Every day decisions are made on parenting by experts in the field of human psychology. Their code of conduct decrees that they be unbiased and work solely in the interests of the children. I contend that these people are a good choice for mentally profiling people to determine their fitness for parenting. The only thing that is questionable is your willingness to accept that these people are qualified to do their jobs because their results do not tally with your view of how the world should be.

Perhaps you know of some way of determining this fitness which proves parents are equally capable, but you're just holding back the information to tease me.

There has still been no reply to the point that foster children are 5 times more likely to die having suffered abuse at the hands of their parents than children who are parented by their biological family.

You're changing the subject. Let me retrace the arc of the argument.

1) You claimed that women are naturally better parents than men.

2) I, and others, responded by saying that there is no evidence to support that claim.

3) You claimed that women are obviously better parents because of who gets custody in divorce claims.

4) I, and others, responded by saying that you made a big leap which had nothing to do with nature and had more to do with society.

5) You didn't respond to this differentiation between nature and society, and went on to post about how court-appointed psychologists are unbiased and know good parenting better than the rest of society.

So, where I'm at now is where I've been at since early on in this argument. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> women are raised to focus more on child-rearing than males. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> the hierarchical division between men and women has created a cultural phenomenon that allows more responsibility for women to raise children. You can claim that in our <i>society</i> men are much more often violent towards women and the power differences noted in the male-over-female system has created a vacuum for males in the child-rearing process.

These are social claims that can be backed up with statistics and things such as court settlements. Your global claim has not been backed up by scientific evidence about the nature of humanity at all.

Now, to relate all of this to homosexual parents as foster parents and bearers of surrogate children - Simply, there is no data set to support that it would be unwise or unsafe for homosexual parents to have children. The short-comings of the foster care system don't apply to homosexuals as a subset of all people who have foster children. That is like saying that because gun violence in the United States is a higher percentage than in other countries, that all gun owners in America are violent. Again, you need more support to back up your claims.

My reply is that this is an erroneous and irrelevant statistic to the subject at hand.

*nods...

We've tried to cite sources, including a pretty impressive cross section of experts in medicine, psychology, child development, etc... who all agree that queer sexual orientation is not a "problem" to be fixed, and not a barrier to good parenting.

I'm not questioning the abilities of psychologists. At least not in this thread. I have no problem accepting that fully trained mental health professionals are qualified to do their jobs.

What is really questionable, and you should think about this, is that you claim to be able to accurately interpret the motivations of mental health professionals using only statistical data. That's some kinda intuition you got there. It is odder still that you seem to be having a difficult time understanding why this doesn't pass muster as an rational basis for your position on this particular subject.

So, you're saying that the consensus among all professionals in the field of human psychology was that woman are fundamentally better parents than men. They seem to be keeping it pretty big secret. One of the patterns i've noticed when it comes to scientific disovery (when it doesn't involve areas of national defense) is that upon the discovery of something the results are made public to be tested by the collective scrutiny of the scientific community. If any group of psychologists had determined credibly that women are better parents than men, they would publish their findings. That is what scientists do. They don't reach some marvelous conclusion with far reaching societal implications and keep it a secret from everybody else. If there was any kind of scientific proof that the above assertion was true than we would have heard about it when the human psychology professionals you are attempting to speak for published their scientifically supported conclusions. Unfortunately for you, they have not published any such study. Why not? Are they trying to keep it a secret, or is there actually no solid scientific basis for such an assertion?

We are by our nature social animals. I'm not sure how you could test this situation outside of a social context, with it being a little tricky to find people who have never had a social relationship.
Your assumption seems to be that it must be society that shaped this activity, and dismissing the idea that it might be the activity shaping society.

What, just because they're homosexual?
Are you claiming that homosexuals are inherently less abusive than heterosexuals, and if so how did you come to this conclusion? Saying there is no data to support it is not the same as saying there is data to refute it.

This is ridiculous.. it's not saying all foster parents are abusive, but rather a higher percentage of them are than biological parents.

