A followup to the right to have children thread

Inspired by http://www.mellophant.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10671

I feel that part of the requirement for having children is the ability to provide a stable home environment with both parents pulling their share of the load. The child should come first.

With that in mind, should divorce laws be changed to make it as hard as possible to get a divorce once a child enters the picture (natural or adopted)? It seems to me that there is an attitude of "cut and run once it gets difficult" in our society. Why should we enable that attitude?

I believe that divorce laws should be changed so that divorces where kids are involved are granted easily only in cases where one parent is abusive, a criminal or a drunk/addict. In all other cases, the one filing FOR divorce should be required to pay the other spouse 50% of all earnings until the youngest child turns 18, and should not be allowed to remarry until the youngest child turns 18. In the exception cases as listed, the one filed ON has to make the payments and is prohibited from remarrying.

Harsh? Probably. But if you make the decision to bring a child into the world, you shouldn't be allowed to duck out on your responsibility toward that child and toward the other parent. It ain't all about you anymore.

Thoughts?

You didn't answer my query in that thread! :)

I don't agree that a child should make it harder to get a divorce. It's no longer considered psychologically beneficial to children for parents to stay together in a loveless marriage for the children's sake. It doesn't model to children what a good marriage should be like. Instead, it models dysfunctional intimate partnership, and as we're primates, that ends up passing on dysfunctionality to the next generations.

I don't agree with the premise that it's a parent's responsibility to the child to be married to the other parent, in any case.

Forcing people to be together when they don't want to be will screw up kids a WHOLE lot worse than having divorced parents. Parents are not going to be paragons of graciousness and maturity, and kids can tell when something is wrong.

I wish my parents had gotten divorced 5-6 years before they actually did. It would have saved me a lot of distress in my formative years.

Nah. I'm divorced and have kids. My ex's husband is different from me in a lot of ways (of course), but he loves my kids and they love him and I'm glad he's in their life. I'm remarrying and I'm definitely glad my children will have artifex as a parental figure in their lives.

Is it the way I envisioned things when I married my first wife over a decade ago? Of course not, but I'm happy with the way things have turned out, and definitely far happier than I would be if I were setting an example for my children of gritting my teeth and making the best of a bad marriage.

In my case, staying married to my first wife would have been a clear case of a second wrong that did not make anything right - for us, or the children.

Interesting responses. They make me now ask this question:

If no-fault divorce had never been introduced and our legal system was oriented toward not granting divorce once kids enter the picture,

1. Would you have gotten married in the first place?
2. If yes, would you have been less inclined to have kids at all?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Interesting responses. They make me now ask this question:

If no-fault divorce had never been introduced and our legal system was oriented toward not granting divorce once kids enter the picture,

1. Would you have gotten married in the first place?

---

This is an easy one for me, since at the time I belonged to a church that frowned badly on divorce; getting married to my first wife at all was the equivalent of saying "I'll never divorce you." So yes, I still would have. When I married that woman, I thought I knew her, I thought I knew myself, and I thought she and I would be happy together. I turned out to be completely wrong about all three of those things, but it doesn't make my convictions at the time any less absolute.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

2. If yes, would you have been less inclined to have kids at all?

---

This is a more interesting one for me, because I realized very early on that my first marriage was probably a mistake. If I had known that each successive child was locking me more firmly into that mistake, maybe I wouldn't have had any with her. Or maybe I still would have, in the hope that it would "fix" things. Either way, I'm glad they're here, they are loved, and they are well cared for materially.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

1. Would you have gotten married in the first place?
2. If yes, would you have been less inclined to have kids at all?

---

1. Yes.
2. No.

Like OneCentStamp, I thought my marriage was forever, and I thought it was strong enough (and strengthened by, but that's not the same as "having kids to save a marriage") when we chose to conceive.

Also like OneCentStamp, I really like my ex's new partner, both as a person, a partner for him (she has an amazing calming influence on him that I never mastered) and a potential parent for my daughter. Likewise, my current partner is another awesome adult influence, although he's careful not to refer to himself as a parent yet.

The four of us are attending her kindergarten orientation together this week. We just sat together at her school spring musical, and afterwards, my ex and I presented her with flowers which my current partner remembered to bring. The next day when she was too exhausted to wake up for school, my ex's partner stayed home with her so the rest of us could go to work.

As long as respect and communication is present, parenting with four is wonderful, and actually gives my daughter more attentive adults focused on her needs than two miserable and bickering biological parents under one roof.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

like OneCentStamp, I really like my ex's new partner

---

In my case at least, this would be overstating it a bit. I am relieved for my children's sake that my ex didn't end up with a violent alcoholic, a child molester, or a jobless leech, but to say I like the guy may be going a bit too far. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

I feel that part of the requirement for having children is the ability to provide a stable home environment with both parents pulling their share of the load.

---

So, single people are never allowed to have children, since both parents are required? Are the gays allowed to have kids, and is a partner required? Should widows and widowers have their children removed by the state, since there isn't a second parent pulling their fair share?

