Do you think kids need parents of opposite sex?

pangbang

bubblypop wrote: »

well, I am in my forties & have 2 friends that were raised by same sex couples, they are completely functioning members of society.
i also have a very close friend who was raised by her mother, grandmother and two uncles. Completely normal.
I myself was raised by my mother, I actually had more contact with my fathers family than my mothers.
same sex parents are not a new phenomenon, same sex couples may be fairly recently out & public, but same sex parents have existed in many different ways for many many years.
I know one guy who was raised in a house of women, his mother, 3 unmarried aunts, and his grandmother, It has no affect on him.

You don't miss what you never had.

True, and you'll never know the difference it could have made as well! :P

pangbang

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What evidence? Present it. Are you talking about history again?



I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The evidence that is available gives us no reason to assume there is a difference. That may change, if more evidence is produced. In the absence of such evidence, the notion that there is a difference in outcomes is a mere hypothesis and one without a good justification.

Look, you are never going to take on board what I have to say. And there is no way I am going to clarify anything for you.

You don't like what I am saying, good for you.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

True, and you'll never know the difference it could have made as well! :P

but it doesn't matter.
If a child grows up without a parent of the opposite sex, and lives their life productively and well, what would it matter if an opposite parent had been present?

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

Look, you are never going to take on board what I have to say. And there is no way I am going to clarify anything for you.

You don't like what I am saying, good for you.

do you believe that a man can be a good parent?
do you believe that a woman can be a good parent?
if you believe both of the above, then it shouldn't matter whether there are 2 mothers or 2 fathers

pangbang

wakka12 wrote: »

Gay people who have children are being granted the right to have children as they have proven to adoption agencies they are fit to raise children. Not for abolsutely any other reason whatsoever or any agenda that wants to please minorities
You are acting as if any gays who ask for children are granted them, because PC liberalism hurry gurdy
They go through the same thorough process of examination to make sure they are fit parents as any adoptive straight couple. Coupled with the pressure to disprove societal ideas that they are immediately going to be bad parents simply due to their gender/sexuality.

Let me tell you something that I cant actually back up. I personally know, from a societal level, that major concessions and policies are made JUST to please certain groups.

You might like to believe that it doesn't happen, but trust me (or don't!), I know for fact that it happens, and will continue to happen.

I cant explain any further, take it for what it is. Its a bad, bad world out there.

MadDog76

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never actually said you did say anything about natural or unnatural - I specifcially said I was ridiculing the idea.

Why quote me so .......... now that is ridiculous.

caniask86

I think children need love and understanding and to be kept warm and safe. That is it, pretty basic.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

Let me tell you something that I cant actually back up. I personally know, from a societal level, that major concessions and policies are made JUST to please certain groups.

You might like to believe that it doesn't happen, but trust me (or don't!), I know for fact that it happens, and will continue to happen.

I cant explain any further, take it for what it is. Its a bad, bad world out there.

bollocks

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Well, I can state my opinion ........... in fact, I did.

As did you and everybody else on here ......... sorry if my opinion differs from yours, I'm sure you'll get over it.

MadDog76

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

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

He's probably not saying you did say it, he's just ridiculing the idea.

pangbang

bubblypop wrote: »

do you believe that a man can be a good parent?
do you believe that a woman can be a good parent?
if you believe both of the above, then it shouldn't matter whether there are 2 mothers or 2 fathers

Forget it man, you have your mind made up on what I consider to be the trend of the day........theres no talking about it, theres no discussion to be had, no questions to be asked, nothing. You have no doubts about anything, well that's a nice way to be.

I could point out the daring idea that a man and woman is different, that there is actual scientific evidence (without agenda) that indicates biochemical interaction within children at a formative stage, unique to men and woman, I could trot out the dangerous "opinion" that men and women serve different roles for a child beyond what they simply choose, la de dah dah doo........

Heres another way to look at it. Imagine I pointed to a cat, and insisted it was f**king dolphin.......how long would you keep arguing with me?

Lets leave it at that.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well, I can state my opinion ........... in fact, I did.

