Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Parenting Official Says Lesbians Make 'Better Parents' 30

Posted by samzenpus
from the it-takes-an-amazon-tribe-to-raise-a-child dept.
Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, says that lesbian couples have traditional couples licked when it comes to raising children. He cites research that suggests children with two female parents are more aspirational than those with opposite-sex parents. From the article, "Research at Birkbeck College, part of London University, and Clark University in Massachusetts suggests that same-sex couples make good parents because children cannot be conceived accidentally — parents must make an active decision to adopt or find a sperm donor. "

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parenting Official Says Lesbians Make 'Better Parents'

Comments Filter:
  • A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...
    • A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...

      Let's get right to the bottom line: should same sex couples have the right to adopt and raise children? I am an enthusiastic thumbs up. The nicest kids I know from my kids school come from a couple of 2 mommy families. I'm much happier having my son influenced by those kids than by children from homes where the parent(s) are not really actively parenting.

  • It kind of seems like men are just big, hairy, smelly, and violent brutes who are completely superceded by women. It seems like all the PC research that comes out says that women are better at basically everything.

    There's actually some truth in that : as society becomes more and more regimented and controlled and more 'civilized', men are at a disadvantage. A lot of the risk taking behaviors that men were rewarded for in the past are now likely to result in problems. Since so few people in society die fr

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stargoat (658863) <stargoat@gmail.com> on Monday November 16, 2009 @10:20PM (#30125024) Journal
    I knew one little girl who was raised by two mommies. It was interesting. With her mom around, she was a little beast, yelling at me, an adult, if I was walking into the neighbor's yard to chat with him, "You're not allowed there" or if in the kitchen, "You're not allowed to eat that". Etcetera etcetera.

    But when her mommy wasn't around, she was a perfect angel, a little precious sweetheart you'd love for a daughter who would sit on your lap for hours while you told her stories - asked politely to hold your hand when you crossed the street. Her mom was putting her up to telling people off. Very unpleasant behavior, really.

    But that aside, what are women teaching our children anyway? To sit still in a classroom, and then an office? Not to make waves. To work your eight hours, buy your meat at the store, go home watch Dancing With The Idols, and sleep to do it again tomorrow?

    That's a load of BS. It's time for men to be men. We should be able to hunt. We should be able to confront each other. We should be encouraged to compete and to play and to roughhouse.

    In an effort to increase the role of women in society, we have changed the role of men. That's why more girls go to college today than boys. That's why girls do better in school. That's why women under 30 make more than men. Congratulations, society has changed. Women did not become winners and equal to men, but rather men lost what they were and what made life fun.
    • by delire (809063)

      We should be encouraged to compete and to play and to roughhouse.

      That's all very lovely, the fact remains however that physical aptitude - the core value of the Male in a given society - has become increasingly irrelevant in post industrial Western society. Women are, by most accounts, able to do just fine without us. They are just as competitive and just as able, technically or otherwise. No conclusive evidence suggests otherwise.

      In the broader scheme of things it's our own scientific and social revolu

  • Careful now (Score:3, Funny)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday November 17, 2009 @12:37AM (#30125804) Homepage Journal

    You can't use terms like 'licked' in this kind of article submission. Somebody's going to call you on the carpet for that.

  • by moxley (895517) on Tuesday November 17, 2009 @10:32AM (#30128568)

    with your "have traditional couples licked.." pun....

    You're referring to cunnilingus.......yes, see, because the article is about lesbians...yeah...nicely done. You, sir, are a treasure...

    But in all seriousness, I think that it ridiculous that people are against same sex parents; it's not like those of us who are heterosexual have done such a great job - plenty of people do, but plenty of people don't...If someone wants to raise a child and is going to give that child/children love and take care of them, then it shouldn't matter what their gender attraction is. Parents are parents, and the people who have this hatred or bias towards gey people need to get over it, because gay people have been around since the beginning of time and they'll be around - it seems to be inherent in nature.

    It makes me wonder why people fight it, but then I remember that often the staunchest anti-gay legislators and politicians are the ones who are secretly gay.....

  • Unfortunately, I think this is a classic case of correlation being mistaken for causation. The post itself says the reason they're better parents is that they don't have kids by accident. In other words, the real lesson here is that parents who want their kids make better parents. Gasp!

    Although I oppose government-defined same-sex marriage, I can't complain about same-sex couples adopting. If singles can adopt, same-sex couples should be able to as well. I may not agree with their morality, but then again,

  • And they make better videos.

  • i volunteer to impregnate these women... so long as they are healthy and attractive to mine eyes. It's for the good of the gene pool!

    • by RockDoctor (15477)

      i volunteer to impregnate these women... It's for the good of the gene pool!

      You have some evidence to support your unstated assumption that your genes are better for the gene pool than those of some randomly-selected guy?

      And of course - there's no reason to believe that same-sex couples who make an active choice to produce a kid are going to take random genes for their child (children) ; if they exercise any significant degree of choice, then you're really unlikely to get any action at all from this argumen

      • by AP31R0N (723649)

        LoL. If i hadn't already posted in this thread i'd throw you a +1 Funny. Well played, sir. You owe me a keyboard.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...