthy children.

3. However, married couples have little to no difference on marriage longevity and this might be important to put this argument to bed. If they stay married the same length of time, on average, seems like #2 would not be much of a factor if at all. So we should require couples be married before adopting children, right?

4. a) Do the studies only use homosexual couples that were together for any amount of time that a child cohabitated or b)did they include only those where the homosexual parents were with the child all throughout the child's minor life into adulthood? If the former (a), then it needs to be compared to a comparable heterosexual data set where proportions are represented properly. 100% guaranteed you do not understand that because it is convoluted as hell. So I'll better explain: homosexual couples are shorter relationships. If the research is including any homosexual couples that were cohabitating and raising a child, then that standard needs to be applied to the proper heterosexual couple. For 1 year, compare that one year to the child during and after. Since there are far more heterosexual couples than homosexual, you will have to use ratios rather than absolute numbers (obviously). For example, your study may read, "34% of children who lived with homosexual adults where 1 was the biological parent, experienced suicidal thoughts and greater than 3 negative encounters with law enforcement. This same figure is 17% for children who lived with heterosexual adults where one was the biological parent." Does that make sense?

If the latter (b), then I would like to see that research. I would say for this situation, you would see much more positive outcomes for the children regardless of the parents in the home. Based on trends I see in the research, you'd probably see better outcomes for the "golden standard" but the homosexual life-partners would probably have better outcomes for the children than single parent homes, if I remember the research correctly.


For me, this is simple: I support the idea of raising children in same-sex relationships. Or any. Adoption should have the same standards for the parents regardless of the parents.

I covered a lot. I hope I busted up a lot of myths. The main purpose was the show you how crappy those studies are regarding same-sex couples. When better research is done, it shows clear negative outcomes for the children that come from same-sex homes. This is not what many want to be heard or known because many homosexual couples want to have children and would be kickass parents. So I understand why they would try to fudge research to support the cause.

Double D, here's the conclusion of the first study you linked:

The reason there's lower mental health isn't because of the reasons peterson outlines, but because of the "social stigma" around same sex couples. Otherwise, they fared better on parent reported health. That's hardly the conclusive "Yes, the best possible outcome is one father, one mother, where both are the biological parents of the children being raised in one home. "


For your second study:

Fair enough, but i'd like to see more than one study here.

In the mean time,i'll try and look deeper at the multiple studies i linked to see if they have the issues you say.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
--

It's okay, we agree on the conclusion, so the details to get there do not matter.



We should, instead, talk about standards for adopting children. What should those standards be?

I admittedly opened the wrong study for some reason. Anyway, having read the relevant ones, I've edited my comment accordingly.


Have ACS examine the homes and finacial stability of the family? Have a pshycologist green light the parent's mental capacity?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wut The family structure must die in order for the new world order to be set into motion.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Double D, here's the conclusion of the first study you linked:

The reason there's lower mental health isn't because of the reasons peterson outlines, but because of the "social stigma" around same sex couples. Otherwise, they fared better on parent reported health. That's hardly the conclusive "Yes, the best possible outcome is one father, one mother, where both are the biological parents of the children being raised in one home. "


For your second study:

Fair enough, but i'd like to see more than one study here.

In the mean time,i'll try and look deeper at the multiple studies i linked to see if they have the issues you say.

This is what I have from the first study:




Also, it seems like couple stability is a more important factor, if I am reading the literature correctly, than the genders of both parents.


Seems that having a long-term, lasting relationship, throughout a child's adolescence is more important that if you have two dads.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Have ACS examine the homes and finacial stability of the family? Have a pshycologist green light the parent's mental capacity?

These are good measures.

I'd want to add a second opinion to the psychological evaluation. And proof if income and stable residence. I'd also want them to have "referrals" stating that they keep relationships for long periods of time (years). And that their current marriage or coupling is going to last a long time.

What do you make of this bit?



Originally posted by dadudemon
These are good measures.

I'd want to add a second opinion to the psychological evaluation. And proof if income and stable residence. I'd also want them to have "referrals" stating that they keep relationships for long periods of time (years). And that their current marriage or coupling is going to last a long time.
I question the practicality. Are there enough eligible willing parents? Is it economically practical? I've also seen the idea floated of having adoption as an alternative to abortion which would add to the number of kids who need parents.

Originally posted by Surtur

Saying there will be consequences does not necessarily mean the overall well being of the child would be impacted. Well I mean, he is saying that, or rather, he's saying that on average this is the case, and that the ideal situation is one mother, one father.

I don't take any particular issue with his statements in that video (it's one of the ones I've actually seen), but that is what he says. I think that, given that perspective, what he brought up was both fairly reasonable and respectful of prospective homophag parents.

But it is what he said lol.

I feel the abundance of attention that can be gained from same sex parents for the child far outweighs concerns over the childs future.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
I feel the abundance of attention that can be gained from same sex parents for the child far outweighs concerns over the childs future.
Something tells me it might not be positive attention.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
I feel the abundance of attention that can be gained from same sex parents for the child far outweighs concerns over the childs future.

Putting this on display is the real problem.

As in all things media, this was never about inclusion. It's about what sells.

I, personally, have no issue with how one chooses their parenting. If everyone felt this way, no one would tune in or buy magazines/subscriptions to internet stories about it, and kids of same sex parents would have the boring upbringings, outside of this "public debate", that all kids deserve.

This life is kids chance to be raised by God. Let parents be parents and kids learn the truth and parenting can be as exciting for parents and children no matter the issue.