And while you're at it, can you define "stable home environment" and also elaborate on "share" of the load? Who's going to decide those things, and enforce them?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

In my case at least, this would be overstating it a bit. I am relieved for my children's sake that my ex didn't end up with a violent alcoholic, a child molester, or a jobless leech, but to say I like the guy may be going a bit too far. :)

---

lol. Fair enough. (But I really do really like my ex's new sweetie. She's pretty awesome. Just one example: In January, when they had been dating only a couple of months, she was scheduled to drive into Chicago from her home in Ohio to spend a "grownup" weekend with him while I had the kiddo. Only the kiddo ended up in the hospital with pneumonia. Ex called her to tell her the weekend was off, explained why...and she told him he was crazy, of course she was still coming. She brought stuffed animals and coloring books and puzzles and sat in my daughter's hospital room with him so I could get home and get some sleep and he (not the medical type) wouldn't be so freaked out! I like her lots. If he screws this up, I'll smack him.:P)

No one knows what the future may hold. It's possible that the traits that you need to survive come from being street smart. Knowing how to take care of yourself without help and support of parents. Being able to form small group bonds that are ruthless in defending themselves from other groups. If society fails those who depend on society fail along with it. Those who barely participate in society just may survive if it fails. We need as much diversity as possible to give the race as many options as possible to survive whatever may come.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Queen Tonya

So, single people are never allowed to have children, since both parents are required? Are the gays allowed to have kids, and is a partner required? Should widows and widowers have their children removed by the state, since there isn't a second parent pulling their fair share?

And while you're at it, can you define "stable home environment" and also elaborate on "share" of the load? Who's going to decide those things, and enforce them?

---

Studies indicate that children from a two-parent family are happier overall than children from a single-parent family. They have the formative influence of both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior. This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.

And who said anything about the state removing children or "enforcing" regulations? I sure didn't. My topic was divorce, pure and simple.

What it boils down to is this (and this is MY personal opinion): people should not have children if they are not committed 100% to their marriage and to the children. That's the basis for the "stable home environment": both parents making the partnership work. If one of them isn't putting the effort into making the marriage and the family work, then the child suffers because of that person's selfishness.

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I think far, far, far too many of our kids today are screwed up because they have at least one parent who has no concept of responsibility. My $0.02 worth....

Quote:

---

both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior.

---

I'm sorry, but what behavior is inappropriate for which gender?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

What it boils down to is this (and this is MY personal opinion): people should not have children if they are not committed 100% to their marriage and to the children. That's the basis for the "stable home environment": both parents making the partnership work. If one of them isn't putting the effort into making the marriage and the family work, then the child suffers because of that person's selfishness.

---

The problem with your opinion is that people are not psychic, nor can they see the future. So no matter how committed they are to family at the time they have kids, they cannot be certain that things won't change.

Couples can try and make a partnership work, and still have it fail. If that happens, it's better for everyone in the family (kids included) that the parents seperate.

Despite what you seem to think, it is possible to be a good, child-focused, divorced parent.

But what do I know, my parents' divorce has clearly addled my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.

---

Oh my fucking hell. Are you serious? The reason kids from two-parent families do better is because parenting is fucking hard and single parenting is REALLY fucking hard. I don't know how you determined that gay parents can't do as well as hetero parents, other than that they have to deal with bullshit like this sort of bigotry, but I strenuously disagree with the premise.

But then, according to what you've said, my own child should have been taken from me long since, so clearly you and I don't see things the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

I'm sorry, but what behavior is inappropriate for which gender?

---

Children need role models from both genders.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by artifex

Oh my fucking hell. Are you serious? The reason kids from two-parent families do better is because parenting is fucking hard and single parenting is REALLY fucking hard. I don't know how you determined that gay parents can't do as well as hetero parents, other than that they have to deal with bullshit like this sort of bigotry, but I strenuously disagree with the premise.

---

There is no bigotry whatsoever involved in my statement. Read what I said again:

Quote:

---

This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.

---

With gay parents, you have two adults of the same gender. Kids need to have parental role models from both genders.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Children need role models from both genders.

---

Because, I'm assuming, you believe that children need to learn what behavior is appropriate for which gender and what isn't.

So I'll ask again. What behavior is inappropriate for which gender?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

There is no bigotry whatsoever involved in my statement. Read what I said again:

With gay parents, you have two adults of the same gender. Kids need to have parental role models from both genders.

---

Can you find any reliable source that says children need role models from both genders?

Furthmore, can you explain why a child who lacks a parent of a certain gender can't find a role model of that gender outside of the home? An uncle/aunt, friend of a parent, parent of a friend, teacher?

And finally, can you answer Taumpy's question? I'm very curious about your answer.

