I've already discussed that and disclaimed that I never said that the 50s were a "Golden Age". I was implying that the family unit was stronger in the 1950s and prior.
No you weren't. You said that people IN GENERAL, were happier. That's not an implication, that's a statement. Now back it up.
I think NE., along with a large portion of America, has this romanticized view of the older days. A man, a women, two kids, and a dog; living a quiet life in the humdrum suburbs.
That is NOT the only way to raise a family nor does that type of upbringing guarantee raising a productive adult.
I think NE., along with a large portion of America, has this romanticized view of the older days. A man, a women, two kids, and a dog; living a quiet life in the humdrum suburbs.
That is NOT the only way to raise a family nor does that type of upbringing guarantee raising a productive adult.
I never said it guaranteed a productive adult. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life, but we don't need stats to prove the fact that a traditional family tends to provide the best outcome.
I never said it guaranteed a productive adult. Nothing is ever guaranteed in life, but we don't need stats to prove the fact that a traditional family tends to provide the best outcome.
Gay parents can do a good job raising a child, but I'm implying that traditional parenting is by far superior, contrary to the article which is literally suggesting that two people who cannot biologically create a child, are better suitable as parents. That's just pure absurdity.
Well, there is no way in really knowing which way is better. Every household is different. Having a mom and dad who biologically reproduced all their children does not equal a stable environment. What constitutes a stable environment depends on multiple factors, where having a mom and dad is just as important as having two dads.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
We constantly want to push unnatural things as "progressive" to avoid stepping on toes, but it comes with a price. Today we're constantly asking "What happened to society today?", "Why are people acting this way now?", "Why are so many kids depressed and behaving out of line?", when too many people are overlooking the elephant in the room: The deterioration of the nuclear family.
These questions are asked while the divorce rate among heterosexual marriages increases, alongside the increase of teenage pregnancy. But what do homosexual parents have to do with this? Family is about stability. Not who runs it.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
The fact that people are honestly implying that gender roles are "sociologically constructed". These roles didn't just pop out of the air. I think some of you honestly believe that the only difference between a man and a woman is a penis and a vagina.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of sociology. These "traditional" roles you speak of are not universal. Just look around the world around you and you will see. What defines a traditional home varies from family to family around the world. From a US perspective, for example, the husband has more control in the finance aspect. Where as in some places, it is more acceptable for the wife to manage the money. Just as in some families, the wife must cook + clean and obey the men around her. Where as in some cultures, the men respect the wife.
So you see, having a penis or a vagina is irrelevant when it comes to ROLES. Societal roles are constructed. "Tradition" is cultural...and culture is not exactly a universal language.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
Science has shown that men are given more strength and muscle than women. Their skin dermis is thicker and more firm. They were created to laboriously work to take charge, protect and provide for their families. Men by nature tend to take a more direct approach on life and tackle an issue at face value. Women are more nurturing and caring by nature. That's why they carry the child. They're more intuitive and read between the lines in ways most men cannot keep up with. Men make houses, women make homes.
What does this have to do with creating a stable environment for a family?
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
There's always an ongoing gag of how a man and woman are both shown a color pallete. The man will give the basic colors, Red, Blue, Green, Black, but the woman names every shade in between: Red, Pink, Magenta, Lavender, Turquoise, etc.
What does this have to do with creating a stable environment for a family?
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
Men and women are biologically different physically and mentally, and I don't think some of you understand that. A man putting on an apron and baking cookies, is not going to make him a mother.
And what does this have to do with creating a stable environment for a family? There are plenty of wives who can't cook. My uncle is a chef, and while my aunt is decent, he makes dinner. Is the environment they've provided for my little cousin unsafe? Does it invalidate everything because the roles are somewhat switched?
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
A child will always do best when these roles are properly filled. Studies have stated the obvious that teenage pregnacies are on the rise, and it shows a direct connection due to the skyrocketing out-of-wedlock and divorce rates. When a man is not present in the home for his child, a piece of the biological puzzle is missing and the void has to be filled somehow. A mother can tell her 14-year old daughter that she doesn't need to have sex with her pressuring boyfriend to keep him around, hearing it from her father makes all the difference. And studies have shown juxtaposed the teen pregnancy rate to families with a father and mother in the home vs. a single mother, and guess which had higher rates of pregancies? I don't even need to spell it out.
