Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…1112141617…218

Comments

  • #392
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I'll repeat.

    You're saying adoptive parents are misnamed?
    ;)

    I think "adoptive parents" are very well named. :rolleyes:
    I'd like to see you say that to someone in real life.

    "You're not really parents, you know that, yeah?" rolleyes.gif

    Every adoptive parent I have ever known has been very aware that they are adoptive and not biological parents. Therefore they understand that, while fulfilling a vital and wonderful role, the optimum scenario is that, where possible, a child is reared by its natural parents.

    It's a shame you (and your cheerleaders) can't actually engage with an observation without acting the maggot.


  • #393
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    PDN wrote: »
    It's a shame you (and your cheerleaders) can't actually engage with an observation without acting the maggot.
    Did I say biological parents? You decided to engage in hair-splitting semantics, using a medical dictionary instead of a standard one

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #394
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    PDN wrote: »
    It would be a foolish person who would assert that every heterosexual couple would make better adoptive parents than every homosexual couple. Therefore all couples, of whatever stripe, should be carefully vetted.

    I am all for homosexual couples that wish to adopt receiving equal scrutiny to heterosexual couples. I would be opposed to homosexual couples being treated unequally (either through requiring extra vetting, or through any kind of positive discrimination).

    I agree 100%. The reason I brought it up was it has been stated many times by various posters that a homosexual couple is somehow lacking some important patenting parameter that makes them worse than hetero parents. (or whatever word you would prefer for "parent" :pac:)
    PDN wrote: »
    then they should be free to operate according to their moral standards (ie a Jewish aoption service should be free to restrict their clients to observant Jews etc).
    I agree again, providing of course that the well-being of the child is paramount.


  • #395
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Are men and women different emotionally?
    My answer fall in with the previous posters. Some women are different from some men, some women are different from other women, some men are different from other men.

    The variation - even uniqueness - we see in people's personalities are, I believe, derived from "nurture" rather than "nature" (there are plenty of people who display personality traits outside of their gender stereotype - I suspect each and every one of us).

    If "nurture" generally conspires to make females more empathic listeners (play with dolls) and males more logical problem-solvers (build Lego things), that's life, I understand that. But I don't accept that characteristics such as empathy and logic are always found in nor limited to a single gender (hence my question about which emotions you were assigning to which gender - what are you thinking of here?). It follows that I don't accept that two people of the same gender are necessarily unable to provide the full spectrum of human emotion needed to bring up a child.

    That numerous studies, presented here by posters far more knowledgeable of the subject than me, show children of same-sex parents to have no problems in being brought up properly and appropriately to become well-rounded individuals, one of the following must be true:
    1. My (our) assertion that parental gender is irrelevant to the child.
    2. Parents displaying a full spectrum of human emotion are not necessary for a child to be happy and well-rounded.
    3. Something I haven't thought of yet.


  • #396
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    I think "adoptive parents" are very well named. :rolleyes:



    Every adoptive parent I have ever known has been very aware that they are adoptive and not biological parents. Therefore they understand that, while fulfilling a vital and wonderful role, the optimum scenario is that, where possible, a child is reared by its natural parents.

    It's a shame you (and your cheerleaders) can't actually engage with an observation without acting the maggot.

    Every single adopted person I have ever known has considered their adoptive parents to be their parents with no need to qualify the term. Indeed, when they do add a qualification to the word 'parent' that qualification is invariably the word 'biological' and is used to describe the person/people with whom they share DNA. Funny that.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You do love engaging in hair splitting semantics ;). You must be a nightmare when ordering food in a restuarant. 'When you say pan-fried' - what exactly do you mean by a pan. Is it made of cast iron in which case it would more properly called a skillet..?'

    Remind me - when we are discussing parenting in this thread was it clearly stated that the word parent was applicable only when we were referring to biological parents and if so can you direct me to this directive?

    I'll ignore the muppetry in your first paragraph.

    The context in which I referred to the meaning of 'parents' was with respect to studies. Where 'parents' are referred to in studies as to the well-being of children, then it should not be assumed that the same data and statistics will apply to adoptive parents as to biological parents.

