I said it was a good working hypothesis. But I have two more thoughts about this.
One is that showing no dad is bad might show something about single parent families rather than about same-sex two-parent families. I'm saying might.
The other is this thing I'm starting to wonder about but haven't formulated quite yet. It has to do with whether we want to specify what makes the "best" family and then rule our other types of families.
There was a New Zealand study posted here on FR a while back. It is probably included in the cumulative index of links on the homosexual agenda.
It was a study specifically as to the children who were raised by two homosexual women. Generally, they found the girls were more likely to grow up to be promiscuous and the majority had at least experimented with homosexual sex. The boys were withdrawn around the opposite sex and the majority were describe as socially introverted and had trouble interacting socially with others.
The 11th Federal DCA which upheld why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children (cert denied to the USSC) is well written on the subject. It is also worth noting that one of the judges of that opinion was a visiting judge from the 9th circus court sitting on the 11th.
The entire opinion is here:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf
A few excerpts which show sound resoning in disregarding the propaganda of homosexuals.
Although social theorists from Plato to Simone de Beauvoir
31
have proposed alternative child-rearing arrangements, none has proven as enduring
as the marital family structure, nor has the accumulated wisdom of several
millennia of human experience discovered a superior model. See, ~ Plato, The
Republic, Bk. V, 459d-46le; Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (H. M.
Parshley trans., Vintage Books 1989) (1949). Against this "sum of experience," it
is rational for Florida to conclude that it is in the best interests of adoptive children,
many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a
home anchored by both a father and a mother. Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. at
63,93 5. Ct. at2638.
another excerpt:
Given the reasonable possibility of
environmental influences, we believe that the legislature can rationally act on the theory that a
role model can influence the child's developing sexual identity." Id. (citation omitted).
36
[W]hatever causes a person to become a homosexual, it is clear that the state
cannot know the sexual preferences that a child will exhibit as an adult.
Statistically, the state does know that a very high percentage of children
available for adoption will develop heterosexual preferences. As a result,
those children will need education and guidance after puberty concerning
relationships with the opposite sex. In our society, we expect that parents
will provide this education to teenagers in the home. These subjects are
often very embarrassing for teenagers and some aspects of the education are
accomplished by the parents telling stories about their own adolescence and
explaining their own experiences with the opposite sex. It is in the best
interests of a child if his or her parents can personally relate to the child's
problems and assist the child in the difficult transition to heterosexual
adulthood. Given that adopted children tend to have some developmental
problems arising from adoption or from their experiences prior to adoption,
it is perhaps more important for adopted children than other children to have
a stable heterosexual household during puberty and the teenage years.
Cox, 627 So. 2d at 1220.
and finally an excerpt regarding the fact that pro-homo studies have significant flaws:
Alternatively, the
legislature might consider and credit other studies that have found that children
raised in homosexual households fare differently on a number ofmeasures, doing
worse on some ofthem, than children raised in similarly situated heterosexual
households.25 Or the legislature might consider, and even credit, the research cited
by appellants, but find it premature to rely on a very recent and still developing
24 ~ ~g2, D. Baumrind, Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy
Implications, 31 Developmental Psychol. 130 (No. 1, 1995) (reviewing various studies and
questioning them on "theoretical and empirical grounds" because offlaws such as small sample
sizes, reliance on self-report instruments, and self-selected, unrepresentative study populations);
R. Lerner & A.K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting,
Marriage Law Project (Jan. 2001) (reviewing forty-nine studies on same-sex parenting and
finding recurring methodological flaws, including failure to use testable hypotheses, lack of
control methods, unrepresentative study populations, self-selected sample groups, and use of
negative hypotheses); J. Stacey & T. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation ofParents
Matter, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159, 166 (2001) (reviewing 21 studies and finding various
methodological flaws, leading authors to conclude that "there are no studies ofchild
development based on random, representative samples" of same-sex households).
25 ~ ~ K. Cameron & P. Cameron, Homosexual Parents, 31 Adolescence 757, 770-774
(1996) (reporting study findings that children raised by homosexual parents suffer from
disproportionately high incidence of emotional disturbance and sexual victimization); Stacey &
Biblarz, supra, at 170 (concluding, based on study results, that "parental sexual orientation is
positively associated with the possibility that children will attain a similar orientation, and theory
and common sense also support such a view").
The is no need to redefine the obvious. The best situation of a child is the mother and father model of family. The fact that an INDIVIDUAL has a variance is irrelevant to the validity of the INSTITUTION.
The bottom line is that this is a LEGAL issue. Legally this judge is wrong. There is no "love test" as a matter of law. There is no "orgasm test" for marriage. There is no individual's gratification test for marriage.