CNN: Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests

I agree the funding source seems to lend enough reason to be skeptical of the results. Nonetheless I think kids with 2 parents whether they be both men or women are better off than kids with just one. But to say they are "better-adjusted" because they were raised by 2 women instead of, say, a hetero couple or 2 men? The so-called objective criteria can still be pretty subjective.

Sociology takes it on the chin from other social sciences if for no other reason than it is to so subjective a science. It is so much so that some insist it cannot be called a science. I have seen so much "hard science" disproven and corrupted by funding source taints, etc., to know that there is hardly any real science left anywhere that is not being exploited for someone's narrow purposes.

But some fish stink more than others. This one stinks to high heaven.

My basic belief is that traits of both genders contribute to the child's healthy development. So I believe children are best with two male/female parents. However I have seen many healthy gay families.

This topic has been discussed before, so I wont go into too much detail, but I think one explanation is the planning, money and commitment it takes to adopt or use artificial insemination. I think heterosexual couples that adopt or use AI have similar results.

I don't think female lesbians are any better/worse than gay men who raise children.

Two parent families are best as they provide less opportunity for children to be left without parental care, more family security as you don't have the revolving door of "boyfriends" or "girlfriends" that play the role of step-parent one month and are gone the next.

Well I can think of two reasons for the findings.

1. With lesbians, there are no accidental pregnancies, so all babies are wanted.
2. I suspect that the great majority of lesbians are middle-class.

manonthestreet

Looks like God and nature got it wrong again. Just shows you that evolution is very simple minded. Imagine going to all that trouble to have two parent of the opposite sex when there was a much better option close by.

Coming next week from the Socio-"logical" halls of academia, "The Aerodynamics of Pigs in Flight," followed by "Deconstruction of Aeronautical Engineering Designs.

A study funded by the LGBT community and conducted by lesbians and feminists comes to the conclusion that children are more well-adjusted with two moms than with a mom and a dad. Was anybody ever under the impression that the results would be any different?

If a lesbian couple wants to adopt a child, I say go ahead. Having two stable, well-adjusted parents is sure a lot better than having none at all. But the idea that we have not only given women the right to create fatherless children on demand, but that these children are "better" than those with fathers doesn't sit with me. All children should have knowledge of and access to both biological parents.

"more uncles" != a father

when institutions don't want do anything for boys they may blame absent fathers. Fathers only matter when you can blame them.

Gartrell isn't a researcher, she is a lesbian feminist activist who uses science to support her ideology. She has, on record, said "I don't there there's a single [positive] characteristic that men have that women don't share." I've been following this study for years now before it was published, and I can guarantee you that Gartrell already knew the outcome before the data was in.

It wasn't a double blind study. Hell, it wasn't even a SINGLE BLIND study! The lesbian mothers were informed of the study before they even gave birth! The sample groups aren't even analogous! Unless the heterosexual mothers used in the control group were also impregnated with IVF, at the same age, same income (the study only judged socioeconomic status by the education and job of the HIGHER of the two parents) same race (93% of the lesbian mothers were white) there are just way too many variables that weren't controlled for. And the hetero mothers didn't know of their participation because the hetero data was taken from a different study conducted 10 years prior!

I'm an Atheist and I'm not hateful towards Christians, but if a Christian psychologist from a traditional family lead a team of Christians from a Christian fellowship with money from Christian lobby groups in a study that showed that children form traditional Christian families were better off than those from Atheist families, I would call bullshit. Not to mention that there's no chance in hell that the study would get published in Times.

So many unanswered questions about this study. Why no children adopted at birth? Too tainted by their mother's heterosexuality? Gartrell could have at least included gay fathers in the study, so as to make it not look like a COMPLETE Mary Sue.

Gartrell is the prime example of the intersection between the feminist movement and the gay rights movement. Eventually feminists realized that calling everybody who disagrees with them a misogynist started to fail as a rhetorical tactic, so they cross-pollinated with the LGBT movement to add more legitimacy to their anti-male propaganda. On the surface she claims to be only interested in showing that gay parents are just as good as straight parents because LGBT folk have been oppressed forever and ever; that then becomes lesbian parents being just as capable as hetersexual parents, then that single lesbians are just as capable as heterosexual couples. It's all there in her "study". It's the standard 3rd Wave Feminist nonsense; men are vestigial at best, damaging by nature at worst, and should be marginalized in family life for the good of society. Lesbianism is simply a foil to prove how much better off families would be if they didn't have fathers in them.

You're right on the money if you ask me about the questionable nature of her study.

The thing I have never understood is why the G part of LGBT goes along with all the feminist nonsense. Why do gay men associate them selves with this kind of crap that excludes them among the group that's supposed to be inclusive to them. I have never understood what gay men get out of supporting feminists but so many of them seem to align with them. Is it some shared history of oppression they feel they share with feminists despite females never having been oppressed in the history of time? I mean in reality lesbians do nothing for gay men and even go so far as to exclude them in studies such as this one.

One would think gay men would find more to like about the MRA movement then the feminist movement.

1. The early MR movement was extremely hostile to gay men. To a certain extent, this antipathy toward gays still exists in certain segments of the movement.

2. While many (most?) of the regular gay men might actually be attracted to men's rights, the flaming woman-wanna-bees are more interested in playing for team vagina. Unfortunately, it is the in-your-face ersatz-female gays who are most active politically, so it gives the appearance that all gay men support feminism.