Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

18-06-2017 10:52PM

pangbang wrote: »

But I'm not talking about exceptions or individuals. From a broad, common sense point of view, 2 parents are better than one.

All things being equal....generally!

so, you are ok with two parents of the same sex?

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:52PM

BabyCheeses wrote: »

"New" because no gay couple have raised children in the past 30 years.

Good thing we have never changed since humans first appeared, wouldn't want to go against the entire history of humans. Did you really not think this through for more than 5 minutes? Thank **** the people who first thought of farming were smarter than you.

Talk about something going over your head! So youre having a problem interpreting my point. Okay, let me spell it out for you at a slower speed.

Youre in a foreign country and you notice this strange plant growing by the jungle. Here are the two scenarios for you.

1) You could eat the plant that you know nothing about. No studies, no internet, no-one to tell you a thing, except that you think it "looks tasty".

2) A local passes by, tears it up and wolfs it down. They then proceed to tell you that the locals have been eating it for thousands of years, its as safe as anything, no problems. But you start arguing with them....

You are basically choosing 1) over 2), arguing that the provenance of number 2) means practically nothing........and then calling me stupid.

Well fair play to you, nature has a way of dealing with things like that too.

18-06-2017 10:53PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Sure, but homosexuals also abuse at higher rates and have massive problems in their communities.

you are really going to have to back up this crazy claim!

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:54PM

bubblypop wrote: »

so, you are ok with two parents of the same sex?

Its a completely separate point. And it has little to do with me being "okay" with anything.

Its not about my feelings, its about facts, and in the absence of some facts, its about intelligent interpretation.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 10:55PM

pangbang wrote: »

Its a completely separate point. And it has little to do with me being "okay" with anything.

Its not about my feelings, its about facts, and in the absence of some facts, its about intelligent interpretation.

You haven't written a single intelligent thing since you joined this thread. You certainly haven't graced us with any evidence to back up your claims, for all your big talk of facts.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:57PM

_Brian wrote: »

The question may be, but I'm saying there are more important issues that make good parents, we shouldn't be so narrow minded to look only at gender, parenting isn't about meeting gender quotas.
Kids need good parents, be they same or different sex parents.

Yeah FAIR ENOUGH! A few posters can keep clapping each other on the back for saying that good people are good.....that's not the topic at hand.

Look, I can do it too. Bad things are bad! Nice things are nice! Does anyone agree with me?

18-06-2017 10:57PM

pangbang wrote: »

Its a completely separate point. And it has little to do with me being "okay" with anything.

Its not about my feelings, its about facts, and in the absence of some facts, its about intelligent interpretation.

well the thread is about same sex parents so..........

18-06-2017 10:58PM

I don't think they need them, but all things being equal, I think it's the best setting in which to rear a child.

Mrs OBumble · 18-06-2017 11:00PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm totally opposed to them. Not only is a resulting child deprived of it's biological parent(s), but they also involve creating generic combinations that nature did not intend to exist. I just don't think that's a wise thing to be doing for the long-term good of the species.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a totally different question.

If a child needs to be adopted, then obviously there's been a big problem in their family of origin. In this case, social workers need to find the best possible mix of people to care for the child - based on biological ties, ethnic matching, and existing emotional connection to the child. This is an area where adult "rights" shouldn't even be considered: decisions need be be based on what's best for the child, not the rights of the adults. Irrespective of the sexual orientation of the adults involved. There will be cases where a same-sex couple in the best answer - and one issue to resolve for these is ensuring that the child gets enough positive role-modelling from an adult of the opposite gender to the parents.

I actually go even further and think that any situation where a child will be sharing a domestic situation with a non-biologically related adult (no matter what sort of relationship they have with the child's parent) should be subject to some sort of licensing / supervision: from what I've seen and heard, exposure to step-parenting is quite a risk factor for all sorts of abuse.

That's not to say that all biological parents are perfect - we know full well that many aren't. But they are less likely to be abusive to their own kids

18-06-2017 11:00PM

pangbang wrote: »

Talk about something going over your head! So youre having a problem interpreting my point. Okay, let me spell it out for you at a slower speed.

