Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:10AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hey, I'm not a big fan of that gender fluid bull either, I'm no feminist or any of these trends, and I agree with you big time on the input both gender must have on a growing child...
... but I think what comes first is care and love, the need for affection and care if you like, must be first.
Then the gender specific stuff can be catered for in a variety of ways, usually I would guess extended family + community in a lot of same sex (or single parent) situations tick that box.
There is no need for the gender specific stuff to be provided by a genitor really. If it is, so much the better, but if it isn't, and love and care is provided, then no big deal.
That's how you do have many children of widowed/separated mothers and fathers for example who may grow up to be perfectly functional and balanced adults.

I'm talking about the ideal scenario with the presumption that the parents are loving and caring .........

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:11AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's got to be a contradiction, surely?

That opinions can also be factually correct ......... do you understand what the word "contradiction" means?

AtomicHorror · 19-06-2017 01:12AM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I was quoting the wrong study. My bad.

As for the U.S study, well its better than the previous ones, though the same problems are still there. Limited and non random sampling with a self selection effect. Manova as a use of statistical variance. Also the paper find (and this finding is questionable too) that "Additional univariate analyses showed significantly higher internalizing and total problem behavior scores for offspring who, according to their mothers, had been stigmatized during adolescence (Table 3)."

No true Scotsman, huh? I'll take it as a concession of sorts. Doubt you'd ever give more than this.

pangbang wrote: »

I'll grace you with my last comment and then you can all **** over each other.

Consider it this way, as I said to another poster, if a f**king eejit starts demanding that you prove history, that's the end of it for me, I'm not about to lower myself to such a imbecilic argument. You can either see the world for what it is, or you cant. You see that's the thing, if you argue with stupidity, you only end up looking stupid yourself. Just go with the flow, cry when it doesn't work out, claim victorious emotions when it does work out, and just generally be a zombie.

Don't forget to gloat with the final say I generously left you. Have a nice sleep

Ok.

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:14AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

By the way, like it or not, my opinion that children of single-parent families don't do as well in life because of the absence of one parent is in fact a fact! Deal with it. :cool:

How do you know it was the mere fact that they were brought up by one parent that negatively affected how they turned out? More than likely this family experienced death of one parent, or social issues such as divorce or abandonment, which will negatively impact a childs development more than the parents gender.

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:16AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Individuals are different (obviously!) but men and women consistently (and statistically) share differences with the opposite sex that they have in common with their own gender ........ another little well-known fact for you.

You're right, but that in no way proves that their combination means they will rare children better than two parents of same gender
'balancing out' each others gender traits, whatever that means, is not a sound argument, are women and mens differences inherently opposite then?. If you have any evidence that shows mixed gender parents produce better rounded children than same sex parents then show us

Filmer Paradise · 19-06-2017 01:17AM

Haven't read thru all this but...

Best case scenario for a child is a Mother & a Father that will love & support them unconditionally.

Both sexes bring different but varying & complimantary attributes to the table.

This is my opinion.

Single parent jobs are not ideal & I don't honestly believe that a child should have 2 Mammies or Daddies.

But hey, that's my opinion.

Obviously, I must hate all gays & would have them all sent to the Gas Chamber.:rolleyes:

I don't think it's wrong to have this opinion on parenting.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:17AM

wakka12 wrote: »

How do you know it was the mere fact that they were brought up by one parent that negatively affected how they turned out? More than likely this family experienced death of one parent, or social issues such as divorce or abandonment, which will negatively impact a childs development more than the parents gender.

One-parent families (and their issues) are a separate issue to same-sex parents.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-06-2017 01:20AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That opinions can also be factually correct ......... do you understand what the word "contradiction" means?

No - an opinion is not based on fact or knowledge, a fact is. If it's factually correct, it's a statement.

So if you expressed the opinion that single-parent kids do worse, then that's fine.

If you stated the fact that single-paretn kids do worse, than it's proveable. Which, if you are indeed quoting facts, is something I'd like to see you do.

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:21AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm talking about the ideal scenario with the presumption that the parents are loving and caring .........

Why is loving and caring not enough? Gay people cannot be both genders so why is being fit to be a good parent not good enough reason alone for them to have children?
If we are talking about ideals then why arent we removing children from straight families where both parents work too late and have no time for their children or things like that? why so much scrutiny on gay couples, just for being gay

How Soon Is Now · 19-06-2017 01:22AM

In todays society theres no right answer to this question because of the many conflicting views.

