Not only is there no ideal in real life, you’ve shown no evidence other than your opinion that an opposite gender parenting couple is inherently better than a homosexual pair.
Fuck you, sweetie. I am not a bigot. Your post is quite offensive.
Try to grasp this simple concept: saying a parenting situation is less than perfect is not the same as calling those parents incompetent. It is not the same as saying they are not good parents.
I’ve said in this thread that a wealthier parenting environment is more ideal than a poorer parenting environment, although I believe that poorer persons should not be prevented from adopting. Does that mean I have an “emotional attachment” to “wealthodominance”? Does that mean I’m “bigoted” towards the less affulent? I hardly think so. I think those would be exceptionally stupid statements to make. I can’t see why yours should be considered any less foolish.
Show me where I claimed otherwise. Indeed, I’ve been quite forthright in stating that my view is my own, based largely on my own personal observations and experiences. I think it’s a reasoned opinion, and I think that the things I described will strike a chord with more people than it won’t, but I don’t make any claims to metaphysical truth.
You say you have a “reasoned opinion” yet you can’t provide reasons for your opinion. If you’d just admit that you could be wrong and that the opposing view is just as valid (even more so since we’ve provided cites from reputable researchers), perhaps we’d not feel so compelled to argue this issue.
Under your assumptions, if two (hypothetical) equally qualified sets of parents (one gay, one straight) were being considered for a particular child, the straight couple would be given the nod on the basis that they’re straight. How can we interpret that as not saying you consider the gay couple inferior?
There’s a lot of misunderstanding going on in this thread, and at least some of it derives from mixing our terms.
Propositions:
-
The welfare of the kids comes first. Any “rights” of parents or state ought to be directed towards that end or is wrong.
-
Kids should be adopted into an environment where their physical and emotional needs will be provided for, by a parent or parents who have the physical, economic, and psychological resources to adequately provide for their ongoing growth as people.
-
Kids learn from role models. Therefore prospective parents should be good role models.
-
Gender roles do exist in today’s society. While they change, they change slowly.
-
A child learns how to be an adult of his own gender from same-sex role models, and how to interact with persons of opposite gender from observation of how opposite-sex role models react. This does not have particular refrence to thje sexuality of child or parents, but to the inherent psychological differences of men and women. To what extent “the differences between men and women” are culturally driven and to what extent genetic/somatic is unresolved, but there is clearly, from studies already adduced, a component of each. It is appropriate to take recognition of this.
-
From propositions 4 and 5, a kid therefore needs role models of both sexes. These are available within the parenting couple in heteromarriage adoptions, and nearly always in the immediate circle of extended family and friends in single-parent and gay-couple adoptions.
-
There is no legal compulsion, and a declining social compulsion, for children to “fit” into a given gender role. Here I differ in small but significant way from Dewey’s quote above: “within the context of those gender roles” is by no means mandatory. But the adolescent in forging his or her own identity will need to be aware of those gender roles and define who he or she is with a recognition that they do exist, are changing, but changing slowly.
None of this in any way suggests to me that a gay couple or a single parent is in any significant way a less competent parent or parents than a straight couple – save the obvious difference that a single parent’s romantic life, if any, will be significantly different than that of a couple (MF, MM, or FF).
It needs to be kept in mind that over 90% of gay couples’ children will themselves be straight, and will need to understand how to interrelate on a romantic/pair-bonding basis with persons of the opposite sex. And IMHO that interrelationship will be founded in large part on observations of how people of the opposite sex behave.
In sum, kids do need role models, including a close relationshiup to adults of both sexes. But they will have no problem receiving that with reasonably competent parenting from caring adults regardless of their sexuality.
Dewey, please understand that I’m not saying that you’re saying that you believe that gay parents are “bad parents” or “incompetent parents”. I’m saying that you’re saying that they’re inferior to straight parents, the same way you’re saying that poor parents are inferior to rich parents. You don’t want to say that, not because you don’t believe it, but because you don’t like the implications that flow from saying that. Either that, or you don’t know what “inferior” means.
If you had a “reasoned opinion” you would have reasons for your opinion that you could share. Your refusal to do so strongly suggests that you don’t actually have reasons, or that the reasons you do have are founded in beliefs that you are ashamed to admit.
I’m glad you found my post offensive. I have found yours offensive for some time now, and yet I have refrained from the use of profane language in my replies. I’m sorry you were not able to do the same.