    I am full of admiration for the adoptive parents I know (including some of my closest friends and family). But they freely acknowledge that being an adoptive parent has a different dynamic (often positive, not solely negative) than that of being a biological parent.

    I appreciate you are very keen to push your agenda. But that should not cause everyone to immediately ignore possible loopholes in arguments that blithly assume that studies are using layman's language instead of precise language. And it does your cause no service whatsoever when you are so quick to ridicule everyone who doesn't immediately jump aboard your bandwagon.


  • #398
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    And it does your cause no service whatsoever when you are so quick to ridicule everyone who doesn't immediately jump aboard your bandwagon.

    Oh PDN - you do make me chuckle with your pot/kettle statements. :D


  • #399
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    I think "adoptive parents" are very well named. :rolleyes:
    Yep, very good...
    PDN wrote: »
    Every adoptive parent I have ever known has been very aware that they are adoptive and not biological parents.
    Not sure where to go with that. Um, how would they NOT know?
    PDN wrote: »
    Therefore they understand that, while fulfilling a vital and wonderful role, the optimum scenario is that, where possible, a child is reared by its natural parents.
    Can't disagree with that. Unfortunately, the optimum scenario (or even a decent scenario) is not achievable for some. I'm sure we'd all rather that children didn't have crackhead/violent/absent parents.

    ETA: Actually, I'm having a rethink on the first part of this - it doesn't quite express what I mean to say.

    Adoptive parents who have children are not performing just a vital and wonderful role, they are performing the most important role in that child's life. We can at least credit them with the title of "parent" (no qualifier necessary).
    PDN wrote: »
    It's a shame you (and your cheerleaders) can't actually engage with an observation without acting the maggot.
    *wiggle wiggle*


  • #400
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    28064212 wrote: »
    Did I say biological parents? You decided to engage in hair-splitting semantics, using a medical dictionary instead of a standard one

    You referred to studies - which does make it reasonable to hold fire before immediately jumping to the conclusion that adoptive parents were included under the heading of 'parents'.


  • #401
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    The definition of a parent as per the dictionary doesn't matter a damn. All that matters is the care and love that any parent offers their child and unless you have been adopted yourself you cannot claim to know that it's a different kind of relationship. I've asked the anti gay brigade twice already and got no answer but I'll ask again, if gay marriage or same sex adoption is allowed and becomes common place how will it negatively affect YOUR life? As far as I can see it will only affect you if you sit around worrying that society is falling apart and the gays are coming for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    You referred to studies - which does make it reasonable to hold fire before immediately jumping to the conclusion that adoptive parents were included under the heading of 'parents'.

    Reasonable? The reasonable course of action would have been to ask the poster in what context they used the word parents. Or for a link to the studies so you could review them yourself.

    At the very least, someone reasonable would have more fully explained his or her reasons for quoting the medical, biological definition of parents in response to a discussion about the raising of a child.

    Instead, you just dropped that definition in and left it for two hours before explaining what you meant. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to deliberately provoke people.


  • #403
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Neilos wrote: »
    The definition of a parent as per the dictionary doesn't matter a damn. All that matters is the care and love that any parent offers their child and unless you have been adopted yourself you cannot claim to know that it's a different kind of relationship.

    A great many adoptive parents, and children that have been adopted, see things differently. And it is arrogant to claim that I'm not allowed to listen to what they say unless I've been adopted myself.
    I've asked the anti gay brigade twice already and got no answer but I'll ask again, if gay marriage or same sex adoption is allowed and becomes common place how will it negatively affect YOUR life? As far as I can see it will only affect you if you sit around worrying that society is falling apart and the gays are coming for you.
    I would be interested to hear an answer to this. Maybe one of the anti-gay brigade could answer?


  • #404
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Instead, you just dropped that definition in and left it for two hours before explaining what you meant. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to deliberately provoke people.

    Sorry, I didn't realise that a condition of posting was that I have to remain online to answer any responses in real time. Next time I cut the grass I'll mandate an internet-free time period in advance to avoid upsetting you again.

    Edit:
    I'm going for a shower now, so don't get too anxious if I don't respond to any posts for the next 30 minutes or so.


