Gay Parenting

[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]

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

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?

[bamff]

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?

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.

[Beirut]

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.

[bamff]

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.

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

[Beirut]

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

Too limited in scope. I'm going for the whole burrito.

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

If the benefits are real, why not?

Isn't that like saying a child should eat healthy food, but not necessarily at home? (Where the vast majority of his meals are taken.)

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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?

The benefits are obvious.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

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).

[Beirut]

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?

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

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.

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).

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

Have you been observing a lot of dysfunctional children of homosexual parents? If so, would you care to share your stories? If not, what have you been observing that demonstrates they're worse off?

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

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?

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.

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

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?

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

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).

[miotas]

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.

the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females

O RLY?

[Beirut]

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.

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.

O RLY?

Ah, pardon me then, I meant the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the people most of us deal with every day.

[Samurai Waki]

What if both parents are transgendered; as in Male=Female, Female=Male. Actually that would be kind of hilarious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

It seems unlikely that there is a significant biological difference.

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.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

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.

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:

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.

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

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

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


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

Ajax

If you're going to cut the other half of my point off when you quote me, quite possibly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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?

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"?

Self-perception is very important.

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.

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.

It was surveys that were the basis for your view...laboratory/etc experiments found a different conclusion. You have it backwards.

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.

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 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.

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.

Well, don't overgeneralize from your own case. It's not extreme male brain anyway.

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.

Case in point for what I was saying two quotes up

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.

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

Huh? Have men evolved rapidly in the last 100 years?