Myself personally i think in an ideal world a child will benefit from having a male and female presence when there growing up and even as an adult.

No matter what your stance or views of gender and sexuality is men and women are different very different so the roles they take on in bringing up a child in most cases are not the same.

Yes theres obviously similar goals both a mother and father will want to achieve but the manor of how the child responses to his mother and father is never the same.

At the end of the day it doesnt matter if you where brought up by two women two men or one of each if there not doing there job as parents then there will be issues.

I just think from my own experiences with my parents and now with my own kids there needs to be a balance one way or another. Your gonna learn things from your father your mother has no idea about and visa versa.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:22AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No - an opinion is not based on fact or knowledge, a fact is. If it's factually correct, it's a statement.

So if you expressed the opinion that single-parent kids do worse, then that's fine.

If you stated the fact that single-paretn kids do worse, than it's proveable. Which, if you are indeed quoting facts, is something I'd like to see you do.

It's my opinion ........... based on facts ......... prove me wrong. :cool:

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:23AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Why is loving and caring not enough? Gay people cannot be both genders so why is being fit to be a good parent not good enough reason alone for them to have children?
If we are talking about ideals then why arent we removing children from straight families where both parents work too late and have no time for their children or things like that? why so much scrutiny on gay couples, just for being gay

Am I scrutinizing Gay couples ........... or simply answering the Op's question?

Mountainsandh · 19-06-2017 01:25AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm talking about the ideal scenario with the presumption that the parents are loving and caring .........

Can you give an idea of a "gender specific" function you think can only be delivered by a particular gender in the upbringing of a child ?

Because what I think is that the gender specific thing always revolves around ideas like the notion that one parent, namely the mother, is more protective and nurturing, while the other parent, male, will instill more risk taking and aggressive values in the child, for example.
I agree with that, by the way, I would guesstimate that most Mums are like that, and most Dads are like that. But not just... some males are protective and nurturing, and some females are risk taking and aggressive (at life).

The gay couples that I know seem to display similar disparities in approaches to life, and I can identify which person would probably be more protective and nurturing, and usually the partner in that relationship would tend to appear more daring, adventurous and aggressive (at life). I think it's a case of "opposites attract" really, that these kinds of respective characters seem to fit in well as couples.

It is probably stereotyping, but I'm ok with that, I don't think stereotyping should be vilified as it is in this pc society, I would like to point that I'm not stereotyping homosexual relationships, but simply "relationships" or "coupledom" (I just made up that word

but ykwim).
We tend to pair with partners that are different to us in some ways and similar in others, and it seems that the protective/risk taking dichotomy happens a lot in the realms of relationships, regardless of gender.

On that basis, raising a child and exposing them to the example values above should be no issue, regardless of parental gender.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-06-2017 01:29AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's my opinion ........... based on facts ......... prove me wrong. :cool:

It's your conclusion if it's based on facts. Facts I'd still like to see, please.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:30AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Can you give an idea of a "gender specific" function you think can only be delivered by a particular gender in the upbringing of a child ?

Because what I think is that the gender specific thing always revolves around ideas like the notion that one parent, namely the mother, is more protective and nurturing, while the other parent, male, will instill more risk taking and aggressive values in the child, for example.
I agree with that, by the way, I would guesstimate that most Mums are like that, and most Dads are like that. But not just... some males are protective and nurturing, and some females are risk taking and aggressive (at life).

The gay couples that I know seem to display similar disparities in approaches to life, and I can identify which person would probably be more protective and nurturing, and usually the partner in that relationship would tend to appear more daring, adventurous and aggressive (at life). I think it's a case of "opposites attract" really, that these kinds of respective characters seem to fit in well as couples.

It is probably stereotyping, but I'm ok with that, I don't think stereotyping should be vilified as it is in this pc society, I would like to point that I'm not stereotyping homosexual relationships, but simply "relationships" or "coupledom" (I just made up that word but ykwim).
We tend to pair with partners that are different to us in some ways and similar in others, and it seems that the protective/risk taking dichotomy happens a lot in the realms of relationships, regardless of gender.

On that basis, raising a child and exposing them to the example values above should be no issue, regardless of parental gender.

You make some valid points but you haven't convinced me I'm afraid ......... a feminine man is still a man and a masculine woman is still a woman and I just don't think either can replace a traditional Mother/Father.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:31AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's your conclusion if it's based on facts. Facts I'd still like to see, please.

Sure, no problem ........... you'll find all these facts through Google, happy reading!

