Wanting to have kids

eviltwin · 21-09-2015 09:48AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think I can be of any assistance with your blinkered vision that you cannot see the evidence of heterosexual parents all around you.

Because it is an immediate compromise upon the child that places more importance upon the will of the adults involved, than the welfare of the child.

I don't think you can pinpoint the gender of the parents that easily, there are too many variables involved in parenting. I personally don't think it matters. I don't think men and women have specific skills or qualities that only exist in that gender. Once there is a good mix of people in the child's life they can get everything they need.

21-09-2015 09:48AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think I can be of any assistance with your blinkered vision that you cannot see the evidence of heterosexual parents all around you.

So the "overwhelming" evidence you describe is not actually forthcoming then - so as per your usual MO you just hide behind a personal attack on the person who asked you the question. Nice.

The "evidence of heterosexual parents all around" merely shows me that this is one viable and useful configuration for parents to be for the healthy upbringing of a child. It does not in any way support your claim that it is the "optimal" one - which is what I actually asked.

I would suggest therefore that the issue is actually your blinkered vision that you cannot see the evidence of homosexual and single parents all around you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it is an immediate compromise upon the child that places more importance upon the will of the adults involved, than the welfare of the child.

Self serving circular argument here. You are essentially using your assumption that it is not optimal as evidence that it is not optimal - without actually answering the question. It is your claim that this is the optimal configuration - and that the evidence for this claim is over whelming - yet you are not actually showing any of it.

Annasopra · 21-09-2015 10:28AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule in society that says all children must have a mother and a father, but it is considered by society to be the optimal parental configuration for a child (or children). Biologically, socially and culturally, the overwhelming evidence supports this view.

Having two parents of the same sex is at best a compromise for the child (or children), that gives more weight to the welfare of the parents, than it does the child's welfare. Two parents of the same sex is not the optimal configuration for a child (or children).

What evidence is there that having a male and female parent is best for children?

21-09-2015 10:33AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What evidence is there that having a male and female parent is best for children?

I do not think there is any. Which is usually what happens when someone says "Overwhelming evidence" in a post that contains none of them. And the suspicion is further confirmed by the personal attack that followed merely asking what the evidence might be - the usual response from someone who was hoping no one would ask and hoped that the phrase "overwhelming evidence" would suffice AS evidence.

OEJ above is not alone in this failure to present any however. Although the SSM referendum had nothing to do with adoption - the "right" a child has to this allegedly "ideal" configuration of one father and one mother was one that came up time and time again in it - in multiple threads on the subject.

And not one person who was asked to actually evidence that position - that this configuration is somehow "ideal" - were able to actually do so. Not a single one.

Instead what we generally have is an "appeal to tradition" fallacy. That the "normal" (that is to say historically by far the majority) configuration is the "best" one is merely assumed. An emotional assumption usually formed because they themselves had a single mother and single father and can not really imagine it having been any other way.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 11:51AM

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think you can pinpoint the gender of the parents that easily, there are too many variables involved in parenting. I personally don't think it matters. I don't think men and women have specific skills or qualities that only exist in that gender. Once there is a good mix of people in the child's life they can get everything they need.

That's why I said biologically, socially, and culturally, the opposite sex two parent family is the ideal configuration for children. Rather than pin-pointing anything (because we could all offer both examples of good and bad parenting based on any configuration we choose), it's not a commentary on individuals parenting skills, it's recognising that in society, the default, and by far for the vast majority of children, is two biological parents of the opposite sex.

Any configuration which deviates from that, is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.

I couldn't care less about the parent's sexual orientation, I couldn't care less about bringing it down to an individual conditional examination of their parenting skills. I'm putting forward my opinion from an objective perspective that is focussed upon the overall welfare of children, as opposed to the rights of adults.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 11:56AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would suggest therefore that the issue is actually your blinkered vision that you cannot see the evidence of homosexual and single parents all around you.

When unmarried homosexual parents outnumber married heterosexual parents, I'll consider you might just have a point, but as society currently stands, today (no appeal to tradition there), you don't.

The blinkers I was referring to are the fact that you failed to address my point from a biological, social, and cultural perspective, and instead tried to make out I was personally attacking you.

