Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » SSM and Parenting (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: SSM and Parenting
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me there are a lot of underlying assumptions concerning SSM and parenting. Specifically, it looks like gay parents are being compared only to "optimal" families with a responsible, loving mother and father.

We all know that many children are not raised in optimal situations, and I was wondering where people would rank whatever their definition of gay parents would be against the following:

Optimal Mother and Father
Divorced Mother and Father who live in the same area
Divorced Mother and Father who live in different areas
Abusive Mother or Father
Neglectful Mother or Father
Single Mother never married
Single Father never married
Orphan
Raised by Wolves

Using your own preconceived ideas regarding gay couples and the above list, where would you rank both sets of gay couples (Father-Father or Mother-Mother)?


Edit: Added "Raised By Wolves" after Mason's reply.

Also, I'm just really interested to see what people think, so I'm hoping this does not get derailed by arguments.

[ November 17, 2008, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mason Leege
Member
Member # 1371

 - posted      Profile for Mason Leege   Email Mason Leege   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Optimal Mother and Father
Divorced Mother and Father who live in the same area
Divorced Mother and Father who live in different areas
Neglectful Mother or Father
Abusive Mother or Father
Single Mother never married
Single Father never married
Orphan
Father-Turtle
Mother-Mother/Father-Father

Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All else being equal? (also, I assume you meant to compare the list to 'optimal' father-father or 'optimal' mother-mother)

In which case:

Optimal Mother and Father == Optimal Father and Father == Optimal Mother and Mother

<eidted to add> Mason Leege [Smile]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All else being equal? (also, I assume you meant to compare the list to 'optimal' father-father or 'optimal' mother-mother)

I am leaving the definitions up to you. So yes, you are right. [Smile]

Of course, somebody else can have a different definition and be right, too.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
manji
Member
Member # 1912

 - posted      Profile for manji     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Optimal Mother and Father == Optimal Father and Father == Optimal Mother and Mother

Technically, "==" is an equality operator, returning true if it satisfies the condition. Might want to simply use "=", depending on what you want to say. Just saying.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, if you are using '==' as an equality operator, then in the same context '=' is an assignment operator, so in that context they are not 'equivalent'. [Smile]

However, I was using it as an equivalence sign for the very limited property of 'goodness for raising children'. Unfortunately, the true equivalence signs (two-headed arrow, 'equal' sign with 3 lines) are not available on my keyboard.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why is everyone ranking the abusive parent situation over the never married parent situation?

My list:
All else really being equal? then all is equal.

- Two loving, patient, stable, affluent parents
- Two loving, etc parents of lesser means
- Two parents of lesser score on the above, as long as it remains above neglect or abuse
- all else being equal between separating parents: natural mother
- then: natural father
- If not all is equal: more qualified parent
- single parent
- neglect situation
- wolves
- orphan

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Raised by Wolves
Are they gay wolves?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are they gay wolves?
That was the best laugh I've had all day [Big Grin]
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Why is everyone ranking the abusive parent situation over the never married parent situation?

Thank you, RickyB. I was wondering that myself.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am going to disagree with your money preference, Ricky.

- Two or more loving, patient, stable parents of sufficient but not excessive means, who get along and coparent effectively, with involved and loving extended family.

- Ditto but struggling for money (though generally solvent).

- Ditto but with more than excessive money.

- Ditto but with bad or nonexistent relationships with the grandparents etc.

- Two parents relatively committed to parenting.

- Two parents divorced in acrimony but who both love the kids.

- One parent relatively committed to parenting (and this includes situations where the "parent" is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or biologically unrelated) with assistance from other parent and/or extended family.

- One parent relatively committed to parenting, going it alone.

- Two parents, not very good at it.

- One parent, not very good at it.

- Ward of state/raised by wolves.

- One or two or whatever parents, serious abuse or neglect.

- Raised by nobody.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-Optimal Mother and Father/Optimal Fatherfather, Mothermother (Assuming these people all planned to raise the kids. If an optimal mother and father did not plan, but got rushed into it, I would consider the same sex better, since they have had time to decide if they want kids and how to do it)
-Single Mother never married/Single Father never married (hard to say which is better)
-Divorced Mother and Father who live in the same area
-Divorced Mother and Father who live in different areas
-Neglectful Mother or Father
-Abusive Mother or Father
-Orphan (I'd put them above abusive or neglectful parents, but I imagine abuse and neglect are inherent in being an orphen)
-Raised by Wolves

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC5
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-Feeds kid, prepares kid to hold a job, keeps kid out of jail
-Everyone else

[ November 17, 2008, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say that there's insufficient information to say, Haggis. It's a good question, and one that deserves an answer that didn't just get pulled out of someone's ass. Someone should study the matter.

