![]()
"I do not yet know how chivalry will fare in these calamitous times of ours." --- Don Quixote
"I have no words, my voice is in my sword." --- Shakespeare
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey
The parents are the principle care givers, the people most likely to influence the child's outlook on the world, as well as influencing the child's ability to interact with it.
That being the case, and it is, would not one incredibly obvious benefit to the child raised by a mother and father be the diversity that the child would experience with a mother and father, the two sexes that make up the human race?
Unto each good man a good dog
Diversity of character, opinion, and outlook provided by the parents should certainly be preferred in order to give the developing child a broader spectrum from which to draw, but surely the question remains whether it is necessarily any broader simply by virtue of having one male and one female parent.
Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female. The benefits are obvious.
Unto each good man a good dog
Unto each good man a good dog
Well I couldn't drag it out of you, but you seem to be taking the position that children of gay parents will have difficultly interacting with members of the opposite sex of their parents. Is this correct?
Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.The benefits are obvious.
A child of gay parents is at a specific disadvantage to a child of straight parents because ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).
I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.
Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.
You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.
Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.
Let the blank be filled!
... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.
Unto each good man a good dog
![]()
"I do not yet know how chivalry will fare in these calamitous times of ours." --- Don Quixote
"I have no words, my voice is in my sword." --- Shakespeare
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey
Why, specifically, is it inherently better? What are children of gay parents lacking in comparison to those of straight parents?
Do children of mixed-race families enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child than those of same-race families?
Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.
You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.
Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.
I almost... almost... had you nailed down on the interaction argument, but you seem to be backing away now.
What parts of interaction with the opposite sex do gay children struggle with? Dating? Working? Building friendships?
You might as well take a shot at something specific because you will just dismiss any research I post to the contrary.
So what is it? What justifies putting gay parents at the back of the line?
And the lack of both a mother and a father forces children of gay parents to be ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).Let the blank be filled!
... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.
I think there is a fundamental difference in both sides of the argument here.
The pro-hetero argument is based on the belief that gender roles are biological in origin and thus a child must be exposed to both male and female since there are things that only men can do and only women can do.
The gender-blind agument is based on the belief that (appart from obvious physical features) there is little significant difference between men and women, that gender roles are cultural in origin, and thus same sex relationships are capable of giving a complete upbriging to a child.
O RLY?
- Four Horsemen of the Presence
You said: "...since there are things that only men can do and only women can do." I don't think that is the case. It's not what the people do, it's what they are. The fact that a woman is a woman or a man is a man is important all on its own.
Ah, pardon me then, I meant the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the people most of us deal with every day.
Unto each good man a good dog
What if both parents are transgendered; as in Male=Female, Female=Male. Actually that would be kind of hilarious.
And yet I think everyone in this thread would accept that single parent families are not ideal. And I'm not up to date on the procedures, but I expect adoption agencies give strong priority to two-parent families, if they even allow single parents to adopt at all.
But as I said then, something you always do is that you focus too much on what the question and the answers themselves, rather than being more sutble and asking why people give those answers. Remember when this issue came up in that personality test?
Self-perception is very important. Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.
I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.
Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.
Hardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example.
The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.
If you're going to cut the other half of my point off when you quote me, quite possibly.![]()
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
I know you said that then! But here you were back pretending it wasn't just a survey of what you think about yourself. There is NOTHING subtle it about, instead it's completely disingenuous and false. What do you find so earth shattering about a finding that "there are stereotypes"?
It's self report, not perception, but leaving aside that, very important in what way? Anything relevant to any of the topics in the backroom? No.Self-perception is very important.
It was surveys that were the basis for your view...laboratory/etc experiments found a different conclusion. You have it backwards.Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.
That quote was still from the post about empathy right? It was not "in general" obviously! If I remember correctly, testosterone is not responsible for hostile aggression, but that may be about roid rage being a myth or something...there might have been a small effect. It's generally hard to say what the specific effects of hormones are.I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.
I don't think aggression is clear cut either, but for once the evolutionary argument is actually plausible. But you have the same issues with people not wanting to contradict their gender roles, men being in a better position to be aggressive, etc.
In general, for all of psychology, it is very problematic to say that something is a cause. Biological systems are very complex, and it is always an interaction. As an example, let's say you get a lesion on a specific part of your brain and you lose the ability to move your right hand. The temptation is to conclude that the part of the brain with the lesion is in control of your right hand. But if the nerve in your wrist was cut, you would still lose the use of your hand, but you would never say that that section of nerve was in control of your hand right? It's simply an integral part of the system. This is a problem with many studies.
Well, don't overgeneralize from your own case. It's not extreme male brain anyway.Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.
Case in point for what I was saying two quotes upHardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example.
There are lots of biological differences. But showing "underpinning" is much different.
edit: fixed quote, also I think the researchers should be concerned that the boys did better in the auditory compared to the visual simply because they don't read much.
Huh? Have men evolved rapidly in the last 100 years?The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.
Last edited by Sasaki Kojiro; 02-24-2011 at 04:56.
Bookmarks