Gay Parenting

[PanzerJaeger]

What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid.

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

I have no doubt gay people can be great parents. And I don't care.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

Maybe it would be more productive if you shared some specific problems that you believe arise from same sex parenting. What can a mother and father give (materially, mentally, emotionally, or any other way) a child that two fathers or mothers cannot? How exactly is it an inferior family situation?

[Riedquat]

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

For what its worth I bought it... But again, I'm not saying not give children to gays, or that they are bad fathers or not good enough than heterosexual couples... Obviously what I understood as common sense all my life is not the same thing for you...

[Beirut]

I know you've said it before, Beirut. But saying it umpteen times doesn't make you any more correct.

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time.

Yep, and if their new mother and father are both women, that is infinitely better than staring at a wall in an orphanage and getting no presents on Christmas. And I am very, very unconvinced that the fact that they are both women makes them unworthy of consideration, when there is a quateach you how to play catch, and only women can show you how to bake, and how a child has a god-given right to learn how to play catch and bake cookies.

I don't buy it. I think it is sexism.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

Besides, I don't think I ever said children should not be adopted by gay parents, only that a kid should go to a mother and father first if a mother and father are are available because a mother and father are inherently better for a child than a father and a father.

[Beirut]

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

Nahhhh. I don't need a scientist to tell me that a bear ***** in the woods or that the sun rises in the east or that a kid is better off with a mom and dad than with a dad and dad. I know it already.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

Good Lord, man, get a hold of yourself and read my posts as they are written, not as you think they are written.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

It has everything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

[miotas]

People who want to throw their ideology at other people can always find "scientists" who will say "Oh, it's true because my study says... ".

I suggest you read the thread more closely. The position of a lot of the posters here seems to be that sexual orientation or gender is unimportant when considering how "good" a parent someone is. You are the one throwing the ideology that homosexual parents aren't as good.

But in real life there are gut feelings and intuitions and things that simply make sense. And people who disregard gut feelings, intuition, and common sense because the "scientific study of the week" says that wet is dry, tall is short, and fat is thin, are disregarding something very important: real life.

Sometimes real life is worth taking into consideration.

I haven't read those studies, but my "intuition" is that a child needs guardians that love them far more than they need a family that fits the ideal nuclear family of the 2nd half of the 20th century.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time.

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

[Beirut]

I suggest you read the thread more closely. The position of a lot of the posters here seems to be that sexual orientation or gender is unimportant when considering how "good" a parent someone is. You are the one throwing the ideology that homosexual parents aren't as good.

And I suggest you read my posts more closely as you are not speaking to the issue I am speaking to. Though perhaps you think you are.

[Beirut]

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what?

[Beskar]

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what from Beirut?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

[Beirut]

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

Exaggerate gender differences?

They don't need to be exaggerated, they are different enough already.

[Beirut]

And you were expecting... what from Beirut?

Perhaps something other than the new age Dr. Pixiedust internet studies you lean on to support your feel-good idea of the week.

[Ironside]

And I suggest you read my posts more closely as you are not speaking to the issue I am speaking to. Though perhaps you think you are.

Simply to make you clairify your position:

It's shortage of families that adopt compared to the number of children, while not certain that it continues that way.
Gay adoption allowed, yes or no?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

Rhyf, gender is the social construct and used in contrast to biological sex differences. Everyone says there are big gender differences, but people who know something about history don't take them seriously, because there's nothing to stake a claim of legitimacy on (as if "natural" is a great place either, but that's another story) given how drastically they change with time and culture. Don't try and create smug straw men and misuse terminology at the same time

I'm fairly confidant that I've read much more than you have about the scientific study of it, so really you are just taking a page out of beirut's book here. In science the results and worth of studies are argued about. You are promoting bad science because you like the conclusion, and equating our reasoned disagreement with it to beirut's automatic rejection of science about which no methodological complaints have been raised so that you don't have to defend it.

[Beirut]

Simply to make you clairify your position:

You're going to make me?

Will there be dinner and wine before the domination begins?

Gay adoption allowed, yes or no?

If a mom and a dad cannot be found for a kid, then yes. But if a mom and a dad can be found, the gay parents must always be second in line.

[Beirut]

Rhyf, gender is the social construct and used in contrast to biological sex differences. Everyone says there are big gender differences, but people who know something about history don't take them seriously, because there's nothing to stake a claim of legitimacy on (as if "natural" is a great place either, but that's another story) given how drastically they change with time and culture. Don't try and create smug straw men and misuse terminology at the same time

I'm fairly confidant that I've read much more than you have about the scientific study of it, so really you are just taking a page out of beirut's book here. In science the results and worth of studies are argued about. You are promoting bad science because you like the conclusion, and equating our reasoned disagreement with it to beirut's automatic rejection of science about which no methodological complaints have been raised so that you don't have to defend it.

Ah, but sasaki, books and studies do not raise children - people do.

Less books, sasaki, more real life.

[PanzerJaeger]

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument. Let's dig deeper.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah, but sasaki, books and studies do not raise children - people do.

Less books, sasaki, more real life.

Every post of yours has been "Nuh uh! ".

It's childish.

[Beirut]

Every post of yours has been "Nuh uh! ".

It's childish.

We are taling about children.

[Beirut]

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

So the issue of parenting should be brought to the level of who finds what on the Internet?

God save our children.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

If you are implying that thinking a mother and father is best for a child is akin to saying the Earth is flat, den da world she be in ruff shape.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument.

Backwoods lumberjack common sense is a great argument.

"...add two parts chain oil to three parts eye of newt and blend for... "

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

Certainly.

The female plays the role of mother and the male plays the role of father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

Answered (to your satisfaction or not) below.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

I'm saying that there are advantages for a child to be raised by a mother and a father as the child experiences input from both sexes while growing up as well as being able to observe the relationship between the mother and father.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

I am a great fan of science. But this "dad & dad is as good as mom & dad" stuff is psychological alchemy.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Life.

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

[Fragony]

'Psychological alchemy', I like. Trying to turn everything into gold, can't do that. I wonder how many of the howlers wouldn't make the exact same decision I would absolutely make.

[Andres]

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

In all honesty, I didn't learn how to interact with the opposite sex from watching my parents.

I just, well, interacted with girls as I grew up. Like everyone else, I played with girls as a child and consdered them, well, girlish (they played with dolls instead of playing soccer or playing with miniature cars or lego ???).

Then I became a teenager and my heart got broken a few times and I probably broke some hearts as well. My parents have always been there to support me and there was always a shoulder to cry on or somebody to kick me in the butt (ha, usually, my mum was the one kicking me in the butt and telling me to man up and my dad was the more sensitive one; so there goes the stereotype btw), but the interaction with the opposite sex in itself, I learned through experience with... the opposite sex, not from sitting in a chair and watching mum and dad.

[Beirut]

In all honesty, I didn't learn how to interact with the opposite sex from watching my parents.

We learn far more than we realize just being with them, listening to them, seeing them act and interact. It's not a single issue or a simple thing at all. It's a very big complicated deal. A kid spends critical years picking up on the world and it's workings from his parents, and as the world is a male and female world, involving all kinds of different levels of male female interactions, a kid having a mother and father is best.

This not to say gay couples cannot be good parents, I'm sure they can be. But mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.

[Beirut]

'Psychological alchemy', I like.

Glad you liked it. You had a gem of a phrase a few posts back and I thought I would return the favour.

[PanzerJaeger]

So the issue of parenting should be brought to the level of who finds what on the Internet?

God save our children.

You seem to be confused by the internet. It is simply a conduit to share information. The studies themselves were conducted by psychiatrists and children's health experts following standard scientific procedures. If you have any issues with the methodology or processes of any of the studies that I have linked to please share them.

If you are implying that thinking a mother and father is best for a child is akin to saying the Earth is flat, den da world she be in ruff shape.

I am implying that dismissing overwhelming scientific consensus that same sex couples can be just as effective as straight ones because it doesn't jive with your version of common sense is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

Certainly.

The female plays the role of mother and the male plays the role of father.

Can you please specify what you believe the role of the father and the role of the mother to be in the modern family?

I'm saying that there are advantages for a child to be raised by a mother and a father as the child experiences input from both sexes while growing up as well as being able to observe the relationship between the mother and father.

Can you specify what inputs are unique to males and which are unique to females?

I am a great fan of science. But this "dad & dad is as good as mom & dad" stuff is psychological alchemy.

Do you have any evidence to base that on?

Life.

"Life" is not a specific example.