Usual MO indeed. Try engaging in the discussion without throwing your toys out of the pram because nobody wants to play ball with you.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 11:58AM

Aside from potential complications arising from the lack of legal regulation of surrogacy in Ireland, I think the principle issue is not whether gay couples or singles, as gay parents, are good, better or worse than hetero parents.

Rather, the main potential issues are the same for non-gay adopting parents or those using surrogacy services or sperm or egg donors, and that is in regard to the child's relationship to the presumably absent biological father/mother. Certainly, a proportion of adopted kids seek access to their biological parents, need to know where they came from, their history and narrative, feel rejected or abandoned by their birth mother, don't have access to their records, etc. Minimally, therefore, I think that there should be a clear avenue for surrogate kids to have contact with surrogates and donors. I think a huge mistake - sometimes made by some adopting parents as well, particularly historically - is to pretend that the child is simply the product of their legal parents or to minimise the range of actors involved in their conception.

Most of the accessible information on surrogacy is from the perspective of either surrogate mothers, donors or those seeking such services. Aside from some blogs, there appears to be very little information on how the products of surrogacy view their experience. Although likely limited in scope, I think that insofar as possible, such perspectives would be very important in determining the type of surrogacy service one seeks to employ.

Niemoj · 21-09-2015 12:03PM

Personally I do not want children at all, perfectly content with my furbabies! But that's just me.

But I think if you wanted kids then adoption would be a great choice although I also think most people would like some sort of biological connection with their child too so surrogacy is also an option.

21-09-2015 12:04PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the default, and by far for the vast majority of children, is two biological parents of the opposite sex.

Going from "default" to "ideal" is quite a leap though. And one you appear not willing to support.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any configuration which deviates from that, is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.

In our archaic past perhaps - but I do not see that as being true or relevant now. For example single parents and divorced parents are now so common as to not even raise an eye brow any more. And gay parents as a concept - especially in our media and entertainment content - is not far behind at all.

Even then you would have to assume that this "deviation" is not mitigated for by other factors. Declaring one parental configuration the "ideal" is not as simple as showing one tiny dial on a massive equaliser is moved up and down. These things do not operate in isolation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When unmarried homosexual parents outnumber married heterosexual parents, I'll consider you might just have a point, but as society currently stands, today (no appeal to tradition there), you don't.

Except I do - and the relative quantities of the two groups to each other does not diluate the importance of the evidence you are too blinkered to accept. The fact is that children of such configurations are every bit as successful or unsuccessful as children of the "traditional" configuration. And hence the claim that one configuration is the "ideal" is not supported by your non-evidence of choice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The blinkers I was referring to are the fact that you failed to address my point from a biological, social, and cultural perspective, and instead tried to make out I was personally attacking you.

Because you have not actually OFFERED any biological, social or cultral evidence. You merely threw out the words "overwhelming evidence" without actually evidencing them - and then making personal comments rather than giving evidence when asked about it. Your usual MO as I said. Try engaging in the discussion without throwing your toys out of the pram because nobody merely swallows what you say merely because you have said it - and actually seeks to hear your basis for it.

frostyjacks · 21-09-2015 12:20PM

I wouldn't have an issue with a gay couple taking on one of the partner's kids from a previous relationship, or even adopting. But to bring a child into the world and deny them a mother or father by design doesn't sit well with me. It just doesn't seem ethical.

21-09-2015 12:22PM

The important word there being "seem". There is no ethical issue with it anyone here has been able to present. They just get a general feeling there must be something wrong with it - but can not actually say what. People do not like what is different I guess.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 12:36PM

Yeah. The evidence, though imperfect in many ways (small sample sizes, lack of proper controls, limited studies on male homosexual parents) would appear to indicate that there's little difference in outcomes for kids whether their parents are gay or straight. Or, where there are differences, this has little to do with the sexual orientation of the parent/s.

eviltwin · 21-09-2015 12:42PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I said biologically, socially, and culturally, the opposite sex two parent family is the ideal configuration for children. Rather than pin-pointing anything (because we could all offer both examples of good and bad parenting based on any configuration we choose), it's not a commentary on individuals parenting skills, it's recognising that in society, the default, and by far for the vast majority of children, is two biological parents of the opposite sex.

