The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage equality: the cold, hard facts > Comments

Marriage equality: the cold, hard facts : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 24/8/2011

The children of same sex couples experience an increased sense of security, recognition and inclusion that is directly related to their parents' marriage and sense of well-being.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
About 25% of children in this country rarely see their natural father.

We are now being told to believe this doesn't do them any harm.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 7:59:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If homosexuals are comparing children raised in society generally with those raised by gay couples of course the figures would not indicate a lesser position for those of gay children. Is that what we want from society? NO! we want healthy heterosexual parents - certainly not the norm of current society, where 25% of children have very little contact with their fathers.

We currently have a social problem within families and we must reverse the moral decline. A return to the values that give us such stability and maturity is what is required. Certainly not a policy of anything goes.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:22:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna did you bother to read the article? You do no favour's for kid's and fathers separated by the unscrupulous with your continued extreme stance. Rather you continue to try to polarise every thread you possibly can into a battle of the sex's or make it about feminism.

There are a limited number of parents of both genders who do great harm to their kid's in all sorts of way's. Sometimes they are the resident parent, sometimes not. I've not seen any evidence that sexual orientation is a predictor of that.

Most agree that the best situation for kid's is a stable two parent family where the parents get on well etc. We could probably go on and find some evidence about the ideal house size per person, number of bathroom's, size of school etc as predictors for the best outcomes for kid's.

Very few families would tick every box. There is not one single answer to best outcomes for kid's or anybody else. We all work with what we've got.

Society should only intervene at the extremes where it's clear that harm is being done and unless you have clear evidence that outcomes for kid's in gay and lesbian homes are significantly lower than norms there is no reason to focus on that area.

We do know that kid's in single parent families are more likely to suffer abuse and I think there is an impact on other area's (but don't have evidence at hand for that). Rather than attacking gay and lesbian couples, feminists etc it's better to try to fix the causes of those problems.

TBC

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:46:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

Deal with the preventable causes of kid's being unnecessarily separated from dad's - winner takes all in child custody/property settlements, the ties between residency and various payments, the one sided portrayal of DV and child abuse, the lingering social and employer views about who can and should be able to put family needs ahead of work when kid's are sick or need a parent at that milestone event at school. The attitudes of men have changed a lot over time but there are still plenty of men out there who think that the hard yards of parenting is mothers work, that keeps kid's fatherless as much as any other factor.

You rant at feminists and fatherless-ness but rarely seem to take much interest in fixing the causes.

In the mean time if you disagree with the article please feel free to link to credible research showing that kid's raised in same sex families have significantly and predictably worse outcomes than kid's raised in conventional hetro-sexual families.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:46:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,
The absence of fathers, and the reasons for that, is a separate.

Fathers absence is likely to be beneficial to a significant number of the children i.e. a reasonable proportion of fathers are dead-beats.

Philo,
forcing children to live with an abusive parent is not healthy or stable.
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal
“Fathers absence is likely to be beneficial to a significant number of the children i.e. a reasonable proportion of fathers are dead-beats.”

Ah, and so the process continues.

I was once ambivalent about homosexual marriage, but after reading this article -> not ambivalent.

While everyone is supposed to support homosexual marriage and children produced unnaturally through IVF, there is next to nothing being said by homosexuals in support of heterosexual marriage and children produced by heterosexual couples.

Added to this is the continuous demonisation of fathers, and the equation is now complete.

Far from wanting “marriage equality”, homosexuality is now a direct attack on heterosexuality, and also on children born through heterosexual marriage.

The author’s suggestion that opponents to homosexual marriage are somehow non-progressive is suggestive of real estate agents in the 1970’s.

They wanted natural bush land ripped down to build bigger towns, and now there is a shortage of natural bush land.

Demonisation of heterosexual marriage and fathers, and also labelling people as being non-progressive makes me smell a rat.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:12:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where's formersnag?
Posted by MrGumby, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article, just the sort of thing we need for an informed public debate. I wasn't aware that parenting outcomes had been studied, let alone that the studies came out favourably.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:32:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R stuart
There are 1000's of studies.

Of course the author would select studies that produced favourable results.

Due to corruption in social science, very little in social science is reliable.

The situation is that homosexuals rarely have anything good to say about heterosexuality, or about children born with a natural mother and father.

Next they will be calling children born through IVF as being "progressive"
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:50:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

""the continuous demonisation of fathers, and the equation is now complete.

"Far from wanting “marriage equality”, homosexuality is now a direct attack on heterosexuality, and also on children born through heterosexual marriage.""

Rubbish. I am heterosexual and was just referring to dead-beat fathers in heterosexual marriages.
.

Some mothers are dead-beats, too.

Children that don't see much (or any) of one parent is more likely to be because that parent is a dead-beat (or they are dead).
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal
The continuous demonisation of fathers makes it more difficult for them to see their children.

That demonisation does include calling them "dead beats", and not surprisingly that term has been applied mainly by feminists.

It was a form of propaganda or brainwashing.

Calling people non-progressive if they don't support children born artificially through IVF is also a form of propaganda or brainwashing.

I now see that the case being put forward for homosexual marriage is little more than propaganda, brainwashing and a disguised attack on heterosexuality, and eventually an attack on children born with a natural mother and father.

So a child is born through IVF with homosexual parents, and we are supposed to think they are "progressive".
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 10:35:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The gay marriage debate is interesting. I have a few issues that never get resolved. This article was no help.

1. Marriage is a religious institution designed to encourage conformity to a norm of one sexual partner, and for specialisation of labour in raising children. Why do gay people want to acknowledge this ancient religious anti-gay institution at all? In Australia there are no benefits (in the form of tax treatment, visas, welfare etc) for marriage over de facto relationships. Why not just promise each other you'll be faithful till death do you part?

2. If people want 'marriage equality' why can't I marry my sister? Or my mother? Surely to be equal ALL marriage must be allowed? After all, the main social problems of genetic abnormalities from inbreeding can be solved by IVF - the same way gay couples have children. It is love between two adults - what's wrong with it? I can't believe anyone could argue for gay marriage and not for sibling marriage, since the arguments are all the same.

3. Any study showing the 'superior' outcomes of children from gay couples must control for incomes and other social factors. I have a hard time believing that the 'gay couples with children' sample of society has a similar income distribution to 'heterosexual couples with children' and we know this is a huge factor in child development.

4. Is the desire to have children not related to the desire to mate with the opposite sex? I suspect that the two are related, which makes me feel there is more of a 'conforming to social identity' issue driving the desire to be a progressive gay couple.

5. Are children raised by gay parents more likely to be gay? It seems intuitive that they would be, both because one parent would be a biological parent, and nuturing and exposure to 'gay' behaviour. Is this good or bad? Are children getting a choice?

Finally, I always wonder why people don't just say why they feel gay marriage is unacceptable instead of beating around the bush about 'equality'.
Posted by CKMurray, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:18:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,
I do Not demonise all fathers; I do Not demonise many fathers. I am one.

I just call a space a spade - I just call the deadbeats who ignore their kids .. deadbeats.

I do Not attack heterosexual marriage - I am in one.

Children are Not born artificially through IVF, though they might be conceived artificially. Do get your facts, terminology, context, and emphasis right, please.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:29:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CKMurray,
You make a lot of good points. However Gays want equal rights in acceptance by religious schools and Churches etc. To argue a case on discrimination and gain that right that they are equally married and can have children even as heterosexuals they can infiltrate such without being denied access.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same-sex 'marriage' activists use the same tactics as the pro-anthropogenic-global-warming activists -- they loudly promote their assertions but deride or ignore the research that disproves their case.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 12:27:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing new here and certainly nothing convincing. Tell me your opinion and I'll find the research to support it. The Google generation...

Some thoughts:
i) Just because someone believes something, it doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Flowing on from that, it also doesn't mean that someone against it is automatically a denier, sceptic, " "aphobe, etc.
ii) Even among the homosexual community there seems to be differing opinions as to what people actually want.
iii) Marriage needs some definition, so we are all talking about the same thing.