Just so this post doesn’t look like one big “BUT YOU’RE WRONG!”, I agree with props 1-3 of yours, Polycarp.
It is appropriate to take recognition of the fact that this is often the case. It is equally appropriate to take recognition of the fact that sometimes this is not the case. Let me put forth to you a few real example:
My paternal grandfather was a horribly bad example of how to be a good man, let alone a good person. Absolutely dreadful. Those who followed his example have become dreadful themselves. Those who have not followed his example are much better off.
My paternal grandmother was, while not asbad proportionally, not a good example of how to be a good person or a good woman. Those who followed her example (such as an aunt of mine whom I pitted some time ago) have turned out to be shitty people. Those who did not, have not.
My father is a perfectly acceptable person. My mother is as well. Each have their faults.
I learned about as much from them on how to be a good person as I learned from anyone else. They taught some, true, but not near everything.
The only thing I can think of that I know specifically because of my father, which I could not have learned from anyone else, is who he is. And the same for my mother. I do not think I would be an utterly different person (for better or for worse) if I had had two father or two mothers. And I think it is extremely suspect to say that fizzestothetop and I, purely because we are of different genders, will make better parents or will raise children better (or however you wish to state it) than matt_mcl and Potter would. That, from what I can tell, is what you are saying. I disagree with this statement in its premises.
These are available in any number of places … family, many times (but not nearly always), media, school, local businesses, etc. My father’s role model is a man who (assuming he existed, of which there is still doubt in my mind) has been dead for almost 2000 years. It is difficult for me to imagine a set of parents who would have been worse for him (excluding, say, a pairing of Susan Smith and Ted Kaczinsky).
Which observations will occur unless the child is kept in utter isolation, but which raises an interesting point, though an utter hijack and if anyone desires to carry it further than this I’ll happily start a GD thread: where do gay people, given the still-present tabooes on “alternative sexuality” and the difficulty in finding gay people “in their natural habitat”, so to speak, to observe (I mean, really … have you ever gone out and tried to “observe” gay people without getting REALLY weird looks? Not so for straight people. Just walk down the street and you see them).
It puzzles me that there is some doubt that straight children will struggle to find people to observe in trying to figure out how to act when this society is positively saturated with them:)
That relationship need not involve parents of both genders.
BTW, I meant to say regarding your “I couldn’t possibly know how to explain to a girl how to BE a girl” that I, as a male person, would not necessarily know how to relate to a child whose experiences in life do not closely parallel mine. You brought up your experiences as a small boy. My experiences were similar; should I have a child whose experiences are directly opposite that, how in the world am I to deal with that? Just because we both have testicles does not mean that I am anything like adequately prepared for that, nor does fizzes lack thereof mean she is incapable of doing such. IOW gender similarity does not completely assure similarity in experiences, nor does dender dissimilarity assure lack of comparable experiences. Children ask a lot of people a lot of questions, and it isn’t just because they’re trying to be incredibly annoying:D
But any emphasis on one parenting situation (mm/mf/ff/mmf/mfm/ffffffffm/etc) does implicitly state that one is superior to the other, which in turn implicitly states that one is not as good as another. Maybe not the common definition of inferior (that is, lacking in extremis and sometimes not even worth the bother), but the sense that it is “not as good”. I think that is the beef KellyM has, and I am sure she will alert me if I am incorrect.
Your language analogy is improper, to me, because it implies, to me, that one is somehow unable to become schooled in what it means to be straight if one’s parents are of the same gender. Children do not all (mercifully for my parents) drive gender role instruction, or sexuality instruction, or how to conduct one’s self in public solely or even predominantly from their parents. Furthermore, some have excellent examples and fail to grasp even the most rudimentary of concepts (that would be me, among many others).
Lastly we have this gem:
If I post that there is a red apple on the table, and someone infers (note verb) from that statement that the moon is made of brown dirt, that is not my fault. Regardless of how deeply they believe that they are drawing upon an implication (note noun), if there is none there it is their error. Your assertion, therefore, that each person is wholly responsible for inferences (note noun) drawn from a post (no matter how clearly written) is incorrect.
I am in substantial agreement with iampunha except on one point. I disagree with Polycarp’s thesis number 1. The welfare of children does not always come first. If it did, we would have much more intrusive monitoring of childrearing than we do as well as far more social support, not to mention better educational and health care funding. I do not even believe that it should come first unless you want to do a “backdoor” calculus to conclude that intrusions on privacy are not in the best interest of children in the long run even when they would prevent individuals harms in the short run. The welfare of children is an important goal, but it is not the primary one, at least not in all situations.
