Wait, why are opposite sex non bio parents worse than same sex parents who are biological? Is the “stigma” of being adopted worse than that of having gay parents? ANd why is a single dad worse than a single mom? This whole system is so arbitrary.
You can, I suppose. But is there any actual support for your blatant generalities (for one I have a problem with single parent biological being better than two parent adopted) of is this just Flying Dutchman’s Guide to Best Parents.
And, more importantly, why should this list matter one whit? Surely you don’t believe courts, legislatures, or people should rely on this “list” to make determinations about adoption, child custody, or parentage?
I’m not simply saying, as in your example here, that it is not necessary but is likely to be predisposed. I’m saying I don’t see any evidence for “balance” at all. On what grounds would you consider a male and female parent more likely to provide “balance” than a same-sex couple? I mean, it comes very close to declaring that most men and most women are very alike.
Yes, and in an ideal world, what support is there for an adoptive couple being better than bio parents? Someone else could just as easily say that adoptive couples are better because the child feels more loved/chosen or because adoptive couples are carefully screened. I’m not saying that’s the case, but how do we know what would happen in an ideal world, you know? How do we know that the perfect parents are bio parents who are opposite sex?
Thank you to the last few posters for summarizing just what I was saying in my OP. You have nailed it exactly. This may be the first known case of a train wreck getting itself back on track.
All my OP was intended to do was say to conservatives: "Okay, opposite-sex parents are more mainstream and accepted in our present-day society than same-sex parents, which is probably better for the child. Point conceded, so you can stop harping on it. But now let’s also admit that the sex or sexes of the parenting couple are only one of many, many, many factors that determine their suitability as parents. "
I am especially annoyed by those posters who automatically assume that I am saying they should not be allowed to have or raise children. I challenge you to find anywhere that I have stated such a thing. With the possible exception of Hannibal Lechter, I doubt if I would deny anyone the possibility of parenthood.
One single working mother accused me of saying that she should not be raising a child. Never said anything like that. ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL, though, it is probably better to have two parents than one. The trouble is, all other factors rarely ARE equal.
Maybe the single working mom who took a bite out of my ass is a high-earning professional who can afford lots of help and offers the child a luxurious home and a wonderful future. Or maybe she is just middle class but has the help of her parents, who are healthy forty-year-olds. Maybe they all live together in a big old house in which the child has a beautiful room.
Or maybe the single mother is working poor with nobody in her life and tries to pull through with the help of a shared day-care club. In that case she is probably constantly exhausted. She may be filled with love, though, and not matter how hard their life is, her daughter is happier than another kid who lives in a mansion in the same city, whose parents are gone travelling 9 months of the year and who is miserable, neurotic, lonely, afraid, and constantly stuffed with Ritalin to make things easier for the servants.
I don’t know what the situation of that single mom is. I am just saying that when you ignore all the other factors, it is probably better to have two people raising a kid than one.
Similarly, when you ignore all the other factors, it is probably better for the kid to have a traditional mom and dad than two dads or two moms. But if you think that fact is the argument clincher for determining the suitability of potential parents, if you think that this factor alone is reason enough to deny gay couples the possibility of adoption or raising their own biological children, you must be incredibly dense, incredibly conservative or incredibly homophobic.
Well, they are afraid that with two women or two men raising a kid, traditional gender roles will go out the window. Which is a GOOD thing…I’m genderqueer, and never really understood the point of gender roles.
There must be something about gender roles that comes naturally to humanity, since throughout history most societies have had them.
I’m convinced that there are genuine, built-in differences between males and females—but that for the most part these differences are average trends and general tendencies that do not apply to all individuals (in the way that the average man is taller than the average woman, but this won’t necessarily be true of a specific individual man and woman).
If every man and every woman fit the typical pattern for their sex, then a society with distinct gender roles might well be the most natural, efficient, and satisfactory. But it would be uncomfortable, or even oppressive, for individuals whose natural tendencies and preferences didn’t mostly conform to the norm for their own gender.
And, if every man and every woman fit the stereotypical pattern for their sex, then I believe one man + one woman would make a much better child-raising team than two men or two women. They’d complement each other, and their gender-specific strong points and outlooks on life would balance each other out. But in reality, since not everyone does fit the stereotype or even come close, it’s entirely possible to find couples of whatever gender who complement one another well, or poorly, and who do or do not together have what it takes to make a “complete set of parents” in other senses than the biological.
Seems to me I heard about them things. One’s an innie and one’s and outie right?
It depends on the community you are in, but around here there is little stigma to either - we have an adopted Asian son who has not had any issues with adopted or Asian yet (he may, middle school is rougher than elementary school) and acquaintances that are two women raising their daughter.
Now, we live in Minnesota, which is relatively liberal - and the world’s epicenter for international adoption. Perhaps a less liberal state where adoption was more rare or homosexuality was more closeted would create a different environment.
But that is one of the things about being parents. When we decided to adopt interracially, we found a neighborhood with a high proportion of Asians - some adopted, but most of the kids in my son’s class are second (or third) generation Americans. Likewise, I’m guessing that very few gay people would choose to raise kids in a gay-hostile community.