  • #405
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    PDN wrote: »
    A great many adoptive parents, and children that have been adopted, see things differently. And it is arrogant to claim that I'm not allowed to listen to what they say unless I've been adopted myself.


    I would be interested to hear an answer to this. Maybe one of the anti-gay brigade could answer?

    Well PDN I'd be interested to hear your answer to my question.

    I never stated that you aren't allowed to listen to what adoptive parents or children say. The point I was making is that you cannot state that an adoptive relationship differs to a non adoptive one based on adoption alone. Every parental relationship differes on so many different levels. But please do answer my question, it's something I've often wondered.


  • #406
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Neilos wrote: »
    Well PDN I'd be interested to hear your answer to my question.

    I never stated that you aren't allowed to listen to what adoptive parents or children say. The point I was making is that you cannot state that an adoptive relationship differs to a non adoptive one based on adoption alone. Every parental relationship differes on so many different levels. But please do answer my question, it's something I've often wondered.

    Your question about adoption?

    A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents. The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect.

    It's simple evolutionary biology. We have progressed more than the dominant lion that kills any cubs in the pride that weren't fathered by himself, but we still tend to favour our own natural offspring above others.

    Therefore it is reasonable to pause before blithly assuming that studies which refer to parents automatically apply to adoptive parents as well.

    (And please, lest some illiterate person goes on a hysterical rant, this point in no way constitutes a slam against adoptive parents, who are often the most heroic people I know. Nor does it imply that every adopted child suffers in comparison with every child raised by their natural parents).


  • #407
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    Sorry, I didn't realise that a condition of posting was that I have to remain online to answer any responses in real time. Next time I cut the grass I'll mandate an internet-free time period in advance to avoid upsetting you again.

    Edit:
    I'm going for a shower now, so don't get too anxious if I don't respond to any posts for the next 30 minutes or so.

    :rolleyes:

    Where did I say it was? But it would be helpful if people dropping seemingly irrelevant definitions into a conversation would explain why they think it's relevant. That is the reasonable course of action...


  • #408
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    PDN wrote: »
    Your question about adoption?

    A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents. The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect.

    It's simple evolutionary biology. We have progressed more than the dominant lion that kills any cubs in the pride that weren't fathered by himself, but we still tend to favour our own natural offspring above others.

    Therefore it is reasonable to pause before blithly assuming that studies which refer to parents automatically apply to adoptive parents as well.

    (And please, lest some illiterate person goes on a hysterical rant, this point in no way constitutes a slam against adoptive parents, who are often the most heroic people I know. Nor does it imply that every adopted child suffers in comparison with every child raised by their natural parents).

    I was referring to the previous question on the negative effect gay marriage/ adoption would have on your life.

    I can't say I've seen the studies your reffering to (and I'm not in a position to go googling them) but I'll take your word for it that they exist and the findings are as you say but I don't think they are relevant to the debate for or against same sex adoptions. Whilst there are horror stories from adoptive situations the good of the system far outweighs the bad.

    If adoption is good enough for straight couples then it's good enough for gay couples and to treat them differently is to pander to the intolerant.


  • #409
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents. The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect.
    From my quick Googling, it seems the "Cinderella Effect" is ONLY applicable to step-children.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/do-parents-favor-natural-children-over-adopted-ones

    The Cinderella effect is well substantiated in crime data. Children growing up in step families are about 40 times as likely to be abused and 140 times as likely to be murdered as children growing up with both natural parents.

    Adoption is quite different. In Kindness in a Cruel World, I concluded that parents treat their adopted children just as well as biological children.
    Two recent studies help to clarify the issue of how well adoptive children are treated. The first, published in 2007, found that children in adoptive households are treated better than children in homes with two genetic parents. Adoptive parents were more likely to provide computers for their children, more likely to eat meals with them, and more involved in sports, science projects, and so forth. This falsifies the fairy-tale claim that parents cannot treat genetically unrelated children as well as their own kin.
    Still, adoptive parents are an usual [sic] breed, that are carefully chosen by adoption agencies for kindness, and commitment to children, as well as stable employment. Perhaps these factors tip the scales against natural parents.
    The second study, by anthropologist Kyle Gibson, was explicitly designed to get around such problems and studied homes having one natural child and one adopted child using records provided by an adoption agency for adoptees over 22 years.
    Once again parents invested more in the adopted child than in own offspring. Adopted children were more likely to attend preschool and to receive private tutoring. Adoptees had a better chance of receiving cars and personal loans. Parents also spent more time at their sports events.


