Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

Thats not true.

There are definatly succesfull, happy family out theres that have 2 dads or 2 moms.

I can find plenty of [censored]ed up family's that have 1 mom and 1 dad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dBUCi32c8
I actually thought some of the No on 8 ads were pretty good.

Honestly, I think enough people are pro gay marriage that as long as everyone gets clear that it's like medical tests and no is what we want, it will not pass.

And honestly, the whole "Ideal environment for a child" can be so easily debated back and forth. It's my view that it doesn't change too much for the child, it's all relative to the specific child.
And honestly, even if it is not ideal, big whoop. There are abused children that grow up to do great things.

That there are exceptions doesn't really change things. Studies have demonstrated that children tend to perform the best in a "traditional" family environment. Note "tend." That means that, while it is true over a large statistical sample, there are exceptions. However, they are just that -- exceptions.

In point of fact, concern over this statistic is the root of a lot of the hysterical anti-homosexual voices today. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family comes to my mind most readily as a hysterical anti-homosexual voice driven almost entirely over the concern generated mostly by that and other unfortunate cultural statistics relating to gays. Some of these statistical issues (the multiple partners one is an example, I think) are beginning to shift and change through time: we're seeing far more monogamous, stable homosexual relationships now that it's at least reasonably societally acceptable than we did just twenty or thirty years ago. But it's going to take more time before the statistical issues iron out. And some of them, like the nuclear family statistics, may never resolve in a way that is neutral or positive toward homosexuality. I cannot say. *shrug*


Tell Wynni that it's okay for her kids to grow up in a nonideal situation. Or that any children should. That's the thing. This is an issue that doesn't bother you young folks, Kel, but for people my age and older, it starts to really become very important. We'd like our children to have the best of things. And, in a perfect world, we'd extend the best of things to all children. We understand that's not realistic, but we want to do our best to make that true. Hence the concern with this issue.

Alright, honestly, I need someone to explain it to me, what is the base on working out whether an environment is ideal for a child?

I think part of this lack of a good environment is the anti homosexuality of some young people. Which is something I hope will change in time.

'Ideal' is such a subjective thing, really. Most of the tight-butt conservative folks would be shocked and outraged at the 2 Dad, 1 Mom thing we have here. But our son is happy, healthy, and loving every minute. Nevermind that he keeps adopting more people into the extended 'pack'. It works. For us, this is more or less ideal. Don't know how we're going to deal with daddy #2 being gone a whole year.

No child should have to grow up in less than ideal circumstances. But many children do. Not every child is best served by nuclear families. But we can't peer into a crystal ball and say 'this kid needs 2 moms!' or something. The only thing we can really do is to be the best parents we can be. Or, if not parents ourselves, support the good parents.

I know a family over in Britain, though we've been out of touch. Two fine women and their daughter. From everything I'd see and heard, two wonderful parents. I know a family in Canada. Enough people that if you split it up, you'd get two nuclear families with an extra kid. Sweethearts, the lot of them.

These are exceptions. But I honestly doubt any of the children in either relationship will grow up unloved or uncared for. No crystal ball, here, but I'm pretty sure they'll just be normal kids.

Ya. Honestly, there are so many different ways that are "ideal" to raise a child.

Exceptions aren't the execptions really. Their the reality. A lot of seriously messed up people have had "ideal" upbringings.

A lot of them have had messed up childhoods.

I don't think theres any such thing as an "ideal" way to raise a child.

You could be raised horribly, and take from your situation lessons on whats right and whats wrong. You could be raised perfectly and be completely messed up because you have no idea what the real world is like.

Who the parents are doesn't matter. Its how and what the parents do. Even that is unpredictable. Great parents could raise a monster, horrible parents could raise a monster.

Can you please share some such studies? Most of the ones I've encountered were neutral -- that homosexual parents were no worse, nor any better, than heterosexual parents.

I think I'd argue the "idealness" or monogamy parts.

While you might say "Stable environments are best for our children!" well these new generations are already starting off on the wrong foot. more than 50% of couples being married today will have their relationship end in a divorce. Even more startling couples that last through divorce have a pretty high risk for adultery. Both of which statistically speaking are at record highs based on the percent vs. overall population. Where as a gay couple is likely in a more stable environment (usually a couple will only adopt if they are on pretty good grounds with each other and are more than able to support the children).

Heterosexual couples can be just as promiscuous as gay couples. but the difference is Heterosexual couples have kids as a product of their relationship, that is... the fact that they express their love produces children. Where as gay couples that adopt children are, for the most part, sure that that environment will be the best they can possibly give.

Not to mention the fact that there is no research that proves heterosexuals or homosexuals are better at raising children... so the way I see it kids these days have about the same odds no matter what their family makeup is.

What is ideal for a child is that parents are able to support them, without the parents being mired in their own problems regardless of orientation. That is what will determine what is best for the children.

If I only had the patience to type that out, and the ability to word it that well, I'd have said something simliar to that! I can't word things that well tho.. :(

But I have to say, that you can't say that a homosexual relationship will be more stable. Just as you can't prove a heterosexual relationship will be.

So, "ideal" in the way that I'm talking about it in reference to evidence (I'll look for it later...I watched a debate about this and know there was some) about what produces the best-quality kid is NOT just "one dad one mom." It must be one father and one mother who are monogamous and stable. No divorce, no violence, no abuse...your ideal family. That is what has been shown to be the "best environment" for children. ANY deviation from that is then considered less than ideal. Yes, that means a large percentage of straight parents are less than ideal for their children. And can still raise great kids. It's not an end all be all, it's statistics and numbers on a page which attempt to say something about humanity and life and individuals, and that is ALWAYS error-fraught territory.

Now, I personally believe that gay couples can be just as great of parents as straight couples, but I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate here, just for the record.

Your "ideal" is so unlikely to happen in today's world that it would be pretty easy to dismiss that as myth. While I'm sure somewhere out there that is a reality, that it's a pointless argument.

Since it's for the sake of argument(sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you before, didn't mean to), I suppose you should show the proof, but even with "proof", it's something that I'd be forced to doubt, simply because of the inherent unpredictablity of raising a child. You could have your perfect family, but the child, out of spite for the parents could take the wrong path. Which is why I have to think there is no "ideal" way to raise a child.

But of course, I don't mean to sound like I'm making personal attacks, if I am I do apologize.

Mostly I think that the range between what children need and what parents have to offer is so great that "ideal" is a whisk of smoke, not something easily obtained. What I can tell you though if I were to bet money on what is "statistical consistent" for good to great environments for kids is a homosexual couples homes. Now before you start thinking I'm saying "down with heterosexuals!" I'm not. Out of the homosexuals that adopt, statistically speaking they'll be better equipped than a good portion of families that have parenthood thrust upon them. There are PLENTY of good heterosexual homes, I think I came from a damn good one. So if I was to make a bet with best environment for children I'd probably go with the homosexual household. Though I am interested to see your research. :)

Well, I'd say that only 50% of a kid's upbringing is influenced by parents. From the earliest age, there's TV. And then relatives. The child goes to school, and suddenly he's got people to interact with. Which may/may not lead to "Dude, your parents are gay???"

And there's a million other things that a kid, or anyone, will see/hear sesory ect. that influence their life.

Well if it wasn't the parents being gay it would be "Dude you're fat" " you're ugly" "you're smart" "you're dumb" "you're slow" etc. etc. and it terms of parenting it could be "dude your dad left you" "Your mom is in jail!" "Your dad is a drunk!" etc.

So yeah it does come from anywhere... and if it isn't one thing it is just going to be something else.

Exactly, but "gay" was the one that partained to the topic. :)
And it doesn't help that kids can be pretty cruel, especially at the ages of 8-14, when they start finding things out, like what's hip and what's not, and will get it in their minds that if someone's not like them, then they are a threat.