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:31AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Am I scrutinizing Gay couples ........... or simply answering the Op's question?

Yes. You're questioning whether gay couples should have children simply because of their same gender, even when they will have proven themselves to be fit parents as seen by adoption agencies allowing them to be given children

It is yet another obstacle in the already thorough adoption protocol that only gay couples to have to experience, that is scrutinising.

me_right_one · 19-06-2017 01:32AM

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.

Thankfully someone has called this. The elephant in the room was getting a bit restless there.

wakka12 wrote: »

It was such dirty tactics. Pro side never used any such tactics when they could have very easily dragged the catholic churches already ****ty image further through the mud. Thankfully didnt sway as many voters as I thought it would though.

Are you having a laugh? Are you? How about this for some facts: There are an estimated 2 BILLION people / members of the Catholic Church. Of those in Ireland, about 20 evil, predatory, pedophiles decided to prey on pre-pubescent boys by hiding in a job of trust - by becoming a priest. Every. Single. One. Was. Gay.

Every.
Single.
Pedophile.
Priest.
was
Gay.

Now, this fact might not sit well with the gay community. But it is a fact nonetheless. The fact that these gay pedophiles could have gone to Thailand for 10 year old girls if they happened to be straight pedophiles, and didn't, says it all about their twisted sexual motives. This fact does not mean, however, that all gays are pedophiles. Far from it. But you cannot deny the facts presented above.

Now, this is Boards, so I am prepared for an onslaught of bigotry because the facts I have presented are not PC, and they go against the liberal agenda that is Boards's prerogative. But I will say to anyone who is about to accuse me of homophobia -

First, do your research. Get a list of names of those pedophiles. Get a list of their victims. See any pattern?

Second, be a bit more Open Minded. The internet tends to have a certain demograph of users, and guess what - it turns into a bit of a PC echo-chamber at times. Get out a bit more, get some other views and opinions. Don't just shape your own on what other people tell you is right. Open Mindedness is the key.

And third, don't be afraid to question the status quo. Don't let the popular view become your default view, even - no, ESPECIALLY - if its Politically Correct

Finally, don't post stuff like "horsesh1t", and "well I never!!!" type *outrage* posts. It only demeans your own side of the argument. Don't resort to pettyness, namecalling, insults, or accusations of ignorance and homophobia. It will have the same, undermining effect. In short, get some facts yourself, and fire back!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-06-2017 01:35AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Sure, no problem ........... you'll find all these facts through Google, happy reading!

"Use Google" means we both know you have no facts and are presenting an opinion. Try to be more careful about using the word "fact" in future.

Good night.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:35AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Yes. You're questioning whether gay couples should have children simply because of their same gender, even when they will have proven themselves to be fit parents as seen by adoption agencies allowing them to be given children

It is yet another obstacle in the already thorough adoption protocol that only gay couples to have to experience, that is scrutinising.

I'm not questioning anything, I'm stating point-blank that they shouldn't be allowed adopt children.

MadDog76 · 19-06-2017 01:36AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

"Use Google" means we both know you have no facts and are presenting an opinion. Try to be more careful about using the word "fact" in future.

Good night.

It's a fact that children from one-parent families don't do as well ........ you can dislike that fact but it won't change it.

Mountainsandh · 19-06-2017 01:37AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You make some valid points but you haven't convinced me I'm afraid ......... a feminine man is still a man and a masculine woman is still a woman and I just don't think either can replace a traditional Mother/Father.

Fair enough.
I still don't understand what it is the child would be missing exactly, if genitals are the only difference.
I'm trying to consider what the feminine man with a masculine woman, and masculine woman with feminine woman, feminine man with a masculine man, feminine woman with masculine man configurations offer that is different, but I can't really, apart from maybe the breast feeding aspect that is undeniably a female biological trait that one could argue an infant might miss out on.
But then I'm a feminine woman with a masculine man and I didn't breast feed

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:39AM

me_right_one wrote: »

Thankfully someone has called this. The elephant in the room was getting a bit restless there.

Are you having a laugh? Are you? How about this for some facts: There are an estimated 2 BILLION people / members of the Catholic Church. Of those in Ireland, about 20 evil, predatory, pedophiles decided to prey on pre-pubescent boys by hiding in a job of trust - by becoming a priest. Every. Single. One. Was. Gay.

Every.
Single.
Pedophile.
Priest.
was
Gay.

