Topic: Raising children, hetero vs. homo
started by: GORDON
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,08:33
All other things being equal.I don't want to hear about hetero divorce rates, "dad gets drunk and beats mommy," "two dads can be as loving as a mom and a dad,"or anything like that. All things being equal. Narrow it down to that one variable: is it better to have a mom and a dad, 2 dads, 2 moms, or does it not matter at all?
Because I think THAT is the core of the homosexual marriage debate. Not ignorance, not hatred, but a fundamental belief that having dual gender role models is a better situation for children. Our ancestors felt that to be true, for what it is worth. I assume that is why there are so many governmental benefits to being married. They are encouraging families to stay together and produce offspring, and then actually care for them. Adoption is great and everything but most babies are still produced with aroused penii and vaginas. But I am getting off track.
Is there, or is there not, a benefit to children by having those children be raised by their genetic parents?
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2011,08:48
Both of those choices are irrelevant. The number of parents are FAR more relevant to raising a good child.Good parents are based on the quality of the two parents, not on the color of their skin, their sex, etc.
I would only go so far as to say that I believe studies have shown that at certain times in a child's life it's important for them to have a strong female, and at other times, a male influence. Does that HAVE to come from a parent? I don't know.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,08:51
I said to keep it narrowed down to that one variable, but then you didn't.I guess your answer is, there is no benefit?
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2011,09:49
Yeah, parents who love each other, parents who love the children, etc are >> important than sex of the parents.So, sex of the parents - I dunno, mostly irrelevant. I really haven't seen any data on it.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,13:28
There are benefits to having both a female and male figure present. There are also just as many benefits to having two male figures or two female figures instead. I think there are clearly some minor differences in the nature of those benefits in all these cases, but they are there.So, I can't answer the question as it's worded. Do I think there's a benefit to having both genders present? Yes. Do I accept the heavy-handed implication built in that this means there is somehow no or less benefit in the same-gender alternatives? No.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,13:33
No one wants to let all other things be equal.You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 14 2011,13:47
Holy shit dude. You are talking about parenting. How the hell do you control that experiment enough to eliminate all variables except for gender? Once you do that, you just have two 'beings' raising kids. And in that stripped down sense, no, it would not matter.A male/male couple raising a child would have to be attentive enough to include a female in their child's life so they can get that mentoring. Cause no matter how fruity the feminine half of that relationship is, they just aren't going to get it when their daughter is having anxiety/self esteem/or whatever bullshit issues girls invent when they start having their periods for the first time. Since both sexes are built in to a hetro couple, then ya, I think it's better/easier/whatever when the parents are hetro. There's benefits to having NO women around though too, so, fuck. How the hell can this be answered? You need to provide WAY more data than "all things being equal" for us to be able to answer this. Right off the bat: Two dudes, or a man and a woman. Things are already not equal.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,13:49
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,15:33)
QUOTE
No one wants to let all other things be equal.
You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
When you eliminate the extra variables in how you ask the question, then I'll answer it.
You'd make a great pollster. You hide those extra variables right there in the answers.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,13:54
(Cakedaddy @ Sep. 14 2011,15:47)
QUOTE
Cause no matter how fruity the feminine half of that relationship is, they just aren't going to get it when their daughter is having anxiety/self esteem/or whatever bullshit issues girls invent when they start having their periods for the first time.
I don't agree with that. I've known some guys that make a teenage girl entering menarche seem practically serene. I think that as a general rule good gay parents would be able to recognize their daughter's anxiety and probably handle it well enough. Of course that's an inaccurate generalization in the sense that there'd be as many different ways of it being handled as there are couples in that position.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:05
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,16:49)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,15:33)
QUOTE
No one wants to let all other things be equal.
You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
You would make poor scientists. You just don't want to eliminate variables.
When you eliminate the extra variables in how you ask the question, then I'll answer it.
You'd make a great pollster. You hide those extra variables right there in the answers.
What am I hiding? ALL things being equal. I said it at least twice in the OP.
Leisher threw me a curve ball I hadn't thought of when he mentioned single-parent homes, but then I realized ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL still counted.
I have no secret agenda, I just wanted opinions. I had no idea "all other things being equal" was such a difficult concept.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,14:18
You state in the title of the poll that it's "hetero vs homo". In the options it becomes "hetero is bad" or "hetero is good". The first option is clearly false for many reasons. The second option, once that title has been put on the poll, includes the implication that "homo" couples are less beneficial. That's not science, it's a pollster trick. Not that I think you did it on purpose.Here, I'll ask the question of myself in a more general way, and you can decide for yourself where to put me above:
Heterosexual Parents vs Homosexual Parents
1) Heterosexual Parents provide much more benefit to children as compared to Homosexual Parents
2) Heterosexual Parents provide some minor benefit to children as compared to Homosexual Parents
3) Either there is no important difference, or both provide similar levels of benefit to children in different ways
4) Homosexual Parents provide some minor benefit to children as compared to Heterosexual Parents
5) Homosexual Parents provide much more benefit to children as compared to Heterosexual Parents
That I would answer: 3
So, where does that put me on your version?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:37
I'm not sure how it can be a pollster trick, I gave 2 options, and it was a straight-forward yes or no option. But I never studied how to take a poll, so I dunno, maybe it is dishonest. But it seems pretty binary to me.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,14:39
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.Which one should I have picked above, based on what you now know of my stance on the matter? I really can't tell.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:42
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:18)
QUOTE
In the options it becomes "hetero is bad" or "hetero is good".
I disagree with your interpretation. As I worded it, option 1 states hetero is neutral, and option 2 says hetero is beneficial. Option 1 suggests that all things being equal, having parents of both genders is not a factor in child development, option 2 says it is.