No, this isn't actually what I said. This is not some huge secret survey done by pyschologists. Each case is assessed on an individual basis. If the father is more capable of caring for the child, he gets custody. 90% of the time the mother gets custody. As far as I know there is no publication of findings either way, if the truth were already in plain view there would be no need for discussion here.

p.s.
Interesting points raised here and here, including points about the previously quoted studies.

Also, i want to know where the "90% of custody cases go to the mother" stat comes from. I also want to know why you think it is appropriate to attribute most or all of that 90% to some sort of inherent child bearing ability.

Exactly!!!! So, now that <i>you admit that you can't prove that some people are naturally better parents than others due to the social context</i> in the absence of having <u>specific scientific evidence</u> to back this up (rather than social observations). Again, you can make claims about our society and culture, but you are lacking when it comes to how people "naturally" are. We need more evidence.

Since openly homosexual couples have often been turned away from getting foster children, my thinking is that there is no way to associate those figures to that subset of society either way. For all I know, homosexuals may be more abusive. But I'd need data specific to homosexuals to make any conclusions.

If you agree that it is ridiculous, then the next step is to find out what the factors are that cause foster parents to be abusive. Does it have a correlation to things that have nothing to do with sexuality? What are those things? Is it possible that as a subset of all foster parents that homosexual couples would have lower rates of abuse than the rest of the pie? Again, your data doesn't prove anything without it being specific to homosexuality.

Generalizing homosexual foster parents with <i>all</i> foster parents defeats the purpose of looking specifically at homosexuals as foster parents.

to be honest, i did not read all of this topic. anyway.
first of all. it's not their choise to be homosexual. what a funny idea. if you are hetero try to really love a man or try not beeing aroused by a beautyfull woman. you will fail. it' s all in the genes. second, don't believe everything your government is saying. gays don't harm other people by just being gay. so it can't be unmoral. (and there was never a chance, that iraq could attack america with a, b or c-bombs, no matter what your government is saying.;)

This is brief, I have to go out shortly.
On the 90% custody issue, slap it in a search engine and you will find it, you're just sidetracking the issue by unnecessarily nitpicking every little detail.
Our social behaviour is a result of our how we naturally are. Having a child is a social activity and it is also a natural activity. In this case the social context is a natural context.

Why? Because homosexual can be equally good parents but not equally bad parents? If your claim is that there is no difference between homo and hetero parenting, the statistics are valid.

Yes, but to prove your point, Adysav, you need to argue why it is that foster parents tend to be more abusive than biological parents. Otherwise, since our society has already said it's okay for hetero couples to be foster parents, if we assume as we have been that gay couples are just as good (and just as bad) as hetero couples at parenting, the conclusion to draw is just that gay couples should be able to adopt.

(And, while writing, I had an interesting thought. The statistic, that foster parents tend to be more abusive. Is that just foster parents, or does that include adoptive parents as well?)

Kill me now, but this thing stemmed from the argument about incest. Basically it was decided by the others that incest would be ok, were it not for the fact that the fruit of all incestuous relations were prone to birth defects. I am merely making the point that since all homosexual couples lack at least one biological parent it puts them in a group with an increased risk of abuse. If one is a legitimate reason, why not the other.

The data was from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, but I forget where specifically it came from, so it may or may not have included adoption.

Just because you enjoy the benefits of sidetracking an issue by nitpicking(incest) doesn't mean that that is what i am doing. I'm just asking for a source. Quoting a stat as fact and then expecting the people arguing against you to run and verify it is not only lazy, but also also shows a complete lack of respect for your own argument. Good thing i took your suggestion and googled it. Here's what i found:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawr...4/mcneely.html

It's about a sixth of the way down, ctrl-f and type in "90%" if you want to find it.

In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination of which parent recieves custody of their children in divorce proceedings.


Fathers are often not permitted by society's gender expectations to alter their roles to fully participate in child rearing. Notice how this attributed to society and not some innate biological condition. These are the same human psychologists who you claimed to speak for.

