Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 10:27PM

RayM wrote: »

"unnatural"

"Gays are mentally ill"

Yeah, you're definitely not a homophobe...

The mental illness rates among homosexuals is far higher than heterosexuals though.

muddypaws · 18-06-2017 10:29PM

gizmo81 wrote: »

I just today watched a segment on BBC new Sunday morning news show of the winner of Champion Adopter of the Year. A single Gay man who has adopted 4 children with varying special needs.

If straight people were such ideal parents then gay people wouldn't have children to adopt and wouldn't be winning Adopter of the Year, would they?

Is this text-book homophobia? Fear that gay people will make better parents perhaps?

Sorry, you got the words round the wrong way, he was named Adopter Champion of the year. In other words, an adopter who champions (advocates for) the cause of adopted children. Your point still stands of course, about him, and other gay adopters doing a fantastic job.

https://www.adoptionuk.org/adopter-voice-what-adopter-champion

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:30PM

bubblypop wrote: »

no, sorry, you can't actually state that.
'In general' ? really? in your opinion.
there are many many reasons why a child my turn out the way they do. It cannot be determined just by their parents.
it's actually insulting.

I think a bit of common sense goes a long way. I haven't researched the entire internet about single versus two parents but surely parentage must be the biggest impact on a childs life, right?

I mean, one parent must surely mean that there is less money, less parenting time, less protection, having half the extended family and so on and so forth. So yeah, GENERALLY, I think it would be foolish to disagree with that statement.

18-06-2017 10:30PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The mental illness rates among homosexuals is far higher than heterosexuals though.

Probably a lot to do with bearing the burden of the kind of prejudice and bigotry on display in threads like these and in wider society.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 10:31PM

Almost any gay couple who want children either through surrogacy or adoption generally have to be model parents and jump through hoops for years to prove themselves worthy of caring for the child, which really renders this argument fairly null and void. I think you will not have to worry about children of same sex parents having poor upbringings..certainly not on average worse than the upbringing of a child with both biological parents.

Mountainsandh · 18-06-2017 10:31PM

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?

I think it's pretty common in nature that the young be raised by same sex parents ? (http://www.echonyc.com/~stone/Features/BioExEx1.html)

Notwithstanding the fact that throughout history, humans have also been raised in same sex situations due to external factors like wars happening, fathers having to work away from home, cultural norms ... in many civilizations a (for example) polygamist chief may not have the fatherly relationship we are accustomed to with their numerous offsprings (if they have any kind of a relationship with their offspring).
I'm not sure we can take family as we know it in Europe as a baseline here.

I don't think it's very important that both parents be of opposite sexes. I think in every family people will find a balance, find roles they're happy to fill in the relationship with the young, and in a functioning family, regardless of parental sexes, these roles will be complementary.

Don't get me wrong, I think male and female role models are hugely important, but imo they can be got elsewhere if both parents are of the same sex.

I think love and care are the primary needs, then the social needs involve role models that can easily be outsourced if needs be.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:34PM

BabyCheeses wrote: »

If it is the reality why haven't studies shown it to be true?

Well in the absence of information on such a new phenomenon that has yet to be proven over any meaningful timescale whatsoever, would you not err on the side of the rest of human history as a "good indication"?

So, a few years versus literally all of history? And you're doubting the history of mankind? You're calling for "the receipts" of human existence? :P

Grayson · 18-06-2017 10:34PM

bubblypop wrote: »

no, sorry, you can't actually state that.
'In general' ? really? in your opinion.
there are many many reasons why a child my turn out the way they do. It cannot be determined just by their parents.
it's actually insulting.

Someone posted the links way back. It's got nothing to do with having one parent but rather one wage. And it's unfortunate but true, money can make a difference. Statistically kids from single parent families don't do as well. However when you compare single parents who earn the same as two combined parents then there's no difference. In other words it's not the parent but the money that matters. (And it's just better in general. Not always, just in general. That's what statistics do. They can tell you how X amount out of 100 kids will do, but not one individual)

Which is why as I said we need to do more to support children from poorer families. We need to insure parents have all the support they need and that we do more to end inequality.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 10:35PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The mental illness rates among homosexuals is far higher than heterosexuals though.

Yes, but that's because they're homosexuals and thus receive higher rates of abuse, discrimination, targeted violence and the odd targeted murder. In contrast to mental illness being the cause of homosexuality, which obviously nonsensical.

One eyed Jack · 18-06-2017 10:35PM

gizmo81 wrote: »

Can you explain what judgements people make on your suitability to be a parent, is it your sexuality?

Well, yes, as you just did with this comment -

gizmo81 wrote: »

If straight people were such ideal parents then gay people wouldn't have children to adopt and wouldn't be winning Adopter of the Year, would they?

gizmo81 wrote: »

Wait, Are you comparing children to dogs?