As did you and everybody else on here ......... sorry if my opinion differs from yours, I'm sure you'll get over it.

you can state an opinion, but you can't state it as fact, then turn round and say, 'in my opinion'
you really should say, at the start, in my opinion same sex couples cant be good parents etc etc just because i think so, I have no facts to back this up, I just reckon I'm right.

AtomicHorror

pangbang wrote: »

Look, you are never going to take on board what I have to say. And there is no way I am going to clarify anything for you.

You don't like what I am saying, good for you.

I don't like arguments from ignorance, appeals to consequences and related horse **** fallacies. I don't like the hypocrisy of claims that one's opponents are thinking emotionally, whilst one liberally makes use of an appeal to unsubstantiated potential negative consequences. I don't like unsupported claims, generally. I don't like demands for evidence followed by refusal to refute or even acknowledge said evidence. I don't like prophylactic claims of bias and I really, really don't like refusals to clarify or support claims dressed up as insightful assessments of how rational I am.

So no, I don't like what you are saying, but not for the reasons you would like to pretend.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

Forget it man, you have your mind made up on what I consider to be the trend of the day........theres no talking about it, theres no discussion to be had, no questions to be asked, nothing. You have no doubts about anything, well that's a nice way to be.

I could point out the daring idea that a man and woman is different, that there is actual scientific evidence (without agenda) that indicates biochemical interaction within children at a formative stage, unique to men and woman, I could trot out the dangerous "opinion" that men and women serve different roles for a child beyond what they simply choose, la de dah dah doo........

Heres another way to look at it. Imagine I pointed to a cat, and insisted it was f**king dolphin.......how long would you keep arguing with me?

Lets leave it at that.

such bull****, thats not an argument!!
do you think men can make good parents?
do you believe women can make good parents?

MadDog76

wakka12 wrote: »

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

That's also true of heterosexual couples who want to adopt ........

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

well, I am in my forties & have 2 friends that were raised by same sex couples, they are completely functioning members of society.
i also have a very close friend who was raised by her mother, grandmother and two uncles. Completely normal.
I myself was raised by my mother, I actually had more contact with my fathers family than my mothers.
same sex parents are not a new phenomenon, same sex couples may be fairly recently out & public, but same sex parents have existed in many different ways for many many years.
I know one guy who was raised in a house of women, his mother, 3 unmarried aunts, and his grandmother, It has no affect on him.

You don't miss what you never had.

If that were true, then how do you explain away the numbers of children and adults who can spend decades searching for their biological parents?

It's an issue that has been the subject of controversy in interracial adoptions when black children are placed with white parents for example.

wakka12

pangbang wrote: »

Let me tell you something that I cant actually back up. I personally know, from a societal level, that major concessions and policies are made JUST to please certain groups.

You might like to believe that it doesn't happen, but trust me (or don't!), I know for fact that it happens, and will continue to happen.

I cant explain any further, take it for what it is. Its a bad, bad world out there.

Its not just to please minority groups though. If the people passing these laws believed there to be any valid reason not to grant gay adoption rights then they wouldnt do it. But theres no obvious negative impact of same sex upbringing on children development, and hence they powers that be allowed it to occur. And you seem to think that society is pandering to the needs of minorities such as lgbt, need i remind you gay people couldn't even marry each other in usa or ireland just two years ago
You seriously think they would knowingly allow a policy that would negatively affect childrens development. Just to please gay people . absolutely ridiculous

Will I Am Not

John_Rambo wrote: »

I said "in my experience".

That means real life experience. I doubt you really "know a few who are married with kids, middle aged, intelligent, articulate, very liberal...who had concerns about the whole gay parents thing"

I'd say you read about them on the internet!

Ok then. I call bullsh*t on the examples you gave. This is a fun game.

AtomicHorror

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Right now, there hasn't been done, and note, I say longitudinal. People here can post one and I'll happily concede but otherwise as you said pang, the effects are unknown and it is an extremely unethical thing to encourage as a result.

Still waiting.

I should post that skeleton.jpg meme thing here, right?

pangbang

bubblypop wrote: »

bollocks

Right so, you don't believe it. Anytime youd like to swap your fantasy land where everything is done for the greater good, with my world where its all about agenda....I'll be right here.

