If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Are you saying Gay parents are likey to be better parents here, or at least all gay parents will be good parents, beacuse it sounds like it?
Well I would think the natural assumption is that women would argue men are not necessary and men would argue men are necessary, it normally boils down to something along those lines. It's always extremely difficult to have a discussion about these kind of gender roles because whatever anyone says, they're automatically biased by being one gender or another.
My opinion: I disagree that a positive male role model is unnecessary, especially for example in black communities it has been identified as one of the big reasons young boys are disillusioned. However I don't think that automatically means every child without a male role model is doomed.
I think Cameron is right in his underlying idea in that a positive male role model can be very beneficial to a child's development, although I disagree with making it a requirement of any sort in IVF. I mean, even if someone conceives naturally, there's every chance there is no or a very poor male role model, or even no or a very poor female role model. Having an alcoholic abusive violent father / mother is worse than not having any.
If you look at schools, most teachers are female, and in the education system and in society young boys are constantly looked at as failing to reach their potential and I think it's because many don't have a good role model that they can identify with.
I don't think it's fair to pick on lesbians and maybe it's the guardian article that is looking at that tangent - that is the nature of the guardian, to interpret things in the most vile way it can. I think responsible parents would want the best for their child and would seek out a male positive role model. Of course you get people who seperate their children from one gender because of personal animosity (which ends up breeding misogyny and misandry) but we should not assume that is what will happen.
In conclusion, leave them to it (i.e. don't bring legislation in to make it harder for anyone to conceive because they haven't jumped through the right hoops), but don't dismiss the positive effects having both a female and male role model can have to children, because a young boy is more likely to relate to a man than a woman, and a young girl is more likely to relate to a woman than a man.
I also think that trying to make judgements about homosexual vs heterosexual parents one way or the other is ridiculous (I'm not implying that that is what anyone has done, just making things clear).
No. I know I may have not been crystal clear in my statement but surely you don't think that is my general view? *sighs*
Let's just say that most (not all) of the lesbian couples I know who have children, seem to look after their kids much better than many (not all and not most) straight couples, for whom parenting seems a chore and no interest in bringing their kids up properly. Yet those straight couples, if they so required, would be entitled to jump to the top of the IVF queue ahead of same-sex patients, just because of their 'heterosexualness'.
Well, I think you're digging a whole for yourself with the first bit
I think your other point is a bit anecdotal, it's like saying parents who adopt might care more for their children than parents who had an 'accident' because they wanted it so much more... but I think it's irrelevant to the discussion one way or another because it's missing the point (as I outlined above) if you get me? I was an accident and my parents loved me
I think one's ability to be a good parent has little-to-nothing to do with sexual orientation. Anecdotal evidence about lesbian adoptive parents, which by sheer percentages has to be limited, isn't, IMO, a way to advance the debate or argue one way or the other on the topic.
I thought you were clear. I'm not sure I'd agree (albeit your basing on personal experience so not everyone's is the same). I suspect anyone who takes the trouble for going to IVF is going to try to be a good parent, as kids are something you've gone out deliberately to have, rather than an accident after a drunken night at the pub.
Of course try as you might you may not be a good parent - children don't come with an instruction manual (and if they're anything like mine if they did they'd bloody scribble all over it with crayons anyway). And I think its easier to be a better parent with a male and a female. that may not always happen, but it should be the ideal we aim for when bringing new life into this world.
of course if we're arguing adoption it's different - most parents are better than foster or childrens home and that includes gays, smokers, fox-hunters christians and whatever other odd reasons local authorities have refused adoptions on
:thumb:
You're quite right.
In my opinion, sexual orientation shouldn't be a bar to IVF when there are enough examples of straight couples out there who show that heterosexual, father/mother relationships are no criteria for being good parents.
Just as with placing homes for adopted/fostered children, the love and security that prospective parents need to show to take on a child, should be the same basis for IVF, regardless of sexuality.
How many examples is 'enough examples'? It is certainly not the majority. I believe the government has stopped collecting figures based on types of families so it's hard to compare them, but in my opinion it's best for a child to have a mom and dad.
It's to do with identity. A child comes from a man and a woman, I feel it's wrong to knowingly and deliberately cut out the father, using him just as a supplier of sperm, and then to raise the kid without the second part of what makes them who they are.
If he wants to donate the sperm, then why is there any harm in that?
And having a father does not make a child 'who' they are, it just means that somebody fertilised their mother's egg cell.
Being brought up in a loving environment makes a child 'who' they are and their genetics only play a part in their physicality imo. There wasn't even a love-making process... He just had a wank...
Sorry to sound crude and all...
I just fail to see how an absence of a male figure is harmful to a child other than the bullying they may get for not having a father. Unless of course, people are suggesting that there's something wrong with those of us who have been brought up by hard working single mothers.
And you can't ask a child how it feels before it had been born.
Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with married hetero couples bringing up children of course. Just like there isn't anything wrong with single parents or same sex couples doing the same. What's important is that the parent(s) is/are loving, dedicated and they give their kids a good and balance education. Gender and number of parents available to the child are just minor points of little significance.
Because it's good to have a male and a female role model for children as it shapes their impressions of men and women and themselves. I posted earlier quite a big post on that specific point.
It would have been good for me if my parents hadn't had to work late or (often) overseas for long periods of time, but most people can't conform to the ideals of raising children. If we accept that sometimes things don't work out for heterosexual parents why is it suddenly an issue when it comes to non-heterosexual or single parents?
Moreover, a father isn't the only male influence in someone's life. With people living longer, surely grandfathers are likely to be around, and uncles, friends, babysitters, teachers.... I could go on. What child would ever be raised without ever finding a male role model?
No, that was pointed out in my post clearly I think:
"However I don't think that automatically means every child without a male role model is doomed."
Again, I said something fairly similar:
"I think Cameron is right in his underlying idea in that a positive male role model can be very beneficial to a child's development, although I disagree with making it a requirement of any sort in IVF. I mean, even if someone conceives naturally, there's every chance there is no or a very poor male role model, or even no or a very poor female role model. Having an alcoholic abusive violent father / mother is worse than not having any."
I shall refer to my post again:
"..for example in black communities it has been identified as one of the big reasons young boys are disillusioned."
"I don't think it's fair to pick on lesbians and maybe it's the guardian article that is looking at that tangent - that is the nature of the guardian, to interpret things in the most vile way it can. I think responsible parents would want the best for their child and would seek out a male positive role model."
And to sum up my thoughts:
"In conclusion, leave them to it (i.e. don't bring legislation in to make it harder for anyone to conceive because they haven't jumped through the right hoops), but don't dismiss the positive effects having both a female and male role model can have to children, because a young boy is more likely to relate to a man than a woman, and a young girl is more likely to relate to a woman than a man."
Do you have a source on this?
Yes. I shall go dig it out, but I thought it was pretty much common knowledge.
edit: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-4/wellswilbon.html
I can get more, just google 'black community male role model'. It's also one of the reasons boys in general underachieve compared to girls, because often the people in authority around them are women who they may not relate to as well as they could relate to men. I.e. more teachers are women, more single parents are women, and so on.
I'm not arguing that it is absolutely critical to have a male role model in a childs life, plenty are fine without one. But I am arguing that a positive male role model is enriching to a child, especially a boy, because he is much more likely to relate to a man than a woman. This need not be a father, but a male teacher (I mean I just look at my school and how many boys related to our male PE teacher, almost like a second father), or a family friend, or whatever..
Not to say that any one thing is an absolute.
As with anything there will be more than one reason. Disempowerment because they feel they're not as good as whites because they're not treated as well, etc. will be a significant factor as well.
But as I said my only point was you can't dismiss the value of a male role model (I agreed that discrimination against lesbians was wrong), rather than get bogged down arguing specific points.
It's demeaning to be reduced to nothing but a producer of sperm, and it's a dereliction of the father's duty to his child not to raise it.
Well as you say it's part of it. I don't see what the 'love-making process' has to do with. The guy who 'just had a wank' and pissed off is still the kid's father, and the blood link is an important part of an individual's identity. The idea that dad went somewhere, had a wank into a cup, then went away and left my mom/moms to raise me up isn't a comforting one - to me anyway.
It can be harmful in other ways, which isn't to say that a lot of single mothers don't do a good job, but just that it is not ideal.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657729-5013404,00.html
I don't know, everyone has different experiences and equally someone from a two parent background could have a bad or worse upbringing than someone without any parents at all. But I think if you look at it as an aggregate, there is evidence that children from single parent households on average don't go as far as their counterparts due to a number of reasons.
Well I think everyone is responsible for their own actions, but obviously some people's circumstances is less than ideal. If life gives you lemonade... I think that's a good quote.
There are plenty of studies on the topic, and it's not to do with causality i.e. lack of one parent will cause children to be fucked up in the same way salt in your diet will cause you to have high blood pressure, it's just because of a combination of circumstances that come together more often in single parent families.