From: wagley@screaming.net   
      
   "i" wrote in message   
   news:u00x4SCgB1ZFFwRy@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...   
   > In message , Evelyn Ruut   
   > writes   
   >   
   > ralph writes   
   >   
   >>> There are doubrless examples of same-sex couples doing a magnificent job   
   >>> of rearing children, but they will only illustrate the richness of human   
   >>> kind: they will not change the odds materially.   
   >>>   
   >>> Anyone out there agree, or even disagree?   
   >>   
   >>I don't think there is enough evidence in the way of real studies about   
   >>how children of same sex relationships fare in the world. When there is,   
   >>there may be something more to discuss. Personally I think it is as   
   >>individual as the people themselves may be.   
   >   
   > Firstly, the information about these influences comes from the British   
   > cohort studies.   
   >   
   > These started in 1946 to coincide with the start of the National Health   
   > Service. A sample of all the children born on one day was chosen (about   
   > 8,000) and they have been followed through their lives, and then the lives   
   > of their children, and now grandchildren. The original sample has been   
   > supplemented from time to time.   
   >   
   > It is these studies which show the advantage obtained from two-parent,   
   > two-sex families over all others.   
   >   
   > Now, in most cases the others will not include two males or two females;   
   > such families were rare, certainly at the beginning.   
   >   
   > Some such groups may do a great job (as I originally acknowledged), but to   
   > risk the others strikes me as playing with vulnerable lives in a way which   
   > is not for their benefit.   
   >   
   > --   
   > ralph   
      
   So you think that orphans and other children without parents to look after   
   them should be put in care homes? That will guarantee them misery and   
   prison.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|