Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

A lot of people saying a child needs a male and female role model, whether it being a biological parent or member of the family.

Can someone tell me what these influences offer the child? I struggle to understand what one parent can offer that the other can't based on their sex.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair he's paraphrasing Aquinas and it's what the church calls "Natural Science". It has the word science in it but it's about as sciency as homeopathy.

Ninjavampire wrote: »

A lot of people saying a child needs a male and female role model, whether it being a biological parent or member of the family.

Can someone tell me what these influences offer the child? I struggle to understand what one parent can offer that the other can't based on their sex.

Breast milk.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Breast milk.

Clutching at straws here - not every child is raised on breast milk.

In any case, it's not really a relevant question because plenty of kids have role models outsdie the home that amptly fulfill the needs of any child. Many kids grow up without a male or female parent.

I'd say, considering the entire history of mankind all the way from caves to skyscrapers, that yes, having a man and woman as parents to a child is ideal, and therefore best.

That old "tested and proven" thing.

I think this torrent of social indignation and "movements", whether it be homosexuality or neoliberalism, are just experiments. But why have these experiments at all? I put it down to one simple thing, boredom. People get bored REAL quick, and need some sort of agro, like some sort of mental imperative that provides a reason for existing.

Like that Matrix film, the robots design an ideal nirvana for humans at first, but the whole system is a failure. So the robots revert to imperfection and strife as a virtual world, and it succeeds.

F**cking with nature will come at a cost, even if it isn't apparent yet. Meh

Or maybe another way to put it: people just don't have enough to do. A good old war is the sort of thing that puts priorities back in place. Its the human condition, and we are always at odds with ourselves.

MadDog76 wrote:

I'm not going to go down "links please" rabbit-hole but the stats say that, in general, children from one-parent families don't do as well as children with both parents involved ......... you can find studies etc online yourself if you're inclined to do some research.

If that is because of having single gendered parents, surely the stats hold true for children of gay couples?

MadDog76 wrote:

The absence of a Father/Mother probably lead into other issues ......... a lot of those issues probably wouldn't arise (or be at least dealt with sufficiently) if both Parents were involved.

What issues?

pangbang wrote: »

540px; height:250px" tabindex="1" dir="ltr">

So youd say that the rest of humankinds history was just a fluke and that we were doing it wrong, and that in actual fact its the last 2-10 years that have it nailed?

No, I'd say kids need parents who give a ****, makes all the difference.

pangbang wrote: »

I'm glad you agree.

And to the rest of your comment, the question posed isn't about good parent s or bad parents, its about gay or straight parents, that single point.

But it's like asking do they need parents with different hair colours, it matters more that the parents care and take a genuine interest in the kids, making the effort to parent them properly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Clutching at straws here - not every child is raised on breast milk.

In any case, it's not really a relevant question because plenty of kids have role models outsdie the home that amptly fulfill the needs of any child. Many kids grow up without a male or female parent.

I hear ya PB, but the answer was a direct reply to a simple question, and while you contended earlier that we can't go cherry picking science, the evidence would suggest otherwise as human development is the least of all the exact sciences with politics being more influential than facts, particularly in the social sciences.

A classic example of this is the discussion on whether breast is best, or as you contend above, whether it is actually necessary to breastfeed at all.

_Brian wrote: »

But it's like asking do they need parents with different hair colours, it matters more that the parents care and take a genuine interest in the kids, making the effort to parent them properly.

But its not like your example. Men and women are different, that's all there is to it. There is even growing theory that the physical presence of a man or woman exerts a biochemical impact on a very young child, something akin to pheromones.

Its the trend that "we are all the same" but "we are completely different" that is in vogue, a contradiction that will pass, like all trends.

And I would still say the same thing, humankind has thrived/survived based on man and woman as parents since our very existence (just think about the enormity of that time scale, its sheer ignorance/arrogance to brush it away!), the complementarity of each contributing to a childs balanced development.

And again, the question is entirely predicated on gay parents versus straight parents, nothing more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hear ya PB, but the answer was a direct reply to a simple question, and while you contended earlier that we can't go cherry picking science, the evidence would suggest otherwise as human development is the least of all the exact sciences with politics being more influential than facts, particularly in the social sciences.

A classic example of this is the discussion on whether breast is best, or as you contend above, whether it is actually necessary to breastfeed at all.

True, question should really have said asked if there was anything essential that can only be given by one gender-specific parent which is unavailble elsewhere.

Also - I never said anything about cherry-picking science (or did I?)? I think that was someone else.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hear ya PB, but the answer was a direct reply to a simple question, and while you contended earlier that we can't go cherry picking science, the evidence would suggest otherwise as human development is the least of all the exact sciences with politics being more influential than facts, particularly in the social sciences.

A classic example of this is the discussion on whether breast is best, or as you contend above, whether it is actually necessary to breastfeed at all.

You didn't reply to my 'simple question', you misrepresented what I said. I was talking about what inherently male or female influences a child could be offered by a male or female role model.