[ November 18, 2008, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vos
Member
Member # 6350

 - posted      Profile for Vos   Email Vos   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Parents have a rough job under any circumstances...

...and it is a wonder that kids turn out well at all with all of the apparent weaknesses that are inherent in human parents of any (or all) orientations.

And this thread is really being mean to all the good wolf-parents out there. They are doing their best just like the rest of us...

V

Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mogli had a father and a mother (even if they were wolves) in the home (even if it was a cave). Romulus and Remus, on the other hand, only had one female wolf-parent. Wonder how they'd have turned out with two ... [Wink]

[ November 18, 2008, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ops, I didn't say rich. I said affluent. Both parents with decent paying jobs, decent credit and some safe savings. Sounds like what you describe. I purposely didn't say wealthy or millionaire, cause that often comes with time constraints and irregular hours.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Optimal extended family household.
2. Optimal nuclear family household (two parents).
3. Optimal single parent.
4. Sub-optimal parenting.

Gender isn't relevant.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Giving a damn, spending time with your kids, having the resources to raise them, are the relevent criteria. Gender is not a useful part of the discussion.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Giving a damn, spending time with your kids, having the resources to raise them, are the relevent criteria. Gender is not a useful part of the discussion.
This seems like a rather extreme position. Surely you can acknowledge that there are some useful things that a male parent brings to the table when it comes to raising kids that a female parent cannot bring, or cannot do as well, and vice versa.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Surely you can acknowledge that there are some useful things that a male parent brings to the table when it comes to raising kids that a female parent cannot bring, or cannot do as well, and vice versa."

If these things do exist, and the variation between genders is larger then within a gender (and I'm not agreeing, just granting for the sake of discussion), whatever these areas of parenting are have such a small impact on child outcomes that they really aren't a useful part of the discussion, until such time as all kids are being raised by parents who give a damn, spend time with them, and have the resources to raise children.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bottom line is that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all.

So until we can guarantee that children always have two good heterosexual parents, there is no reason to prevent good gay parents from rearing children. In the end, it will still be better for the children overall.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Surely you can acknowledge that there are some useful things that a male parent brings to the table when it comes to raising kids that a female parent cannot bring, or cannot do as well, and vice versa."
What is it that these things are?

Men can't breast feed...
I'm sort of lost as to what exactly are the other parenting tasks that cannot be done by a person of one gender or the other.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not all women can breast feed. In some rare instances, or with medical assistance, some men can.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, there is the literal maleness of the father that can't be reproduced by a mother (unless she pretends to be male). That would be the only absolute distinction, though - the ability to say that (and identify with the fact that) one has a male-gendered parent.

Whether that is actually a "useful thing" as alluded to by jasonr is debatable.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The bottom line is that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all.
I'm not willing to concede even this much. Show me what the mere fact of one's sex, alone, provides for a child (that the opposite sex cannot provide). Then, make a list of the top 100 things a child needs for a healthy, happy childhood. Compare the two. Better yet, don't waste your time: whatever you came up with (if anything) won't be on your list, unless you are a really bad parent.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
The bottom line is that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all.
I'm not willing to concede even this much.
You're not willing to concede that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all? Zow.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
The bottom line is that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all.
I'm not willing to concede even this much.
You're not willing to concede that two good gay parents are better than two bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all? Zow.
Are you mis-reading this rhetorically, or genuinely?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grammatically, Adam. That's the meaning of what you said. I suspect you didn't mean what you said. That's happened to all of us, but it's still funny.

You having a bad week or something? You seem to have turned off your humor algorhythm...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't sure what you were driving at (hence the question). That and you seem to be misreading my posts quite frequently of late, which I admit is frustrating.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I imagine that the frustration would be equal whether I was misreading, or whether you were mis-writing ...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You see a new thread--it has posts in it! You go and read it, even if the topic has been done to death--hey, it's a slow day. You see a post by Ops and think--hey, that's funny.. she hasn't posted in a while.. and notice it's from 2008. Still, the thread is interesting enough, so you keep reading. Then you get to the new post, and it seems to be made for the sole purpose of giving one of the other participants **** three years later over a grammatical error.

