Study proves Lesbian families do “very well” without father figures

... the problem isn't about same sex couples raising children. It's about children being TORN from a biological parent that they knew. It's about courts making dads into visitors and wallets. That is NOT good for kids. If they never knew their dads for whatever reason, I don't care at all about a same sex couple raising the child. But stop tearing kids away from active dads with false accusations and anti-male gender bias, which also creates an incentive to divorce and which almost everyone agrees is bad for kids.

if the lesbian parents would also agree that children don't need mothers.

Marc A nailed it. I know kids being raised by a lesbian couple, they're not 'perfect' but they have the same problems as any other kids. But the kids were conceived using donor sperm through a sperm bank, they weren't taken from someone else who wanted to be in their lives. And people sometimes ignore the fact that a male role model doesn't have to be a father, these kids still have uncles, teachers (now that they're in high school at least there's a statistical chance they have maybe 1 or 2 male teachers in their years there), etc.

Barring 'non-traditional' families originates from the same mental processes that conclude single dads can't properly parent.

One of my concerns with same-sex marriage is the assumption kids don't need a mother and a father, just two legal parents. But who are the legal parents of a child? The easiest answer is the biological mother and biological father. Anything beyond that gets legally messy in a hurry. Some SSM activists favor granting parental rights via marriage--if your partner is a biological parent, so are you. That does not consider the rights of the other biological parent. Further, that provision would not work in opposite-sex marriages. Most dramatically, it would mean if a man had a child by a woman other than his wife, his wife would be the legal parent of the child.

The best solution is adoption. That way no one is involuntarily giving up their rights to a child. SSM activists say they shouldn't have to adopt "their" children because OSM couples don't have to. But it's the fairest solution.

On the other hand, same-sex couples can be good parents. It's getting from a situation where nature gives a child a mother and a father but the law wants to give the child two mothers or two fathers. I think it's important to preserve the doctrine of natural parental rights. Adoption does that; presumption of parenthood provisions don't.

It's actually pretty obvious that adoption does NOT protect the rights of the biological father if you've followed any of the attempts to ensure they're consulted when a child is given up for adoption.

There's really no need to treat same sex couples any differently than opposite sex couples on this matter, in fact most of the confusion comes FROM treating them differently. Nature doesn't always give a child a mother and a father, either or even both can die prior to the child being born or any time after. Parents can split up, remarry, sometimes one parent is more involved than the other, sometimes they both are, sometimes a new spouse will adopt the child as their own, sometimes not.

As far as granting parental rights via marriage, first off this is how we handle existing marriages, at least for children born to the mother, the husband is legally the father no matter what, although this is finally changing, if slowly. Secondly almost all those cases are from sperm donors, either from banks or personal donations (which is legally messy, but would be with a straight couple too). When a woman has a child BEFORE she marries however, the new husband isn't automatically the father. There's no reason to handle same sex marriage any differently, the new spouse has the option to adopt if the former partner wants to relinquish their parental rights.

" If they never knew their dads for whatever reason, I don't care at all about a same sex couple raising the child. "

This part I'm a little bit in disagreement. Being denied the opportunity to know your parents is still an unpleasant feeling, regardless of who's fault that is. My father was an honest and true deadbeat, but I was raised by a relatively good man. That doesn't mean I lost out not knowing my own father, even though I know full well he is the one to blame (he showed up at my grandparents once when I was seven and made no effort to get to know me or maintain a relationship following that day.). My point is that, same sex couples most certainly can raise a child without the need for a father (I still have my doubts that a woman can fully replace a man's influences on a growing child, or a man can fully replace a woman's influence.), because two parents offer a stability and security (financial and otherwise) a child thrives in, but to outright deny a child from knowing who their father is, especially if both would like to know, is something we should be concerned with.