Sorry to nitpick, but it is hard to take you seriously when you make statements that are so obviously untrue or unknowable like, "Women are better parents than men."

or we could go by what the report actually says:
"It cannot be fairly concluded through the analysis of these data that those forces are based on gender bias"
How can someone not be permitted to do something by expectations?
If I wanted to stay at home with my child while my wife went to work as a builder, then that's what we would do.

A response like this indicates to me that you're a man that only sees what he wants to see.

Ok, so why doesn't she want to be a builder? Is it that you also think that men are naturally better builders than women?

Do you understand the difference between the socialization process creating social norms and standards that create acceptable life-paths, and absolute freedom? We could all theoretically do lots of things, but we choose based on what we see around us (such as what others <i>like us</i> do around us). There are so many pressures put on us from the time we are born to fit into acceptable gender roles. Can you think back to the playground to how the guy who acted more like the girls was treated? The tomboy? What about how parents raise their children? Have you watched television lately? Read any books?

Expectations shape behavior. In the sense that I don't want to do a lot of things because my expectations have been shaped by my environment. In this sense that a lot of the things I do and want to do have been shaped by my environment. I think you are really missing a huge aspect of how humanity actually works with your essentialistic attitude.

You got me. By bolding that section text i was secretly hoping to actually only call your attention to one specific part of it. You picked the wrong part though. What i actually meant to call attention to by bolding those two sentences was just this one section: "It cannot be fairly concluded." So, i guess what i was trying to say by bolding those two sentences was that "It cannot be fairly concluded". What it is is beyond me, because i am following your lead and ignoring the rest of the sentence. :thumbsup:

It has been a while since intro sociology, but lemme see if i can remember...

Societies are kept in order by things called mores and norms and laws. Laws are codified and breaking them often results in legal sanctions. For the less important rules (the mores and the norms) society uses informal sanctions like discrimination, insults, anything really. A functional society runs smoothly because the members of that society act as willing agents of social control in enforcing the mores, norms and laws. You are correct in saying that everyone has a choice in whether they want to conform to the expectations of their society. Their choice is between conformity or sanction. If you doubt this, then you should go to work naked tomorrow and tell me how this expression of personal freedom affected your personal well being at your workplace. If you refuse to go to work naked, then you have not permitted yourself to do something based society's expectations. So there you go.

You can turn the page upside down, translate it into hebrew and back or chant it backwards around a camp fire, but that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted part clearly states there is no gender bias indicated. This is at odds with your summarisation "In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination..."
Last time I checked, expectations were not equivalent to law. There is no law saying that a man can't stay at home with his child, and no law saying his wife can't go to work while he does it.
I really don't think this deserves a response, because now I know you're trying to wind me up.
When you read my post you seem to have added a section yourself that isn't there. Something like "all her life she's played with the toy trucks and aspired to become a leading figure in the construction trade. I'll crush that bitches hopes under my boot if she gets ideas above her station".
Would it help if I just edited my previous posts to fit your criticisms of things I didn't say?
No and no.
I sincerely hope you don't think you should shape your life around the tauntings of playground bullies.
They must have really got to you.

Actually, I'm being serious. Why doesn't she want to be a builder? Did my question say anything about you personally regarding that? I don't understand why you're having such an extreme response. I don't see there being some sort of hidden agenda in my question. My point was that there are reasons that people choose things and don't choose things and those are usually social in nature. If you had answered the question sincerely rather than attacking me personally and putting words in my mouth you might give me and yourself some insight.

Well, you've wildly mischaracterized what I'm saying again. And you have gone personal again. Big surprise. By talking about how society shapes human behavior as a web of relations that enforces normalized behavior (a la Michael Foucault), you turn around and attack me for things you certainly know nothing about (such as my personal life history). Again, it appears to me that you're only seeing what you're wanting to see. I think it is unfortunate that when I ask straight questions that you assume that I'm trying to do something that I'm not. I would like for you to understand these basic tenets of sociology that have been discussed earlier and to realize that there are claims that can be made about nature and claims that can be made about our society and culture <i>and</i> that there is a difference. I think your preconceptions and beliefs are becoming a real barrier to having an earnest discussion about these things. If you don't want to consider what I say, that's fine, but at least realize that you're doing it rather than lashing out ridiculously.