Really?

It's not even a grammatical error. 'I'm not willing to coneed even this much' /can/ be pointed in the other direction, it just generally isn't, and the reader has to take a 'huh, what?' moment to figure out the meaning. I understand chuckling at it and moving on.. but thread necromancy for this sole purpose? I don't see what else it can be, as Adam's meaning is perfectly clear in context...

Meh. C'mon, Pete.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someone took the time to distill a statement that all participants would agree with if they were paying attention. There was no "other way" to read the statement. The statement did not require Adam to make concessions from his position in any way, except for the implied concession that Adam happened to agree on one thing with his opponents in this thread.

As for what happened, I saw a post by Mason Lege, who apparently registered November 2003, so I asked myself "who the fock is Mason Lege and why don't I remember him." I ran a search to see whether he's a meaningful participant. Turns out he is; most of what ML says adds interesting and meaningful content to the discussion; his latest post was apparently the only one of ML's 27 posts that simply states ML's bare opinion without providing any factual or argumentative support. But while perusing that thread, I forgot that it was out of date; I'd been arguing SSM with Adam on another thread. There's something timelessly Ornerian about the tendency of SSM to make even a good guy like Adam to beat his ploughshears into swords and say DDDNA.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But while perusing that thread, I forgot that it was out of date; I'd been arguing SSM with Adam on another thread.
Then stop using the f**king search function. Seriously, there is nothing more annoying than thread necromancy.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I imagine that the frustration would be equal whether I was misreading, or whether you were mis-writing ...

No, the frustration is because the mis-reading is deliberate. I accused you of slander when you implied that the Minnesota letter's author was lying about his orientation. The fact that you seem to think it complimentary to call a gay man straight is immaterial; the slander was calling him a liar. And the frustrating part is that I'm forced to explain, not something you don't know, but something you *do* know perfectly well, but are refusing to acknowledge.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I imagine that the frustration would be equal whether I was misreading, or whether you were mis-writing ...

No, the frustration is because the mis-reading is deliberate.
Nope. Your mis-writing was accidental, and careless.

quote:
The fact that you seem to think it complimentary to call a gay man straight is immaterial
Now you're misreading. Are you mangling my meaning intentionally, or was that your honest misreading of what I said? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
the slander was calling him a liar.
I didn't call him a liar. I said correctly that he misrepresented himself by claiming to represent the whole Wisconsin gay community. I said that I DOUBTED that he was actually gay. I did so doubt. Others have since brought forth some evidence that he is. Not defamation either way. Bring a lawsuit if you think it's "slander." [Roll Eyes] Jimskatr's been to my house and met my family; you know who I am and where I live.

quote:
And the frustrating part is that I'm forced to explain, not something you don't know, but something you *do* know perfectly well, but are refusing to acknowledge.
You're "forced"?

DDDNA = De Darma Does Not Apply," btw. Even I know Buddism enough to realize that you're being silly here, my friend.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I said correctly that he misrepresented himself by claiming to represent the whole Wisconsin gay community.
More accurately, you said incorrectly that he claimed to represent the whole Wisconsin gay community.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I said correctly that he misrepresented himself by claiming to represent the whole Wisconsin gay community.
More accurately, you said incorrectly that he claimed to represent the whole Wisconsin gay community.
[LOL]

Yes, and you had your legitimate fun with that misstatement just as I had fun with Adam's.

"I eat pieces of **** like you for breakfast!"
"You eat pieces of **** for breakfast?"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grin* To be fair to Adam, though, I think his objection was perfectly clear: he is not willing to concede that, on average, two homosexual parents are only better than two bad heterosexual parents; rather, he is unconvinced that there is anything meaningful that is lacking in the upbringing of a child raised by homosexual parents, and is unwilling to accept the assertion that, all else being held equal, two heterosexual parents are uniquely capable of providing optimal care for a child.

I understand why you've been having fun with his reply for three years now (sort of; I would have thought that'd be good for two weeks of fun at best), but it really does require that you willfully ignore what it is that he's actually refusing to concede. Whereas in my case, it requires that I accept -- as a resident of Wisconsin -- that Wisconsin is somehow indistinguishable from Minnesota. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1