Youre in a foreign country and you notice this strange plant growing by the jungle. Here are the two scenarios for you.

1) You could eat the plant that you know nothing about. No studies, no internet, no-one to tell you a thing, except that you think it "looks tasty".

2) A local passes by, tears it up and wolfs it down. They then proceed to tell you that the locals have been eating it for thousands of years, its as safe as anything, no problems. But you start arguing with them....

You are basically choosing 1) over 2), arguing that the provenance of number 2) means practically nothing........and then calling me stupid.

Well fair play to you, nature has a way of dealing with things like that too.

what exactly is this rubbish supposed to prove?

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think they need them, but all things being equal, I think it's the best setting in which to rear a child.

Why do you think that? The studies all indicate there's no measurable difference in outcomes.

Permabear · 18-06-2017 11:03PM

This post has been deleted.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:03PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You haven't written a single intelligent thing since you joined this thread. You certainly haven't graced us with any evidence to back up your claims, for all your big talk of facts.

What do I need to prove here? History itself? Youre asking me for "evidence"??? Come on.

And on the contrary, what proof do you have that gay couples are just the same heterosexual parents?

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 11:04PM

pangbang wrote: »

Talk about something going over your head! So youre having a problem interpreting my point. Okay, let me spell it out for you at a slower speed.

Youre in a foreign country and you notice this strange plant growing by the jungle. Here are the two scenarios for you.

1) You could eat the plant that you know nothing about. No studies, no internet, no-one to tell you a thing, except that you think it "looks tasty".

2) A local passes by, tears it up and wolfs it down. They then proceed to tell you that the locals have been eating it for thousands of years, its as safe as anything, no problems. But you start arguing with them....

You are basically choosing 1) over 2), arguing that the provenance of number 2) means practically nothing........and then calling me stupid.

Well fair play to you, nature has a way of dealing with things like that too.

Here's the thing.

You need a longitudinal properly designed study across a significant period of time to test the effect of a childs upbringing in a same sex household vs a heterosexual couple household. They've been doing it for decades with single parents verses a couple for example, because there were enough of them for that to happen.

Right now, there hasn't been done, and note, I say longitudinal. People here can post one and I'll happily concede but otherwise as you said pang, the effects are unknown and it is an extremely unethical thing to encourage as a result.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:04PM

bubblypop wrote: »

what exactly is this rubbish supposed to prove?

If you cant read, and cant interpret, I cant help you.

18-06-2017 11:06PM

pangbang wrote: »

Its a completely separate point. And it has little to do with me being "okay" with anything.

Its not about my feelings, its about facts, and in the absence of some facts, its about intelligent interpretation.

Here's something about the intelligent interpretation of human history.

Evolution is both biological and socio/cultural. Biological evolution moves slower than socio/cultural evolution. Over the last six milennia, most of our evolution as a species pertains to how we live, how we form our societies and belief systems, and how we perceive each other. Over those years we have adopted and discarded certain beliefs as we became more self aware, more spiritually aware, more socially aware, and more educated, tolerant and diverse.

Except for cultural and ceremonial purposes we no longer dance to influence the incidence of rainfall, we tend not to assume our planet is the centre of the universe, we no longer believe the world is flat, and we question the veracity of myths like the existence of leprechauns or Leitrim. We also by and large have discarded the notion that the color of a persons skin makes them inherently superior, or that the gender a person is attracted to has a bearing on their ability to parent or do anything else for that matter.

Genders are far less important than investment in both the emotional and financial sense. As long as a child has good role models of both sexes, I don't see how same sex parents are inherently lesser than mixed sex parents. People are individuals.