I would like to offer up the example of NY for the OP's consideration. NY was one of the first states in the US to simplify its divorce laws in the twentieth century. At the time those laws were passed they were among the more permissive in the US. (Nevada's laws being the major outlier, AIUI.) What would be considered cause for divorce was greatly expanded, and the standard of proof required before the courts were lowered. However, in today's environment, it's hard to believe that NY actually allows for a no fault divorce. The hoops involved for a divorce, that both parties have agreed to, with minimal (if any) assets are barking insane. I have been told that it takes over a year of waiting time, to encourage the couple to reconcile their differences, before the courts will allow for a no-fault divorce. Further, the courts are reluctant to issue any kind of divorce decree without representation for both parties. While this can be justified as a degree of protection for both parties, the real world effect is to provide a subsidy for the legal profession from many people who lack the assets, children, or other complicating issues, that would make such representation a necessity.

Another practical offshoot of this is that it's actually easier to get an uncontested at-fault divorce, and quicker, too. Provided that the couple involved can agree to who will shoulder the blame, and under what conditions: After all, who in their right mind will want to admit to spousal abuse, or adultery, when the judge reviewing the divorce decree has the power, and under some interpretations of the laws the duty, to set punitive alimony arrangements in spite of any stated wishes of the parties involved? For that matter, getting alimony adjusted later is always a possibility, and having an at-fault divorce decree, even if the agreed reasons were considered BS at the time of the agreement, can really put the person accepting fault at risk.

Looking at all this one would expect that NY has a lower divorce rate than the US norm, and lower than the divorce rate in similar states. Looking at the data on this page would support that conclusion. In 2005 the divorce rate per 1000 people in the US was: 3.6. In NY at the same time, the divorce rate was: 2.8. The three states I'd consider likely to be the closest matches for NY economically and socially would be MA: 2.2; CT: 2.7; and NJ: 2.9. (Just for shits and giggles, here's PA: 2.3) I believe that NJ and CT, in particular, are no-fault states, with a much simpler process than NY. Which indicates to me that there's at least reason to believe that the legal environment is only marginally going to affect the divorce rate - that other factors, such as economics, or social norms, matter far more.

Given that background, I think that a more effective way to reduce the divorce rate (Something which I agree is probably a good idea, without making any judgment against people who have used divorce to escape what had become an impossible situation.) would be to work on social change. More effort being made for pre-marital counseling, and emphasis on what the OP rightly IMNSHO pointed out about the need to work hard to make a marriage work, for examples. Having said that, I would strongly oppose any attempt to restructure the legal environment to make it harder for people who have decided for themselves that their marriages must be ended to get a legal confirmation of that decision. The purpose of government IMNSHO to place barriers between private persons and what they feel they need to do to survive; but to regulate the interactions so that unnecessary suffering is minimized.



On a different point about the need for role models in a household with children. My grandparents subscribed to the idea that having children would give them more reason to stay together. So after their first divorce and remarriage, they deliberately conceived a child as quickly as possible. To keep the marriage together. :roll:

Of course, it didn't change my grandfather's basic horndog nature. Before my father was born they were divorced again, for cause, for adultery.

According to the OP's reasoning my grandmother should have stayed with my grandfather, to provide him with a proper male role model within the household. Even if that male behavior was destructive of the family he was supposed to be part of. Or failing that, to properly raise my father, she should have found some other male role model to bring into the home. Instead she figured that the extended family could provide those models, and she'd continue on her own.

It seems to have worked, since my father has been married, himself, for over 40 years, and had a very successful career as well. So, what important life-lessons would the OP claim my father couldn't learn because of his situation?


FTR: I support gay couples adopting or otherwise parenting, the same way I support straight couples adopting or otherwise parenting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

There is no bigotry whatsoever involved in my statement. Read what I said again:

With gay parents, you have two adults of the same gender. Kids need to have parental role models from both genders.

---

Oh, that's just dumb. Seriously, Clothahump, you have no idea what you're talking about. People here have asked you some really good questions relating directly to what you've said here, and I'd really like to hear you answer them, or give any kind of a defense for this. Please. Go right ahead. I'm begging you.

There is no defense for it, Sarah. It's just his typical flat declaration with no argument or evidence to support it. There's no reasoning behind his declaration -- that's why he didn't come up with any kind of argument to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

According to the OP's reasoning my grandmother should have stayed with my grandfather, to provide him with a proper male role model within the household. Even if that male behavior was destructive of the family he was supposed to be part of. Or failing that, to properly raise my father, she should have found some other male role model to bring into the home. Instead she figured that the extended family could provide those models, and she'd continue on her own.

---

A pretty common occurance, IME, and when that safety net of family is in place it can be wonderful.

(As an aside, if it's about gender roles and not bigotry I'd assume a straight couple with one transgendered party [so that they are in fact the same sex, but taking on different roles] would be acceptable in this paradigm?)

Since most places with statistics on this tend to be pretty obviously biased, I'll go with the APA, which while having its own biases is not actually driven by a particular agenda, nor does it have a history of blindly lovin' the homos.

Quote:

---

The final resolution references years of psychological research and states the group's conclusions:

Psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples. The working group members cited research that many gay men and lesbians both want and have committed relationships: Studies have found that between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and between 45 and 80 percent of lesbians are involved in committed relationships.

