Gay Parenting

[Beirut]

That was, quite possibly, the longest non-answer I've ever read here on the .org. Usually people with no real position pick out one or two statements they believe they have a decent counter to and ignore the rest, hoping the points will be dropped. You, in contrast, addressed each one of my statements without ever really saying anything at all. Quite impressive.

Thank you.

This is the crux of the matter. You are apparently an expert on the differences between men and women, but you seem either unwilling or unable to name specific roles, attributes, or differences that are wholly unique to either of the sexes in relation to raising children.

Apart from genitalia, what specific roles, attributes, or differences can only be replicated by females? Which can only be replicated by males?

I am of the opnion that you have a lot to learn about real life.

If you're going to put certain families at the end of the line in adoption proceedings, you'll have to base it on something more substantial than some vague and wholly unsupported theory about 'life' and tired and bigoted platitudes ripped straight off of Focus on the Family's website about mom and dad being better than dad and dad.

"Mom and dad" is a bigoted platitude?

Seriously - get off the computer, get a woman, and live a little. I wasn't kidding when I said you have a lot to learn about real life.

(And again with the 'internet studies' tripe? These are not 'internet studies', they are peer-reviewed research findings published in major, mainstream psychological and medical journals that have also been posted on the internet. I think you know that.)

I know what you say they are. And I know that you like to haul them out and wave them from the grandstands yelling "Proof! Proof!". But I wonder if you have actually read what you wave around, and if you really understand it, and if you have the life experience to correlate that data with the real world.

I think you are ignoring the real world in favour of what someone with a title told you to think.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Beirut, your difficulty here is that you keep desperately repeating yourself without defense of your belief.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

[Beirut]

Beirut, your difficulty here is that you keep desperately repeating yourself without defense of your belief.

No desperation involved. I'm right, I have no problem repeating it, and my defense is that the opposing point of view is flat out wrong.

Mom and dad beats dad and dad as sure as night follows day. And the people who think there is no difference between a man and a woman are in serious need of an education no book or science study can provide.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

Enjoy.

[PanzerJaeger]

I am of the opnion that you have a lot to learn about real life.

Now you're not even pretending to respond to my questions.

"Mom and dad" is a bigoted platitude?

Yes. It is thrown around in the same circles that use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric. The aim is the same - to deligitimize homosexual relationships.

Seriously - get off the computer, get a woman, and live a little. I wasn't kidding when I said you have a lot to learn about real life.

I would suggest that you get out of the backwoods and learn about modern life.

I know what you say they are. And I know that you like to haul them out and wave them from the grandstands yelling "Proof! Proof!". But I wonder if you have actually read what you wave around, and if you really understand it, and if you have the life experience to correlate that data with the real world.

I think you are ignoring the real world in favour of what someone with a title told you to think.

Thank you for your concern. I have read them thoroughly and I understand the strengths and constraints of such research, which is more than you can say.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

I would respond with this. (Apologies for the format, I directly copy/pasted from a PDF.)

One criticism of this body of research has been that
the research lacks external validity because samples
studied to date may not be representative of the
larger population of lesbian and gay parents
(Belcastro et al., 1993). Recent research on lesbian
and gay adults has drawn on population-based samples
(e.g., Cochran, 2001), and research on the offspring
of lesbian and gay parents has begun to
employ the same approach (e.g., Golombok, Perry,
Burston,Murray,Mooney-Somers, Stevens, &
Golding, 2003;Wainright, Russell, & Patterson,
2004). Criticisms about nonsystematic sampling
have also been addressed by studying samples drawn
from known populations, so that response rates can
be calculated (e.g., Brewaeys, Ponjaert, van Hall, &
Golombok, 1997; Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson,
1998; Chan, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998). Thus, contemporary
research on children of lesbian and gay
parents involves a wider array of sampling techniques
than did earlier studies.

Research on children of lesbian and gay parents
has also been criticized for using poorly matched
or no control groups in designs that call for such
controls. Particularly notable in this category was
the tendency of early studies to compare development
among children of a group of divorced lesbian
mothers, many of whom were living with lesbian
partners, to that among children of a group of
divorced heterosexual mothers who were not currently
living with heterosexual partners. The relevance
of this criticism has been greatly reduced as
research has expanded to explore life in a wider
array of lesbian mother and gay father families
(many of which have never lived through the
divorce of a heterosexual couple), and as newer
studies begin to include a wider array of control
groups. Thus, contemporary research on children of
lesbian and gay parents involves a wider array of
research designs (and hence, control groups) than
did earlier studies.