No, because that would be silly. Read my post again.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Gay people have been aware of peoples 'scrutiny' of them on a range of issues, may I suggest not to tell gay people what they feel. And it's not on their ability to parent it's on their sexuality which has nothing to do with parenting.

I didn't tell anyone what they feel. I suggested they would get used to it, and they will. Your whole point was that gay people are judged on their suitability as parents, so either you're contradicting yourself, or you're telling me that parenting has nothing to do with actually being a parent... which would be silly.

gizmo81 wrote: »

People may judge but some judge with facts others judge with prejudice.

Indeed they do judge with prejudice, and people who are gay are no different in that respect either, for example when they come out with comments like this -

gizmo81 wrote: »

If straight people were such ideal parents then gay people wouldn't have children to adopt and wouldn't be winning Adopter of the Year, would they?

gizmo81 wrote: »

Gay people are just trying to get on with their lives, and definitely do not seek validation from straight people, however, straight people think that gay people need their permission to merely exist.

Ehh, some crazy sweeping generalisations there, but one thing I can agree with you based upon my experience is that children who are gay can sometimes struggle within families of opposite sex parents, and children who are heterosexual can sometimes struggle within families of same sex parents, because some people be they gay or straight, actually do seek validation, acceptance and understanding of their identity from their parents, and sometimes struggle to resolve the internal conflict within themselves which causes them greater distress.

I can't speak for all straight people any more than you can speak for all gay people, because that would be silly to assume you could or can or do.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:36PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think it's pretty common in nature that the young be raised by same sex parents ? (http://www.echonyc.com/~stone/Features/BioExEx1.html)

Notwithstanding the fact that throughout history, humans have also been raised in same sex situations due to external factors like wars happening, fathers having to work away from home, cultural norms ... in many civilizations a (for example) polygamist chief may not have the fatherly relationship we are accustomed to with their numerous offsprings (if they have any kind of a relationship with their offspring).
I'm not sure we can take family as we know it in Europe as a baseline here.

I don't think it's very important that both parents be of opposite sexes. I think in every family people will find a balance, find roles they're happy to fill in the relationship with the young, and in a functioning family, regardless of parental sexes, these roles will be complementary.

Don't get me wrong, I think male and female role models are hugely important, but imo they can be got elsewhere if both parents are of the same sex.

I think love and care are the primary needs, then the social needs involve role models that can easily be outsourced if needs be.

I think exceptions to the rule are just that, exceptions.

18-06-2017 10:36PM

pangbang wrote: »

I think a bit of common sense goes a long way. I haven't researched the entire internet about single versus two parents but surely parentage must be the biggest impact on a childs life, right?

I mean, one parent must surely mean that there is less money, less parenting time, less protection, having half the extended family and so on and so forth. So yeah, GENERALLY, I think it would be foolish to disagree with that statement.

one parent doesn't at all mean those things! Just because one parent may not be involved, does not mean their family are not.
One poster on here has already stated that she has more money now, raising her child herself, then she & her childs father had when they were together.
I don't even understand what 'less protection' means?

while parents are a massive influence on a child, I don't believe that the gender or sexual orientation is that important.

Grayson · 18-06-2017 10:36PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

There's services that parents who can't pump can avail of. A lot of women donate milk to these services.

LadyMacBeth_ · 18-06-2017 10:37PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well in the absence of information on such a new phenomenon that has yet to be proven over any meaningful timescale whatsoever, would you not err on the side of the rest of human history as a "good indication"?

So, a few years versus literally all of history? And you're doubting the history of mankind? You're calling for "the receipts" of human existence? :P

Do you think hunter gatherer societies had a "nuclear family" set up? I think not. Since modern humans have evolved from hunter gatherer societies it seems that you can't use "human history" as an argument.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:38PM

bubblypop wrote: »

one parent doesn't at all mean those things! Just because one parent may not be involved, does not mean their family are not.
One poster on here has already stated that she has more money now, raising her child herself, then she & her childs father had when they were together.
I don't even understand what 'less protection' means?

while parents are a massive influence on a child, I don't believe that the gender or sexual orientation is that important.

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!

_Brian · 18-06-2017 10:38PM

pangbang wrote: »

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.

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.

BabyCheeses · 18-06-2017 10:40PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well in the absence of information on such a new phenomenon that has yet to be proven over any meaningful timescale whatsoever, would you not err on the side of the rest of human history as a "good indication"?

So, a few years versus literally all of history? And you're doubting the history of mankind? You're calling for "the receipts" of human existence? :P

"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.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 10:40PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, but that's because they're homosexuals and thus receive higher rates of abuse, discrimination, targeted violence and the odd targeted murder. In contrast to mental illness being the cause of homosexuality, which obviously nonsensical.