...

There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

Researchers have found that sexual identity, personality and social relationships with peers and adults develop similarly in those children as they do in children of heterosexual parents, according to the group.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

A pretty common occurance, IME, and when that safety net of family is in place it can be wonderful.

---

The only thing I find particularly noteworthy about my own family history is that this happened in the 1930s, long before the rapid and in many ways shocking rate of social changes that were happening during the 1960s. But even there, I don't think that her situation was unique, simply very unusual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

The only thing I find particularly noteworthy about my own family history is that this happened in the 1930s, long before the rapid and in many ways shocking rate of social changes that were happening during the 1960s. But even there, I don't think that her situation was unique, simply very unusual.

---

Well, I meant common now, but I ended up cutting out my rambly talk about that because I figured this thread had too much anecdata anyway. ;)

OK, here's the thing that's making me stabby in regards to Clothahump's statement that "children need parental role models from each gender." First, it's clearly not a need like, say, food and shelter and clothing and a decent education. Taking the word need less literally, then, it would mean that ideally children would have a parental role model from each gender. Even if this is true (and that's a big, unsupported, unproven IF), there is no situation that is 100% ideal. It's not ideal that my husband was traveling for work 4 days a week every week for the first 3 years of our daughter's life. We were lucky that we were able to change the situation, but if we hadn't, he would still be doing it, and we would be working it out. That's what you do. It's not ideal that some moms and dads are deployed to Iraq for months at a time. It's not ideal that extended families are spread all over the country these days. There are all kinds of situations that are not ideal or perfect and the kids turn out just fine. It's offensive to evaluate the appropriateness of a parent based on anything other than the parent's sincere desire and effort to raise their kids in a loving manner. AND it's offensive to make people defend the issue by somehow proving that it's all the same to the kids what kind of parents they have...gay, straight, married, single, whatever. Even if that CAN be shown...and I doubt it can...the solution is to manage it in each individual situation, not counting it as some kind of terrible abuse that can or should to be avoided at all cost.

So basically, Clothahump just wants to say "everything should be perfect and ideal or no right to have kids" and not offer any practical ideas to move toward that, since it's just his opinion.

Or maybe it's "I suffered through a miserable marriage for the sake of the kids, and so should you!" I'm not quite sure.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Oh, that's just dumb. Seriously, Clothahump, you have no idea what you're talking about. People here have asked you some really good questions relating directly to what you've said here, and I'd really like to hear you answer them, or give any kind of a defense for this. Please. Go right ahead. I'm begging you.

---

What's dumb about it? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a gay couple is going to provide role models from both genders? I'd love to hear that argument made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

What's dumb about it? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a gay couple is going to provide role models from both genders? I'd love to hear that argument made.

---

No, we're requesting some sort of support for your assertions/insinuations that
A) children need role models of both genders
B) there are some behaviors which are inappropriate for one gender and
C) children raised without two parents of different genders under the same roof do not have sufficient role models of both genders.

(Sorry to answer for you Sarah, but I think we're on the same page here, yes?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

I'd love to hear that argument made.

---

Well, I'd love to see you answer Tom's question, which has been pointed out to you several times.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

What's dumb about it? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a gay couple is going to provide role models from both genders? I'd love to hear that argument made.

---

you haven't yet proven the thesis that it is necessary for the health of the child to be living with a male and female parental influence. Until you satisfy our doubts on that point we don't need to make any arguments about how a gay couple would provide dual gender role models. (The answer, by the way is that a role model need not be live-in and children find the necessary role models in uncles, aunts, grandparents, close family friends, neighbors, etc.)


Sidenote: Interestingly enough, while I did have a mother and father growing up, their respective roles in the family were swapped. My dad works part time as a therapist and my mom works full time as a lab researcher. She has a degree in biology, he has one in social work. He cooks, cleans, and buys the groceries, she comes home at 5 and says where's my dinner. I exaggerate but the point is, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that without a Ward and June Cleaver upbringing a family is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

Sidenote: Interestingly enough, while I did have a mother and father growing up, their respective roles in the family were swapped. My dad works part time as a therapist and my mom works full time as a lab researcher. She has a degree in biology, he has one in social work. He cooks, cleans, and buys the groceries, she comes home at 5 and says where's my dinner. I exaggerate but the point is, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that without a Ward and June Cleaver upbringing a family is broken.

---

It is your father's fault you are gay, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

What's dumb about it? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a gay couple is going to provide role models from both genders? I'd love to hear that argument made.

---

Your premise is flawed as well as your conclusion. You assume that the only role-models offered children are those within the household itself and you're presupposing that it's necessary to have a parent of either gender for the child's well-being. Two parents of the same gender in the house are ipso facto only representing one gender, however there is no evidence that this denies children representations of the other gender or that it has a negative impact on them.

If you're going to continue with this premise, please refute the findings of the American Psychological Association first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

What's dumb about it? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a gay couple is going to provide role models from both genders? I'd love to hear that argument made.