Another criticism has been that, although there is
considerable diversity within lesbian and gay parenting
communities (Barrett & Tasker, 2001; Morris,
Balsam, & Rothblum, 2002), research has often
focused on narrowly defined samples. Early studies
did generally focus on well-educated, middle class
families, but more recent research has included participants
from a wider array of ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds (e.g.,Wainright et al., 2004).
Recent studies have been conducted not only in the
United States, but also in the United Kingdom, in
Belgium, and in the Netherlands (e.g., Bos, van
Balen, & van den Boom, 2003, 2004; Brewaeys,
Ponjaert, & Van Hall, 1997; Golombok et al., 1997,
2003; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Vanfraussen,
Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Thus,
contemporary research on children of lesbian and
gay parents involves a greater diversity of families
than did earlier studies.

...

Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents

Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents
likewise have no empirical foundation (Anderssen,
Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys & van Hall, 1997;
Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Chan, 1996;
Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999;
Victor & Fish, 1995). Lesbian and heterosexual
women have not been found to differ markedly either
in their overall mental health or in their approaches
to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook,
1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981;
Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998;
Patterson, 2001; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982;
Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000; Thompson,McCandless,
& Strickland, 1971). Similarly, lesbians' romantic and
sexual relationships with other women have not been
found to detract from their ability to care for their
children (Bos et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1998b; Pagelow,
1980). Lesbian couples who are parenting together
have most often been found to divide household and
family labor relatively evenly and to report satisfac-
tion with their couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004;
Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, et al., 1998a; Ciano-
Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Hand, 1991; Johnson &
O'Connor, 2002; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992;
Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a; Sullivan, 1996;
Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-
Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Research on gay
fathers likewise suggests that they are likely to divide
the work involved in child care relatively evenly and
that they are happy with their couple relationships
(Johnson & O'Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993).

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers'
and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior
to those of matched heterosexual couples. For
instance, Flaks, Fischer,Masterpasqua, and Joseph
(1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness
skills were stronger than those of heterosexual
couples. This was attributed to greater parenting
awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than
among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys
and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more
favorable patterns of parent–child interaction among
lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in
another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen,
Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent
study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found
that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority
of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents
reported any use of physical punishment (such as
spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they
were likely to report use of positive techniques such as
reasoning (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002). Certainly,
research has found no reasons to believe lesbian
mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto,
2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990;
Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003,
2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson &
Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok,
1997; Victor & Fish, 1995;Weston, 1991). On the contrary,
results of research suggest that lesbian and gay
parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide
supportive home environments for children.

And this, which was published in 2010 and is not based on older studies or methods. Children in this study were shown to actually score higher, on average, than their peers in social and academic competence, and lower in aggression and social problems.

The US National Longitudinal Lesbian
Family Study (NLLFS) was initiated in
1986 to provide prospective data on
a cohort of American lesbian families
from the time the children were
conceived until they reach adulthood.
21–27 At its inception, all NLLFS
mothers identified as lesbian. In this
article, the psychological adjustment
of the 17-year-old NLLFS offspring
who were conceived through DI and
reared in planned lesbian families is
compared through maternal reports
with those of an age-matched normative
sample of American teenagers.
Within the NLLFS sample, we analyze
the association of adolescent wellbeing
as reflected in Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL) scores with (1)
sperm donor status (having a known,
as-yet-unknown, or permanently unknown
donor); (2) parental relationship
continuity (whether the offspring’s
mothers are together or
separated); and (3) experiences
of stigma.

CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother
families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.
These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents
and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to
same-sex parenting. Pediatrics 2010;126:000

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oddly enough all the research supporting beiruts side seemed to be from the same walter schumm guy. Although I didn't see any of the ones where he does tests on claims made in the scripture to see if they can be supported.

[Beirut]

Now you're not even pretending to respond to my questions.

Would you prefer I pretend?

Yes. It is thrown around in the same circles that use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric. The aim is the same - to deligitimize homosexual relationships.