And it still hasn’t bloody well been explained to me whether Dewey thinks gender deviance is bad or not.
Kelly, it might be more my impression from his previous posts than a correct reading of the portion of the post in question, but I think Polycarp meant “the welfare of the children comes first” not as in “it is currently an observed/able and documented fact that the welfare of adopted/biological children is placed before any other consideration” but as in “it ought to be the case that we consider what is objectively best for the child as opposed to what our own personal hangups are”. Other than that I am in large agreement with you except for my confusion on one point I hope you’ll be able to explain to me:
From this I infer that you take “the welfare of the children should be most important” to mean that a lack of intrusion upon the living conditions (and conditions of the surrounding area) is intended in order to ensure the welfare of the children. If this is a correct assessment of your belief here, I think you may be in error regarding what Polycarp believes should be practice re: welfare vs. privacy.
And what implication is that? What terrible, horrible implication flows from saying that, on average, it’s better for a child to be in a financially well-off household than a financially tight household?
And please spare me the magazine-article pop psychoanalysis you’re trying to perform. It is foolish and unbecoming. **
My dear, if you don’t think I’ve provided the reasons for my opinion, you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve clearly laid out the reasoning behind my view, noting scrupulously that much of the foundation for that reasoning is based on personal observation and experience. If you find that insufficient, fine – as I’ve consistently said, I suspect my words will strike a chord with most, but not all. **
Yes, unfounded accusations of homophobic bigotry do tend to bring out the worst in me. If anything calls for the focused use of profanity, that’s it. *
You’ve struck on exactly my objection to the term. Words have meaning beyond their dictionary definitions. “Inferior” connotes a good deal more than what my point brings across. Even if we agree that the term is proper in the dryest, most technical sense, my ceding to its use in this context would be to give up on an important rhetorical point – rhetoric which would invariably be used as a bludgeon for the rest of the thread. **
Actually, if you’ll re-read the analogy, you’ll see I said nothing resembling the notion that kids are “unable to be schooled” in gender roles (not “what it means to be straight,” whatever the hell that means). I agree that gender roles can be adequately taught by a single sex set of parents; I just don’t think that, generally speaking, such a situation is the ideal for those particular lessons.
Bad? No, though I would imagine it makes getting on in the world somewhat more difficult. Even so, gender roles are an important thing to pick up in childhood if for no other reason than that child will have to deal with other people who do conform to societal gender roles.
Also: I pretty much agree with Polycarp. I’m not sure why he thinks his point #7 disagrees with me.
How, then, does your point differ with what you and I know to be the connotations and denotations of the word? And I am not insisting (just so you don’t think you have to do a full explication of the word in all its uses:D) that you qualify it for every single possible use. That would hardly be fair. More, I am interested in how your argument that a heterosexual couple would be superior to a homosexual couple is not meant to imply that they wouldn’t be as good (however slim the margin between the two couples in terms of quality of parenting). I recognize fully that you are not saying “gays would be bad parents”. However, I also get the impression, and I do not think this is an incorrect assessment, that you do not think they would be ideal parents. If I am incorrect please do tell me so:)
Here is the analogy in question, for those in our viewing audience, just so you don’t have to hop back and forth between posts:
Bolded is the section wherein I derived the bit about schooling, as it sounds to me like you are basically saying “now, would you learn a language better if it was spoken at home or if you had it as a subject in school twice or three times a week?”
In terms of the ideal parents … well, I don’t think that can be established in terms of “okay, homo relationships/marriages are just fine, but I think heteros are better” by any sort of thorough research, which point I think you’ve ceded (your main point in this seems to me to be that it is your opinion that as well as homo marriages may be able to raise kids, heteros might just be a touch better). But it seems to me that you’re not adequately (and this may just be that I missed a post of yours. I don’t have the thread memorized:)) defending that you are essentially saying (again, IMO) “I think heteros are better because that’s my opinion”, which IMO (and in matt and Kelly’s opinions, I gather) is not academically-based enough to say “Yes, this is the reason we will give for this decision because if anyone questions it we can point to this body of research and these children who turned out just fine, but that group there raised by straight people turned out a smidge better.”
