Consider that a snapshot of “post sexual revolution America”.

Now compare it to all cultures in the world, across all of history, and see if you notice any patterns re: the well-being or neglect of children.

The act of forcing a child to pretend that having a home with “two mommies” or “two daddies” in it is problematic because:

That sentence not grammatical missing words. Please fill them in and we can evaluate the rest of your comment.

Blake,

I don’t believe an intact family is “normal.” Given that 41% of children are born out of wedlock, and 50% of marriages end in divorce, a mother and a father, legally married, who raise all their biological children from birth to age 18 is the exception, rather than the rule. This would be true even if there were no gay people. By the way, about a third of adoptions from foster care are by single individuals (usually single women). Listening to you, one would think that the only children who don’t have a live-in mother and father who are their biological parents are children adopted by same-sex couples. This is far from the truth.

found another typo: was supposed to read “the act of forcing a child to pretend that having a home with “two mommies or two daddies” is just as good as

It probably doesn’t make much sense without that part.

Because the whole point of the sentence is that it is pure fantasy – or maybe a better word would be “projection” – to assume that, from a child’s point of view, having gay fathers with an agenda and a heavy-duty set of expectations is just as good if not better than having a normal intact family.

Implications of Parent-Child Boundary Dissolution for Developmental Psychopathology: Who Is the Parent And Who Is the Child?

Regarding studies – I think we need fewer studies comparing the grade point averages or social lives of children of gay parents (how on EARTH are some of these questions relevant to anything?), and more studies examining questions such as:
– whether these children feel shame or guilt with regards to their feelings about their absent parents
– whether they are exposed to pressure from their parents, the media, or the “gay community”
– how comfortable they feel in talking about feelings that might contradict their parents’ inappropriate expectations of them.

However, it can be demonstrated without such studies that these kids are put into a very awkward and uncomfortable position – and there are definite expectations about how they “would” or “ought to” feel and act.

That is itself problematic: it is not normal or natural to expect a child to be happy in a situation that involves a significant loss.

The act of forcing a child to pretend that having a home with “two mommies” or “two daddies” in it is problematic because:

1. it is untrue – the parents are quite literally forcing the child to lie for them.

2. it prioritizes the needs of parents at the expense of the needs and well-being of the child.

3. it reverses the roles of who takes care of whom – the child is actually forced to take responsibility for the adult’s emotional needs, while the adult fails to take responsibility for the child’s emotional needs.

4. it can only succeed if the child is pressured into suppressing the sorts of feelings that motherless or fatherless children normally experience, which in turn requires heightened awareness of the parents’ emotional needs.

These factors taken cumulatively constitutes evidence of a known form of abuse/neglect called “parentification”.

Gays like to brag that there are studies demonstrating that the children of gays are “more mature” than their peers – if this is true, such studies would constitute powerful support for the argument that these children are significantly parentified.

Parentification got its name from the fact that, the more the parents act like children, the more the children are forced into premature maturity, or pseudo-adulthood.

Lost Childhoods: The Plight Of The Parentified Child
Burdened Children: Theory, Research, and Treatment of Parentification
http://www.amazon.com/Implications-Parent-Child-Dissolution-Developmental-Psychopathology/dp/078903090X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1317063362&sr=8-3

In a medical emergency, it takes one telephone call from a paramedic or police officer to the Parquet to have the parental authority of a Jehovah’s Witness or a Christian Scientist parent suspended.

Um, I did say “Unless something can be shown to pretty much guarantee harm”, did I not?

Besides, the law in the U.S. is rather less settled: http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm

When a child can’t be raised by his real parents, the law recognizes that children need and deserve for the state to act as guardian in assigning new guardians.

So far, so good.

These aren’t commodities for sale, and every time a judge prioritizes the “rights” of a couple to “have” that child over the right of the child to be granted a good home, the child’s right to be free from exploitation is violated.

And here we go off the rails. There’s no chance that one or more of the biological parents might be unfit, or less fit than the couple in question? Every single gay couple must ipso facto not provide “a good home”?

Since co-parenting is an option

Universally? In all cases?

Can you give me examples of this (keeping in mind your own initial statement “You’re free to do what you want until your freedom and your rights comes into contact with someone else’s FREEDOM and RIGHTS”.)?

Almost any controversy in the so-called “culture wars” – but in order to ‘see’ it, you have to stretch your mind real big and imagine that conservatives, Christians, babies and children, and other nonpersons are actually persons with rights equal to yours.

Adoption is supposed to be about the needs of the child.

Since co-parenting is an option, there is no reason why anyone who wants a child should not be expected to provide the child with an intact family – a mother and a father.

Gays want us to pretend that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but that’s a lie – a lie whose only motive is to justify robbing a child.