Any configuration which deviates from that, is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.

I couldn't care less about the parent's sexual orientation, I couldn't care less about bringing it down to an individual conditional examination of their parenting skills. I'm putting forward my opinion from an objective perspective that is focussed upon the overall welfare of children, as opposed to the rights of adults.

Biologically I get but explain what you mean by it being socially and culturally better to have parents of opposite sex?

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 12:52PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Going from "default" to "ideal" is quite a leap though. And one you appear not willing to support.

In a discussion about children's welfare, you want to argue over semantics. Grow up tbh, this issue is more important to some people than just your ignorant intellectualism.

In our archaic past perhaps - but I do not see that as being true or relevant now. For example single parents and divorced parents are now so common as to not even raise an eye brow any more. And gay parents as a concept - especially in our media and entertainment content - is not far behind at all.

It's very much current in society today, nothing archaic about it. You may not see what matters to other people as being true or relevant, but a refusal to acknowledge other people's perspectives is what blinds you to reality - unmarried and divorced parents absolutely raises eyebrows in society, their children's welfare is compromised by the fact that they do not have what society considers the ideal parenting configuration.

Gay parents aren't just a concept btw, there are many men and women who are married and their sexuality is irrelevant to their parenting skills. There have been gay parents throughout time, both unmarried and married. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much. In the last couple of weeks alone on this very forum there have been many parents who have sought help in coming to terms with their sexuality.

Even then you would have to assume that this "deviation" is not mitigated for by other factors. Declaring one parental configuration the "ideal" is not as simple as showing one tiny dial on a massive equaliser is moved up and down. These things do not operate in isolation.

That's true, they absolutely do not operate in isolation, you're assuming that the deviation is mitigated by other factors, and you can only do that when you ignore the biological implications (a child or children with no idea of their biological heritage, you don't like appeals to tradition, other people do, who knew?), the social implications (the fact that children feel from the moment they interact with their peers, that they are 'different', just ask anyone who identifies as homosexual if you're not willing to take my word for it), and cultural (gay parents will always be in a minority, a minority within a minority, a complete contradiction to cultural norms).

Except I do - and the relative quantities of the two groups to each other does not diluate the importance of the evidence you are too blinkered to accept. The fact is that children of such configurations are every bit as successful or unsuccessful as children of the "traditional" configuration. And hence the claim that one configuration is the "ideal" is not supported by your non-evidence of choice.

You talk about 'success', I'm talking about welfare. We're talking over each others heads, because I don't base my assessment of children's welfare on their 'success' as adults. It's the adults whose opinions aren't heard that I'm more interested in hearing from. Those who aren't so 'successful', according to the criteria of their own choosing, not simply the criteria that support your position.

I'm well aware of the studies btw.

Because you have not actually OFFERED any biological, social or cultral evidence. You merely threw out the words "overwhelming evidence" without actually evidencing them - and then making personal comments rather than giving evidence when asked about it. Your usual MO as I said. Try engaging in the discussion without throwing your toys out of the pram because nobody merely swallows what you say merely because you have said it - and actually seeks to hear your basis for it.

If you choose to substitute reality for your own particular idealism, there's no point in any further engagement. I'll wait for someone with something interesting to contribute to the discussion to come forward.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 01:08PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You talk about 'success', I'm talking about welfare.

Could you define what you mean by 'welfare' here and how it differs to 'success' in this context? Specifically, whatever it is you feel hasn't been measured in the studies looking at outcomes of children with same-sex parents?

21-09-2015 01:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In a discussion about children's welfare, you want to argue over semantics. Grow up tbh

On a discussion forum where you made a claim all you want to do is dodge supporting that claim. Grow up tbh. The issue is more important to some people than just your ignorant making up "facts" and refusing to support them. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

The only reason you are getting so personal and haughty here is that you made a claim - suggested the evidence for that claim is "over whelming" - and someone did not buy it and actually left you red faced by asking what that evidence might be. A request you INSTANTLY met with persona comments like "blinkered vision" and you are now getting steadily more uppity. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

The simple fact is that time and time again on this forum I have seen people claim that this configuration is the "ideal" one and time and time again the people making that claim have been entirely impotent when asked to support it. They simply have no support for it because the claim itself is vacuous and false. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very much current in society today, nothing archaic about it.