18-06-2017 11:07PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm totally opposed to them. Not only is a resulting child deprived of it's biological parent(s), but they also involve creating generic combinations that nature did not intend to exist. I just don't think that's a wise thing to be doing for the long-term good of the species.

what about science interfering in medical issues full stop? Maybe nature never intended a cure for many diseases, should science stop trying to cure people of cancer, for example?
[/quote]
I actually go even further and think that any situation where a child will be sharing a domestic situation with a non-biologically related adult (no matter what sort of relationship they have with the child's parent) should be subject to some sort of licensing / supervision: from what I've seen and heard, exposure to step-parenting is quite a risk factor for all sorts of abuse.

That's not to say that all biological parents are perfect - we know full well that many aren't. But they are less likely to be abusive to their own kids[/quote]

OMG, I don't even know what to say to this........

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:07PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Here's the thing.

You need a longitudinal properly designed study across a significant period of time to test the effect of a childs upbringing in a same sex household vs a heterosexual couple household. They've been doing it for decades with single parents verses a couple for example, because there were enough of them for that to happen.

Right now, there hasn't been done, and note, I say longitudinal. People here can post one and I'll happily concede but otherwise as you said pang, the effects are unknown and it is an extremely unethical thing to encourage as a result.

Oh you better believe it, the amount of denial for such a simplistic, true fact is amusing.

The thing is, heres the real "truth" happening here...these people know fully well what is being said, they DO get it.

They just don't "like" it, and that's the real contention here. All about feelings over facts these days. It'll pass.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:07PM

If a gay couple are unfit to rare a child then they will not be granted a child by an adoption agency. If they are proven to be fit to rare a child, then they will get the child. I dont see even why any argument beyond that is necessary , honestly! If adoption agencies thought that the couple being same sex would have a negative impact on the childs development then they simply would not give children to same sex couples, many have age restrictions/socio economic restrictors on potential parents as these are factors they deem important that could impact the childs development

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:11PM

Candie wrote: »

Here's something about the intelligent interpretation of human history.

Evolution is both biological and socio/cultural. Biological evolution moves slower than socio/cultural evolution. Over the last six milennia, most of our evolution as a species pertains to how we live, how we form our societies and belief systems, and how we perceive each other. Over those years we have adopted and discarded certain beliefs as we became more self aware, more spiritually aware, more socially aware, and more educated, tolerant and diverse.

Except for cultural and ceremonial purposes we no longer dance to influence the incidence of rainfall, we tend not to assume our planet is the centre of the universe, we no longer believe the world is flat, and we question the veracity of myths like the existence of leprechauns or Leitrim. We also by and large have discarded the notion that the color of a persons skin makes them inherently superior, or that the gender a person is attracted to has a bearing on their ability to parent or do anything else for that matter.

Genders are far less important than investment in both the emotional and financial sense. As long as a child has good role models of both sexes, I don't see how same sex parents are inherently lesser than mixed sex parents. People are individuals.

Youre talking yourself in circles there. You start of by saying that biology isn't so important, then that it is, then that it isn't.

Biology trumps everything. You can believe you are a cat, and live amongst other people who believe they are cats. But you aint a cat, and never will be.

18-06-2017 11:12PM

pangbang wrote: »

what proof do you have that gay couples are just the same heterosexual parents?

there have been many hundreds (at least) studies which have shown that there are no differences between same sex & opposite sex parents.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 11:14PM

pangbang wrote: »

What do I need to prove here? History itself? Youre asking me for "evidence"??? Come on.

You're talking facts, so yes. I am asking you for evidence.

pangbang wrote: »

And on the contrary, what proof do you have that gay couples are just the same heterosexual parents?

No problem.