Heres another way to look at it. I did walk into it, knowingly, I am in no position to back up what I said there, but consider this.

Lets say your name is john, as a matter of fact. Now imagine that someone on the internet declares resolutely that it is NOT John.

How amusing would you find that person? And that's rhetorical.

muddypaws

pangbang wrote: »

Forget it man, you have your mind made up on what I consider to be the trend of the day........theres no talking about it, theres no discussion to be had, no questions to be asked, nothing. You have no doubts about anything, well that's a nice way to be.

I could point out the daring idea that a man and woman is different, that there is actual scientific evidence (without agenda) that indicates biochemical interaction within children at a formative stage, unique to men and woman, I could trot out the dangerous "opinion" that men and women serve different roles for a child beyond what they simply choose, la de dah dah doo........

Heres another way to look at it. Imagine I pointed to a cat, and insisted it was f**king dolphin.......how long would you keep arguing with me?

Lets leave it at that.

Trend of the day? I knew a same sex couple that had adopted children 30 years ago.

I can't see that anybody anywhere on this thread has said that children shouldn't have interaction with people of both genders throughout their childhood and life.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that were true, then how do you explain away the numbers of children and adults who can spend decades searching for their biological parents?

It's an issue that has been the subject of controversy in interracial adoptions when black children are placed with white parents for example.

ahh, thats just a type of nosiness I reckon! It's not that they miss them as such, Its just an interest there, 'do I look like my mother, do I have the personalty of my father' etc.
You don't actually miss them, you are more interested about them, more interested in where you came from, what made you etc.
It's not 'missing' something ( although I'm sure some adopted kids speak like that) It's more an interest, wanting to know where you are from etc.

muddypaws

pangbang wrote: »

Right so, you don't believe it. Anytime youd like to swap your fantasy land where everything is done for the greater good, with my world where its all about agenda....I'll be right here.

Heres another way to look at it. I did walk into it, knowingly, I am in no position to back up what I said there, but consider this.

Lets say your name is john, as a matter of fact. Now imagine that someone on the internet declares resolutely that it is NOT John.

How amusing would you find that person? And that's rhetorical.

All about agenda? Have you ever worked with, or known children in care? Watching foster kids being shunted from home to home constantly? An agenda that gets them stability and gives them a chance - yep, a very dangerous thing

caniask86

I think I will unfollow this thread before I lose faith in humanity. Why cant we all be less judgemental? I feel like Ireland is stuck in a time warp 1950s and not much progression.

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

Right so, you don't believe it. Anytime youd like to swap your fantasy land where everything is done for the greater good, with my world where its all about agenda....I'll be right here.

Heres another way to look at it. I did walk into it, knowingly, I am in no position to back up what I said there, but consider this.

Lets say your name is john, as a matter of fact. Now imagine that someone on the internet declares resolutely that it is NOT John.

How amusing would you find that person? And that's rhetorical.

but that has nothing got to do with this discussion? nothing at all!
I'm not getting whatever it is you are spouting..

AtomicHorror

pangbang wrote: »

Right so, you don't believe it. Anytime youd like to swap your fantasy land where everything is done for the greater good, with my world where its all about agenda....I'll be right here.

You'll be right here doing what exactly? Waving your hands about possible, vaguely described, negative consequences? How would we even recognise your truth if we found it?

pangbang

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't like arguments from ignorance, appeals to consequences and related horse **** fallacies. I don't like the hypocrisy of claims that one's opponents are thinking emotionally, whilst one liberally makes use of an appeal to unsubstantiated potential negative consequences. I don't like unsupported claims, generally. I don't like demands for evidence followed by refusal to refute or even acknowledge said evidence. I don't like prophylactic claims of bias and I really, really don't like refusals to clarify or support claims dressed up as insightful assessments of how rational I am.

So no, I don't like what you are saying, but not for the reasons you would like to pretend.

Well there you go then. I think you don't like what I am saying, and you can dress it up whatever way you want.

You don't "believe" in history and need evidence of it, but you don't need any significant evidence for what you believe. Gotcha, fine.

pangbang

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You'll be right here doing what exactly? Waving your hands about possible, vaguely described, negative consequences? How would we even recognise your truth if we found it?