Totally false from you - which is why you can only throw out phrases like "Blind to reality" without actually being able to evidence a thing you say. The actual reality outside your fantasy however is one heavily punctuated by single parents - divorced parents - homosexual parents - and more. And they are not compromising anything or suffering anything because of it.

Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to tradition mixed with some argumentum ad populum. Merely saying nothing more than "This is how most people have done it - for most of the time - so any deviation has to be bad". But that is not an argument - it is a declaration by fiat and one you can not and have not supported. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's true, they absolutely do not operate in isolation, you're assuming that the deviation is mitigated by other factors

Except no I am not. I am pointing out that you are assuming they are NOT. But the reality is that children are being brought up by other configurations all the time - and they are just fine. So it is your assumption not mine that are relevant here.

The fact is that "parenting" is not simply a 1:1 single thing. It is a mass of factors that differ wildly from family to family, context to context, even WITHIN the heterosexual - married - straight community. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

So to cherry pick one tiny little factor - and an irrelevant one at that as I have shown - and act like because this ONE factor is changed that somehow we have moved below some imaginary "ideal" - is just a nonsense from you to start with. There is not even an "ideal" here in the first place that you have established - yet on the mitigation of one tiny menial factor you declare we have fallen below it. Laughable.

And so what if these children SOMETIMES (I note you cite nothing for this either) feel they are "different"? So do the children of deaf people. Or people in wheel chairs. Of parents with a significant age different. Children of people of mixed race. The list of reasons why children sometimes feel "different" to their peers is endless. So bully for them. They feel different. Big deal. Many of us do for all kinds of reasons. It is our differences that make us stronger - and you throw them out like we are falling below some imaginary ideal because one child might dare to notice theirs. Just like you throw words like "minority" out. So what? I live in Ireland. Children of mixed race parents are a "minority" here. So what? It does not mean some imaginary ideal has been breeched.

So no. I am not even seeing you establish the existence of an "ideal" here. Let alone establish that two heterosexual opposite sex parents might be it. And the reasons you are attempting to throw out for it are irrelevant. At best.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You talk about 'success', I'm talking about welfare. We're talking over each others heads, because I don't base my assessment of children's welfare on their 'success' as adults.

It is a false distinction because I think the welfare of children IS a measure of success. So I would correct your erroneous "You talk about 'success', I'm talking about welfare." with a more accurate "You talk about success AND welfare, I'm focusing on only one".

I think you have the measurement of an "ideal" exactly backwards. You are determining by fiat what the "ideal" is and working backwards from there. The better approach would be to establish what children actually need for a successful and healthy upbringing. Love. Attention. Education. Protection. Guidance. Food. Excercise. Security. And so forth. And the "ideal" should be based on that. And what one notices when one takes this bottom up approach - rather than your top down approach - is that the resulting list you end up with is not predicated on the number - the sex - or the sexuality of the parents who provide it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you choose to substitute reality for your own particular idealism, there's no point in any further engagement. I'll wait for someone with something interesting to contribute to the discussion to come forward.

And your usual MO is complete then. Step 1: Get personal and haugthy. Step 2: Pretend to be ducking out of the discussion.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 01:20PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I said biologically, socially, and culturally, the opposite sex two parent family is the ideal configuration for children. Rather than pin-pointing anything (because we could all offer both examples of good and bad parenting based on any configuration we choose), it's not a commentary on individuals parenting skills, it's recognising that in society, the default, and by far for the vast majority of children, is two biological parents of the opposite sex.

Any configuration which deviates from that, is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.

I couldn't care less about the parent's sexual orientation, I couldn't care less about bringing it down to an individual conditional examination of their parenting skills. I'm putting forward my opinion from an objective perspective that is focussed upon the overall welfare of children, as opposed to the rights of adults.