I have no problem with homosexual relationships. I've suggested my wife take one up several times. I even offered to supervise.

I would suggest that you get out of the backwoods and learn about modern life.

Actually, I grew up in the city with a gay older brother. I was hanging out at his parties when I was 14. (Great mixed drinks!) I saw friends of his (and mine) that I knew for twenty-years die of AIDS. Several times my brother brought his friends who were HIV positive to our family Christmas dinners because he thought it might be their last chance to celebrate Christmas in a family setting. Some of them even cooked the dinner. My brother always brought his boyfriend as well. Having gay guys around was always normal for me. I've never known any other life.

How many gay guys at your family gatherings, Mr. I Don't Live In The Backwoods?

Like I said, you may have internet studies and Dr. Feelgood's pixiedust to lighten your path, but I prefer real life.

Thank you for your concern. I have read them thoroughly and I understand the strengths and constraints of such research, which is more than you can say.

Keep your internet studies and your pixiedust. I'll stick to real life. Real life: family, friends, kids, the day to day trials and tribulations the world throws at you. When you get tired of living vicariously through someone else's statistics, give real life a try. You might enjoy it.

[Strike For The South]

LOL@ Dr.Feelgoods pixie dust

[ajaxfetish]

I admit to being really stunned by people's reaction to all this. It's not just that a lot of people disagree that a kid is better off with a mother and father, but are really quite angry that someone would be such a blatant ******* as to actually say in public that a kid is better off with a mother and father. It's truly odd.

For my part at least, I think it's quite understandable that you feel a mother and father is better, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a legitimate opinion, even if it's not one I find convincing. The thing that bothers me is that you seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with you. You have expressed shock and disbelief that anyone could have a reasonable opinion other than your own, and questioned the rationality, motives, and life experiences of those of us who do. It's disrespectful, and not something I'd have expected from you. I'm also concerned that you're willing to blatantly disregard the scientific method and community in its entirety, treating something that has made such huge contributions to our modern standard of living as so much 'pixie dust.' You're not the only person in this world, Beirut.

Ajax

[Fragony]

No there's also me at least, some things you just know without really knowing. I think most gay couples know it as well, it's perfectly legal here but gay adoption is extremely rare. Got no numbers but certainly not more than 1 out of 100 or so

[Beirut]

For my part at least, I think it's quite understandable that you feel a mother and father is better, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a legitimate opinion, even if it's not one I find convincing. The thing that bothers me is that you seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with you. You have expressed shock and disbelief that anyone could have a reasonable opinion other than your own, and questioned the rationality, motives, and life experiences of those of us who do. It's disrespectful, and not something I'd have expected from you.

If there is a lack of courtesy in this thread, I assure you it is going in both directions.

I'm also concerned that you're willing to blatantly disregard the scientific method and community in its entirety, treating something that has made such huge contributions to our modern standard of living as so much 'pixie dust.'

I do not disregard science at all. But neither do I suffer from "white coat syndrome", as one of my brothers calls it, where a person accepts anything said by a doctor or person with a title after their name simply because that person is a doctor or has a title after their name.

There is good science and bad science, and sometimes a person just to rely on common sense to figure it out for himself. And though common sense seems to have a bad reputation around here, I think that many of its detractors will find occasions in life - lots and lots of them - where jumping up and down and waiving a science report around isn't going to do squat for them, while on the other hand just a thimble full of common sense will pull their keester right out of the fire.

You're not the only person in this world, Beirut.

Though since my dog died, I do sometimes feel that way.

[Riedquat]

Some people needs to read a manual/instructive to install/screw up a light bulb... some others not, thats normal, what is odd is asking scientific back up to the person who screw the light bulb naturally without reading the instructions...

I'll shush again, for another 5 years or so.

[PanzerJaeger]

I do not disregard science at all. But neither do I suffer from "white coat syndrome", as one of my brothers calls it, where a person accepts anything said by a doctor or person with a title after their name simply because that person is a doctor or has a title after their name.

There is good science and bad science, and sometimes a person just to rely on common sense to figure it out for himself. And though common sense seems to have a bad reputation around here, I think that many of its detractors will find occasions in life - lots and lots of them - where jumping up and down and waiving a science report around isn't going to do squat for them, while on the other hand just a thimble full of common sense will pull their keester right out of the fire.