No, I lied. I'll be off controlling your future. You wont find the truth or recognise it, because you'll slurp up whatever is decided to be given to you.

AtomicHorror

pangbang wrote: »

No, I lied. I'll be off controlling your future. You wont find the truth or recognise it, because you'll slurp up whatever is decided to be given to you.

Defend your position or just **** off already.

pangbang wrote: »

Well there you go then. I think you don't like what I am saying, and you can dress it up whatever way you want.

Well done for highlighting "I don't like" every time a wrote it and implying you inferred something from that. No need to say what, of course. No point being specific, right?

pangbang wrote: »

You don't "believe" in history and need evidence of it, but you don't need any significant evidence for what you believe. Gotcha, fine.

I believe in history. I'm asking you what part of history supports your argument and why it supports it.

I'm also, by the way, asking what specifically the **** your argument actually is aside from "something bad might happen, ooh we don't know though do we?".

pangbang

bubblypop wrote: »

but that has nothing got to do with this discussion? nothing at all!
I'm not getting whatever it is you are spouting..

It has everything to do with it, and I apologise as coming off annoyed. I'll just exit this thread and leave you all to liking each other, which just so happens to be the soup du jour. What a coincidence! :P

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

you can state an opinion, but you can't state it as fact, then turn round and say, 'in my opinion'

What the f*ck does that even mean?!!??!!!

bubblypop wrote: »

you really should say, at the start, in my opinion same sex couples cant be good parents etc etc just because i think so, I have no facts to back this up, I just reckon I'm right.

In my opinion your opinion is no more valid than my opinion just because my opinion differs from your opinion, in my opinion (in case I didn't mention that) ......... and that's a fact. :cool:

AtomicHorror

Deleted User wrote: »

But we can all Google studies that question the methodology of the "they fare just as well" studies.

Sure, but when we lack the insight into a subject required to sift the good research from the bad, we can look to the expert consensus. That's what we do with plumbing, electrical engineering, medicine, climate science... if you don't seek that you remain ignorant of the known evidence.

The consensus of the relevant experts here is that there's no evidence of a difference in outcomes. Rejecting the consensus requires good justification.

Deleted User wrote: »

Those who express concern are just falling back on their own experiences and observations, and biases too. I know single fathers who have brought up kids wonderfully well. But would I say that a single male parent was the optimum situation? I'd have to say no.

But would you consider that generalisation to be applicable enough to any given individual case that you'd actually want policy or law to reflect it? I doubt it.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

ahh, thats just a type of nosiness I reckon! It's not that they miss them as such, Its just an interest there, 'do I look like my mother, do I have the personalty of my father' etc.
You don't actually miss them, you are more interested about them, more interested in where you came from, what made you etc.
It's not 'missing' something ( although I'm sure some adopted kids speak like that) It's more an interest, wanting to know where you are from etc.

Yeah I get what you're saying alright, but I don't think I'd ever have the cohones to tell either a child or an adult who wanted to know their biological parents that they don't actually miss them. I can't Imagine it going down too well :pac:

But that's why now in the UK at least the law states that a child has the right to know both their biological parents. We're still clear as mud on the issue in this country but a relationship between the child and their biological parents is recommended and encouraged if possible.

Personally, I really don't think threads like these serve any useful purpose (nor do statistics based upon social studies in academia tbh), as there are an infinite number of factors which will influence a childs development than just one single factor alone, and that's why some adults won't miss what they never had, and some undoubtedly will, and the influences of that will always have the potential to have either a positive or negative effect on the person as an individual.

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

such bull****, thats not an argument!!
do you think men can make good parents?
do you believe women can make good parents?

I'll answer that ......... Men and Women make good parents together as they balance eachother out, which benefits children greatly.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

What the f*ck does that even mean?!!??!!!



In my opinion your opinion is no more valid than my opinion just because my opinion differs from your opinion, in my opinion (in case I didn't mention that) ......... and that's a fact. :cool:

But if your opinion has no basis in fact, then it's not a valid opinion.
I could say, in my opinion, the earth is flat, but there's no facts to back that up, so my opinion is wrong.

pumpkin4life

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Still waiting.