I think this is the bit that requires explanation. You've identified a mathematical norm in terms of parent-family configuration and - notwithstanding how that norm itself conceals a huge variety of configurations in the past and present - stated that any deviation from this 'is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.' Beyond assertion, some reference to stigma and the acknowledged issue of a child's potentially problematic relationship with their biological or surrogate parents in the context of reproductive technology (I might add, this is my assumption - I've not researched this point), you've not really outlined the mechanism whereby the child's welfare might be compromised in a 'biological, social and cultural' sense. Nor have you offered any empirical evidence of why and to what degree this might be so.

Also, and as already noted in this thread, many families deviate from social norms on any number of scales - for good and ill. It's not clear to me whether, or if at all, you believe that these types of non-normative family configurations should be regulated.

21-09-2015 01:32PM

Hexen wrote: »

I think this is the bit that requires explanation. You've identified a mathematical norm in terms of parent-family configuration and - notwithstanding how that norm itself conceals a huge variety of configurations in the past and present - stated that any deviation from this 'is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.'

Indeed and I am curious to see the basis for it too - but as we can see daring to even ask the question can result in all levels of aggression from this particular source.

My own children are currently 1.5(m) and 5(g) - and we have deviated from the norm too. I am the M in an MFF relationship. The older of the two girls has had these children. The younger of the two girls plans to have 2 also when she reaches her 30s.

So I am "deviating from the norm" in two ways. In having an unusual parental configuration - and in the fact that by design and premeditated we plan to bring essentially "step siblings" into things.

So yea - I am waiting to hear what this "ideal" is that I have not reached - or how I have compromised - in even the smallest way - the well being or welfare of my children. Because so far - though I am cautious not to tinge this with the same parental rose glasses we all suffer from - they appear to be excelling other children by any measure - from happiness - to self confidence - to physical, mental and developmental milestones - to much more.

But oh no - run for the hills - this is not the "norm" - woe betide.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 01:48PM

I'm reminded of that J.M. Coetzee line, which I'm probably misquoting, about everyone using first names in modern families (as the relationships are so complex).

However, historically, at least, due to then rates of parental mortality and subsequent remarriage, step-families were the norm.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 02:19PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Biologically I get but explain what you mean by it being socially and culturally better to have parents of opposite sex?

Hexen wrote: »

Could you define what you mean by 'welfare' here and how it differs to 'success' in this context? Specifically, whatever it is you feel hasn't been measured in the studies looking at outcomes of children with same-sex parents?

tax covers it here, but according to him it can be easily dismissed with a 'so what?' response, rather than an acknowledgement -

Deleted User wrote: »

So to cherry pick one tiny little factor - and an irrelevant one at that as I have shown - and act like because this ONE factor is changed that somehow we have moved below some imaginary "ideal" - is just a nonsense from you to start with. There is not even an "ideal" here in the first place that you have established - yet on the mitigation of one tiny menial factor you declare we have fallen below it. Laughable.

And so what if these children SOMETIMES (I note you cite nothing for this either) feel they are "different"? So do the children of deaf people. Or people in wheel chairs. Of parents with a significant age different. Children of people of mixed race. The list of reasons why children sometimes feel "different" to their peers is endless. So bully for them. They feel different. Big deal. Many of us do for all kinds of reasons. It is our differences that make us stronger - and you throw them out like we are falling below some imaginary ideal because one child might dare to notice theirs. Just like you throw words like "minority" out. So what? I live in Ireland. Children of mixed race parents are a "minority" here. So what? It does not mean some imaginary ideal has been breeched.

It is a big deal, perhaps not to you, but to those people who are affected by these issues, they don't have the luxury of your indifference.

Deleted User wrote: »

The only reason you are getting so personal and haughty here is that you made a claim - suggested the evidence for that claim is "over whelming" - and someone did not buy it and actually left you red faced by asking what that evidence might be. A request you INSTANTLY met with persona comments like "blinkered vision" and you are now getting steadily more uppity. I would have thought even with blinkers on you would at least have acknowledged that much.

In your dreams.

We've been over this - in order for that to happen, I'd have to take you seriously, and as it happens, I don't.