Well they are not responsible for any conclusion someone draws from their words. But they should not be getting snippy if someone does so.
Beyond this, in this particular case, my implications were rather straightforward, as previously noted. Polycarp’s position is remarkably similar to that of DCU, and the implications that I drew from his words were similar to those drawn by KellyM from DCU’s. I would guess that others have chosen to spare Polycarp because of his history with gay causes, while going for the shot at DCU, who presents a much more inviting target. Still, from a logical standpoint, the point is the same.
I am aware that Polycarp has attempted to distinguish his position from that of DCU, but it is unclear if this is correct, or even if this is so, whether and how this distinction has a bearing on the issue that I raised.
But I guess this is all wrong. The point I raised is so obviously wrong that it is not worth even bothering to address it. No, you’re not going to tell me why - it’s obvious. Like the red apple/moon analogy. That’s the ticket. Right.
Well, yeah – that’s exactly what I was saying. You might become adequately fluent in Spanish by taking classes in school, but it is unlikely that your mastery of the language will be quite the same as someone who grew up in a bilingual household. My objection was to your use of “unable,” which seemed to suggest that (to stick with the language analogy) that someone could not become fluent in any meaningful capacity through periodic lessons. Obviously, that’s not the case.
I actually think the rest of your post is reasonably spot-on (though I reserve the right to reverse course on that statement if I later realize I overlooked something 
). I like the word “smidge.” I think that’s a good quantifier of what I’m saying.
What’s particularly disturbing to me is that I still get “bigot” or “homophobe” label thrown out in this and in other gay-issue threads in spite of my repeated and vocal proclamations of fealty to gay equality. I agree that sodomy laws should be repealed legislatively but disagree with the constitutional principle used by the court to invalidate such laws judicially; thus, I’m a “bigot.” I fully support gay unions but think giving on the label “marriage” would be a legitimate and useful compromise; thus, I’m a “homophobe.” I fully support the right of gay persons to adopt, but think a two-sex household might be a smidge better than a single-sex household; suddenly, I’m both a “bigot” and a “homophobe” yet again.
I forget who said it in one of those other threads, but it is exactly appropriate: I’m like Kramer at the fucking AIDS march. I support the cause, but I get beat up because I don’t want to wear the goddamned red ribbon.
Serious proponents of gay rights should take pause from this kind of behavior. When your ertwhile friends attack potential allies because they don’t toe the GLAAD line 100%, you only hurt your own cause. When the more reasonable gay posters here fail to denounce these sorts of half-cocked attacks, it doesn’t exactly encourage me, or people like me, to man the ramparts.
I need to read through Polycarp’s posts to see if he has addressed the points I have raised. I chose to debate with Dewey because he replied first.
Dewey, proclaiming “fealty” to “the cause” does not excuse unrepentant bigotry. You are holding fast to a position which entails concluding, based solely on categorical beliefs that lack a factual foundation, that gay parents are “less ideal” than straight parents. Holding a derogatory categorical belief lacking in factual foundation is bigotry. Therefore, you are engaging in bigotry.
I will retract the accusation when you convince me that your opinion is not derogatory, or that it is has a factual foundation. As of yet, I have not seen either.
…and KellyM provides a perfect example of what I’m talking about. For her, it isn’t enough to simply agree to disagree on certain social issues; no, no, no! She has to go further and demonize her opposition.
No fairminded person could read my posts in this and other threads and conclude I am the next incarnation of Archie Bunker. Calling me a bigot is insulting, stupid, and false.
It’s also remarkably shortsighted. Every post like the one you just made discourages moderates from giving their fullest efforts to gay rights. Why bother, if the people you’re trying to help elect to insult you over every minor quibble?
While hanging tenaciously onto your “smidge” contention without proof, you have to ignore what evidence exists that disproves your opinion. Why should we agree to disagree that we’re inferior? WE ARE NOT. To argue that we are is bigoted.
Homebrew,
It does not seem that you’ve paid attention to your own cite.
These studies have absolutely nothing to do with the point DCU & Polycarp made. They are NOT discussing the direct impact that the parent’s sexual orientation has on the child. They are discussing the impact of both parents being of the same gender. Obviously in the case of one parent families this distinction does not exist. (The studies that you cite ARE dealing with the impact of sexual orientation, so they can compare these families).
Dewey, are you now defending your right to be a minor bigot? It’s ok to be a bigot as long as there are people more bigoted than you? :rolleyes: