Gay Parenting

[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

[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.

[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?

[Strike For The South]

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

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

[PanzerJaeger]

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Probably, but I believe that if you are going to tell a group of people in a free society to stand at the back of the line, that their relationship is inherently inferior to others in some way, that you better have a damn good reason for it.

And there are good reasons for putting some people behind others in the adoption process.

Homeless people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they cannot provide shelter for the child.

Mentally disturbed people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they could pose a physical danger to the child.

Very poor people should be behind more economically stable people in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they would not be able to provide as high a standard of living for the child.

Single working people should be behind couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason that a single parent cannot devote as much time and attention to the child as two parents could.

Gay couples should be behind straight couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason(s) that ...

I want to hear the very specific ways that children of gay couples suffer in comparison to those of straight couples. If they are so obvious, such common sense, they shouldn’t be difficult to type out.

[Beirut]

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Indeed. 12 pages of some people not understanding why a mother and a father are important for a child. Who would have thought the human race would ever come to this.

Next week: The Sun! Blessed warmth or evil sphere. Stay tuned.

[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"?

[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.

[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...

[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]

better communicators/language skills...

Title: Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.

Located 165 studies that reported data on gender differences in verbal ability. The weighted mean effect size was +0.11, indicating a slight female superiority in performance. The difference is so small that we argue that gender differences in verbal ability no longer exist. Analysis of tests requiring different cognitive processes involved in verbal ability yielded no evidence of substantial gender differences in any aspect of processing. Similarly, an analysis of age indicated no striking changes in the magnitude of gender differences at different ages, countering Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) conclusion that gender differences in verbal ability emerge around age 11 yrs. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

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.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

Plus they think more logically, are better at science/mathematics,

Title: New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.

In this article, we use meta-analysis to analyze gender differences in recent studies of mathematics performance. First, we meta-analyzed data from 242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people. Overall, d = 0.05, indicating no gender difference, and variance ratio = 1.08, indicating nearly equal male and female variances. Second, we analyzed data from large data sets based on probability sampling of U.S. adolescents over the past 20 years: the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Effect sizes for the gender difference ranged between –0.15 and +0.22. Variance ratios ranged from 0.88 to 1.34. Taken together, these findings support the view that males and females perform similarly in mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

And one of the obvious things, which I think I pointed out in the other thread, is that you can't simply say you are measuring an innate difference. The effect sizes have decreased over time just as the differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks have decreased over time...I would think that this, if true, is very culturally based for example:

and provide a more strict/disciplining influence for the child.

Just consider the changes in child discipline over the last century!

[ajaxfetish]

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.

So, would you argue that a pair of Lesbians are the ideal parents?

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

Ajax

[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.