equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[phillyfan26]

Nathan mentioned something about the bond between the child and mother in the womb. It's purely a physical bond, one of physical nourishment and growth. Psychologically, it doesn't mean anything. An adoptive parent would form just as strong a bond with an infant as the biological parent. It's a proven fact. Look it up.

[diamond]

happy thanksgiving everyone.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

again, show me where the boys of lesbians are harmed by not having a biological father in the house. until you do this, your sweeping "thousands of years" means squat.

I don't. I just need to show the statistics that indicate that fatherless boys are a real risk. I've done so.

Obama's speech was about the need for fathers of children to help out their mothers

"It's up to us - as fathers and parents - to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It's up to us to say to our daughters, don't ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It's up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It's up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives."

it was, again, NOT about the suffering male children of lesbians.

I never said it was. I've not said a single solitary thing about male children of lesbians in this thread. I've said plenty about male children without father figures, and have cited facts and statistics to back it up. Sorry if that's a problem.

Obama is talking about one thing, and you're taking that to mean that it applies to an entirely different situation, and you're doing this to justify a prejudice and continue an argument that has you backed into a corner.

No. You asked why gender was important. I told you it was. You came back with a breathless, "What about children of lesbians? Cause you know they're better." And I came back statistics about why boys need fathers. I'm not backed into any corner.

Obama was speaking to the majority, and tapping onto a keenly heterosexual problem, he was NOT, repeat NOT, making anything about gay parenting. he was talking about the inadequacies of straight parenting.

He was challenging fathers to step in and parent their children, but okay.

when you make the assertion that BOYS NEED FATHERS in the context of this thread, it is absolutely a knock on lesbian families.

You asked a question about gender roles in parenting. I answered. The stats speak for themselves. What more would you like me to say? I don't feel particularly threatened. In fact, as I've been reading and researching thanks to your questions, I've only become more convinced of the need for fathers and mothers, based the facts. So I guess I should thank you? *shrug*

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I don't. I just need to show the statistics that indicate that fatherless boys are a real risk. I've done so.



"It's up to us - as fathers and parents - to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It's up to us to say to our daughters, don't ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It's up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It's up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives."



I never said it was. I've not said a single solitary thing about male children of lesbians in this thread. I've said plenty about male children without father figures, and have cited facts and statistics to back it up. Sorry if that's a problem.



No. You asked why gender was important. I told you it was. You came back with a breathless, "What about children of lesbians? Cause you know they're better." And I came back statistics about why boys need fathers. I'm not backed into any corner.



He was challenging fathers to step in and parent their children, but okay.



You asked a question about gender roles in parenting. I answered. The stats speak for themselves. What more would you like me to say? I don't feel particularly threatened. In fact, as I've been reading and researching thanks to your questions, I've only become more convinced of the need for fathers and mothers, based the facts. So I guess I should thank you? *shrug*

i'll keep it simple for you nathan.

lesbians and gay men make families that are every bit as good as straight families. the problems of fatherlessness that afflict the straight community are a problem in the straight community. it does not affect gay parents, nor does it affect their children.

you have yet to isolate a single characteristic or parenting technique that would be lacking in a gay household.

your assertions about the timelessness of gender roles and their unbearable importance to the raising of children do not play out in reality.

not only are gays and lesbians able to conduct successful marriages, they are able to be successful parents, and new evidence suggests that children may do better with two lesbian mothers.

fatherlessness in the straight community is a separate issue altogether, and it has less to do with lacking a uniquely male influence in a household than it does with the pressures of being a single parent and the *absence* of said father. children of gay kids are not deprived of a particular parent, do not feel abandoned, do not long and pine for said parent in their lives.



your posts also beg the question of just what reaction you were looking for when you bring up sloppy notions of gender essentialism in a thread about gay equality.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Nathan mentioned something about the bond between the child and mother in the womb. It's purely a physical bond, one of physical nourishment and growth. Psychologically, it doesn't mean anything. An adoptive parent would form just as strong a bond with an infant as the biological parent. It's a proven fact. Look it up.

