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.

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.

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

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

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.
.

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.