---

I'll chime in as well to say I'd like to know how you define "appropriate" gender roles.

On a related note, my father and step-mother divorced about ten years ago, and it was the best thing that ever happened to their daughter, not to mention their relationship. Sometimes, to save a partnership, you have to change it. Personally, I'd rather see more kids raised by the amicably divorced than the miserably married.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

No, we're requesting some sort of support for your assertions/insinuations that
A) children need role models of both genders
B) there are some behaviors which are inappropriate for one gender and
C) children raised without two parents of different genders under the same roof do not have sufficient role models of both genders.

(Sorry to answer for you Sarah, but I think we're on the same page here, yes?)

---

Start here.

Then go here.

Good starting places.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Good starting places.

---

It would appear that, to you, "good" means "opinion pieces whose opinions match my own," rather than "peer-reviewed articles, policy statements from medical organizations, or, really, anything else at all that is in any way a credible source."

(And really, I'm quite curious about the question posed in the previous thread that you didn't answer, seeing as you, if I may state again, seem to think that my child should have been removed from my custody, as I am unfit to parent him by your standards.)

So the only evidence you can find are opinion fluff-pieces -- one of which is by Focus on the Family's James Dobson, no less.

So, it is thus accurate to say that your opinion is insupportable. I assume you have now recognized the error of your ways. Please start a thread in the Lounge to offer up your apology to the LGBT parents, and the children of LGBT parents, of Mellophant. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

So, it is thus accurate to say that your opinion is insupportable. I assume you have now recognized the error of your ways. Please start a thread in the Lounge to offer up your apology to the LGBT parents, and the children of LGBT parents, of Mellophant. :)

---

While you're there, an apology or explanation to widowed, single parents like artifex, where you either concede that they're perfectly capable of raising their own children, or apologize for thinking they aren't, would be appropriate as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

While you're there, an apology or explanation to widowed, single parents like artifex, where you either concede that they're perfectly capable of raising their own children, or apologize for thinking they aren't, would be appropriate as well.

---

And, those who've grown up in single (for whatever reason) parent households. On behalf of our parents, we'd like an apology as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Start here.

Then go here.

Good starting places.

---

I see nothing there that isn't here in this thread - lots of assertions with no data to back them up, and made by people who aren't even experts in the fields of parenting or child development. And neither offers anything on the question of, assuming role models of both genders are critical to a child's development, whether those role models need to live with the children to have the appropriate impact.

Look, opinions are fine. I have lots of 'em. But when you start telling other people how to live, more than your opinion is required if you want them to take you seriously.

I think everyone would agree that if possible - and it isn't always - two parents are better than one. The financial stability is likely to be greater (at least now that we've dumped the outmoded gender stereotype that women shouldn't work!) and certainly it is better to have two people sharing the load, for the sanity of parents if nothing else.

But it's bizarre to insist that one person be male and one female. If you read the Dobson article, he's arguing that children need to be exposed to different parenting styles, and male styles tend to be different from female. Okay, I'll buy the idea that it is probably good for children to see different, equally good parenting strategies while they are growing up. But saying they should be "male" and "female" is kind of arbitrary. Why not say that children should have one extrovert and one introvert parent? Or one that is very strict about homework, and one that is more fun-loving? Or one that is a bookworm, and one that is a sports nut? All of those personal styles have something to offer, but we don't insist that every possible personality trait be represented, with yin-yang balance, in all parenting couples. Aside from the fact that gender stereotypes don't accurately describe parenting styles on an individual level anyway, why single out THAT particular dichotomy and say it's essential?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I think everyone would agree that if possible - and it isn't always - two parents are better than one.

---

I don't. Well, I guess it depends on how you define "possible". Studies are showing that joint parenting for kids of divorce is NOT always best, that if the parents can't get along, sole custody with one parent (usually the mother) results in healthier children than joint custody. The American Psychological Association, Report to the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, June 14, 1995, recommended against a presumption for joint custody. The researchers of Adolescents After Divorce found no correlation between amount of time spent with a non-custodial father and adolescent adjustment. Also, spending time with their kids more often did not affect the closeness of the relationship. Only remembering special days like birthdays and holidays was positively correlated with adolescent adjustment.

While I appreciate the emotional and financial support of having a partner in parenting, there were definitely advantages to being a single mother with my son. I had no one to argue with over differences in opinion on parenting strategy. I didn't have another person taking up my time and attention, I was able and willing to lavish it all on my son. I was eligible for state and church charities as a single mother that I'm not with a partner, even though my income level hasn't changed all that much.

And, to tackle the argument from another direction, surely if two parents are good, four are better! As I mentioned upthread, my daughter now has four grownups lavishing time and attention on her. How much better would it be for her if we were all under one roof? Then if someone needed or wanted to stay home with her, only 1/4 of the household earning power would be affected. And she'd have 4 role models - one arty dad, one macho dad, one strict mom and one playful mom.