Adoptive parents and gay parents (who are either adoptive or surrogate) have one definate advantage over bio parents - there is no doubt that we thought about bringing kids into our lives and had to jump through hoops to do it - we don’t have kids in a default situation and our kids are not surprises. (I do have a bio daughter who was a shock. And I have met gay people who have bio kids from previous straight relationships that were ‘default’ kids. But we really aren’t talking about them here, we are talking about being gay and deciding to parent).
Biological parentage trumps adoption period. Do you really have a problem with that? Or, do you simply have a problem with same sex parents.
Tell that to the family courts throughout the world. Tell that to our relatives in the mammal family of the animal kingdom.
No, I’m just asking why it necessarily trumps adoption.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t emotionally. It doesn’t legally. And it doesn’t ethically - not period.
There are cases where biological parentage trumps adoption - i.e. you cannot take a child away from a competent parent in order to give it to ‘superior’ parents. But once parental rights are terminated - voluntarily or involuntarily - biological parentage does not trump adoptive parentage.
The parents shouldn’t be having sex, with each other or with anybody else. If they are, the kid could walk in on them, and could be traumatized.
The parents should be exactly average in their involvement with their religion- not more religious/observant than others, and not less. The kid could get teased if anything else were the case.
The parents should cook only “normal” food for the culture, especially when it comes to sending a lunch to school for the kid. We wouldn’t want the kid to be teased for having weird food in their lunch.
The parents should wear fashionable clothes at all times, including when working in the yard. The parents should buy only fashionable clothes for the kid. The parents should never be seen in or near an unfashionable store. The parents should only get haircuts at a fashionable salon, and should only have the kid’s hair cut at one as well. I speak from experience when I say kids get teased about this kind of thing.
The parents must drive a cool car, not more than a few years old, with no bumper stickers, license plate holders, or personalized license plates, unless they support a cause that everybody supports, and don’t look dorky.
The mother should probably have a hysterectomy. The kid might be traumatized if they saw evidence of menstruation or birth control pills. And it would be embarrassing if the kid’s friends saw the mother buying pads or tampons. This also takes care of the potential trauma of a new baby sibling.
The parents must support whatever sports and teams (professional, college, and high school) that are popular in their area, at the level that is average for their area. Wouldn’t want the kid being teased because their parents like the wrong teams.
I suspect that it is far more likely that each of the posters who has reponded to your “trump” claim have far more problems with your cryptic statement than with anything you might have intended to say. Barring an adoption agency or a court leading with the Ace of Spades, only to be trumped with the deuce of clubs on the first trick, your statement leaves a lot to the imagination and rather little in the way of explanation.
I will not speculate on the courts of the world, but I have watched the family courts of the U.S. make tremendous strides over the last 30 years in assessing the needs of children and ruling irrespective of any preference for father or mother. (In fact, running down a quick list of broken families I have encountered, if I exclude those families where one parent or another was guilty of abandonment, there is a genuine, (if negligible) tilt toward the father getting more custody or custody more frequently.)
As to primates, (because I really do not want to include monotremes and their ilk), there is a tendency to breed in polygynous groups–a practice that is now a distinct minority position among humans.
Fair enough. Perhaps a poor choice of words.
I’ll try again.
Ignoring all other factors, a biological parent has a natural tendancy to provide a superior nurturing environment over an adoptive parent.
Since someone might challenge me on this, I have watched my stepmother favour her biological child, my half sister, over my full sister, one year older, for many years, completely oblivious to the unfairness.
When fathers get custody 50% of the time, then you’ll have a point to make.
This is not a thread about fucking relationships. Its about child rearing. Show me a picture of a male chimp with a baby chimp clinging to his breast.
I have anecdotal evidence that my step dad treats me equally to his sons and my mom favors her step-sons over my sister. So, is it safe to say that my anecdotal evidence equals yours making the sum nil?
That could happen if fathers wanted custody 50% of the time. That’s not to say it’s a fair system. My partner has full custody of his three children. But he’s definitely a lucky one.
That’s a getting a bit silly since the father doesn’t normally produce milk providing a need to have the chimp clinging to his breast.
I had a point and I made it. If we exclude dead-beat dads running away from their kids, the courts tend to favor the fathers.
On the other hand, we may need to remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data as well as noting that the dynamics of a step-family are different from those of an adoptive family, thus ruling your anecdote irrelevant:
(You also might want to dial back your hostility. No one has been attacking your person, so you might want to simply discuss the issues rather than getting snide over nothing.)
You want to draw a conclusion from such a small sample ? I merely provided my anecdote as a reference for my opinion. I recognize that many people such as your step dad can overcome biology, and the fact that many mothers favour sons over daughters gets discussed quite often, though I know of no scietific evidence for it .
Just 50%? You mean 100% don’t you? That might even the odds to a father getting the kids 50% of the time. But you have to ask yourself. Why is it that fathers don’t want custody as much as mothers?
Its kind of silly for you to think that baby chimps are breast feeding while their mothers are clamoring about in the trees.
Can you picture a nineteenth century Indian brave with a papoose on his back?
I think you need to review my posts.
Up until your sanctimonious comment I just quoted, I sensed no hostility or personal attacks from anyone, nor have I felt the need or desire to be snide.
And yet you chose to be, anyway:
Never mind. I am sure you think that you are making some strong point on something or other, but it does not seem relevant to the actual discussion.