Hexen wrote: »

I think this is the bit that requires explanation. You've identified a mathematical norm in terms of parent-family configuration and - notwithstanding how that norm itself conceals a huge variety of configurations in the past and present - stated that any deviation from this 'is an immediate imposed compromise upon the child's welfare, from a biological, social, and cultural perspective.' Beyond assertion, some reference to stigma and the acknowledged issue of a child's potentially problematic relationship with their biological or surrogate parents in the context of reproductive technology (I might add, this is my assumption - I've not researched this point), you've not really outlined the mechanism whereby the child's welfare might be compromised in a 'biological, social and cultural' sense. Nor have you offered any empirical evidence of why and to what degree this might be so.

Also, and as already noted in this thread, many families deviate from social norms on any number of scales - for good and ill. It's not clear to me whether, or if at all, you believe that these types of non-normative family configurations should be regulated.

I consider any factor in which a child feels that they are different from their peers, is an imposition on their welfare.

That's why, rather than argue for the rights of adults, I look at these issues from the perspective of children. Like I said, we can all present positive anecdotes and this, that, and the other, which support our position, but I feel, personally, that it is more important to acknowledge the factors which, when balanced on a scale, can be a detriment to a child's welfare, and discuss ways in which we can reduce the impact of those factors upon children.

Far too often in discussions like these, I find it's only the adults thinking of themselves.

eviltwin · 21-09-2015 02:32PM

One Eye that reads like you think everyone should have the same family model and that diversity is a bad thing. It wasn't that long ago this model of the ideal family resulted in children being stolen from their parents because they didn't fit the norm. Haven't we learned from that? It also ignores the fact that there are thousands of families out there that are unconventional who are happy and never feel different. I think in this case it's more your own prejudices at work here.

21-09-2015 02:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

tax covers it here, but according to him it can be easily dismissed with a 'so what?' response, rather than an acknowledgement -

Perhaps an english lesson is in order. "So what?" is a leading question - not a dismissal such as a line like - say - "in your dreams" which you employed.

Learn the difference. It is intended to seek from you the actual relevant of the point you are presenting - coupled with the reasons - which in fact you are dismissing by ignoring - as to why I find difficulty in finding the relevance of your point.

Again your point is that these people might have children that feel "different". And I ask "So what?" to find out why you think this relevant - because the number of children who feel different for one reason or another is quite large. So why you think this one particular difference - in this one particular case - is in any way relevant is entirely unclear. So yes indeed - so what?

You can erroneously try to portray this as indifference to score some point in your own head - but no where else - but parsing the concerns merely in a different way to you - is the exact opposite of indifference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We've been over this - in order for that to happen, I'd have to take you seriously, and as it happens, I don't.

Now who is engaging in dismissals. Amazing how often you engage in a behaviour yourself while falsely accusing others of engaging with that behaviour. Note which one of us has been getting personal since reply 1 here - and which one has remained patient, cordial and without any invective or personal ad hominem.

The only people who should not be taken seriously are the ones who can not support their claims. You mentioned "over whelming evidence" and despite numerous posts asking you for it - you have provided none.

The fact is you have waltzed into a subject you know little about - have declared something to be true that appears baseless entirely - and you are getting haughty insulting and defensive because someone decided to ask you what the "over whelming evidence" actually is - someone who actually does know what they are talking about and has researched and studied the subject quite deeply due to the relevance it actually has in their own life and for making the decisions they have.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I consider any factor in which a child feels that they are different from their peers, is an imposition on their welfare.

A ridiculous concern given the multitudes of differences that exist in us individuals - outside the world in your head where we apparently should all be as close to a template as possible lest we dare to be different.

But there is no such impact on their welfare at all and the world is rife with people with differences. In your world alone is it an imposition on their welfare to have two parents of a different race. Or to have one or both parents deaf or in a wheel chair. Or to ever be adopted or to have step siblings due to a remarriage. Because all of these things are "differences" too.

Our differences in uorselves and our children are not to be ignored - buried - lamented - or avoided. Differences make us stronger and if you have any genuine concern about this at the level of a child's peers - no matter how baseless that concern turns out to be - then it would be better directed at those peers not at the child who is different.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Far too often in discussions like these, I find it's only the adults thinking of themselves.

