- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40,989
- Reaction score
- 55,252
- Location
- Houston Area, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I think you're absolutely wrong. In order to understand the male/female dynamic, two parents of opposite sexes is important. And that's just a start. Your father teaches you what a man is, and how he treats a woman. Ditto for the mother. Two men or two women, with all the love and money in the world, still can't teach the same lessons.
I don't really think you need two parents of the opposite sex to understand the male/female dynamic.
My parents (opposite sex) didn't even teach me about any of that, and I still understood how that all worked pretty well. And there are plenty of people who have been raised by same-sex couples who I'm positive understand the male/female dynamic pretty well.
For the sake of argument, lets say that these studies were actually correct...I'd still say "So?"
What you would need to show me is not that a Man/Man or Woman/Woman couple is worse than a Man/Woman couple....you'd need to show me that they are worse off than a child who grows up the majority or all of their formative years in a foster care.
Because really, the only thing this comes into play in is with adoption. If two men come to an agreement with a woman that one of them will get her pregnant and she'll have their child, it's not the states business. If two women come to an agreement with a man or a sperm bank and get themselves pregnant, again, it's not the states business.
At least with adoption, there's some kind of transaction of sorts that reasonably could be regulated. So that's where the question comes down to. And so long as there remains children that need to be adopted, and aren't, then I would strongly disagree with disallowing any loving couple from being able to adopt if they meet all the standard requirements. And that would be my stance until such time that you can significantly show that their adopting would actually be more harmful to the child than keeping them in foster care.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential factors that may go into making a "less than ideal" set of parents that we in no way, shape, or form test for with adoptions and in which the state absolutely doesn't step in and use as a means of keeping the couple from becoming pregnant. There's no reason why homosexuality should be the weird exception.
So for me, all these studies, on either side, are basically just dick waving contests in hopes of convincing people who likely will never be convinced on either side.
For the sake of argument, lets say that these studies were actually correct...I'd still say "So?"
What you would need to show me is not that a Man/Man or Woman/Woman couple is worse than a Man/Woman couple....you'd need to show me that they are worse off than a child who grows up the majority or all of their formative years in a foster care.
Because really, the only thing this comes into play in is with adoption. If two men come to an agreement with a woman that one of them will get her pregnant and she'll have their child, it's not the states business. If two women come to an agreement with a man or a sperm bank and get themselves pregnant, again, it's not the states business.
At least with adoption, there's some kind of transaction of sorts that reasonably could be regulated. So that's where the question comes down to. And so long as there remains children that need to be adopted, and aren't, then I would strongly disagree with disallowing any loving couple from being able to adopt if they meet all the standard requirements. And that would be my stance until such time that you can significantly show that their adopting would actually be more harmful to the child than keeping them in foster care.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of potential factors that may go into making a "less than ideal" set of parents that we in no way, shape, or form test for with adoptions and in which the state absolutely doesn't step in and use as a means of keeping the couple from becoming pregnant. There's no reason why homosexuality should be the weird exception.
So for me, all these studies, on either side, are basically just dick waving contests in hopes of convincing people who likely will never be convinced on either side.
I'm going to try this again and see if I can get one honest answer:
All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??
Before anyone starts in with the usual garbage, I am not making any statement about whether a same sex couple, single parent, etc, can do a good job of parenting or whether teachers, aunts, uncles, neighbors can fill the role of the missing sex, I'm simply asking the question above. I fully expect that I'll get the usual accusations, goal-post shifting and off-topic comments, but hopefully someone will be honest enough give a direct answer to the question and possibly even a logical and rational explanation for their answer.
Kids need a father and a mother. That's why they have them. It's self evident. Mary and John will usually do a better job of raising their own flesh and blood than Merv and Jerry will do raising someone else's. They will also do better then Jane does on her own.
There are exceptions to any rule, but the nuclear family works out very well for MOST.
Good parenting is being ridiculously over-simplified if the criteria for it is boiled down to the requirement of one penis, and one vagina.
There are far too many other variables that need to be considered.
So pretty much every other study on the planet has shown homosexuals can raise children just as well and in many cases better than straight parents, but a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY says gays suck at parenting so let's believe them.
What are you talking about? I did answer your question.
Gee, for a guy who complained about "goal post shifting", you sure can run fast while carrying that post
"Diversity" only comes in the form of two people in a child's life?
Not grandparents, aunts, uncles, extended family, brothers, sisters, teachers, mentors, coaches, and if needed there's the Big-Brother and Big-Sister program in most cities around?
I'll be like the 50th person in this thread to directly answer your question: Exactly equal and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise. Keep fishing, we all know what it is you want.
You're the first one to provide a direct answer and I thank you for that.
Now then...
Do you think that as a general rule that men and women act and respond differently in certain situations or do you think that as a general rule both genders act and respond similarly to similar situations??
There is no argument you can make or long drawn out path you can lead me on for me to think it's a good idea to have the government insert itself into people's sexual and reproductive decisions and screw minorities out of their basic rights as human beings. We need more parents in the world, not less, and I applaud any homosexual couple who decides to make such an incredible sacrifice by adopting.
I'm right on point with my comment. Let's re-phrase the question into a more "liberal friendly" style:
Are gender-diverse parents better for a child than non-gender-diverse parents?
It's a "Yes or No" question and you gave me a platitude about raising children, not an answer...
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.
Can you show a measurably significant difference? You do realize that some people view most gender differences as socially constructed, and whatever drawbacks a child may have from being in a "less gender diverse" family may be offset by the benefits of greater awareness of those differences when they are encountered in other family or the world? You are fishing for the answer you want instead of listening. If you did listen you would realize you are pushing what most people consider an irrelevant question, unless you can demonstrate some sort of significant measurable difference.
I never said anything about the government having any part of this. My only argument is about what it best for the children - having gender-diverse parents or non-gender-diverse. I made it clear from the start that this is not about whether a same sex couple can be good parents, but about what is BEST.
I'm right on point with my comment. Let's re-phrase the question into a more "liberal friendly" style:
Are gender-diverse parents better for a child than non-gender-diverse parents?
You're the first one to provide a direct answer and I thank you for that.
I suppose an honest answer is one you agree with.I'm going to try this again and see if I get one honest answer.
No, I don't think they are.All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??
I answered it straight up. I'll do it again. No I don't think children raised by opposite sex parents are better off. I believe people think it is because it's traditional. That is the only reason...and that's the kind of goal-post shifting answers that always come up. It's a simple question that people will not answer. You'll avoid, re-define terms, change the question, but you won't answer the simple question....
I'm going to try this again and see if I can get one honest answer:
All other things being equal, is a child better off being raised in a household with two parents of the same sex or two parents of different sexes??
Before anyone starts in with the usual garbage, I am not making any statement about whether a same sex couple, single parent, etc, can do a good job of parenting or whether teachers, aunts, uncles, neighbors can fill the role of the missing sex, I'm simply asking the question above. I fully expect that I'll get the usual accusations, goal-post shifting and off-topic comments, but hopefully someone will be honest enough give a direct answer to the question and possibly even a logical and rational explanation for their answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?