Gay Parenting

[Beirut]

I think the question is perfectly suited to this thread. If your position is based on the virtues of diversity, wouldn't that extend to mixed-race couples as well? I don't need a thesis - a simple yes or no would help me understand how far you're willing to travel on this logical path.

Well, good morning, PJ. I have my coffe and am delighted to peruse this Sherman tank of a post you wrote.

I think the issue you raised in that question is best left for another thread. We have a dozen pages already on this one male\female question. I'm not sure there is merit in making the next dozen a mish-mash of the two as it is carried farther and farther until we are debating whether, in the name of holy diversity, a child is better off with one black homosexual parent, an adrogynous Aisan parent, and a sibbling in a wheelchair, as opposed to being raised by a robot with a penis, a sentient cat, and a trans-gender set of dishes.

I don't know whether to be more insulted at your multiple assertions that I do not have respect for women, or the fact that you actually think you'll put me on the defensive with that playground tactic.

I am saying a woman's influence is crucial to a child's upbrining. You are saying a woman, once having passed the baby through her vagina and into the world, can be tossed aside. She's simply not needed anymore.

I think that speaks for itself.

I didn't realize girls learned PMS from their mothers.

The point being that PMS is a psychological state unique to women. (Though the little dears do love to share the joy with their men.)

You made the claim that children take from their mothers and fathers unexplained but wholly unique and irreplaceable 'differences' that are critical to their interaction skills with the opposite sex. At least that's what I think your position is. It is so vague that I really can't nail down what actual deficits you're claiming children of gay parents suffer. (Another unanswered question.)

They "suffer" in that they have lacked being with both a mother and a father. Nothing vague about that at all.

Two simple specific points:

(a) Mom
(b) Dad

No, you're not. I've posed the same very simple questions to you over and over again and you refuse to answer.

I have answered many times. That you do not accept my answer is the crux of this debate; you say women are not unique and I say they are.

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

You want me to explain, specifically, everything about women?

Um...

I'm sorry, but this forum does not support posts over 10,000 words, nor does it support the 6,549,091 consecutive pages required for Part I of the answer.

... so little respect, in fact, that I've posted two different studies pointing out the strengths of lesbian parenthood.

And yet you still say children don't need mothers. Very odd.

I respect women as individuals. What I do not respect, as they have not been explained to me, are these monolithic tribes of Man and Woman you seem to be referring to who hold characteristics/traits/differences/voodoo secrets that are wholly unique to them and can only be passed down to children through them.

I don't see why you catagorize the differences between men and women as negatives.

Does it? Do women speak a different language that a boy can only learn from his mother?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that children of gay parents are living under rocks, and that they would not go to day care as infants and that they would not go to preschool (average starting age these days is 2) and then on to school and society at large.

Hmmmm, rocks? No, I never mentioned anything about rocks.

At what age are these critical 'differences' taken from mothers and fathers by their children that are so crucial to their interaction with the opposite sex later in life? It would have to be within the first twelve months.

It's an ongoing and cumulative learning process.

Amazing!

Thank you.

You are arguing that it is their genitalia - their sex - that makes them special. I am saying that their common genitalia is, in fact, the least special thing about them, so unimportant that it is not an essential or even important part of child-rearing.

I am saying women are special because they are women, and that they are unique because they are women. And they are greater than the sum of their parts.

What makes a person special, an individual, and a good parent - is their personality, their experiences, and their devotion to the child. Sex is completely superficial to the process.

Not if one of the sexes is absent from the parental process.

I'm starting to believe that you are the one with the problem understanding women. You seem to be under the impression that they are a mysterious, secretive species to be 'interacted with' only by experienced men who had access to their mothers from birth.

Of course I have problems understanding women. Find me a man who doesn't. I've got a wife and two daughters, I could write a Ph.D. dissertation on what I don't understand about women.

One day the wife and kids left early. I woke up later, went downstairs, made my cereal, and sat at the table. Then I noticed that in the middle of the table was a giant-sized box of Kotex. So, I sat there with my Cheerios, munching away, and me and the box of feminine napkins had a quiet thoughtful breakfast together.

Mysterious secrets of women? Buddy, you have no idea.

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I just don't find women that complicated.

Give it time.

Thank you for your advice.

My pleasure.

It does puzzle me that you took the 3 seconds to again tell me I am inexperienced in the sacred art of interacting with women, but didn't take another 3 to actually type out any of the differences.

It will take a tad longer than three-seconds to explain the differences between men and women.

As this discussion has progressed, I have really tried to think of any non-physical differences wholly unique to either of the sexes, especially in regard to raising children.

Drawing on experience and familiar stereotypes yielded nothing. Females can teach sports, driving, and instill discipline just as well as men. Men can be caring, nurturing, cook and clean just as well as women.

Again, again, and again - what are the wholly unique differences that men and women bring to a heterosexual relationship that make their interactions important for a child to observe?

You continue to miss the point; you are talking about parenting skills and that is not the point. I will not deny for a moment that a gay man or a gay woman can be a good parent. When my father was in the last stages of brain cancer, it was one of my brother's friends, a gay man, who was my father's nurse. He fed him, bathed him, helped him use the toilet, it was like caring for a 200lb infant. I am well aware of the abilities of gay people. But that is not the issue.

The point is that there are inherent benefits to a child being exposed to, and learning from, both a man and a woman. We are not talking about the parents, we are talking about the child.

You said it. You have not explained it.

I am very sure that you understand exactly what I am asking you to provide, but I am willing to entertain the notion that something in the way I form logical positions or write is confusing you. Maybe an example completely removed from the topic will help you to understand what I am looking for.

Suppose I say that the Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943.

That is a claim.

Then you say: "What, specifically, makes the Tiger the best German tank in service in 1943?"

An appropriate response would be:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943 because:

• It had the best armament of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best armor of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best suspension of any German tank up to that point."

That is specific supporting information backing up my earlier claim.

Instead, what you have done repeatedly is to essentially say:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in 1943 because the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943, for the common sense reason that the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943."

Interesting. But you are in the wrong ball field if you think the innefable qualities of what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man can be put on paper like a transmission diagram. The understanding you are seeking does not exist in statistics or Powerpoint presentations; it is an ongoing part of the human condition, and the human condition exists with many, many unanswered and seemingly unanswerable questions. Just because we cannot draw a precise diagram that explains a thing does not mean that that thing is not only very real, but has very real conquences to us.

Now, as I said before, I think you've come to the realization that you cannot come up with anything specific and non-physical related to child-rearing that a man can do that a woman cannot and conversely nothing a woman can do that a man cannot, and that any claims to the contrary would come off as incredibly sexist nonsense.

I think it is sexist nonsense to dismiss the relevance of either a man or a woman to a child's upbrining. I simply don't see either men or women as being as dispossable as you do.

However, maybe, just maybe, my example will help you understand what I am asking for.

I know what you are looking for, but I really don't think you are going to get, or even can get, an answer in the way you want one. You are seeking answers to grand philosophical and existential questions and want them printed out on a statistics chart. It ain't gonna happen.