Actually, the connection that forms between mother and child in utero is profoundly emotional and psychological, and is well documented. Do you know anyone who's had a baby? Additionally, if you know any adoptive parents, you'd know that one of the things they consistently struggle with in the early going is that distinctive lack of bond, particularly mothers. It can certainly be overcome, but it takes time, and it's not easy.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Additionally, if you know any adoptive parents, you'd know that one of the things they consistently struggle with in the early going is that distinctive lack of bond, particularly mothers. It can certainly be overcome, but it takes time, and it's not easy.

Actually I do know several adoptive parents, including in my immediate family and I have not heard them express this lack of bond feeling at all.

[VintagePunk]

In neighborhoods where fathers are most scarce, the high-school dropout rates are shocking: more than half of African-American boys who start high school don't finish. David Banks, principal of the Eagle Academy for Young Men, one of four all-boy public high schools in the New York City system, wants each of his 180 students not only to graduate from high school but to enroll in college. And he's leaving nothing to chance. Almost every Eagle Academy boy has a male mentor—a lawyer, a police officer or an entrepreneur from the school's South Bronx neighborhood. The impact of the mentoring program, says Banks, has been "beyond profound." Tenth grader Rafael Mendez is unequivocal: his mentor "is the best thing that ever happened to me." Before Rafael came to Eagle Academy, he dreamed about playing pro baseball, but his mentor, Bronx Assistant District Attorney Rafael Curbelo, has shown him another way to succeed: Mendez is thinking about attending college in order to study forensic science.

Isn't this basically shooting your whole argument in the foot? Sounds like these boys are doing exceptionally well with a non-related male presence in their lives.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

Isn't this basically shooting your whole argument in the foot? Sounds like these boys are doing exceptionally well with a non-related male presence in their lives.

It proves the point I'm making -- boys need older men as role models. Nowhere is that more important than in the family. The schools cited are forced to compensate for the lack of a father figure.

[Tiger Edge]

But now you've backtracked from "fathers" to "older men" which could easily constitute a brother, grandfather, uncle, neighbor, cub scout leader, clergy member, coach, etc...

Do they need fathers or father figures? If you say the latter, I'll agree with you and everyone can finally move on from this entire discussion.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It proves the point I'm making -- boys need older men as role models. Nowhere is that more important than in the family. The schools cited are forced to compensate for the lack of a father figure.

So as a consequence of negligent straight men, we will not allow gay men, who by the way would provide two (2) father figures, to marry? Say what?

[Tiger Edge]

^I believe he's referring to lesbian relationships here.

How about if we make rules that female couples may only adopt females and male couples may only adopt males. Can gay marriage be legalized if this fantasyland promise will be fulfilled?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

So as a consequence of negligent straight men, we will not allow gay men, who by the way would provide two (2) father figures, to marry? Say what?

what's cool is that if we adopt, we'll go for boys (brothers would be great); and if we do IFV, you have a much higher chance of having a boy for a variety of interesting reasons.

it's just really awful, considering i lived in inner-city DC (though rapidly gentrifying) for over 4 years and saw first-hand the terrible effects of fatherlessness and overwhelmed single mothers (as well as a shocking lack of basic parenting skills). it is an enormous social problem, and these children do desperately need their fathers, but this has NOTHING to do with gay families, and though we're backtracking to say, "hey, i was only saying that kids do better with their fathers than without," in the context of this thread, it's intentional.

[VintagePunk]

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood, rich or poor, an increasing number of boys—now a startling 40 percent—are being raised without their biological dads.

Psychologists say that grandfathers and uncles can help, but emphasize that an adolescent boy without a father figure is like an explorer without a map. And that is especially true for poor boys and boys who are struggling in school. Older males, says Gurian, model self-restraint and solid work habits for younger ones. And whether they're breathing down their necks about grades or admonishing them to show up for school on time, "an older man reminds a boy in a million different ways that school is crucial to their mission in life."

In the past, boys had many opportunities to learn from older men. They might have been paired with a tutor, apprenticed to a master or put to work in the family store. High schools offered boys a rich array of roles in which to exercise leadership skills—class officer, yearbook editor or a place on the debate team. These days, with the exception of sports, more girls than boys are involved in those activities.

