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 > A dad does matter to a child, whether gay couples like it or not > Comments

A dad does matter to a child, whether gay couples like it or not : Comments

By David van Gend, published 31/8/2011

Same-sex parenting makes children subservient to adults' emotional needs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Mollydukes,
We havent seen the social outcome of Penny Wongs experiment yet so do not use it as a norm for children. Western society is individualistic in character while others are tribal which makes a difference. The natural extended family is the best ideal, because there is a biological identity deeper than the mates in the class room.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:05:32 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
Philo you are so lucky. But why do you always think that you and your life experience is the right way for everyone?

There certainly was tension between fathers and mothers back in the 50s'. My parents, were both good people, not bludgers, raised in christian families, but were totally unsuited psychologically to be together.

The tension was always there - sometimes violence - and we all - my brother and sister, suffered significantly and continue to deal with the problems that a dysfunctional marriage creates.

From your experience you see that a traditional nuclear family is the answer. From my experience I see that there needs to be alternatives and from my experience with gay people, I am sure that they can make good parents.
Posted by Mollydukes, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:12:31 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
@ Mollydukes, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:56:51 AM - Excellent post!!

especially this - " ... a variety of [good] male and female role models .. is far more useful than one example of how a man behaves and how a woman behaves."
....................................

But this .....

"Sparkyq and McReal ... pose an equally disturbed state for children, a motherless / fatherless society. They approve of promiscuity and adultery as normal while undermining those that teach in defence of divine relationships of the committed family."
@ Philo, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:57:21 AM

Utter, Utter Rubbish, Philo.

YOU do NOT speak for me. YOU have No right to extend my comments to put words in my mouth. I think you should recant & Apologise.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:16:17 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, you are right in pointing to the absurdity of justifying same-sex marriage on the basis that some heterosexual marriages are failures. As I wrote in an earlier OO article (November 2010, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11272):

"At this point the curious argument is always raised that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents. But neither of these scenarios is in the interests of a child – and only the same-sex scenario is preventable. It is a fallacy to argue that because a child in one household has abusive parents, we are therefore justified in placing another child in another household where there are two “married” men and no mother. No, we must reject both scenarios for the sake of the child, restraining and retraining those parents who would inflict abuse – or even removing the child from harm’s way - and also denying those adults who would wilfully deprive a child of a mother or father."
Posted by David van Gend, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:23:34 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
Philo, please do not assume that either myself, or anyone else for that matter, approve of promiscuity or adultery, I do not. Nor do I believe that the state into which many children are born today gives equal right to homosexuals being parents. My point is that the argument being used that children born into “divine relationships of the committed family” is quite invalid given the evidence. I do not presume that you in any way approve of the prevailing social conditions, neither do I. A loving, caring upbringing for a child can be delivered by a same sex couple just as it can be in a “traditional” marriage
Posted by Sparkyq, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:39:04 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
Rodney Croome, where are you? Surely there are many other non-homophobic writers in Australia. But not seeing any of them here.

Why the proliferation of homophobic articles on OLO?

Dumb question, this is not a site for balanced discussion. What was I thinking? Apologies.

" Social conservatives have long coddled a sweet nostalgia for the 1950s as the golden age of matrimony. This yearning usually accompanies confident claims that long-term monogamy is the only natural mating pattern for humans.

But just what is the “natural” human mating system?

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, authors of Sex at Dawn, conclude that while people fall deeply in love and form wonderfully strong pair bonds, they also relish plenty of sexual variety.

Ryan and Jethá’s examination of data on mating patterns in traditional foraging societies – from the Curripaco people of Brazil to the Iroquois who lived in upstate New York until the 18th century – suggests that our ancestors spent most of evolutionary history behaving promiscuously, with occasional short-term relationships lasting months rather than years.

My own reading of the research leads me to infer that individuals have the capacity for almost infinite variety in their sexual behaviour, from rampant promiscuity to life-long monogamy.

Humans have evolved to make the best of the circumstances into which they are born. There are better ways to approach this type of behaviour than pontificating that one way of life is somehow “superior” to all others. We can learn much about relationships and happiness by understanding how economics interacts with our evolved behaviour to shape what individuals do under particular circumstances."

http://theconversation.edu.au/hells-bells-why-marriage-gets-hard-when-things-get-easy-1549
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:40:01 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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