"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls," says Gartrell. "I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."
-Time magazine report on a research study on lesbian households over time.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
What some of you need to understand is, that a proper family foundation is crucial for a child's development. Now, of course, it's possible for a child coming from a single-parent home or gay parent home to turn out normal and successful, but nothing is stronger that what nature intended, a mother and a father.
Well I'm glad you acknowledged the latter, but what I don't think you understand is where the roles you speak highly off come from. These roles were assigned years ages ago to fit what society is then. Being as though we live in a very patriarchal society, of course men were assigned dominate roles. This has nothing to do with biology. I mean it is even in books (ie: Eve taking the first bite of the apple in the Bible). These roles are deep-rooted in society, but that was then. The "proper foundation" does not mean what it used to mean because society doesn't need to meet the same goals needed in the past.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
The point I'm making is, two gay parents may be able to do a good job of raising a child to be successful in life, but nothing can beat the role of a mother and father.
No, nothing can be a stable and loving environment. Having a mother and a father doesn't mean anything if they can't afford to put food on the table. Or if the mom is sleeping around while the husband is physically abusive to the children. Research is proving that there really is no difference between the two. Majority, if not all, of the turmoil does not come from the fact that the children are being raised by two parents of the same sex - but society's unwilling behavior to modify its deep-rooted social constructs.
No you weren't. You said that people IN GENERAL, were happier. That's not an implication, that's a statement. Now back it up.
Quote:
Several recent, large epidemiologic and family studies suggest important temporal changes in the rates of major depression: an increase in the rates in the cohorts born after World War II; a decrease in the age of onset with an increase in the late teenaged and early adult years; an increase between 1960 and 1975 in the rates of depression for all ages; a persistent gender effect, with the risk of depression consistently two to three times higher among women than men across all adult ages; a persistent family effect, with the risk about two to three times higher in first-degree relatives as compared with controls; and the suggestion of a narrowing of the differential risk to men and women due to a greater increase in risk of depression among young men. These trends, drawn from studies using comparable methods and modern diagnostic criteria, are evident in the United States, Sweden, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand, but not in comparable studies conducted in Korea and Puerto Rico and of MexicanAmericans living in the United States. These cohort changes cannot be fully attributed to artifacts of reporting, recall, mortality, or labeling and have implications for understanding the etiology of depression and for clinical practice.
Let me summarize. It's saying that generation born after WWII and people of all ages in the 60s and 70s were reported to have higher rates of depression and it has increased since then.
Why did depression rates suddenly start increasing in the 60s, especially in women? Can you answer that question for me personally? I have my own theory, but I'm curious to hear yours.
Let me summarize. It's saying that generation born after WWII and people of all ages in the 60s and 70s were reported to have higher rates of depression and it has increased since then.
Why did depression rates suddenly start increasing in the 60s, especially in women? Can you answer that question for me personally? I have my own theory, but I'm curious to hear yours.
Of course not, I haven't done that research myself. But that doesn't suddenly make your theory valid at all.
The first thing you learn in any research/statistics class is that correlation is not causation.
Of course not, I haven't done that research myself. But that doesn't suddenly make your theory valid at all.
The first thing you learn in any research/statistics class is that correlation is not causation.
It doesn't make it invalid either. There are just as many scientists out there writing articles on studies stating every point I made as it pertains to a traditional family structure being best-suited for a child. It's all a matter of opinion. And has anyone ever stopped to ask the child how they feel about having two same-sex parents? I don't believe so.
It doesn't make it invalid either. There are just as many scientists out there writing articles on studies stating every point I made as it pertains to a traditional family structure being best-suited for a child. It's all a matter of opinion. And has anyone ever stopped to ask the child how they feel about having two same-sex parents? I don't believe so.
Today we're constantly asking "What happened to society today?", "Why are people acting this way now?", "Why are so many kids depressed and behaving out of line?", when too many people are overlooking the elephant in the room: The deterioration of the nuclear family.
This is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, depression rates have gone up. And yes, the rate of nuclear families has been decreasing. However, these are two separate stats. Your assumption that one causes the other is incorrect, unproven, and illogical.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
The fact that people are honestly implying that gender roles are "sociologically constructed". These roles didn't just pop out of the air. I think some of you honestly believe that the only difference between a man and a woman is a penis and a vagina.
Yes, that is my belief. Men and women are born with biological differences, and they are socialized into gender roles. But strip those roles away (or just move your span of thinking beyond your own culture and time period) and you will see that when it boils down to it, men and women are truly only different biologically.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
Science has shown that men are given more strength and muscle than women. Their skin dermis is thicker and more firm. They were created to laboriously work to take charge, protect and provide for their families. Men by nature tend to take a more direct approach on life and tackle an issue at face value. Women are more nurturing and caring by nature. That's why they carry the child. They're more intuitive and read between the lines in ways most men cannot keep up with. Men make houses, women make homes.
I can't even touch this one, beyond saying you make me feel like I've gone back in a time machine before women had rights. You've made some not cool, and in fact, oppressive, generalizations here.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
A child will always do best when these roles are properly filled. Studies have stated the obvious that teenage pregnacies are on the rise, and it shows a direct connection due to the skyrocketing out-of-wedlock and divorce rates.
Here you are railing against divorce rates, not gay parenting, so your argument is irrelevant. That is not the issue at hand.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, and all these talk shows frequently do segments about children from broken homes, and even into their mid-50s, these people will tell you how much it affected them.
Please do not take Dr. Phil as an accurate source. Do some reading.
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
The point I'm making is, two gay parents may be able to do a good job of raising a child to be successful in life, but nothing can beat the role of a mother and father.
AND the point I'm making (along with many scientists and researchers) is that studies show NO difference in well being of children raised in a same sex houseland vs a traditional nuclear family.
It doesn't make it invalid either. There are just as many scientists out there writing articles on studies stating every point I made as it pertains to a traditional family structure being best-suited for a child. It's all a matter of opinion. And has anyone ever stopped to ask the child how they feel about having two same-sex parents? I don't believe so.
You haven't posted a single study that refutes any of the studies that have been presented NUMEROUS times in this thread, showing no difference in the quality of parenting between same-sex and heterosexual couples.
Depression rates are up due to industrialization and the fact that we live such complicated, fast paced lives now. The fact that depression wasn't even seen as a real disease back in the day might have something to do with the increases now that it becomes more and more recognized, sometimes even over-represented as pysciatrists now days will diagnose anyone depressed if they have a bad week.
The traditional family deteriorating doesn't correlate to depression at all. Highly doubt women are more depressed being free than they are being stuck in a loveless-for show-marriage.
Depression rates are up due to industrialization and the fact that we live such complicated, fast paced lives now. The fact that depression wasn't even seen as a real disease back in the day might have something to do with the increases now that it becomes more and more recognized, sometimes even over-represented as pysciatrists now days will diagnose anyone depressed if they have a bad week.
The traditional family deteriorating doesn't correlate to depression at all. Highly doubt women are more depressed being free than they are being stuck in a loveless-for show-marriage.
To those who think I'm knocking gay parenting as wrong, you've misunderstood me. This is NOT a sexual orientation issue. It's a biological one.
Gay parents can do a good job raising a child, but I'm implying that traditional parenting is by far superior, contrary to the article which is literally suggesting that two people who cannot biologically create a child, are better suitable as parents. That's just pure absurdity.
We constantly want to push unnatural things as "progressive" to avoid stepping on toes, but it comes with a price. Today we're constantly asking "What happened to society today?", "Why are people acting this way now?", "Why are so many kids depressed and behaving out of line?", when too many people are overlooking the elephant in the room: The deterioration of the nuclear family.
The fact that people are honestly implying that gender roles are "sociologically constructed". These roles didn't just pop out of the air. I think some of you honestly believe that the only difference between a man and a woman is a penis and a vagina.
Science has shown that men are given more strength and muscle than women. Their skin dermis is thicker and more firm. They were created to laboriously work to take charge, protect and provide for their families. Men by nature tend to take a more direct approach on life and tackle an issue at face value. Women are more nurturing and caring by nature. That's why they carry the child. They're more intuitive and read between the lines in ways most men cannot keep up with. Men make houses, women make homes.
There's always an ongoing gag of how a man and woman are both shown a color pallete. The man will give the basic colors, Red, Blue, Green, Black, but the woman names every shade in between: Red, Pink, Magenta, Lavender, Turquoise, etc.
Men and women are biologically different physically and mentally, and I don't think some of you understand that. A man putting on an apron and baking cookies, is not going to make him a mother.
A child will always do best when these roles are properly filled. Studies have stated the obvious that teenage pregnacies are on the rise, and it shows a direct connection due to the skyrocketing out-of-wedlock and divorce rates. When a man is not present in the home for his child, a piece of the biological puzzle is missing and the void has to be filled somehow. A mother can tell her 14-year old daughter that she doesn't need to have sex with her pressuring boyfriend to keep him around, hearing it from her father makes all the difference. And studies have shown juxtaposed the teen pregnancy rate to families with a father and mother in the home vs. a single mother, and guess which had higher rates of pregancies? I don't even need to spell it out.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, and all these talk shows frequently do segments about children from broken homes, and even into their mid-50s, these people will tell you how much it affected them.
What some of you need to understand is, that a proper family foundation is crucial for a child's development. Now, of course, it's possible for a child coming from a single-parent home or gay parent home to turn out normal and successful, but nothing is stronger that what nature intended, a mother and a father.
So Jennifer, you may think you're 92-year old grandpa's opinion on the family is "backwards", but that doesn't change that fact that in the 50s, when divorce rates were extremely low and most children had a mother and a father in the household, their was less crime, kids did better in school, less teenage pregnancies, and people were just happier in general. Now every time we try to alter the natural order of things to accommodate a deviant lifestyle, another piece of society falls apart and suffers.
The point I'm making is, two gay parents may be able to do a good job of raising a child to be successful in life, but nothing can beat the role of a mother and father.
Hm.
The article isn't saying that gay parents are flat-out better than straight parents. Ignore the title and focus on the details: the article points out the truth that many straight couples are accidental parents. They might conceive because they didn't use protection, and in many cases, these couples aren't prepared to raise a child. On the other hand, a gay couple seeking to adopt a child is clearly prepared to raise it. They are going out of their way to find a kid and give it a caring home. There's no such thing as accidental gay parents, so gay couples who want to be parents are automatically as committed as straight couples.
The article isn't really saying anything about gay people at all. It's saying that people who adopt are more likely to do a good and dedicated job raising their child than people who have a "mistake" child. It just so happens that many gay people want to adopt, so the article applies to them.
Most experts say that gender roles are neither naturally nor socially constructed. They are a mix. And despite the physical differences you've pointed out, many men still aren't inclined to do hard labor. Especially Americans. Ancient labor roles simply don't apply in the 21st century. I get your point--that the natural roles obviously have some significance and mean that a heterosexual couple has to be superior to a homosexual couple in parenting. But it's wrong. Men are just as capable of raising children and women are just as capable of being breadwinners.
As for the mental differences. People's brains are different. Some women have more masculine brains while some men can (and do) think like women. I know that I, personally, have a middle brain. Some aspects are more stereotypically male while others are female. I can relate to both sexes. I suspect that many gay men are like this, and vice versa for lesbians. The very fact that gay men are, as a group, more feminine than straight men and that lesbians are more masculine than straight women disproves the idea that they can't fulfill other gender roles.
A single parent isn't the same as gay parents, though. Gay homes aren't "broken." They're often quite healthy and functional, because gay couples put effort into getting and raising children, as this article points out.
The traditional family deteriorating doesn't correlate to depression at all. Highly doubt women are more depressed being free than they are being stuck in a loveless-for show-marriage.
These roles didn't just pop out of the air. I think some of you honestly believe that the only difference between a man and a woman is a penis and a vagina.
Do some reading.