I think that i might as well be typing in arabic.

[/quote]Indeed, analyzed fairly, the data underlying the figure strongly suggest social and cultural forces at play beyond a holistic analysis of children=s best interests.[/quote]

It says their isn't any conclusive evidence for or against gender bias, but that the data strongy suggests social and cultural forces at play beyond what is best for the children. This directly contradicts your assertion that the results of child custody cases are a reflection of what is best for the children.

Okay, then tell your boss his wife is a whore. That's not illegal. C'mon, don't be a slave to society's expectations of you.

Dude, I'm not married and I don't have any kids.
Yeah, if you say one thing then pretend you said something else.
Whether I am agreeable or not with someone is a matter between me and that person, not me and the rest of society.

Then you probably shouldn't say that you do. ...Esp. if you aren't willing to talk about it after you bring it up.

I personally think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I don't agree with it and it's a lifestyle that I would not live however there are so many other issues in the world that carry so much wieght that this is the bottom of the list. When the wieght of hunger in Africa and homosexuality are on my moral give a shit list homosexuality is not a fucking issue whatsoever. I think people need to realize that there are alot more severe thorns jammed into our moral complex than a victimless lifestyle that may make someone happy. Especially in this day and age where happiness seems to become are rare commodity, if they aren't hurting you just let people be. If you are going to protest, donate, or whatever, then why not get some priorities and send some money to a Childrens fun or those hours standing on the streets holding a sign volounteer for the Salvation.

To sum up my opinion on homosexuality is people need to get their priorities staight about what cause really warrents holding up your banner for all the world to see. If people would honestly place more stock in a president's view on homosexuality than his changes to the military and education system then you just don't have your shit straight.

Yeah, if you misread something, just pretend that i misspoke.

Whatever, conformo. Prove to me you aren't bound by the expectations of society. C'mon, tell me that the fundamental basis for much of sociology is bullshit. Please, it would only make sense in the context of your ever-shifting perspectives.

"In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination of which parent recieves custody..."
"It says their isn't any conclusive evidence for or against gender bias..."

Forgive me if I interpreted that as a contradiction.
What could I possibly say that would convince you.

It's called a hypothetical situation. How can I talk about what my wife does or doesn't want when she is an imaginary subject in a debate.

As it stands, you have provided little evidence to support your assertion that men are less capable parents than women.

Personally, as my 8 mth old daughter sits on my lap.....and I type with one hand. I really see but one difference between my wife and myself when it comes to parenting.....she can breastfeed.

Ok... lets take a step back then. If you're using a hypothetical example that you can't discuss because its not real, then provide something that isn't "imaginary" to illustrate your point.

There.is.nothing.stopping.you.taking.a.job.against.your.traditional.gender.role.
Particularly since the introduction of equal opportunities laws.
I'm glad, I take it you split everything 50-50.

An article I found.

"It is hardly absurd to think that the parent who gives birth may have a biological predisposition to be more attached to the baby. On the other hand, a biological predisposition is not a universal imperative."

Obviously it isn't the case that every woman acts this way and every man acts another way, but it doesn't make any sense to simply rule out that biology is a factor.

"Gilligan contrasted women's "ethic of care," based on human needs and relationships, with "male" moral reasoning based on rights, justice, and abstract principles.
"Difference feminists" usually skirt the question of where the difference originates, though Gilligan dances on the edge of arguing that childbearing gives women "easier access...to the fact of human connection.""