------------

That all said, I think this article is just another tool in the anti-dad agenda. It isn't discussing the absence of one gender while being in a two parent family, it is specifically the absence of a man in a two parent family. Furthermore, it's using intentionally deceptive wording. Children do not "suffer"... what does suffering mean, how is it defined? Does a lesbian couples child thrive as much as in a traditional family? Or are they just meeting the status quo? Where is the baseline taken from? presumably traditional family, but what socio-economic level? What was the socio-economic level of the rather limited number of lesbian couples? Was anything more that the child's opinions used to determine this? How is a child to truly understand the meaning of "absence of a male role model" if they have never had one to know the difference?

You're right that adoption right don't protect the bio father's rights. For me, that's a problem. On the other hand, when it comes to same-sex couples, where one has a child, I believe the second partner should adopt the child and the other bio parent should surrender his or her rights. If it's simply a sperm donor, the issue is not as complicated--but we can't assume the other bio parent will always be a sperm donor. Thus we treat same-sex couples exactly the same as we treat similarly-situated opposite-sex couples, as you suggest.

Creating a general "presumption of parentage" provision for marriage goes far beyond "presumption of paternity" (POP) statutes, which have always been applied only to men. Applying them to women--even if fair from an historical perspective--creates a whole new set of problems for opposite-sex marriage. Basically, I think this provision would end opposite-sex marriage. A man and a woman get married to have children together, not separately--that's why sexual fidelity is hugely important. And exceptions can be made for assisted reproduction without the creation of this presumption.

POP laws are inherently unfair. They won't become more fair by expanding their reach.

Funny, no one ever asks that question, do they?

Two lesbian mothers can never have the deep understanding that a man has about what it is like to grow up being a boy. In a traditional family you have a representative from each sex that has that experience and barring overt pathology will be able to relate to the same sex child and also support and defend their natural psychological development. I have worked with lesbian couples before and have seen first hand this dilemma. Neither "mother" can relate to the young boy's development and the tendency I have seen is to try and encourage the young man to be more like themselves, in essence, more feminine. This situation is more critical for boys than for girls since a young girls journey into womanhood is marked by very specific biological events. Her capacity to bear children deems her a woman. For boys there is no such event, boys journey into manhood is much more subtle and all too often misunderstood by women. This is why the traditional cultures would do all that they could to separate the young men from all women. Now we are doing the opposite.

Tom, please just keep in mind what you're suggesting about single dads trying to raise daughters. And for what it's worth I know a lesbian couple raising 2 boys and a girl, one of the boys has behavioral problems that appear to be ADD, the other two children are fine. It would be too easy to say "well look one of the boys has ADD supposedly" but there's tons and tons of traditional families with kids that have issues and their other boy doesn't have any of those issues. But that simply reminds us not to use singular experiences to draw conclusions about the whole.

There have been other studies in the past on this subject, they all basically conclude that the toughest part about raising children as a gay couple is that other people's children often tease the kids in school. The same is true of interracial couples, even parents with a disability. And to repeat myself a bit, children should have male role models besides their father even when their father is present, so if he's not that doesn't automatically mean they don't have one. This is a huge part of why I want more men teaching (once they're properly protected from accusations).

I think I did address the issue of fathers versus mothers by pointing out the significant difference in the process of boys and girls in becoming men and women. Even with that though it is surely true that the best place for children is with their biological mother and biological father.

You might want to have a look at the latest study on this. It is basically claiming that political correctness has stood as a shield for the faults of gay marriage parenting for years and that the studies that tend to support the idea are grossly suspect for a variety of factors. We have all seen this sort of thing repeatedly whether it is about rape, DV, or some other feminist inspired non-reality. You can learn more here:

Article

Here's a quote from the article:

"The second study, also in Social Science Research, takes a critical look at the basis of an oft-cited American Psychological Association report on gay parenting.

The APA brief says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

After looking at the 59 studies that undergird this assertion, however, “The jury is still out,” said Loren Marks, an associate professor at the School of Human Ecology at Louisiana State University. “The lack of high-quality data leaves the most significant questions [about gay parenting] unaddressed and unanswered.”

Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide. Instead, the APA studies often looked at children’s gender-role behaviors, emotional functioning and sexual identities."