Again, what specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

If that is the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific situations where a child raised by gay parents is at a disadvantage in dealing with the opposite sex compared to children raised by straight parents. Further, it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific male and female roles or interpersonal traits that are unique only to them. Please do so.

[Beirut]

You seem to be confused by the internet. It is simply a conduit to share information. The studies themselves were conducted by psychiatrists and children's health experts following standard scientific procedures. If you have any issues with the methodology or processes of any of the studies that I have linked to please share them.

The issue I have is that if they say dad and dad is just as good for a kid as mom and dad, then they are wrong. That's a good place to start.

I am implying that dismissing overwhelming scientific consensus that same sex couples can be just as effective as straight ones because it doesn't jive with your version of common sense is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

I'm well aware that the Earth is round. And just as aware that kids are better off with a mom and dad than with a dad and dad.

Can you please specify what you believe the role of the father and the role of the mother to be in the modern family?

The role of the mother is to be the female parental unit the child relates to and the role of the father is to be the male parental unit the child relates to. As a child is best off with a mother and father, both sexes are required and these are the roles they fill.

Can you specify what inputs are unique to males and which are unique to females?

You just answered you own question. That they are male and female is the whole point.

Do you have any evidence to base that on?

Yeah, real life and common sense. Now I understand that real life and common sense pale in relation to new age feel-good psycho-babble, but real life and common sense are tools I prefer to work with.

"Life" is not a specific example.

Life is all we've got and all there is.

Again, what specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

They have lacked the crucial input of being raised and taught by both of the sexes. Humans have only two types; male and female. It's not like it difficult to see the situation clearly. It isn't Baskin-Robbins and 31 flavours, half of which nobody likes , it's just two; man and woman. And we need both. And for a human child to have the best upbringing to function in that world of male and female, the child should be raised by a male and female.

If that is the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific situations where a child raised by gay parents is at a disadvantage in dealing with the opposite sex compared to children raised by straight parents.

See above.

Further, it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific male and female roles or interpersonal traits that are unique only to them. Please do so.

Seriously, fella, if you don't know the differences between men and women - lose the keyboard, make the scene, and grab yourself a honey. You have much to learn.

Textbook psychology and Internet studies are well and fine; getting laid, living with a woman, and raising kids is better.

Like I said - Real life.

[Askthepizzaguy]

In conclusion, what some people consider common sense, that others disagree with, trumps all data indicating otherwise, based entirely on the premise that you "know" you're right? Anything which disagrees with you is simply "new age" mumbo-jumbo, not worth looking at, because you said you were right, and that settles it?

That might be fine for you, but it's hardly debate-worthy, and entirely unconvincing to people who don't already agree with you.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

Seriously, fella, if you don't know the differences between men and women - lose the keyboard, make the scene, and grab yourself a honey. You have much to learn.

Textbook psychology and Internet studies are well and fine; getting laid, living with a woman, and raising kids is better.

Like I said - Real life.

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?

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.


(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.)

[Samurai Waki]

I have to say Beirut, you really seem out of character on this one. Usually your posts are very considerate, and well thought out; and this just seems messy for you. Like playing Devil's Advocate. Maybe I'm wrong here, but usually your "common sense ain't that common" approach seems to be biting back at you pretty hard. Just my thoughts.

[Beirut]

I have to say Beirut, you really seem out of character on this one. Usually your posts are very considerate, and well thought out; and this just seems messy for you. Like playing Devil's Advocate. Maybe I'm wrong here, but usually your "common sense ain't that common" approach seems to be biting back at you pretty hard. Just my thoughts.

Thank you for the civilized note.

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.

It's so basic, so fundamental, so normal, so clear, and yes, so full of good old fashioned common sense, that I cannot for the life of me understand what these people are thinking and why they are so hostile. I never said that same sex couples could not be good parents, I said only that a child is better served by having a mother and a father. From the reaction it's like I hauled Rosa Parks out of her seat, beat the crap out of her, and threw her off the bus.

That hyper-reaction is one of the reasons I smell the stink of an agenda far more than the scent of true caring for the children. It really looks like people are pushing a gay rights agenda by using babies as tools. You have a baby born to a mother and father, but none of that matters because Joe Enlightenend is standing in front of those parents, waiving this week's feel-good science study, saying that one of the two people required to make the baby simply isn't relevant anymore. It's absolute bovine scatology and defies the most basic tenets of real life.