And yet my points were the exact opposite of this. So more accurate would appear to be "Far too often - but not in this case it seems" to start your sentence with.

The simple fact remains unchanged since your last post - you are discussing an ideal without establishing what it is or how it was formed - bad enough to start with - then making a declaration purely by assertion that this topic is an example of moving below that idea - then making the comment "over whelming evidence" without citing or linking or offering a shred of it - but instead getting personal and inaccurate with your comments about anyone who dares ask.

Hexen · 21-09-2015 02:39PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I consider any factor in which a child feels that they are different from their peers, is an imposition on their welfare.

Can I assume, therefore, that you would be a exponent of the flattening social hierarchies, the radical redistribution of wealth among society, making access to healthcare and education totally equal, etc? Or are there only certain differences that you would seek to address?

Other than such social equalities - and there's reasonable evidence that such equalities promote good outcomes (notwithstanding that outcomes are value judgements) - what is the empirical basis for your belief that such radical homogenisation (increasingly unenforceable and impractical anyway) delivers a common or child-centric good?

You refer to anecdotes above, but there is actually some research on the topic at hand all of which indicates that outcomes are not, by and large, negative for children raised by gay parents.

I would agree with your latter point that such discussions are often centred on the needs and desires of parents or would-be parents rather than children. However, I don't think you've made your case or addressed the existing evidence.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 02:52PM

eviltwin wrote: »

One Eye that reads like you think everyone should have the same family model and that diversity is a bad thing. It wasn't that long ago this model of the ideal family resulted in children being stolen from their parents because they didn't fit the norm. Haven't we learned from that? It also ignores the fact that there are thousands of families out there that are unconventional who are happy and never feel different. I think in this case it's more your own prejudices at work here.

It's not the case at all eviltwin that I'm suggesting everyone should have the same family model, or even that diversity is a bad thing. I think diversity is great, no question, but society at large does not share my enthusiasm for diversity, and that's the reality I think many posters are ignoring here in favour of their own idealism.

I genuinely don't think we as a society actually have learned anything from that. Unmarried mothers, unmarried fathers, and their children, are still stigmatised in society. By the very definition that they are deemed 'unconventional', families are still stigmatised in society. The fact that there are many unconventional families out there that are happy, doesn't mitigate those many thousands more that aren't.

Rather than my prejudices at work here which would cause a person to ignore these factors, I'm saying that they must be acknowledged, and not simply cast aside with a blasé "so what?" response.

We ignored the things that went on under our noses in the past, are people here suggesting we do the same thing again? Because it suits them?

That, to me at least, shows some people haven't learned anything.

21-09-2015 02:57PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think diversity is great, no question, but society at large does not share my enthusiasm for diversity, and that's the reality I think many posters are ignoring here in favour of their own idealism.

Then it is them with the problem - not the people or topic that is being discussed here. That's the reality I think you are ignoring in favour of your own little story line. If people have a problem with diversity then they are the one with the problem - direct your concerns there - and not towards the people generating that diversity. Your concerns are little different to "victim blaming" on some levels - suggesting that the source of diversity should be expected to change their ways - to appease those who have an issue with it.

No - if this is your only concern - and it genuinely seems it is - then your heart is at least in the right place but your concerns misdirected. Diversity is a good thing - I know it - you know it - and I see no reason to stiffle it or start talking about imaginary "ideals" just because a bit of diversity might taste bad to someone else.

eviltwin · 21-09-2015 02:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not the case at all eviltwin that I'm suggesting everyone should have the same family model, or even that diversity is a bad thing. I think diversity is great, no question, but society at large does not share my enthusiasm for diversity, and that's the reality I think many posters are ignoring here in favour of their own idealism.

I genuinely don't think we as a society actually have learned anything from that. Unmarried mothers, unmarried fathers, and their children, are still stigmatised in society. By the very definition that they are deemed 'unconventional', families are still stigmatised in society. The fact that there are many unconventional families out there that are happy, doesn't mitigate those many thousands more that aren't.

Rather than my prejudices at work here which would cause a person to ignore these factors, I'm saying that they must be acknowledged, and not simply cast aside with a blasé "so what?" response.