My personal view is that I do not think same sex marriage is the right thing for children. From the fairly small sample of families I have seen in my role as an educator, the children are not as well adjusted as Mr Groome would suggest. Only a small sample, but interesting all the same.
Posted by rational-debate, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 3:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom you and vanna have ample opportunity to present links to credible research which proves your point.

Go for it. The not seen any reason yet to believe that same sex couples are going to do better or worse than most hetrosexual couples as parents. There are are advantages to having parents with different strengths and weaknesses but nothing about hetrosexual marriage requires one parent to be good at fixing things or being good in the kitchen or any other gender stereotypes nor is there any rule that requires either or both people in a same sex relationship to conform to their genders stereotypes.

None of the arguments I've seen against gay parents stand up against the real world. Great against some mythical 50's family image but not in the day to day lives of real people.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 4:25:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As CKMurray points out, we have statistics to show that gay couples are just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples -- if not better, since they are likely to have given a lot more thought to the deliberate choice to have children. But where are the statistics to show that marriage is better than de facto coupling? Or indeed that coupling is better than tripling, or quadrupling?

I do find it a little sad that so many people seem to accept that the church and/or state has any legitimate role in our private lives whatsoever. Crimes against children (or anyone else) should of course be prevented; but to pretend that any one cohabitational arrangement will automatically achieve that and that all the others don't is simply nonsense on stilts.

Happier parents make for happier children. And people who are allowed and encouraged to live however and with whomever they want are generally happier, better-adjusted and a lot nicer to their children and everyone else. Let's fight for the government to pull out of personal relationships altogether.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 4:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
I agree that Governments should not interfere with relationships and we need on laws unless it is contractual. you said, "Let's fight for the government to pull out of personal relationships altogether".

It would be good if Governments completly ignored same sex relationships merely bound by love. However relationships where children are involved Society must employ government to make sure they are cared for, because they are often neglected, disadvantaged and abused.

Gay relationships based on love is not the business of the Government. However it is not marriage that the gay lobby seek it is their right to children.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 4:53:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I do find it a little sad that so many people seem to accept that the church and/or state has any legitimate role in our private lives whatsoever."

Jon I'd prefer them to drop government registration of relationship status altogether but can't imagine any scenario where a government in this country is likely to do that for a very long time. Nor can I image them declaring heterosexual couples who don't have the care of children from that relationship no longer married.

In the interim the marriage issue seems to stand as symbol of discrimination, highlighted by the determination by the homomaybenotphobic lobby to fight same sex marriage.

I'd like the government to back off all sorts of things but while they are meddling and some appear to want them meddling it should not be the basis of discrimination based on weak excuses.

If Philo and co are serious they should be lobbying not against same sex marriage but rather for a requirement that couples document their intention to have children together before marrying and for the dissolution of any marriages where children are not forthcoming.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 24 August 2011 5:10:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert
You had about twenty wrong apostrophes in your first post this morning but none in your two late afternoon posts. What did you have for lunch?
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 25 August 2011 12:08:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo
I would agree that the homosexual marriage lobby groups are after the children.

They are also trying to portray homosexuality as being better than heterosexuality, and now trying to say that children of homosexual parents are better than children of heterosexual parents.

In essence, they are trying to portray homosexuality as being "the new normal”.

There is nothing normal or natural about IVF, and all indicators are that the future of IVF is heading towards cloning babies and producing designer children.

I have heard no one from homosexual marriage lobby groups even mention such issues, and this could only mean they are totally ignorant of it or they are in full support of it.

Either is bad enough.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 25 August 2011 8:12:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have we already forgotten the little girl who recently had her biological father's name removed from her birth certificate? I wonder if she thinks about that while she commutes from her 'birth mother''s home to her lesbian 'used to be partner of birth mother's' home for 'contact'? My problem is not that lesbians had a child, my problem is that this child has been pulled so many ways keeping the adults (who in my view more or less 'own' her) happy, there can be little time for 'happy' in her own head. We appear to have developed a very selfish view of children at present, they are a 'lifestyle choice'. Sad.
Posted by ruthie2011, Thursday, 25 August 2011 12:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ruthie2011
It was not the child who had the father's name removed from the birth certificate. It was the lesbian mother who had his name removed.