  • #410
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Where did I say it was? But it would be helpful if people dropping seemingly irrelevant definitions into a conversation would explain why they think it's relevant. That is the reasonable course of action...

    Apologies. Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that others will grasp points that I see as fairly obvious.

    As I've already stated several times: there are significant statistical differences between children raised by biological parents and children raised by non-biological parents. Therefore, if a poster refers to studies (by definition studies should use precise language rather than fuzzy feelgood language) then it is dangerous to simply assume that 'parents' are being referred to using layman's language.

    I thought that any participant in a discussion about academic studies would see precision about the terms used in those studies as being pertinent rather than 'irrelevant'. My bad.


  • #411
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »

    Of course, all this applies to State adoption services. So long as voluntary adoption services are required to fill gaps in State services, then they should be free to operate according to their moral standards (ie a Jewish aoption service should be free to restrict their clients to observant Jews etc).

    So you don't think the lack of a father or mother has any consequence on a child? Really? And while we're at it, why is the word marriage so important? Is there something tangible in that?


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So you don't think the lack of a father or mother has any consequence on a child?

    That isn't what I said. All kinds of factors have consequences on a child. But I don't think it should be an automatic bar to adoption.

    I wouldn't be surprised if children growing up in homes where the parents are educated to postgraduate level experience advantages over other children. But that wouldn't mean that couples lacking such education should be denied the opportunity to adopt.


  • #413
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    That isn't what I said. All kinds of factors have consequences on a child. But I don't think it should be an automatic bar to adoption.

    I wouldn't be surprised if children growing up in homes where the parents are educated to postgraduate level experience advantages over other children. But that wouldn't mean that couples lacking such education should be denied the opportunity to adopt.

    Ok, so are you saying its not a big enough deal to object to then?


  • #414
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    From my quick Googling, it seems the "Cinderella Effect" is ONLY applicable to step-children.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/do-parents-favor-natural-children-over-adopted-ones

    The Cinderella effect is well substantiated in crime data. Children growing up in step families are about 40 times as likely to be abused and 140 times as likely to be murdered as children growing up with both natural parents.

    Adoption is quite different. In Kindness in a Cruel World, I concluded that parents treat their adopted children just as well as biological children.
    Two recent studies help to clarify the issue of how well adoptive children are treated. The first, published in 2007, found that children in adoptive households are treated better than children in homes with two genetic parents. Adoptive parents were more likely to provide computers for their children, more likely to eat meals with them, and more involved in sports, science projects, and so forth. This falsifies the fairy-tale claim that parents cannot treat genetically unrelated children as well as their own kin.
    Still, adoptive parents are an usual [sic] breed, that are carefully chosen by adoption agencies for kindness, and commitment to children, as well as stable employment. Perhaps these factors tip the scales against natural parents.
    The second study, by anthropologist Kyle Gibson, was explicitly designed to get around such problems and studied homes having one natural child and one adopted child using records provided by an adoption agency for adoptees over 22 years.
    Once again parents invested more in the adopted child than in own offspring. Adopted children were more likely to attend preschool and to receive private tutoring. Adoptees had a better chance of receiving cars and personal loans. Parents also spent more time at their sports events.

    So, let's get this straight, you're quoting two studies that suggest that there are statistical differences between adopted children and children raised by biological parents. And you're using this to argue that there is no difference?


  • #415
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Neilos wrote: »
    I was referring to the previous question on the negative effect gay marriage/ adoption would have on your life.

    That was addressed to the anti-gay brigade - not to me.

    I wouldn't expect gay marriage or adoption to have a significant effect on my life at all. This is a thread where people expressed their opinions on the subject. We all have opinions on things that may not directly affect us.


