Do Gay, Single or Elderly Parents affect childhood

omnicorp

Do people think having one parent or gay parents (non-biological) affect childhood?
Is anyone else didgusted by the idea of a woman in her 60's having a child?

All this has to affect a child as there is a reason it takes a man and a women to have a child.
Maybe not much but it has to.

newgrange

I would be more disgusted by a child being brought up in a atmosphere of hate or fear or prejudice than someone being brought up by an old person, a single person or (gasp!) a gay person.

Talliesin

Of course they do.

Having parents with a fondness for fine cooking, or who have an active interest in politics, or who go to support their local football team every match they play, or who have an encyclopaedic knowledge of modern English literature would all affect the children, so so would their being a lone parent, gay or elderly.

You're meant to affect your children, that's what parenting is all about.

Sleepy

Course they do. We all pick up traits from our parents. Someone with gay parents is more likely to be open minded about things, someone with older parents is probably going to have a more conservative upbringing and will either rebel or be quite conservative themselves, someone with a single parent will have different notions of family than those whose parents are still together...

There's a poem we did in Junior Cert, I've forgotten who it was by but it started (probably somewhat paraphrased at this stage)

Your parents **** you up.
They pass on all their faults
And give you a few new ones for yourself

I always loved it as a kid and I still see a lot of truth in it. A lot of the faults I can see in myself, I know exist in my parents. Conversely, a lot of my better points are inherited from them too. It's only natural.

omnicorp

yes, but will it phycologically (I don't know how to spell that) affect them in a bad way?

Boston

omnicorp wrote:

yes, but will it phycologically (I don't know how to spell that) affect them in a bad way?

Why? First off young parents tend to make more fuk up then older parents, simply because the longer we're on this earth the wiser we get. As a trend that is. Being a single parents just means your twice as likely to fuk up. And being Gay doesn't really come into it.

It's all about why you have children in the first place, it shouldn't be about you it should be about them.

omnicorp

ok, and the 60 year old giving birth to a child?
She'll probably be dead by the time her child is a teenager

Boston

So what, I mean A teacher in my school died of cancer at 40, he had a 4 year old daughter. While you might have a point about the rights and wrongs of bringing a child into the world if you not going to be there for them, No body knows what the future holds. A person that has unprotected sex with some they wouldn't raise a child with, is allot more repugnant then someone who gives birth at 60.

omnicorp

yes, but, It isn't really natural for someone to have a child at that age.

Boston

omnicorp wrote:

yes, but, It isn't really natural for someone to have a child at that age.

How on earth is it not natural, barring medical intervention that is. A 60 year old woman can get pregnant, simple as that. It's not devine intervention.

Also your use of the term natural is wrong. Humans naturally give birth in the wild not in hospitals. Do you object to seserian section deliveries as well then... why is natural so important. What about infertile couples or couple with a low chance of reproducing naturally, what about them?

The Sweeper

Having older parents does have an affect on your life. Both my parents were in their forties when they had me. It affected my life in two very specific ways; first my parents had extremely full lives before they settled down and got married to each other in their thirties. They'd both travelled widely, held a number of interesting jobs, lived in other countries. I benefitted greatly from their breadth of experience. Additionally they were very mature people when I was born, so I had a well-adjusted childhood - they took everything in their stride (including injury, illness, strange decisions about personal appearance - I once dyed my hair purple with the gentian violet in the bathroom cabinet) and rarely lost their tempers. Overall it made me quite a calm person.

The second big affect it had is that they didn't have quite the energy of younger parents. They'd done the whole 'coach swimming, go to football matches, be part of the parent teacher association' thing with my older siblings, and weren't as inclined to give it a go with me. They were also somewhat wary of new recreational developments as I hit my teenaged years.

I don't think doctors should give fertility treatment to women over the age of 50. The menopause happens for a reason.

Kev_ps3

firstly isnt it illegal for two queers to bring up a child?? it should be anyway..
Most single parent women bringing up their childern were slappers when they were young so they also have a negative effect on their childern so i think the only way is to have two stable white parents, nothing else will do, unless you want a child who will have a good chance of going to prison.

omnicorp

only 2.5% of single parents are teenagers.
Not exactly a lot.

Kev_ps3

only joking, i stand corrected

Boston

kev boy wrote:

firstly isnt it illegal for two queers to bring up a child?? it should be anyway..
Most single parent women bringing up their childern were slappers when they were young so they also have a negative effect on their childern so i think the only way is to have two stable white parents, nothing else will do, unless you want a child who will have a good chance of going to prison.