Now, this fact might not sit well with the gay community. But it is a fact nonetheless. The fact that these gay pedophiles could have gone to Thailand for 10 year old girls if they happened to be straight pedophiles, and didn't, says it all about their twisted sexual motives. This fact does not mean, however, that all gays are pedophiles. Far from it. But you cannot deny the facts presented above.

Now, this is Boards, so I am prepared for an onslaught of bigotry because the facts I have presented are not PC, and they go against the liberal agenda that is Boards's prerogative. But I will say to anyone who is about to accuse me of homophobia -
First, do your research. Get a list of names of those pedophiles. Get a list of their victims. See any pattern?

Second, be a bit more Open Minded. The internet tends to have a certain demograph of users, and guess what - it turns into a bit of a PC echo-chamber at times. Get out a bit more, get some other views and opinions. Don't just shape your own on what other people tell you is right. Open Mindedness is the key.

And third, don't be afraid to question the status quo. Don't let the popular view become your default view, even - no, ESPECIALLY - if its Politically Correct

Finally, don't post stuff like "horsesh1t", and "well I never!!!" type *outrage* posts. It only demeans your own side of the argument. Don't resort to pettyness, namecalling, insults, or accusations of ignorance and homophobia. It will have the same, undermining effect. In short, get some facts yourself, and fire back!

Good on you for fighting the PC nonsense, keep at it! How it was in any way relevant to my post you quoted, i dont know

wakka12 · 19-06-2017 01:41AM

me_right_one wrote: »

Thankfully someone has called this. The elephant in the room was getting a bit restless there.

Are you having a laugh? Are you? How about this for some facts: There are an estimated 2 BILLION people / members of the Catholic Church. Of those in Ireland, about 20 evil, predatory, pedophiles decided to prey on pre-pubescent boys by hiding in a job of trust - by becoming a priest. Every. Single. One. Was. Gay.

Every.
Single.
Pedophile.
Priest.
was
Gay.

Now, this fact might not sit well with the gay community. But it is a fact nonetheless. The fact that these gay pedophiles could have gone to Thailand for 10 year old girls if they happened to be straight pedophiles, and didn't, says it all about their twisted sexual motives. This fact does not mean, however, that all gays are pedophiles. Far from it. But you cannot deny the facts presented above.

Now, this is Boards, so I am prepared for an onslaught of bigotry because the facts I have presented are not PC, and they go against the liberal agenda that is Boards's prerogative. But I will say to anyone who is about to accuse me of homophobia -
First, do your research. Get a list of names of those pedophiles. Get a list of their victims. See any pattern?

Second, be a bit more Open Minded. The internet tends to have a certain demograph of users, and guess what - it turns into a bit of a PC echo-chamber at times. Get out a bit more, get some other views and opinions. Don't just shape your own on what other people tell you is right. Open Mindedness is the key.

And third, don't be afraid to question the status quo. Don't let the popular view become your default view, even - no, ESPECIALLY - if its Politically Correct

Finally, don't post stuff like "horsesh1t", and "well I never!!!" type *outrage* posts. It only demeans your own side of the argument. Don't resort to pettyness, namecalling, insults, or accusations of ignorance and homophobia. It will have the same, undermining effect. In short, get some facts yourself, and fire back!

You think paedophile priests dont target female children? Many of the victims of catholic church priest abuse worldwide were female. Much higher number of boys were targeted but the fact that there was even one female victim means this post is wrong . end of this pointless discussion and whatever twisted point you were trying to prove
What exactly were you trying to prove, as a matter of interest? Im not calling you homophobic, before you accuse me of having done so already, btw

Guffy · 19-06-2017 01:43AM

Honestly, yes.

Its not that i think that single sex families are wrong or any ****e like that, but i do think that the influence from both a male and female role model for a child growing up would be more beneficial.

I obviously have no studies to back this up but its just my view. Again i dont think its wrong to be brought up by single sex parents i just think the nurture would be more rounded with a male and female.

Guffy · 19-06-2017 01:45AM

me_right_one wrote: »

Thankfully someone has called this. The elephant in the room was getting a bit restless there.

Are you having a laugh? Are you? How about this for some facts: There are an estimated 2 BILLION people / members of the Catholic Church. Of those in Ireland, about 20 evil, predatory, pedophiles decided to prey on pre-pubescent boys by hiding in a job of trust - by becoming a priest. Every. Single. One. Was. Gay.

Every.
Single.
Pedophile.
Priest.
was
Gay.

