equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Did you read the speech? Obama talked about the need for fathers, Irvine. Fathers.

Obama's point is clear and it's sailing over your head. He's trying to encourage biological parents not to neglect their children, not tell gays they can't raise kids.

What's not in dispute based on the statistics posted, from such controversial sources as the US Census Bureau and the Dept of Human Health and Services, is that kids do better with their fathers in the home.

As opposed to having no father in the home and just a mother.

[A_Wanderer]

Two fathers must be better than one

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Did you read the speech? Obama talked about the need for fathers, Irvine. Fathers.

yes, fathers with children. they need to pay attention to them. nowhere -- and i listed every last adjective for you in that speech, nathan -- did we find any qualities that couldn't also be shared by a woman.

we have a problem specifically with heterosexual men who father children and then neglect them. this more often than not afflicts poorer families. Obama addressed THAT, not the essential goodness of men and their indispensability PREDICATED upon their gender.

two mothers and/or two fathers have been proved, again and again, to be every bit as good as a mother and a father, and in fact, the newest evidence shows that two mothers just might be an even more optimal environment in which to raise children (though i'd argue that it's more that gay couples have to spend considerable money and jump through hoops to have children, and so they tend to take their jobs *very* seriously, as opposed to heterosexual men, apparently).

so, nathan, while a child might need HIS father, a boy with two mothers does not need the sperm donor nor is he disadvantaged by not having a male parent when he in fact has two good female parents.

Biology is a concoction? *shrug*

the essential timelessness you're ascribing to traditional gender roles certainly is.

As I said earlier, gender roles shift and change over time. What's not in dispute based on the statistics posted, from such controversial sources as the US Census Bureau and the Dept of Human Health and Services, is that kids do better with their fathers in the home.

good. go pick on the straight men. they're who you have the issue with.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

When studies corroborate evidence across racial and socio-economic lines, the need for fathers then isn't merely isolated to African-American urban youth (as Irvine implied a few pages back when he said that Obama was simply addressing the African-American community).

wow, how intellectually dishonest of you. i've come to expect more from you, nathan.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Since marriage is the context in which the majority of children are still born, and since the statistical evidence shows that kids need fathers, I'd say it does...

... and here we go. sorry i didn't multi-quote all this.

yes, perhaps heterosexual men shouldn't be allowed to get married, or father children since they're too irresponsible to be trusted with them.

that's the core of your argument.

i guess my kids are going to be really, really awesome, since they'll have two dads.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

You should have paid attention to the next quote:

"A family structure index - a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males."
"Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23 (1994)

When studies corroborate evidence across racial and socio-economic lines, the need for fathers then isn't merely isolated to African-American urban youth (as Irvine implied a few pages back when he said that Obama was simply addressing the African-American community).

Interestingly, the statistics for girls without a father are also interesting:

Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Both girls and boys without a father are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail, and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services press release, "HHS Launches 'Be Their Dad' Parental Responsibility Campaign" (March 26, 1999)

You've sucked me back in one more time, but seriously, this is it.

You honestly don't get it. That does not tell me one single thing about how the studies have handled third variables, or even if they have, because many don't. Nothing. I'm tired of repeating this over and over again.

And again, the overwhelming point you seem unwilling to address - none of this matters anyway in the context of this discussion, for the reasons I and several others have already mentioned.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Actually, it's interesting -- in 1983, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that 60% of child abusers were women with sole custody. I realize that child abuse and the specific case of sexual abuse are different, but still -- I wasn't aware of that. (Things may have changed since those days.)

Well obviously since more women had custody of children back there than men; that statistic alone drove it to 60% in all likelihood.

Your constant focus on fathers simply points out a failure on the part of straight men. Perhaps that's something you should be addressing totally separately from whether my old roommate and her girlfriend should be allowed to marry.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by VintagePunk

You've sucked me back in one more time, but seriously, this is it.

You honestly don't get it. That does not tell me one single thing about how the studies have handled third variables, or even if they have, because many don't. Nothing. I'm tired of repeating this over and over again.

And again, the overwhelming point you seem unwilling to address - none of this matters anyway in the context of this discussion, for the reasons I and several others have already mentioned.

In summary: you're wrong in thinking any of this discussion of children matters, and even if it did, you're wrong about that too.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Since marriage is the context in which the majority of children are still born, and since the statistical evidence shows that kids need fathers, I'd say it does...

So what about all those terrible single mothers, depriving their poor children of a father? Gonna vote against those too?

Or maybe, as others have said, it's the straight guys who are fucking it up for everyone else.

Wouldn't be the first time....

[anitram]

Originally Posted by martha

So what about all those terrible single mothers, depriving their poor children of a father? Gonna vote against those too?

I don't know how these women could just let their man walk away like that. Surely we can legislate against their inflammatory actions.

[martha]

Originally Posted by anitram

I don't know how these women could just let their man walk away like that. Surely we can legislate against their inflammatory actions.

We really should. It's usually all the bitch's fault anyway.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

So what about all those terrible single mothers, depriving their poor children of a father? Gonna vote against those too?

i think it is clear that women who leave men -- for whatever reason -- are guilty of child abuse by depriving them of a father.

[martha]

It seems to be so.

[Irvine511]

so i know i'm late to the party, but i'm just watching the first season of Mad Men, and i couldn't be happier that gender roles have evolved along with our knowledge of smoking, children playing in plastic bags, and seat belts.

[martha]

Speak it, brutha.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Both girls and boys without a father are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail, and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.

Are you not evening paying attention to anyone else in this thread? These studies are meaningless to the discussion. Studies that deal with the statistics and challenges of one-parent households, particularly one-parent households where the other parent has left the picture, have absolutely no bearing on a discussion of two-parent households.

None.

Yes, Obama talked about the need for fathers. But, and this is a very important distinction, in the context of households that are struggling under single parent care, which is, once again, an entirely separate area from two-parent households where the parents are homosexual. And as Irvine pointed out, if the need for fathers is so great, and if we're to take your stats at face value (which no one should) and say that female led households lead to greater suicide rates, then wouldn't a homosexual male couple be the ideal environment to raise a child?

For you to bring any relevant outside data to this discussion, you'd have to produce studies that compare heterosexual parents to homosexual parents, which you have yet to do.

Quite honestly it's baffling that you don't see the obvious disparity between the statistics you're posting and the discussion that's taking place here.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Are you not evening paying attention to anyone else in this thread? These studies are meaningless to the discussion. Studies that deal with the statistics and challenges of one-parent households, particularly one-parent households where the other parent has left the picture, have absolutely no bearing on a discussion of two-parent households.

No one argues that in most cases two parents are better for children than a single parent. But there are still variables. For instance, never having a father affects children differently than if they lose one to divorce which affects them differently than if they lose one to death.

But most people would go further and state, without hesitation, that a child with a loving mother and father would have an advantage over the child of a loving same sex couple. Which begs the question; if it's only quantity, two parents being better than one with gender being inconsequential, than wouldn't three parents be even better? Four?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Which begs the question; if it's only quantity, two parents being better than one with gender being inconsequential, than wouldn't three parents be even better? Four?

It takes a village...

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But most people would go further and state, without hesitation, that a child with a loving mother and father would have an advantage over the child of a loving same sex couple. Which begs the question; if it's only quantity, two parents being better than one with gender being inconsequential, than wouldn't three parents be even better? Four?

You get some points for not bringing animals into the discussion.

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

INDY, AEON, since you're both back in the discussion, my question still stands. Since the two of you seem to think marriage really does only equal offspring, since that's ALL you've talked about for pages, how's about those of us without kids? Still a valid marriage?