To take a look at the rest of this article, what you have here is a writer interpreting the words of a psychologist to fit their hypothesis. Correlation does not equal causation. You'll note that one of the points made is that these findings hold true especially for poor boys, and those who are struggling in school (and there's probably considerable overlap between these two groups).

What else do fatherless poor boys have in common? Mothers who are struggling, overworked, constantly stressed, and for whom proper parenting often falls by the wayside.

So, which is more likely to adversely affect a boy, lacking a father in the family, or having the mother who is present not be an effective parent due to the many economic stresses she faces? I've read many studies contending that it's the latter. Not magazine articles, actual studies.

And because it can't be said enough, this whole child/parenting issue is a red herring to the actual gay marriage discussion.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It proves the point I'm making -- boys need older men as role models. Nowhere is that more important than in the family. The schools cited are forced to compensate for the lack of a father figure.

It also proves that it doesn't necessarily need to be a father, which is the thing that negates your argument.

And lesbian mothers are completely cut off from men who could provide a male presence to their sons? Hardly.

Not that it's relevant anyway, as shown by my previous post.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you have yet to isolate a single characteristic or parenting technique that would be lacking in a gay household.

I don't need to. I just need to point out the critical role that fathers play in their sons lives. I'm willing to bet there's even more out there about the role that mothers' play in their daughters. And we've yet to talk about the value that mothers play in their son's lives, and fathers in their daughters'...

fatherlessness ... has less to do with lacking a uniquely male influence in a household than it does with the pressures of being a single parent and the *absence* of said father.

The statistics quoted by Obama and Newsweek disagree with you.

your posts also beg the question of just what reaction you were looking for when you bring up sloppy notions of gender essentialism in a thread about gay equality.

Actually, A_Wanderer brought it up back on post 423. And you were the one who asked the question: "can you name me certain essential parenting techniques that a woman could never, ever provide on the basis of her gender and thus must rely upon her husband to perform because he is a male, and vice versa?" in post 556. So others brought it up; I just addressed it.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Tiger Edge

Do they need fathers or father figures?

Newsweek's statistics were clear. The President's statistics were clear. Boys need fathers. In a vacuum, others will step in, but at great cost, as the article makes clear. Mentors should not have to compensate for the lack of a father.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

What else do fatherless poor boys have in common? Mothers who are struggling, overworked, constantly stressed, and for whom proper parenting often falls by the wayside.

So, which is more likely to adversely affect a boy, lacking a father in the family, or having the mother who is present not be an effective parent due to the many economic stresses she faces?

Both/and. The latter is a direct connection to (and result of) the former.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I don't need to. I just need to point out the critical role that fathers play in their sons lives. I'm willing to bet there's even more out there about the role that mothers' play in their daughters. And we've yet to talk about the value that mothers play in their son's lives, and fathers in their daughters'...

great. now we both know that you've never answered my question because you "don't need to."

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Who gives a crap what I believe? The statistics don't lie, and are far more compelling -- for more and more couples, marriage comes as a precursor to (or a result of) having kids.

It matters because it gets down to the core of your argument, which is, THERE IS NONE. It changes with each post.

I've documented it several times over, you, Diamond, INDY, AEON, have all changed your argument from time to time in order to counteract the specific points, but contradicting any core beliefs. Which leads me believe this has nothing to do with any kind of principal for any of you.

You ask who cares what you believe? So if it's not about what you believe then it's not about some type of "sanctity of marriage". And if you believe in this cohabitation argument "increasingly defining mark" then you admit that marriage is a constantly evolving definition. So this shatters all of your previous supposed beliefs.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Additionally, if you know any adoptive parents, you'd know that one of the things they consistently struggle with in the early going is that distinctive lack of bond, particularly mothers. It can certainly be overcome, but it takes time, and it's not easy.

Complete and utter bullshit!!!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

Complete and utter bullshit!!!

your experience, and Varitek's, do not apply here. what matters is Newsweek, Freud, and Obama.