Obviously, polygamy is the only way to go, providing a child with a plethora of role models under one roof. ;)

Okay, removing tongue from cheek. The fact of the matter is that every family is different. Every family needs the freedom to work things out to their own best benefit, and a blanket restriction on family form is bound to harm as many as it helps. Eyes on your own plate, and let each family work it out as best they can.

Sorry WhyNot, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that two parents are better than one if the two parents are in a healthy relationship of their own. If they aren't, then it is no longer "possible" in the terms I was thinking of. But if the choice is between ONE rational, loving, parent doing the best s/he can, and TWO rational, loving parents who care for each other doing the best THEY can, then it's hard to believe the single parent situation is intrinsically superior. (What if you have more than one child as a single parent? That has to complicate matters.)

Plenty of kids do just fine with one parent, and it's obviously better to have one stable parent than two that are at each other's throats. But tell me this: would you rather get on an airplane with ONE engine, or TWO? As my pilot friend tells me, one is plenty and a plane can fly and land safely that way. But if anything goes wrong with the one engine, it's nice to have another one there. (Actually don't commercial jets have 4 engines? So there you go, the 4-parent model wins!)

Quote:

---

So there you go, the 4-parent model wins!

---

Well, that line of reasoning is as logical as any other assertion in this thread not backed by scientific data ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

Sorry WhyNot, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that two parents are better than one if the two parents are in a healthy relationship of their own. If they aren't, then it is no longer "possible" in the terms I was thinking of.

---

Absolutely. That I completely agree with. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Look, opinions are fine. I have lots of 'em. But when you start telling other people how to live, more than your opinion is required if you want them to take you seriously.

---

But that is all I ever posted. My opinion, clearly stated, and inviting comments on it. Nowhere did I advocate taking anyone's children away from them. Nowhere did I post anything other than MY opinion. And I'll repeat it, with emphasis applied for those who apparently can't read for comprehension:

Quote:

---

I feel that part of the requirement for having children is the ability to provide a stable home environment with both parents pulling their share of the load. The child should come first.

With that in mind, should divorce laws be changed to make it as hard as possible to get a divorce once a child enters the picture (natural or adopted)? It seems to me that there is an attitude of "cut and run once it gets difficult" in our society. Why should we enable that attitude?

I believe that divorce laws should be changed so that divorces where kids are involved are granted easily only in cases where one parent is abusive, a criminal or a drunk/addict. In all other cases, the one filing FOR divorce should be required to pay the other spouse 50% of all earnings until the youngest child turns 18, and should not be allowed to remarry until the youngest child turns 18. In the exception cases as listed, the one filed ON has to make the payments and is prohibited from remarrying.

Harsh? Probably. But if you make the decision to bring a child into the world, you shouldn't be allowed to duck out on your responsibility toward that child and toward the other parent. It ain't all about you anymore.

Thoughts?

---

For those screaming for an apology from me, the line to apologize TO me for all that crap starts right over there.

No one is screaming. And frankly, I think most of us would prefer you answer the questions posed to you, in your own words, rather than hear any sort of a apology at all.

Quote:

---

I believe that divorce laws should be changed so that divorces where kids are involved are granted easily only in cases where one parent is abusive, a criminal or a drunk/addict.

---

The difference being, you think that legislation should be enacted to compel others into living according to YOUR opinions, despite them being scientifically unsupportable. No one else is demanding that.

I'd like to hear a definition of abuse, please. AFAIK there is no one universally accepted legal definition of that at this time.

Similarly, just where do you place adultery on your list? If it's not grounds for divorce in your mind, I'd really love to know why not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

But that is all I ever posted. My opinion, clearly stated, and inviting comments on it. Nowhere did I advocate taking anyone's children away from them. Nowhere did I post anything other than MY opinion. And I'll repeat it, with emphasis applied for those who apparently can't read for comprehension:

---

Bullshit. Your "opinion" is that the LAW should be changed. That's telling other people how to live.

Let's try that again, bolding mine this time:

Quote:

---

I feel that part of the requirement for having children is the ability to provide a stable home environment with both parents pulling their share of the load. The child should come first.

With that in mind, should divorce laws be changed to make it as hard as possible to get a divorce once a child enters the picture (natural or adopted)? It seems to me that there is an attitude of "cut and run once it gets difficult" in our society. Why should we enable that attitude?

I believe that divorce laws should be changed so that divorces where kids are involved are granted easily only in cases where one parent is abusive, a criminal or a drunk/addict. In all other cases, the one filing FOR divorce should be required to pay the other spouse 50% of all earnings until the youngest child turns 18, and should not be allowed to remarry until the youngest child turns 18. In the exception cases as listed, the one filed ON has to make the payments and is prohibited from remarrying.

Harsh? Probably. But if you make the decision to bring a child into the world, you shouldn't be allowed to duck out on your responsibility toward that child and toward the other parent. It ain't all about you anymore.

Thoughts?

