^^that being said, i don't really care what happens in the way of Gays, because it isn't my place to stop them. I dont think christians should control political policies like we do...separation of church and state and all... all i was doing was giving you what i believe is the problem.(but divorce rates are certainly a bigger problem at this point)
Because Divorce & Gay marriage is destroying families(or will)...a working family (or functioning children in the future) generally need a father and a mother figure in the home, as it has generally existed for most of forever and seemed to work pretty **** well. Does that work? (i know i wasn't part of da convo. but your very angry it seems)
@eyetwitch: I have to completely disagree with you on this one. When you look at the marriage failure rate between heterosexual couples, it is huge! Many children are brought up in a heterosexual but loveless household. Is being in a family with gay parents who love each other really worse that being raised by a man and woman who hate each other? Personally, I think that as long as the parents love each other and the child, that it does not make a difference what their sexual orientation is.
Because Divorce & Gay marriage is destroying families(or will)...a working family (or functioning children in the future) generally need a father and a mother figure in the home, as it has generally existed for most of forever and seemed to work pretty **** well
I think the problem is bigger than this even. I think that the notion of a nuclear family unit (one father, one mother, a variable number of kids) is no longer sustainable as the centerpiece of social civilisation.
My evidence for this are the apparent problems that you cite (divorce, gay marriage, also add infidelity, child abuse)- it's better in my view to treat these as the symptoms as opposed to the problems as they all share the same underlying issue: they're all at odds with a traditionalist view of family values.
I also think that there is no evidence that having a mother and a father is necessarily better than having any one or two parents or even possibly multiple parental figures. Developmental theory currently holds it only important that children have at least a consistent source of security and fostering care.
All objections to alternative views of family structures are dependent on assuming that the nuclear family is the pinnacle of human society, which is ultimately question begging. The evidence no longer supports it.
I also think that there is no evidence that having a mother and a father is necessarily better than having any one or two parents or even possibly multiple parental figures
VERY wrong. Studies show that children without a father figure in their lives are 11x more likely to use hard drugs, commit a felony, and females are over 200x more likely to get pregnant in their teens without a father figure. I remember these stats from a child psychology class I took in college. I can't remember what happens without the mother. And there are no studies to show a gay couple can or can't raise a child because gay adoption is such a new thing.
Thanks for that, thelistman, that gives me something to think about.
I have the following response:
* The source you cite is biased- being a special-interests group, it has a specific persuasive agenda, which means that the body of evidence that it presents may be taken out of context as well as obviously being selective.
* A more general criticism of the literature referenced (not one that is directly related to my original claim but nonetheless relevant) is that there are significant confounds that tend to be dismissed due to the prevalence of family rhetoric. That is to say that given that these statistics are true, it is not necessarily true to then say that the increased risks are due to the fact that there is a missing parent.
However I'll make the concession that even in this literature sample it seems more compelling to say 'the more support the better' i.e. the children of single parents are, overall, more likely to face greater difficulty and score lower on standardised achievement scales.
I think the most relevant reasons for this are that in today's contexts, there is still a significant stigma associated with single parenting. The avenues to single parenthood are generally from divorce or some kind of misfortune/concurrent trauma that may have affected the child. I'm going to then claim that it's these contingent stressors that influence the child's behavior more seeing as such cases are not limited to children of single parents.
As such, single parenting usually involved a parent who is stressed and therefore much less likely to provide a stable, secure household i.e. act in his/her capacity as even an adequate single parent.
However there is also increasingly frequent reports of those who have specifically chosen to raise their child as a single parent without the various negative outcomes associated with their circumstance. In terms of entering mainstream consciousness, this is a relatively new development, and brings me to the most significant criticism:
* There are no references on the page you cite that are more recent than 1995. A lot of things have changed since then, and I suspect that the agenda that governs the writing of these papers and the granting of funds for sociological and behavioral research, as well as the population demographics from which these studies sample has changed.
That is to say that the findings presented from such studies are no longer nearly as applicable. So while I was wrong to say 'no evidence', I may not be wrong to say that this evidence before me isn't all that valid anymore.
If however you can replicate these findings from a more academic search (even Google scholar, but preferably something like MEDLINE or PubMed) with papers that come approximately ten years later, I may be more convinced. However from my own studies I'm relatively convinced that this will not be the case.
condence your posts strop I can't read it all without getting distracted but to the gay parents part, two of my friends have gay parents and they are completely normal so that disproves the gay parents make bad kids so look for evidence before you type (I would say speak if we were talking but we're typing so I said type...that was pointless but my backspace isn't working so deal with it)oh they are also both straight
Sorry BASHA, but when somebody tells me I'm "very wrong" I need to make sure that the main considerations that support my statements are clearly understood :P
ok well they can't understand it if they can't read it. well they probably can I just can't because of my disibil...hey look a chicken where did that come from just walking across the street and now someone's chasing it, oh he got it...I should shut up now
I know that source is biased, but they cite every state they give. And the stats I posted were from a Child Psychology text book, and these stats are most likely not biased.
That the site is biased doesn't matter so much in the light of the fact we are merely reviewing evidence. Except to say that of course such a body of evidence is incomplete.
However I also have deeper issues regarding the nature of the cited articles and their interpretation. They are much more important, and I've listed them on the previous page.
And the stats I posted were from a Child Psychology text book, and these stats are most likely not biased.
I'm afraid to say that this isn't a meaningful statement. I'll explain why: Textbooks themselves present a cross-section of prevalent evidence and so are subject to the same biases as the pieces of evidence they draw upon. If one has professional knowledge in the same area they must also be treated with the same suspicion as if they were peer-reviewing an article. This is why some textbooks are reprinted so frequently, particularly in the area of the behavioral sciences and neurology.
So when citing from a textbook, it'd be lovely if you could actually give me the title, edition and date of publication. I know I haven't cited any sources but that's because I haven't made any positively propositional claims. Personally my own thoughts along these lines, as of yet unsubstantiated of course, began from the introduction to the developmental psychology classes I've had as part of my medical degree, but furthered by the review text No Time to Lose- the wellbeing of Australia's children (2005). It gives a sociological overview of Australia over the ages to paint a picture of the kind of environment Australian kids are growing up in and a range of considerations for doing so. It's the latter that proves important, seeing as what I'm essentially arguing here is that the nuclear family unit as the central dominant social structure is not necessarily suitable as exactly that: society should allow for other familial structures and in so doing society should be structured differently. This is a fairly radical view so there will be little direct evidence in favor of it- only tangentially relevant studies that are frequently, strangely enough, highlighted in popular science publications.
To reiterate: while I was incorrect to say there is no evidence that intact nuclear families are better for children's wellbeing, the conclusions drawn from these statistics are overstated.