Now, this fact might not sit well with the gay community. But it is a fact nonetheless. The fact that these gay pedophiles could have gone to Thailand for 10 year old girls if they happened to be straight pedophiles, and didn't, says it all about their twisted sexual motives. This fact does not mean, however, that all gays are pedophiles. Far from it. But you cannot deny the facts presented above.

Now, this is Boards, so I am prepared for an onslaught of bigotry because the facts I have presented are not PC, and they go against the liberal agenda that is Boards's prerogative. But I will say to anyone who is about to accuse me of homophobia -
First, do your research. Get a list of names of those pedophiles. Get a list of their victims. See any pattern?

Second, be a bit more Open Minded. The internet tends to have a certain demograph of users, and guess what - it turns into a bit of a PC echo-chamber at times. Get out a bit more, get some other views and opinions. Don't just shape your own on what other people tell you is right. Open Mindedness is the key.

And third, don't be afraid to question the status quo. Don't let the popular view become your default view, even - no, ESPECIALLY - if its Politically Correct

Finally, don't post stuff like "horsesh1t", and "well I never!!!" type *outrage* posts. It only demeans your own side of the argument. Don't resort to pettyness, namecalling, insults, or accusations of ignorance and homophobia. It will have the same, undermining effect. In short, get some facts yourself, and fire back!

I think you will find that the large majority of paedophiles identify as straight

koumi · 19-06-2017 01:50AM

Jesus. Well at least the real side of homophobia has come out of the closet, been hard enough dealing with them slinking around under the cover of darkness making life unbearable for all the mentally ill pedophile gay people out there.

gormdubhgorm · 19-06-2017 02:07AM

Ideally kids should have parents of the opposite sex.
As the nuclear family is the ideal for a child's development.
Anything else is a broken/former nuclear family, or a substitute nuclear family.

Now I know broken/former nuclear families and substitute nuclear families can raise kids.
But the reality is the children will lack the natural family relationship, only a mother or father can bring.

I know people will argue that there are bad parents of children.
Even evil parents.
But that can be the same with anyone who raises children, whether single or miscellaneous.

Nature has decided that two parents are required to have children, like all mammals.
And ideally, it is those parents who raise the child.
Any other substitute, is starting off at a disadvantage.
And it will result in trying to make up for not having a mam and a dad, raising a child.

How often do you hear the excuse xyz came from a single parent family, and hung around with a bad crowd?
Or a single parent proudly saying how hard they worked?
For the simple reason was the other parent was not around. (Whether by death or parting of the ways)

As for same sex couples raising children -

Yes it can be done. But nature indicates that the same sex couples will always be playing 'catch up' compared to parents of the opposite sex.

There is something intrinsic in nature about a child having a biological mother and father. Who raises them.
It is also historical the child knows where they came from.

So for me the only type of family is that where there is a mother and father.
Anything else is a former/broken family or just a group of people raising a child

Filmer Paradise · 19-06-2017 02:14AM

gufc21 wrote: »

Honestly, yes.

Its not that i think that single sex families are wrong or any ****e like that, but i do think that the influence from both a male and female role model for a child growing up would be more beneficial.

I obviously have no studies to back this up but its just my view. Again i dont think its wrong to be brought up by single sex parents i just think the nurture would be more rounded with a male and female.

This kind of post is sensible to my view.

I'm a parent myself & I can see how I get it right, but Mrs Paradise can fill the gaps that I as a man just am not aware or well equiped to deal with.

I'm just posting here as a parent, not as someone with some kind of agenda.

Of course there's people on here who have their own angle on life & how things should be.

People who talk us down for having our basic beliefs because they have a problem with society as it stands, are doing themselves no favours in my book.

But hey, It's only my opinion Man.

koumi · 19-06-2017 02:23AM

I dunno, anyone who is a parent will tell you that raising kids is the most difficult job you can ever have and a lifelong one which seemingly never ends. Having both parents invested definitely helps, having extended family, aunts and uncles and a supportive community around you is priceless. As a single parent I can hold my hands up and say yeah, life would have been so much easier if I had those things, there was no substitute parents or in laws and very little in terms of my own family in our lives and that has been in my mind at least the most difficult thing.
I'm not even remotely swayed by the gender of the people doing the raising, the fact is human societies developed through the communal family, the it takes a village idiom is more than just words and men were rarely involved in the child rearing process right up until recent times. The nuclear family is twentieth century creation, it certainly has no basis in reality though.

Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

Comments