---

My thoughts are that you should keep your eyes on your own plate and stop suggesting we legislate how others live, especially as you can't find one iota of support for your opinions re: harm to children not being raised in a two biological parent heterosexual household.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

But that is all I ever posted. My opinion, clearly stated, and inviting comments on it. Nowhere did I advocate taking anyone's children away from them. Nowhere did I post anything other than MY opinion. And I'll repeat it, with emphasis applied for those who apparently can't read for comprehension:

For those screaming for an apology from me, the line to apologize TO me for all that crap starts right over there.

---

So, in other words, the only "support" you can come up with for your ideas is a (purely opinion) essay from James Dobson (the same dude who says fathers should be sure to sure to shower with their preteen sons, in order to prevent their sons from becoming gay.)

That's the literal totality of your argument.

And now you just want people to accept it because it's "your opinion"? You're basically asking for affirmative action for stupid people. "Of course I can't defend my moronic viewpoint. You should respect it even though I can't offer up anything even resembling a rational argument for it."

Well, duh, Clothahump. No one expected you to be able to defend something that fucking stupid. The point of this whole exercise wasn't to defend the right of stupid people to believe stupid things. The point was an (obviously futile) attempt to see if you'd reconsider your viewpoints when you discovered you couldn't defend them.

(Dear everyone else: Duh, I fucking told you this was pointless.)

But it's fun to argue! Clothahump, you were saying....

I wonder how this differs from a UK perspective.

The maxim that parents should stay together for the kids sake doesn't seem to apply anymore. It would be better to have two parents divorced and living apart who can agree in a reasonable manner than two parents forced to live together whose constant arguing will not be beneficial to the kids growing up.

If the parents split, then child support gets paid from the person who is not looking after the children to the parent who is looking after the children. In this way, they are least financially taken care of.

The problem is not that a child needs parents, its that a child needs good parents. Or rather, good role models for them to identify with and grow up respecting.

As for the gender of them, well for some it doesn't matter, for some it does. For certain cultures in the UK, there is evidence that a lack of a strong male role model is damaging and that a strong female role model is not an acceptable substitute. Please note that it is the role model which is important, not the fact it has to be the father. In many ways it would be much easier if it was the father, which is why partnerships, not necessarily marriage, can be considered beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

I wonder how this differs from a UK perspective.

The maxim that parents should stay together for the kids sake doesn't seem to apply anymore. It would be better to have two parents divorced and living apart who can agree in a reasonable manner than two parents forced to live together whose constant arguing will not be beneficial to the kids growing up.

If the parents split, then child support gets paid from the person who is not looking after the children to the parent who is looking after the children. In this way, they are least financially taken care of.

The problem is not that a child needs parents, its that a child needs good parents. Or rather, good role models for them to identify with and grow up respecting.

---

CIAS, this is pretty much the same as you would hear from most Americans, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by artifex

The difference being, you think that legislation should be enacted to compel others into living according to YOUR opinions, despite them being scientifically unsupportable. No one else is demanding that.

---

Sigh.

My *opinion*. Not a demand. An opinion. Period. For those that apparently have difficulty comprehending that, let's go back to basics:

Quote:

---

o·pin·ion

  <a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audi...O0129600&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...aker.gif&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;opinion pronunciation&quot; /></a> /əˈpɪnhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngyən/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...on_default.gif Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngn] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...on_default.gif Show IPA
–noun1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

---

Opinion, people. Get that through your heads. Stop trying to say that I am demanding this or that or something else; stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

OPINION - got it? You may agree or disagree; most of you appear to disagree, and that's fine - it's your opinion as opposed to mine. But keep the key words in mind:
it's an opinion.

Changing the law so that it requires other people to live as you think they should IS a demand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

But keep the key words in mind:
it's an opinion.

---

It's not an 'opinion' when you want to change the laws.

When you write in a big font, it becomes more truthier.

What, exactly, is the opinion? Is it that children are better off raised with two opposite-sex parents? Or is it that there should be some kind of change to the legal code to encourage that? If it's the former, then sure, it's your opinion, which I supposed doesn't need to be justified if you don't want to or can't justify it. If it's the latter, then you really need to come up with some kind of compelling reason other than "it's my opinion."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Stop trying to say that I am demanding this or that or something else; stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

---

Well, why would we do that when you seem pretty happy to let James Dobson speak for you? :)

It's his opinion, now ya'll just being bitches.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

it's an opinion.

---

Well, some people -- intelligent people, particularly -- try to make sure their opinions are, you know, based on, you know, logic and fact. I'm well aware you're not one of our number, but you did make statements of fact that you (obviously) can't back up. Like this one:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Studies indicate that children from a two-parent family are happier overall than children from a single-parent family. They have the formative influence of both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior. This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.

---

Now, obviously, you couldn't find any evidence that this was true, so when you said it you were apparently just, you know, lying.

Not that it's surprising to me that you don't care at all whether your OPINIONS are based on truth or lies, but it seemed worth pointing out.