The term Queer is a term used within LGB communities to represent people who can't/refuse to accept a label based on sexuality, but rather one based on how they see themselves fitting into the grand scheme of things. These people arn't necessarily attracted to the same sex, and often arn't. Therefore it is quite legal for two queers to adopt and raise a child together.

Boston

kev boy wrote:

only joking, i stand corrected

Your jokes arn't funny.

pwd

kev boy wrote:

firstly isnt it illegal for two queers to bring up a child?? it should be anyway..
Most single parent women bringing up their childern were slappers when they were young so they also have a negative effect on their childern so i think the only way is to have two stable white parents, nothing else will do, unless you want a child who will have a good chance of going to prison.

Ignore kev boy he is a spammer looking for a reaction just.
Apparently boys who don't have a father don't cope well with frustration.
I was brought up by a single mother and in the past I haven't dealt with frustration as well as some others might. I've known a lot of guys who didn't have fathers about and I think the same is true for all of them.
I think not having a father also leaves a boy more easily influenced, and more impressionable, but also more open-minded. There is a common tendency to seek surrogate father-figures, like Bill was described as having done in Kill Bill 2.
I think these things become less true with age, however. I think the absence of a father causes a boy to have to figure things out for himself to a greater extent than others. It takes longer but the result can be better just for that reason.
It's better to have a parent absent than to have a bad parent present in my opinion.

omnicorp

that's true.
There's a reason that it takes two parents to have a child.
However, It's better to have a dead parent than messily divorced parents in my opinion, at least there is a finality.

Boston

From whose point of view? I don't agree. Do you think the child would rather one of his/her parents where dead? While its not good for the child to have fight parents, thats taking it abit to far.

omnicorp

Yeah, but a messy divorce, leaves the child guilty, confused and upset, and they have to live with it forever.

Boston

And what effect will a dead parent have on them. You can't make an arbitary statement like that, thats it's better.

omnicorp

i'm not saying its better, whast i'm (trying to) saying is that they will be less mentally damaged..

Boston

I think your wrong. It's a different kind of damaging. Also perents can have extremely messy break up's but still be very close to there kids. Kids arn't five forever, eventually they become young adults have their own family and the child hood issues are resolves. You never resolve loosing a parent at an early age.

pwd

omnicorp wrote:

that's true.
There's a reason that it takes two parents to have a child.
However, It's better to have a dead parent than messily divorced parents in my opinion, at least there is a finality.

By absent I didn't mean necessarily dead.
By bad parents I meant ones who are abusive to each other and/or their children mainly, but anyone who sets a bad example or encourages negative traits in their children is a bad parent.
In tribal days to have children you had to go thorugh a rite of manhood. This varied in different cultures, but in every case a demnstration of certain strength of character was required, as well as generally some other attributes. The stereotypical demonstration of physical endurance or mental resilience is not omnipresent; in Judaism the Bar Mitzvah was the rite; this required a display of linguistic ability more than anything else.
Nowadays anybody can have kids. As many as they like. This is not because everybody is developed enough emotionally, finacially and has a highly developed sense of morals to be responsible parents. It's because traditional values have broken down and no new ones have replaced them.
I doubt it would be possible to start preventing people from having kids if they are obviously unsuitable. Aside from the practical side of things it would be an outrageous breach of personal freedom. This is a shame because in theory it would be very positive.
When you are working towards something noble, like to support your family or your bloodsucking leech of a fiancee you are mistakingly considering as such, you feel much happier about the work you are doing, are much more willing to deal with hardship and work much harder than if you are simply working for yourself. A lot of single people maintain this attitude because they have the mentality that they must develop themselves before they can be responsible for others, which is a very responsible attitude to take. They delay committing to a serious relationship, and certainly delay any thoughts of having kids, until they are ready to do so.
But lots of people don't think like this and marry and have kids when they are a long way from being able to support them in any manner. They don't care. These people are likelyto have more kids than the people who do care, becasue they don't impose the same constraints upon themselves. This is unfair and terribly destructive for society in general. The same morals that good people impose upon themselves should be imposed upon people who don't care too. It could only be positive for them; give their lives some meaning in a lot of ways.

omnicorp

ok, then maybe i was wrong.