We ignored the things that went on under our noses in the past, are people here suggesting we do the same thing again? Because it suits them?

That, to me at least, shows some people haven't learned anything.

Then there is a problem with society, not the individuals within it. Naturally people will want to maintain the status quo if it seems to be working but that doesn't mean deviations from that are bad for children. There are far too many variables involved to reduce it to the gender of the parents.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 03:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps an english lesson is in order. "So what?" is a leading question

One which you went on to answer yourself. I don't need english lessons from you all the same.

The fact is you have waltzed into a subject you know little about - have declared something to be true that appears baseless entirely - and you are getting haughty insulting and defensive because someone decided to ask you what the "over whelming evidence" actually is - someone who actually does know what they are talking about and has researched and studied the subject quite deeply due to the relevance it actually has in their own life and for making the decisions they have.

The fact is, you know a sum total of fannyadams about me, or my life, or what I do for a living.

The simple fact remains unchanged since your last post - you are discussing an ideal without establishing what it is or how it was formed - bad enough to start with - then making a declaration purely by assertion that this topic is an example of moving below that idea - then making the comment "over whelming evidence" without citing or linking or offering a shred of it - but instead getting personal and inaccurate with your comments about anyone who dares ask.

Do you really need me to explain human, social and cultural evolution?

I have better things to do with my time tbh.

21-09-2015 03:09PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One which you went on to answer yourself. I don't need english lessons from you all the same.

Appears the opposite is true given than I had to explain it to you that it was a leading question not a dismissal as you suggested it was. And I did not answer the question myself - I explained the reasons why I find it difficult to see the point you are making and the relevance of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact is, you know a sum total of fannyadams about me, or my life, or what I do for a living.

The fact is, we can judge from what you have posted here just how in-depth your knowledge of the subject is - without any requirement of knowing where your pay check comes from.

The simple fact remains you have declare there is "overwhelming evidence" for a position you have thrown out - and in every single subsequent post without fail you have refused to present a tiny smidgen of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you really need me to explain human, social and cultural evolution? I have better things to do with my time tbh.

It would be nice if you explained _something_ rather than merely making assertions and declarations. It was not me that waltzed in declaring a position and suggesting it was based on "overwhelming evidence". The sole crime I am guilty of - it seems - is to ask you what that evidence actually is. And the result of merely asking that question is in B+W for all to see. And the _reason_ for that result I feel is also not beyond guess work - it is that you do not actually _have_ such evidence - you merely pretended to hoping no one would ask or know better.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 03:15PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Then there is a problem with society, not the individuals within it. Naturally people will want to maintain the status quo if it seems to be working but that doesn't mean deviations from that are bad for children. There are far too many variables involved to reduce it to the gender of the parents.

I'm saying that we should consider the impact of these factors upon children, and assess whether they be positive or negative. I'm not immediately saying they are bad for children (the sole reason I voted yes in the SSM referendum is so that children would not have to feel different from their peers in that respect, I couldn't care less what the adults get up to tbh), I'm saying that these are factors which should be acknowledged in drawing up any legislation which relates to children or potential children.

Adults are quite capable of answering for themselves and demanding what they want, but all too often, children and what they want, goes ignored (although the recent Children and Family Relationships Act goes some way towards addressing this, but not far enough IMO).

21-09-2015 03:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that we should consider the impact of these factors upon children, and assess whether they be positive or negative. I'm not immediately saying they are bad for children

That would appear to be something of a back pedal. You very clearly said multiple times it compromises the welfare of the child. You declared it "an immediate compromise" on the child. And now you say it is not immediately bad? Appears to be the opposite of what you have been saying so far.

Either their welfare is compromised or it is not. You can not have it both ways. I am still waiting to hear how my current family choices and relationship status has in any way compromised the welfare of my children - or even the potential welfare of my children - other than here say - assertion - tradition - and majorities.

I can tell you we very much DID consider the impact of us being "different" on my children before we decided to have them. We did it both as an excercise in introspection and opinion - and in an exercise of reading all the relevant material we could find and study pertaining to the welfare of children in such scenarios. And we found _nothing_ to be concerned with which - it seems - is about as much as you have found too.

Wanting to have kids

Comments