Even though I disagree with his opinion, I have to cut Clothahump a little slack here. In my opinion, gays should be allowed to serve in the military openly. Are you all going to jump on me now and say that this is a "demand", and invalid if I can't back it up with statistical evidence that it is a good idea? Probably not. Likewise, Clothahump can and should express whatever opinion he wants to about laws, marriage, homosexuality, etc. If many Mellophanters disagree with him, so much the better -- a little righteous outrage is good for the soul. Just don't scare the guy away, okay? We need more variety around here, even if it it is just to help us articulate our beliefs. And don't get me wrong, I do think that Clothahump is very, very mistaken.

Speaking of which, I'm sure you've all seen the study that just came out showing that children of lesbian couples are actually better adjusted than their peers, but here it is just in case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

Even though I disagree with his opinion, I have to cut Clothahump a little slack here.

---

I don't.

I don't think I somehow benefit from of being told, for the thousandth time, that I'm basically inferior because I'm not straight. It's not like this is some sort of novel, fascinating idea he's sharing with us. It's the same bigotry that any queer person is already very well-acquainted with. He's not covering any new ground here, and the fact that he can't come up with any support for his claims (which, I reiterate, started out as factual claims, not "OPINIONS") is proof-positive that it's just unexamined bigotry from a moron. I'm not seeing how my life, at least, is somehow lacking in bigotry.

If I had some need to hear someone tell me that queers are inherently inferior to normal folk, I'd go to a Tea Party rally. I don't see any reason to grant special protection for people like that here, of all places, by gently deciding that they deserve a break because it's not their fault they're incapable of defending their stupid, morally repugnant opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

He's not covering any new ground here, and the fact that he can't come up with any support for his claims (which, I reiterate, started out as factual claims, not "OPINIONS") is proof-positive that it's just unexamined bigotry from a moron.

---

Sigh.

There were no factual claims made, Exy, and you know it. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's words around to what you want to hear, not what was said. And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model.

---

No one ever, ever, ever said that. Seriously. Because that would be stupid. What people did was to challenge the assumption that one male and one female parent was necessary or optimal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Sigh.

There were no factual claims made, Exy, and you know it. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's words around to what you want to hear, not what was said.

---

Your opinions did seem to be stated flatly, as though they were factual claims, Clothahump. But in this case, it doesn't really matter, because factual claims are what you need in order to support the opinion that there ought to be policy changes. So...if you don't have any, it's just your opinion, and that's great and everything, but it's not going to convince anyone.

Quote:

---

And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.

---

That's not bigoted or an opinion, but rather a good example of a factual statement (see the difference?) The bigoted part is where you put a value judgment on whether or not it's preferable to have one male and one female parental role model. It's also the part that you haven't supported with anything factual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Studies indicate that children from a two-parent family are happier overall than children from a single-parent family. They have the formative influence of both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior. This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.

---

Bolding mine.

Is the bolded part the conclusion of a study you can link to and show us? Or is it mere speculation?

The point is, you started into the discussion from the starting point that a child needs a mother and father figure. The rest of us disagree and have found scientific data to that end. You have an essay by James Dobson. I hope you understand my position.

If you were smarter, Clothahump, you'd recognize that the fact that you can't come up with anything to back up your opinion -- and had to retreat from making factual statements to whining that BOO HOO HOO IT'S JUST MY OPINION -- means it's a dumb opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.

---

You're a funny one to be making demads, since you are still, after multiple requests, (and you can consider this one the what? fifth or sixth?) refusing to answer Tom's question about what proper gender roles even are for men and women, and you have refused to answer MULTIPLE requests by just about everyone in this thread to address WHY you think having these roles modeled is so damn important, and WHY they must be modeled by a parent living in the home.

Are you even reading this thread?

I just read something.

"Your Honor, this again brings forward the point that the standard here is whether or not the evidence produced by the plaintiffs is more than just opinion evidence but it actually rises to the level of non-debatable scientific {facts} and ultimately the 11th circuit concluded that that was not, in that case, anyway, that simply couldn't be said with respect to the common sense belief that many, many, many people hold and many researchers hold, that the optimal child rearing parental structure is the traditional intact family."

This is a statement from Charles Cooper, lawyer for the pro-Prop 8 side in today's closing arguments. Your basic argument has now see the light of day in court, and it sounds just has bad coming out of the mouth of a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Are you even reading this thread?

---

Yes. And I'm pretty much ignoring the wankfest it has degenerated into.

Sometimes a chorus of people agreeing isn't a wankfest. Sometimes groups of people are actually right.

So do you think that Cooper's argument in court was a good one? The judge didn't seem too impressed, but we don't have a verdict yet. Personally I'm totally looking forward to getting married.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Yes. And I'm pretty much ignoring the wankfest it has degenerated into.

---

Translation: I don't understand in the slightest how a debate actually works.

And that's me being generous, really. Because for the life of me I can't figure out any other reason you'd post this thread in this section in good faith, when all you appear to want to do is spout off your opinions without backing them up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

when all you appear to want to do is spout off your opinions without backing them up.

---

Well, it's always been his modus operandi. Dude has no backup for any of his opinions. He was always that way at the SDMB too. His opinions just aren't based on reason -- that's why he can't come up with any reasoning.