Sure, but homosexuals also abuse at higher rates and have massive problems in their communities, yet are often written off as 'poor you having it hard growing up' and all of that.

There's two sides to this. The bad stuff needs to be called out for what it is as well.

pangbang · 18-06-2017 10:42PM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

Do you think hunter gatherer societies had a "nuclear family" set up? I think not. Since modern humans have evolved from hunter gatherer societies it seems that you can't use "human history" as an argument.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The parents of a child throughout human history has been a man and a woman. The mode of parenting may have differed at certain points, someone mentioned war as an example.

So I don't see how what you are saying has anything to do with what I am saying. Children, barring exceptions, have always had mothers and fathers, no? The direct involvement of both men and women, each one providing a different, essential role to the child.

muddypaws · 18-06-2017 10:43PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Sure, but homosexuals also abuse at higher rates and have massive problems in their communities, yet are often written off as 'poor you having it hard growing up' and all of that.

There's two sides to this. The bad stuff needs to be called out for what it is as well.

What?

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 10:44PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well in the absence of information on such a new phenomenon that has yet to be proven over any meaningful timescale whatsoever, would you not err on the side of the rest of human history as a "good indication"?

There's no absence of information. There are plenty of decent studies.

What's a "meaningful timescale"? How do you determine the length of time needed for the study results to be acceptable?

pangbang wrote: »

So, a few years versus literally all of history? And you're doubting the history of mankind? You're calling for "the receipts" of human existence? :P

This is a really weird point you're trying to make. For much of human history we cowered in caves, **** in ditches, ate bugs and died by the age of 40. Pretty much everything we do today is better than literally all of history.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 10:45PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Sure, but homosexuals also abuse at higher rates-

Let me stop you right there.

Horse ****.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 10:45PM

pangbang wrote: »

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The parents of a child throughout human history has been a man and a woman. The mode of parenting may have differed at certain points, someone mentioned war as an example.

So I don't see how what you are saying has anything to do with what I am saying. Children, barring exceptions, have always had mothers and fathers, no? The direct involvement of both men and women, each one providing a different, essential role to the child.

Well gay people never had the chance before now due to homophobic laws not even allowing them to express sexuality, much less care for a child. So its a pretty unprecedented time that cannot be compared to the past as part of this argument imo

Permabear · 18-06-2017 10:46PM

This post has been deleted.

pumpkin4life · 18-06-2017 10:46PM

muddypaws wrote: »

What?

They are abused and abuse at higher rates. That's a big component of abuse psychology apparently, that abused become abusers. But often they won't recognize it as abuse. Like that Milo thing recently for example. It's a vicious nasty, cycle, pretty fecked up like.

Mountainsandh · 18-06-2017 10:46PM

pangbang wrote: »

I think exceptions to the rule are just that, exceptions.

I don't have time to get into research and all that right now, but I think you are conceiving the above as the exception because it doesn't fit into your norm.
Our vision of family in Europe in the 21st century is not necessarily the norm, although egocentric as we all tend to be, we think it is.

AtomicHorror · 18-06-2017 10:47PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

They are abused and abuse at higher rates. That's a big component of abuse psychology apparently, that abused become abusers. But often they won't recognize it as abuse. Like that Milo thing recently for example. It's a vicious nasty, cycle, pretty fecked up like.

This has been debunked many times. I'm sure you know that, but continue to spread the misinformation anyway.

I think we have the cut of you now.

LadyMacBeth_ · 18-06-2017 10:49PM

pangbang wrote: »

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. The parents of a child throughout human history has been a man and a woman. The mode of parenting may have differed at certain points, someone mentioned war as an example.

So I don't see how what you are saying has anything to do with what I am saying. Children, barring exceptions, have always had mothers and fathers, no? The direct involvement of both men and women, each one providing a different, essential role to the child.

The children were most likely raised in a communal way. So they didn't just have a mother and father raising them. Do you think that lesbians and gay men only hang out in lesbian/gay colonies without any other community influence? A gay or lesbian couple will most likely have male/female friends/relatives involved in the child's life.

wakka12 · 18-06-2017 10:50PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Sure, but homosexuals also abuse at higher rates and have massive problems in their communities, yet are often written off as 'poor you having it hard growing up' and all of that.

There's two sides to this. The bad stuff needs to be called out for what it is as well.

Abuse what? Drugs? Or another abuse which I hope you're not going to say you were referring to.

muddypaws · 18-06-2017 10:51PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do agree with that, but those role models don't have to be in the immediate family home. Not having male teachers in primary school is an issue, and would be great if it could be addressed and changed. There are many ways that boys can have positive male role models, through extended family and out of school activities. It takes more work by the single mother definitely.

Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

Comments