Still seems very binary to me.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:44
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:39)
QUOTE
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.
Which one should I have picked above, based on what you now know of my stance on the matter? I really can't tell.
Which one should I have picked above, based on what you now know of my stance on the matter? I really can't tell.
Based on a teen girl having her first period with 2 men in the house?
I think there is no one in that house she will be able to relate to, and she may or may not suffer for it. No matter how "understanding" they are, she may not be able to get past "they never did it, they don't know, this sucks and I am going through this alone." How the fuck would I know goes through a young girl's head?
Is that what you wanted me to address?
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 14 2011,14:46
You people make my head hurt.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:49
(TheCatt @ Sep. 14 2011,17:46)
QUOTE
You people make my head hurt.
I honestly thought it was a very straight-forward question.
You have to live in the fantasy world of "all things being equal," but that is a very common thing when discussion and debate in order to eliminate variables from what you want to isolate and discuss. Ceteris parabis.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,14:54
No, I mean on the original poll. Which answer fits my stance? Based on just the answers I would say everyone would pick option 2 (with the possible exception of some extremely militant lesbians who think having a penis anywhere in the home is horrible). But based on the "vs homo" part of it I would then not be able to answer option 2 because you set it up as a binary proposition of the benefits of hetero vs homo in the title, so that picking option 2 is then saying that homo is bad, or at least not as good. So I really can't tell.
I'm honestly not trying to be a pain in the ass. And I ended up picking "Null Vote" so feel free to ignore me about it as it's now moot.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:57
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:54)
QUOTE
No, I mean on the original poll. Which answer fits my stance?
Well I still don't know what your stance is....
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,14:59
(Cakedaddy @ Sep. 14 2011,16:47)
QUOTE
Cause no matter how fruity the feminine half of that relationship is, they just aren't going to get it when their daughter is ...
I keep laughing as I reread that.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:01
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:39)
QUOTE
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.
SO.......... the poll options are fine, but the title of the thread is what throws you off?
Geez louise.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,15:02
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,16:57)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:54)
QUOTE
No, I mean on the original poll. Which answer fits my stance?
Well I still don't know what your stance is....
My stance is that there are benefits to having a heterosexual couple for parents. There are also pretty much equal (but subtly different) benefits to having a homosexual couple for parents.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:02
(Cakedaddy @ Sep. 14 2011,16:47)
QUOTE
Right off the bat: Two dudes, or a man and a woman. Things are already not equal.
Yeah, dude. That is the one variable we are discussing. All OTHER things being equal.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,15:05
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,17:01)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:39)
QUOTE
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.
SO.......... the poll options are fine, but the title of the thread is what throws you off?
Geez louise.
Yup! If you completely ignore the issue of homosexuality, who in their right mind would say that there is no benefit to having two heterosexual parents? As opposed to only one parent? Or as opposed to having more than two parents? Without the hetero vs homo dichotomy the poll becomes pretty pointless. And with it I can't see how to answer.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:06
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,18:02)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,16:57)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:54)
QUOTE
No, I mean on the original poll. Which answer fits my stance?
Well I still don't know what your stance is....
My stance is that there are benefits to having a heterosexual couple for parents. There are also pretty much equal (but subtly different) benefits to having a homosexual couple for parents.
Well there you go, I never considered that. You never hear any arguments that state, "2 dudes are better!" as parents, you only hear, "2 dudes can be just as good."
I disagree, but I honestly never considered it up until right now.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:07
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,18:05)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2011,17:01)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2011,17:39)
QUOTE
If you had titled it "Raising Children, Heterosexual Marriage" then it wouldn't have been a problem. Although then the implications about single parents might cloud the results. The main problem is mentioning "Homo" as part of it but then making the options a binary choice about the value of "Hetero". It makes it a bit cloudy.
SO.......... the poll options are fine, but the title of the thread is what throws you off?
Geez louise.
Yup! If you completely ignore the issue of homosexuality, who in their right mind would say that there is no benefit to having two heterosexual parents? As opposed to only one parent? Or as opposed to having more than two parents? Without the hetero vs homo dichotomy the poll becomes pretty pointless. And with it I can't see how to answer.
I think you knew exactly what I mean, but were being deliberately obtuse. And that's fine.
And not "fine" like when a woman says "FINE." I mean fine like ok.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,15:14
I would agree with "2 dudes can be just as good" but with the caveat that there would of course be differences. The kid will slightly more likely be more exposed to learning experiences about how to communicate well and how to cooperate and play well with others. And of course how to dress well and make the house look nice.But there will be some bits missing about how heterosexual couples interact that they'd have to fill in elsewhere. Not to mention how to fill the roll of a traditional manly man of the heterosexual sort.
Just as good, but different.
Really, the far more important question will always be how much do the parents care for this child, and how much time and love will they give it? And there I have to say that homosexual couples will probably win on average once you consider that homosexual parents will always have to adopt or plan or work to have a child to raise, whereas some heterosexual parents just end up with a kid they didn't really want and bring down the average parenting quality. There's a self-selecting process for homosexual parents that isn't necessarily always there for the more traditional sort.
EDIT: However, I will admit that homosexual parents are far more likely to be liberal Democrats of the sort I despise, which is unfortunate.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:19
Man, we could send 500 homosexual male couples to another planet.... imagine the civilization they will have built in 1000 years!That was just me relaying a bit of satire I thought of earlier.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2011,15:22
As long as we send along the kids they've adopted, sure! It would be a beautifully decorated civilization. At least right up until it collapses under the weight of the absurd taxes to pay for so many social programs.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2011,15:32
That wasn't the joke.You suck at science AND jokes.