If common sense was so intuitive, so innate, such a known known... wouldn't it be easily provable?

I don't need one of those scary boogie men in white coats to tell me that if I throw a rock in the air it will come down. However, there is a whole body of scientific evidence surrounding gravitation that underpins it. It is common sense that I need air to breathe. There is also plenty of science behind the concept that explains exactly why the body needs oxygen and how it uses it.

Then there are those common sense truisms like cold temperature being the cause of respiratory illnesses or that the earth is flat that have been shown, by the scary boogie men in white coats, to be false.

Since you're unwilling to actually specify the unique roles only men and women can play in the family and cannot come up with any examples of the problems gay parenting causes children, do you at least want to take a stab at why the science doesn't back up your common sense?

Earlier in the thread you seemed to suggest a cabal of gay rights activists pulling the strings (undoubtedly from their lair in the basement of a gay bar) in the scientific community. Are you sticking with that?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, usually when I've seen an science study that is unintuitive, there is an evident methodology problem upon examination. Researchers can be biased, but for their research to be bad there still has to be something they did to bias it...

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, usually when I've seen an science study that is unintuitive, there is an evident methodology problem upon examination. Researchers can be biased, but for their research to be bad there still has to be something they did to bias it...

There is no point in asking him about methodology as he won't even take the time to read even a few of the studies. And we're not talking about a handful of new studies, either. There has been a vast amount of research done on the subject since the '70s. It’s not really ‘New Age’ stuff at this point. Why would so many studies, conducted in so many countries, by seemingly unrelated researchers using varying methods and techniques yield the same general consensus? And at this point, where are the messed up, dysfunctional kids who cannot relate to the opposite sex? Surely there would be some literature out there on that subject. It would take an organized, concerted effort by powerful people on a grand scale to suppress the fact that millions of children are in effect being mentally neglected and abused in gay households. Is the gay rights movement really that powerful? They can't even get same-sex marriage passed in Cali...

(and that rant was not directed at you, Sasaki)

[Beirut]

Since you're unwilling to actually specify either the unique roles only men and women can play in the family and couldn't come up with any examples of the problems gay parenting causes children, do you at least want to take a stab at why the science doesn't back up your common sense?

First off, I don't know how old you are, but if you cannot already understand the importance a mother has to a child, and the importance a father has to a child, then the issue is beyond your understanding. And if you think a science study negates the importance of either of those people in a child's upbringing, then I fear you have been sold a bill of goods.

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

I would love to watch the mother beat that spoiled kid senseless with a spatula.

Earlier in the thread you seemed to suggest a cabal of gay rights activists pulling the strings (undoubtedly from their lair in the basement of a gay bar) in the scientific community. Are you sticking with that?

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

[ajaxfetish]

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

I pointed out the uselessness of this argument when you brought it up last. It hasn't impoved with time.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

First off, I don't know how old you are, but if you cannot already understand the importance a mother has to a child, and the importance a father has to a child, then the issue is beyond your understanding.

I understand the importance of good parenting to the wellbeing of children, but I do not understand the importance that a parent's individual sex has in the process of good parenting. I've asked you to explain this over and over again.

What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a vagina? What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a penis?

If it is such common sense, why are you having such a hard time saying "x, y, and z aspects of raising a child can only be done by a woman, and a, b, and c aspects can only be done by a man"?

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

No one is saying that. Try "Mom.... the fact that you have a vagina didn't really matter in the upbringing of your children. Instead, your love, devotion, and attention to your children were the factors that really mattered." I think most moms would agree with that.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel if a person who refused to even take the time to educate himself on the subject told them "Common sense is common sense and common sense says because you both share common genitalia, you cannot raise your children as well as you could if one of you had a vagina."

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

So who is ordering the researchers to alter their studies? Who is behind this grand conspiracy to sacrifice children at the alter of gay rights?

[Strike For The South]

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

Kids do better with parents
There are more kids than prospective parents
Bringing in more parents helps aliveate this problem
Studies or no studies

[Rhyfelwyr]

Kids do better with parents

Source?

[Beirut]

I pointed out the uselessness of this argument when you brought it up last. It hasn't impoved with time.

Ajax

Actually it has. It's like spaghetti; it tastes better the next day.

[Beirut]

I understand the importance of good parenting to the wellbeing of children, but I do not understand the importance that a parent's individual sex has in the process of good parenting. I've asked you to explain this over and over again.

What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a vagina? What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a penis?

If it is such common sense, why are you having such a hard time saying "x, y, and z aspects of raising a child can only be done by a woman, and a, b, and c aspects can only be done by a man"?

You continue to have the whole thing backwards. You keep talking about what the parents give to the kids, I'm taking about what the kids take from the parents. Two different things.

No one is saying that. Try "Mom.... the fact that you have a vagina didn't really matter to the upbringing of your children. Instead, your love, devotion, and attention to your children were the factors that really mattered." I think most moms would agree with that.

I think most moms would look into retroactive abortions and see if they could clotheshanger the little guttersnipe who just declared the worth of their entire gender as nothing more than a pleasurable cavity between their thighs.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel if a person who refused to even take the time to educate himself on the subject told them "Common sense is common sense and common sense says because you both share common genitalia, you cannot raise your children as well as you could if one of you had a vagina."

Fella, dude, buddy, lad, son, get off the computer and get a woman. If your entire concept of women boils down to "Well... they have a vagina... and I think that's it", you need to smell the outdoors and wrangle up some quality woman time.

So who is ordering the researchers to alter their studies?

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

[PanzerJaeger]

You continue to have the whole thing backwards. You keep talking about what the parents give to the kids, I'm taking about what the kids take from the parents. Two different things.

Alright. I'm willing to ride this rhetorical merry-go-round as long as it takes to get some specifics out of you.

What does a child take from his or her mother that is unique only to females? What does a child take from his or her father that is unique only to males?

I think most moms would look into retroactive abortions and see if they could clotheshanger the little guttersnipe who just declared the worth of their entire gender as nothing more than a pleasurable cavity between their thighs.

You couldn't mischaracterize my statement more if you tried.

Fella, dude, buddy, lad, son, get off the computer and get a woman. If your entire concept of women boils down to "Well... they have a vagina... and I think that's it", you need to smell the outdoors and wrangle up some quality woman time.

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

So you do believe that every researcher involved in these studies is simply a fraud?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Dr. Wakefield is the "vaccines cause autism" guy right? Aka the lone study with what turned out to be falsified data that the a huge number of other researchers then disproved? He would be the walter schumm of this debate.

Anyway, I disagree with panzer about the consensus being as meaningful as he says it is. Scientific communities often make an incorrect assumption or are ignorant of something that discredits a wide array of research. I'm generally very supportive of skepticism of psychological research, but when I'm skeptical it's for a reason that I can argue for...

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

See this is like what I said pages ago. Rhyf objected to panzer's studies on the basis that they found men raised by lesbians were more sexually restrained and less aggressive--and he thought that was bad. Your objection like I said a while back is something similar but you dance around actually saying what it is exactly. Something like "no lesbian couple will raise X kind of a man because he needs an X kind of man role model"?

[Rhyfelwyr]

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

This is another example of how there are too many side issues/different presumptions running alongside the main issue for both sides to really engage each other.

We've already had the spin-off thread in which the scientific studies I presented were dismissed as being created by people with an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic, better communicators/language skills... they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that. Plus they think more logically, are better at science/mathematics, and provide a more strict/disciplining influence for the child. For much of history this whole debate over gender would be moot because only men could really do the hard labour that most jobs required. That is obviously not the case now, but still men were moulded to be providers for their families.

Yes you can all hate on me for saying this, but when you aren't jumping to defend teh gays you all act as if you share these same beliefs as me. Otherwise what's up with Strike's "What makes a man a man?" thread? You wouldn't think anything of it when a kid raised by a single mother bemoans the fact that he never had a father figure in his life.

But suddenly its all about the gays so everything just gets thrown out the window to pander to them...

[Beirut]

Alright. I'm willing to ride this rhetorical merry-go-round as long as it takes to get some specifics out of you.

Patience is a virtue.

What does a child take from his or her mother that is unique only to females? What does a child take from his or her father that is unique only to males?

The interaction with that parent, as a mother and as a father. The learning experience of the human condition by being with the two sexes required for human life to exist. You are reducing the grandeur of man and woman to nothing but a brief and temporary need for a penis and vagina to have a dance, and after that, according to you, whatever, it's all the same. Rubbish!

You couldn't mischaracterize my statement more you tried.

Then I should try next time.

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

Actually, I've answered you about a dozen times. You simply don't like the answer. And I'm sorry if I don't have a flow chart or a Powerpoint presentation to explain humanity for you, but, like I said, a touch of the outdoors and some time spent with real women will light your path to the truth of the matter.

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

Homophobia? You are a funny boy.

As for being sexist, if that means I realize there are differences between the sexes, then you're damn right I am. (Get yourself a woman, you'll be one, too, and fast.)

So you do believe that every researcher involved in these studies is simply a fraud?

No, I'm sure some are just misguided.

[Beirut]

See this is like what I said pages ago. Rhyf objected to panzer's studies on the basis that they found men raised by lesbians were more sexually restrained and less aggressive--and he thought that was bad. Your objection like I said a while back is something similar but you dance around actually saying what it is exactly. Something like "no lesbian couple will raise X kind of a man because he needs an X kind of man role model"?

I am simply saying that a learning experience for a child that involves learning from both a man and a woman in the parental role is a richer and more beneficial experience for the child than what can be attained from only one sex.

[bamff]

Everyone has an opinion it would appear. That's great, but please remember that they are all opinions, and not necessarily right or wrong.

Trying to draw a generalisation in any such debate is fraught with danger. There will invariably be examples that "prove" or "disprove" any given theory. I know of many "conventional" (male & female parents) families in which the children have fourished, and I know of others where sadly this was not the case. Similarly, I have a number of friends who are or were raised by single parents. In some cases this has worked very well, in others, not so. The same goes for friends who are gay or were raised by gay couples (both male parents and female parents).

Rhyfelwyr raises some salient points with regard to the general nature of males and females - but again these are generalisations, and there will be those who simply do not fit within these "norms". I know of plenty of males who are skilled communicators, and who are more caring and sympathetic than many females. By the same token I know plenty of females whose orientation is toward the logical and practical.

For mine it really comes down to individuals and particular circumstances. I don't believe that there is a blanket right or wrong answer here.

Okay, there's my two cents (granted it possibly wasn't even worth that, but there it is nonetheless).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic,

Just to pick on this specifically, last time you said this I pointed out that studies based on self report find a large difference in favor of women, studies based on physiological response very small measures, and studies of helping behavior find that men help more. Now you're claiming I dismissed your studies (which you only ever referenced in passing) by claiming that they were by people who had an agenda? I did say that there is a bias towards the "interesting" results in publishing, and it's true, but I said a lot more. The main thing is that in studying empathy, you always have to ask how it is measured. Self report is obviously worthless--you don't get an accurate picture of how people are by asking them about something they want to be, and that's even assuming they know in the first place.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/005496.html

gives a nice summary:

A more recent survey (Richard A. Fabes and Nancy Eisenberg, "Meta-Analyses of Age and Sex Differences in Children's and Adlescents' Prosocial Behavior", 1998) came to a similar conclusion:

Sex differences were greatest when demand characteristics were high (i.e., it was clear what was being assessed) and individuals had conscious control over their responses (i.e., self-report indices were used); gender differences were virtually nonexistent when demand characteristics were subtle and study participants were unlikely to exercise much conscious control over their responding (i.e., physiological indices). Thus, when gender-related stereotypes are activated and people can easily control their responses, they may try to project a socially desirable image to others or to themselves.

It seems unlikely that there is a significant biological difference. Other motivations (usually social) come into whether it is expressed. Do you think it is socially unacceptable for men to act in a caring way towards their children? Do you think gay men are likely to care about that? It seems bizarre to bring gender role data into an argument about potential parents who are less likely to adhere to strict roles.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am simply saying that a learning experience for a child that involves learning from both a man and a woman in the parental role is a richer and more beneficial experience for the child than what can be attained from only one sex.

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

[bamff]

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

A good question. I could perhaps understand that it would be so if the two male (or female as the case may be) parents shared exactly the same characteristics, and if neither brought anything different to the table...but surely this is unlikely in the extreme. This would also appear to imply that children of single parents are inherently worse off, and that is not necessarily the case either.