I should post that skeleton.jpg meme thing here, right?

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)."

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

so my opinion is wrong.

Well that's true!

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I get what you're saying alright, but I don't think I'd ever have the cohones to tell either a child or an adult who wanted to know their biological parents that they don't actually miss them. I can't Imagine it going down too well :pac:

But that's why now in the UK at least the law states that a child has the right to know both their biological parents. We're still clear as mud on the issue in this country but a relationship between the child and their biological parents is recommended and encouraged if possible.

Personally, I really don't think threads like these serve any useful purpose (nor do statistics based upon social studies in academia tbh), as there are an infinite number of factors which will influence a childs development than just one single factor alone, and that's why some adults won't miss what they never had, and some undoubtedly will, and the influences of that will always have the potential to have either a positive or negative effect on the person as an individual.

I get what you are saying, but it is true that you cannot actually miss what you never had. You can be curious what your life would be like if things were different, but that is not missing something, it's just curiosity.
I'd have no problem saying that to anyone!

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

But if your opinion has no basis in fact, then it's not a valid opinion.
I could say, in my opinion, the earth is flat, but there's no facts to back that up, so my opinion is wrong.

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:

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'll answer that ......... Men and Women make good parents together as they balance eachother out, which benefits children greatly.

But why do the parents have to be the opposite sex to balance each other out?
2 people of the same sex can balance each other

MadDog76

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:

But it's not a fact that they ' don't do as well' because they only have one parent, there are a lot of other factors.

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

But why do the parents have to be the opposite sex to balance each other out?
2 people of the same sex can balance each other

Because, even in this ridiculous "gender fluid" era, Men and Women are different and they parent differently with neither being 100% right/wrong .......... they provide the balance that ensures the child develops properly.

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's not a fact that they ' don't do as well' because they only have one parent, there are a lot of other factors.

Is that a fact or just your opinion?
Because if it's just your opinion then you should start with "this is just my opinion" but if it's a fact then go ahead and prove it.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

Because, even in this ridiculous "gender fluid" era, Men and Women are different and they parent differently with neither being 100% right/wrong .......... they provide the balance that ensures the child develops properly.

But every individual is different, so therefore they parent differently.
So everyone can provide a balance. Surely 2 parents who agree on parenting is the optimal.
Nothing to do with gender fluid nonsense you are spouting.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is that a fact or just your opinion?
Because if it's just your opinion then you should start with "this is just my opinion" but if it's a fact then go ahead and prove it.

No, studies have shown that

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

But every individual is different, so therefore they parent differently.
So everyone can provide a balance. Surely 2 parents who agree on parenting is the optimal.
Nothing to do with gender fluid nonsense you are spouting.

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.

MadDog76

bubblypop wrote: »

No, studies have shown that

Studies which you are on the brink of providing links to no doubt ............

AtomicHorror

MadDog76 wrote: »

Because, even in this ridiculous "gender fluid" era, Men and Women are different and they parent differently with neither being 100% right/wrong .......... they provide the balance that ensures the child develops properly.

I'm sure that general differences in the parenting methods of men and women do still exist (though also sure they're being eroded rapidly) but even if the differences were stark, the notion that they somehow naturally form a complementary pair is pretty odd. It's a sort of romantic idea, isn't it?

Nature gave us many things which we have found, by trial and error, we can improve upon. How do we know that a given man/woman pairing provides all of the balanced factors needed? How do we know those cannot be provided by a man/man pairing? How do we know that men and women do not combine in a way that is actually less good than, say, a woman/woman combination? Perhaps a really good childrearing actually requires 3 or more parents?

How do we answer those kinds of questions? We can only really measure the outcomes, and what has been measured says there's no difference, on average, between mixed and same-sex parenting. No idea about the other stuff.

Mountainsandh

MadDog76 wrote: »

Because, even in this ridiculous "gender fluid" era, Men and Women are different and they parent differently with neither being 100% right/wrong .......... they provide the balance that ensures the child develops properly.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of that gender fluid bull either, I'm no feminist either 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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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:

That's got to be a contradiction, surely?