This is despite the following:

"By the time the baby was born he had spent almost $10,000 on the midwife, on weekly naturopathic and chiropractic treatments and shiatsu massages for the birth mother."

"When his daughter was one, he went to the Family Court and won the right to see her every second Saturday for five hours, and on Fathers' Day, Christmas and school holidays. He also paid $150 a week in maintenance and even bought a house near her school to make visits easier. Williams estimates he has spent $50,000 in legal fees trying to retain a meaningful relationship with his daughter, now 10."

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sperm-donor-court-case-reveals-a-fight-to-remove-dads/story-fn6mh6b5-1226119198120

Why aren't such issues being mentioned by the homosexual marriage lobby groups?

Possibly too much to hide, and probably the fact homosexuality is closely aligned with feminism, which so often treats the father as nothing more than a sperm donor and paypacket only.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 25 August 2011 12:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"" ...the homosexual marriage lobby groups are after the children."
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 25 August 2011 8:12:32 AM

Besides, the paranoia of that assertion, do you really think 1-2% of the population are after the children or numerically able to?
..................

"They are also trying to portray homosexuality as being better than heterosexuality"

They essentially just want the stigmatising to stop. Nothing more.
.................

"and now trying to say that children of homosexual parents are better than children of heterosexual parents.""

More paranoia. Given the increasing failings of heterosexual parenting, children of homosexual parents may be better off in the near future.
.................

"In essence, they are trying to portray homosexuality as being "the new normal”."
.

No they just want the stigmatising to stop.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 25 August 2011 10:30:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the homosexual marriage lobby groups are after the children"

Yes McReal, I spotted this one too and was horrified. It's clear some people will say, do or believe anything in order to further their cause.

And their cause is simply to exclude.

Women were excluded from voting and serving on juries for many years.

As were Aboriginals.

And I'll bet they could quote you a few lines from their little book of rules that justified these positions.

Times have changed, and they'll surely change again.
Posted by MrGumby, Thursday, 25 August 2011 10:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal and Mr Grumpy,
I can’t remember seeing much written by a homosexual that says something positive about heterosexual marriage, even though they talk about “equality in marriage”, and this article does attempt to say that children of homosexual couples do better than children of heterosexual couples.

It does remind me of articles written by feminists that do not say one good thing about male gender, even though they talk about “equality between the genders”, and I think more and more people can now see through the hypocrisy of feminism.

Homosexuals can have de facto relationships, but my guess is that they want marriage so as to legitimise homosexuality and make it easier to recruit.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 26 August 2011 12:00:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,
so what? Expecting "a" homosexual or "a" female writer (feminist?) to write something to appease you suggests you are a follower of authority, or a seeker of isolated, disconnected literature.

Homosexuals and women have been put-down and bullied by men - by individuals and systematically - for eternity. Most of their writings in recent decades reflect that.

Get this: there is a spectrum of sexuality, including a spectrum of the physical characteristics of sexuality, such as intersexes (hermaphrodites), but most people are either heterosexual male or heterosexual female. Some might say God created each individual within that spectrum. You denigrate heterosexuals by implying they are easily recruited to homosexuality. You denigrate homosexuals by saying they want to recruit.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 26 August 2011 6:48:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
"the increasing failings of heterosexual parenting ..."

Please discuss
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 26 August 2011 6:50:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recruit? Vanna you are evil and must be destroyed.
Posted by MrGumby, Friday, 26 August 2011 9:07:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal
According to feminist theory, all males should be killed off, because females are better.

According to this article, all children should be produced through IVF and have homosexual parents, because such children are better.

Feminism has nothing to do with equality, and this article at least has nothing to do with equality.

It is hype, combined with advertising homosexuality.

NB.
Homosexuality has been tolerated for centuries, even though it does not produce children and is not sustainable.