This is supported by so many studies it would be impractical to share them all, so best to point you to meta-analysese instead (better standard of evidence anyway). Here are a couple:

Biblarz & Stacey 2010 (sadly paywalled but the abstract states conclusions clearly):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract

Crowl et al. 2008 (full text):
https://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Crowl%20Ahn%20%20Baker%202008%20Same%20Sex%20Parenting%20Meta%20Analysis.pdf

The major professional psychological societies all agree there's no measurable difference, and that is the scientific consensus generally.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 11:14PM

wakka12 wrote: »

If a gay couple are unfit to rare a child then they will not be granted a child by an adoption agency. If they are proven to be fit to rare a child, then they will get the child. I dont see even why any argument beyond that is necessary , honestly! If adoption agencies thought that the couple being same sex would have a negative impact on the childs development then they simply would not give children to same sex couples, many have age restrictions/socio economic restrictors on potential parents as these are factors they deem important that could impact the childs development

If there was actual proper research out there that showed no statistically significant evidence between the upbringing of the two, then sure, absolutely, I would 100% agree with you, but right now there isn't, because this is such a new thing in human history. Putting a child in an environment with that kind of outcome to be unknown is an evil, unfair thing to do on the kid's behalf.

You're experimenting on a human life with its own outcomes just to feel good about yourself. Nice work lads. Even if the experiment proves to be a success, it's still an experiment.

18-06-2017 11:15PM

pangbang wrote: »

Youre talking yourself in circles there. You start of by saying that biology isn't so important, then that it is, then that it isn't.

Biology trumps everything. You can believe you are a cat, and live amongst other people who believe they are cats. But you aint a cat, and never will be.

I don't know how you think I said that.

But at least we now have the measure of your thoughts without any pretence of reason.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:15PM

pangbang wrote: »

Youre talking yourself in circles there. You start of by saying that biology isn't so important, then that it is, then that it isn't.

Biology trumps everything. You can believe you are a cat, and live amongst other people who believe they are cats. But you aint a cat, and never will be.

Except this is a different topic, about same sex parents raising children, and evidence shows theres no significant difference in development of children under same sex households. So why argue against it.. just because its not 'biological'

Adoption by straight couples interracially isn't biological either, Im sure it never happened throughout much of history. Yet it doesn't matter a bit does it, lots of couples raise children of different races as well as any mono racial household

Im sure children would look like to look like their families, and not stand out physically. Maybe this isn't ideal, like having parents of same sex may not be completely ideal, but is it enough of a problem that we shouldn't allow it to occur? No!

pangbang · 18-06-2017 11:15PM

bubblypop wrote: »

there have been many hundreds (at least) studies which have shown that there are no differences between same sex & opposite sex parents.

And as I said earlier, you can weigh whatever studies done in the last insignificant amount of time versus human history.

And it is, redundant as it is to say, weighted in one direction by a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

And scientific studies these days, unfortunately, are highly politicised, and must always be questioned to the utmost. Agendas are all over the place, influencing everything, including "fact".

Ave Sodalis · 18-06-2017 11:15PM

Pangbang, were you raised in a traditional two parent family?

gizmo81 · 18-06-2017 11:16PM

Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health.

These children are faring well on most measures of child health and wellbeing, and demonstrate higher levels of family cohesion than population samples.

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/509/art%253A10.1186%252F1471-2458-14-635.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F1471-2458-14-635&token2=exp=1497824424~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F509%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1471-2458-14-635.pdf*~hmac=688c758a900dc655c28577c6f832e12e1efc16a95b02d7a69eba3225365b2d2c

18-06-2017 11:17PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

If there was actual proper research out there that showed no statistically significant evidence between the upbringing of the two, then sure, absolutely, I would 100% agree with you, but right now there isn't, because this is such a new thing in human history. Putting a child in an environment with that kind of outcome to be unknown is an evil, unfair thing to do on the kid's behalf.

You're experimenting on a human life with its own outcomes just to feel good about yourself. Nice work lads. Even if the experiment proves to be a success, it's still an experiment.

there are hundreds of studies on same sex parent families

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 11:19PM

pangbang wrote: »

And as I said earlier, you can weigh whatever studies done in the last insignificant amount of time versus human history.

And it is, redundant as it is to say, weighted in one direction by a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

And scientific studies these days, unfortunately, are highly politicised, and must always be questioned to the utmost. Agendas are all over the place, influencing everything, including "fact".

What agenda? Considering the extremely negative attitude towards same sex families in its short history makes me think any agenda involved in the study was most likely not in their favour, to say the least

Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

Comments