  • #416
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    So, let's get this straight, you're quoting two studies that suggest that there are statistical differences between adopted children and children raised by biological parents. And you're using this to argue that there is no difference?

    No. I'm disputing your assertion that adoptive children are more likely to be abused and murdered than biological children.

    Having now read a couple of more editorials/essays on it, I am confident in saying that your assertion is not true. I am happy to see any other evidence to the contrary. The statistics you quote have been oft cited in relation to step-children living with one biological parent (hence, the Cinderella Effect), not adoptive children living with neither biological parent.

    I assume this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part.

    The reasons touted for this effect are interesting. Most plausibly (to me, anyway), it is suggested that prospective step-parents are more focussed on their relationship with the biological parent than with the children or family as a whole. Thus, they might not give becoming a step-parent due consideration. It goes without saying that this does not apply to all prospective step-parents. Conversely, adoptive parents are united in their shared desire to raise a child together, alongside the clear selection bias for nice, stable people to take the role.


  • #417
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    PDN wrote: »
    That was addressed to the anti-gay brigade - not to me.

    I wouldn't expect gay marriage or adoption to have a significant effect on my life at all. This is a thread where people expressed their opinions on the subject. We all have opinions on things that may not directly affect us.

    I have no issue with you expressing your opinion. I'm just trying to get an understanding of why your opinion is what it is. If its not going to affect you negatively then why do you oppose it?


  • #418
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No. I'm disputing your assertion that adoptive children are more likely to be abused and murdered than biological children.

    Now, now. I didn't make that assertion. I said that a number of suudies indicate such an effect.

    It certainly isn't as clear cut as you would suggest.

    http://www.health24.com/mind/Developmental_and_learning_problems/1284-1298,13667.asp

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11483840

    I remember seeing a statistic somewhere that 15% of all serial killers in the United States were adopted as children (meaning that adopted children are 5 times more likely to be serial killers than are children raised by their biological parents).

    Now, the reasons for this are open for debate. For example, many children are adopted precisely because there were problems with their mothers. It is reasonable to assume that problems occurring pre-adoption, rather than through the experience of growing up with adoptive parents, leave their mark.

    Nevertheless, a number of studies suggest a statistically significant difference between the life outcomes of adopted children as compared to children raised by their biological parents. Some of these studies (such as the ones you cite) see positive differences, others see negative differences. Given both these sets of studies, it would be a triumph of sentiment over realism to automatically assume that statistics applying to 'parents' apply to adoptive parents as well.


  • #419
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Neilos wrote: »
    I have no issue with you expressing your opinion. I'm just trying to get an understanding of why your opinion is what it is. If its not going to affect you negatively then why do you oppose it?

    I've already explained that I don't necessarily oppose gays adopting.

    I've also explained that I see marriage as referring to a commitment between a man and a woman. I'm perfectly happy for civil unions that carry exactly the same legal rights as marriage, but I would prefer for marriage not to be redefined just as I see no need to reclassify pork chops as vegetables.

    As I said, maybe you should look for an answer from one of the 'anti gay brigade' (whoever they are).


  • #420
    Dennis Lively Gypsum
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dennis Lively Gypsum


    PDN wrote: »
    I've already explained that I don't necessarily oppose gays adopting.

    I've also explained that I see marriage as referring to a commitment between a man and a woman. I'm perfectly happy for civil unions that carry exactly the same legal rights as marriage, but I would prefer for marriage not to be redefined just as I see no need to reclassify pork chops as vegetables.

    As I said, maybe you should look for an answer from one of the 'anti gay brigade' (whoever they are).

    people like this i imagine
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79982117&postcount=133


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    Now, now. I didn't make that assertion. I said that a number of suudies indicate such an effect.
    You claimed that adopted children are statistically more likely to suffer abuse/violence compared to biological children. You claimed similar for step-children. You called it the Cinderella Effect. You gave an evolutionary explanation outlining a "kin selection" mechanism for preferential treatment of biological children.
    PDN wrote: »
    It certainly isn't as clear cut as you would suggest.

    http://www.health24.com/mind/Developmental_and_learning_problems/1284-1298,13667.asp

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11483840
    Shall peruse, thanks.


Advertisement