Women have also been kept alive and tolerated for centuries, even though they rarely build anything, discover anything or invent anything.

The idea that men repress homosexuality and repress women is a bigoted view only.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 26 August 2011 10:18:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna, reading your postings indicates you obviously have a shallow and dictatorial outlook on life.
I feel sorry for you that you are living such a sad and bitter life, and there is release from this sadness, by getting rid of the negative baggage you are carrying.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 26 August 2011 10:29:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp,
I don’t accept your commiserations.

Homosexuality was a dead end game, because it never produced children, and left to women, we would still be living in caves.

Along comes IVF, much supported by various feminists and homosexuals, but shortly it may be possible to produce cloned children without a male sperm cell or a female ovum cell.

There are already people saying that such children will be better, although nature has never thought this way, and there is no such thing as an asexual human.

Asexual plants yes, but not asexual humans.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 26 August 2011 10:58:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Cold Hard Facts of the homosexual lesbian argument is that two males or two females cannot and will never be able to marry, and will never equally and naturally share in a union that will produce children. Therefore = NO MARRIAGE. NO EQUALITY - THE COLD HARD FACT!
Posted by Philo, Friday, 26 August 2011 11:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adoption has been largely abandoned in modern societies because it was deemed to be 'cruel' to deny the children (and natural mothers) access to their biological relatives or histories.

But how can use of an unnamed and unidentified sperm, or the ova of a woman implanted into a surrogate, be anything different in outcome?

I lost my father early in life, and know little about him as a person. However, the narrative of my mother and father, and importantly, knowedge of that part of my biological family, is absolutely crucial to my self-identity.

Many ideas that I have of myself have been formed after exposure to my father's family and history.

To deliberately create children without access to this biological and social information seems like legalised baby stealing. I couldn't give or sell my own children away...so why should I be able to sell or give away a fertilised egg, or my ova, knowing that it is to be grown into a child?

The ethical issues presented by this new form of baby farming are huge, and cannot be wished under the carpet. It could be seen as a new version of 'the stolen generation'... 'the bought and sold generation'.
Posted by floatinglili, Monday, 29 August 2011 9:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
floatinglili,
Thanks for sharing your experience. May you find healing from those who knew your parents.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 8:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
floatinglili,
The issue you mentioned is important, and in Canada it was partially addressed here.

"Canadian court bans anonymous sperm and egg donation"

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110527/full/news.2011.329.html

Canada has only 33 men donating sperm, and those numbers are likely to decline to zero with this court ruling, as the sperm donor could be made to pay child support.

However, knowing the identity of the father is only 1 issue amongst many surrounding IVF.

These issues are not being addressed by the homosexual marriage lobby groups, and will have to be left to heterosexual men and women to sort out, more likely than not.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 10:42:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kids need both a father and a mother - time and again my high school students who have one of these missing at home are not secure at all. Same-sex family structures don't provide balanced gender modelling for kids. The further we travel away from the Christian-Judeo model of family life, the less practical and beneficial alternative family structure models are for families. This principle equally applies to traditional family structures.
Posted by TAC, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kids need both a father and a mother - time and again my high school students who have one of these missing at home are not secure at all.
Posted by TAC, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:17:54 PM

How much is that a self-fulfilling prophecy in that those kids are made to feel that is an issue? e.g. Oh, you poor thing! (or similar).

"The further we travel away from the Christian-Judeo model of family life, the less practical and beneficial alternative family structure models are for families."

Who says? What about the extended family models common in Mediterranean families??
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 11:00:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Mcreal, you could be right, there could be an element of self-fulfilling prophecy creating insecurity for kids from single sex homes (read that as single parent); but in my experience, the kids come to you insecure before there is a chance to have the feeling cultured into them. What really insecure kids usually have in common is a lack of both genders providing functional role modelling at home.
The Judeo-Christian family model is a Mediterraneum model, so we seem to agree.
Posted by TAC, Monday, 5 September 2011 10:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,
Mediterranean families have both genders present in the family home and the children know who are their mother and father. Such has no resemblence to same sex homes, where children may not know one gender parent.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 8:32:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy