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
I think humans are "naturally" (whatever that means) parented by a community, not by just two people
And the instability of a lot of heterosexual relationships doesn't?
Lately, i've been making certain pyschological connections and discoveries when i've been smoking. The last time i took lsd it was a 10-hour lesson on the workings of human pyschology. It's pretty weird, it's like a sudden projection from my unconscious to my conscious mind...suddenly, from nowhere, "ahh...so this is a factor in this, and this is the reason for that...".
Some researching of pyschology and the stuff i've been formulating in my mind usually is supported.
ha i know exactly what ya mean...gone through that myself...it's brillaint isn't it
In an ideal world all parents and families would be 'ideal' and perfect. But in the real world, few are. You claim that because a same-sex couple is less ideal than a mixed-sex one, gay couples should be prevented from adopting or having artificial insemination (what about straight people who turn gay after having children BTW? Should they have their children removed?).
Well, under that logic, how would you feel if you and GWST were told you're not allowed to have children unless your earnings increase, say, 5-fold? At the end of the day, if you can't buy the best education and provide the best health, care, housing, etc possible for your children, your family would be not as 'ideal' as one that can. Wouldn't it?
And how about mix-raced couples? Taking the absurd Tommo argument that children might get bullied at school because of their parents, I guess it was all a big mistake to allow people from different races to get together and start having children all those years ago...
I'm sorry Kermit. You cannot (or at least I would never) prevent people from having children because their situation would be less than perfect. Lines can be drawn and a balance and intelligent approach can be made. A stable, loving gay couple can provide for their children just as good as single parent families, mix-race families and indeed "conventional" families. It's ALL to do with the caring and love given.
I really don't think that a couple who split up are likely to rethink their decision because of taxt breaks. This seems like an altogether stupid statement to make.
Personally I don't agree with the proposals. Although I've been brought up by two parents who are married I honestly don't think my experience would have been any different had my parents been unmarried and simply living together.
I also don't think it is fair to penalise people who, through no fault of their own, are single parents.
I do think that a family unit is the best environment in which to bring up a child, but I would argue that the 'family' is a socially constructed notion and in reality no 'family' is better than another. As someone put it 'as long as there is love'. I think a child brought up within a loving but perhaps unorthadox 'family' will be happier, and healthier than a child brought up in a loveless 'man and wife' environment.
Well, society plays an important role in development and upbringing, there's no denying that. Society/community/whatever you want to call it doesn't lay the foundations of personality, character etc...this is largely parental.
Having a caring mother after birth is crucial...and this is absolutely imperative for a baby, if he/she is to grow into a successful, self-assured person. Adoptive children often are fucked up because of this...
Certainly, your parental environment will determine who and what you are deep down. I've got little doubt of that. Homosexual parenting seems to be throwing a spanner in the works, so to speak. Add the reaction of society (torment at school etc) and you've got a very bad idea.
Can't a man play the role of 'mother'?
I'd disagree with that. I'd say our base nature is one of bigotry and prejudice. Reasoning and separating intellect from emotion lead to greater understanding and consequent tolerance. Bigotry etc is derived from evolutionary purpose.
Being brought up by a macho father is definitely a good thing in terms of learning self-assurance, sexual gender roles etc.
It's necessity for the healthy development of a child.
One caring and attentive biological parent is preferable over adoption.
To an extent, yes. However, there are issues in terms of knock-on effect...sexuality of the child etc. I don't think there can be much doubt that two homosexual men are far from perfect as a parenting unit, and would cause serious pyschological problems. I think it would destroy people, really fuck them up properly.
I'd argue that our "base nature" is mutable and not fixed and rather depends on environment and upbringing.
I'd say its a bad thing, leading to emotional repression, anxiety and reinforcement of culturally constructed damaging gender roles.
Bonding with a human being is a necessity, not sure if it has to be the mother. On what research do you base your view?
And homosexual parents are preferable over none at all.
No, what I meant was that for most of the history of the human race, childcare has been the responsibility of an extended family, encompassing the local community as well as the immediate family. The ideal nuclear family is a very recent development.
Having a caring human being is essential.
What kind of damaging gender roles?
To be the dominant male is the inherent, evolutionary desire of the male pysche...being "macho" is inkeeping with our 'base nature'. It's common sense that to be brought up around a fairly "macho" father is going to assist his children in being assertive, successful, having strong self-image etc. There is a big difference between a dominant, macho father and an abusive, controlling father.
No names of publications to hand but i'll have a look later on. Some useful info relating to adoption is about but it's fairly scattered.
Which i've already agreed with.
Yes, of course...but your biological mother and father are the preference. I'm not denying homosexuals can't care for children and provide love etc, but my understanding of pyschology throws up serious questions over how children will react, particularly in terms of their unconscious mind, to having homosexual parents.
Who sold you this line of shite?
Ever see the fast show? "Competetive dad" springs to mind....
I have seen few couples were the woman wasn't the dominant one. to carry on from your original assertion, a married man is inherently a beta male. If he was truly "dominant" he would be shagging around like a rabbit and would have no need for what would be a crappy, time-wasting pair bond.
Not that you are typing anything like sense anyway..... :rolleyes:
Not necessarily so.
And two caring and attentive same-sex parents would be preferable over a widower raising a child.
So what do we do? Do we prevent everyone not deemed 'ideal' from having children?
I hope you yourself don't even think of having any... Unless of course you earn upwards of 100K per year. Anything less would not be able to provide for your children in an ideal manner.
I dont think anyone would seriously argue that point.
BTW Aladdin, dont even try and compare the arguments I made to trying to compare mixed race relationships and gay relationships, its completely different and you know it.
I wouldnt expect too many when you have actually raised children yourself, its gives you a very different perspective on things and how it should be done.
Oh I can as well, but I would expect it to be the Blagsta's and Aladdins of this world who havnt had kids themselves to be arguing the point, when they have kids, if they hold the same views I would be surprised.
It's not so much to do with whether gay parents would make good parents, but more to do with the extra strife the kid is certain to get as they're growing up.
I'd argue with that. "Macho" behaviour is IMO, a consequence of patriarchy and also an emotional defence against having to actually deal with any difficult feelings. Most "macho" men are emotionally screwed up, have a hard time showing their feelings and resort to fists over dealing with things in an adult manner. I'd also argue that our "base" nature is complex and mutable, not fixed.
Have a look at some of the infant observation studies carried out by the Tavistock.
Macho behaviour can be linked to patriarchy and emotional repression i wouldnt disagree, but it goes deeper than that. The vast majority of people are screwed up in some way anyway. Certainly the most messed up people i know are the very opposite of "macho" in most respects.
I understand the view of the human pysche as a blank canvass which is developed through experience...which is true, in some respects...but through evolution we seem to have, as i see it, driving forces, impulses and the like...which are not environmentally rooted. In other words, a mixture of both. Yes, environment is a main factor, because we can think consciously and deviate from our evolutionary purpose as a result but not the only factor. Because we have evolutionary purpose it follows that we have a base nature of some sort.
I've never said our base nature was fixed either. I would argue it is mutable myself but not completely 100%. For example, to desire a mate is a basic characteristic of our base state...something which environment can certainly fashion but not completely change. Environment is clearly not the root cause of people having relationships, falling in love etc...these are are a result of our 'base nature'.
*raises hand*
Indeed it does.
I would actually have more of an objection to a homophobic/racist heterosexual couple raising a child than I would a homosexual couple...