"That men are more likely to think and act in some ways and women in others, and that every man or woman should be treated as an individual, are two ideas we ought to be able to hold at the same time. This means avoiding comments like, "Each sex seems to have a different definition of what constitutes success in life" (as Browne writes, quoting from a 1968 monograph by psychologists Joseph E. Garai and Amram Scheinfeld). Sexes don't have definitions of success; people do. But it also means accepting that in a nonsexist society, most corporate executives may be men and most "primary caregiver" parents may be women."

and, interestingly...
"Some scientists report pressure to stop or bowdlerize sex difference research. In John Stossel's 1995 ABC special, Boys and Girls Are Different, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem dismissed such research as "poppycock" and "anti-American crazy thinking.""

You omitted the bold part, why for?

So again, we've gone from "Women are better at raising children" to "Men and women are different".

I knew you'd point that out.
I didn't include it because the other two sentences were sufficient to make my point, that everyone is not the same and they don't all fit neatly into my categories.
That, and I don't like scrolling pages at a time just to read one line comments.
Not exactly.
The bits I quoted, in summary, women naturally have a stronger attachment to their child than the fathers and they also have a natural "ethic of care" and concentrate on relationships. Women naturally think like parents and men do not, but that is not to say they cannot easily learn to do so.

My last quote in the previous post adds some insight into why there is so little written about the subject.

But your assertion was that women are better parents than men, not that women have an "ethic of care" that men lack. None of this supports the idea that men don't raise children as well as women do, just that women may initially have a stronger connection to a child.

Remember, you said that allowing gay marriage would be a bad thing because men aren't as capable of raising children as women are.

I understand that it is very difficult to prove a natural predisposition to parenting for various reasons outlined in this thread.
What I was trying to show in the previous few posts is that women naturally possess traits suited to parenting, while men do not.
Well, really it's solely about gay parenting. It just seems that people here cannot divorce the two concepts (no pun intended).

I haven't read this whole thread so if this is a repeat idea thats why.

I can't see homosexuality as a choice. Most societies think homosexuality as a perversion, some have had a death penalty for it. Most people don't WANT to be perverts in the eyes of society. Its also to pervasive. I've never heard of a society that didn't have homosexuals. Therefore its just what they are, their brains are wired to be attracted to the 'wrong' sex.

If no one is being hurt (unlike with pedophillia) then it is not a moral issue. Some would say society is hurt, but I do not agree with them.

Except... yourself. And, well, lots of things. We aren't formed in vacuums.

And you realized that there are reasons that opportunity laws have been created - because our culture has explicitly and implicitly limited the ability of people of different groups to do things. You mentioned "builder" earlier for a specific reason - building is a particularly male-oriented field. Interests are shaped by what we're exposed to starting at a young age. Why do you think that about 50% of young black men are in prison? Is it because blacks are naturally predisposed to be criminals? Before you start freaking out again, I'm going to stop you before you go any further and let you know that the last question was rhetorical. The point is that cultural expectations and our environments dictate a lot about what we do, what we want, and what we don't do and don't want. Just because there is supposedly no barriers to doing anything we want legally, there are many barriers to doing certain things because of our social consciousness that is <i>created by all of the institutions of society which <b>we use to create our values</b></i>.

We aren't formed in vacuums.

Our desires to not do things and to do things are created by the contexts of our lives, our environments. This can be easily proven by looking through historical phenomenons thematically. How did we get from valuing the love between men in Ancient Greece as being the most valueable kind of love of all to an era of homophobia? How have we gone from differentiating sexual preference and gender roles to making them essentially the same things in the last century? Why did the practice of courtly love come into fashion, and why did it melt away?

There is a context to all decision-making.
We aren't living in vacuums.

Have you ever thought about why you like some things and dislike others? Have you ever caught yourself buying something that you don't need or even have a use for because of good marketing? Have you ever been inspired by a story in the news, by a novel, by a movie, or by something else you've seen on TV? Have you ever seen someone act in a way that you would consider to self-destructive or immature that reminded you a little too closely of something you've seen on television lately? Have you seen stupid fads catch on and wondered why so many people suddenly flocked to this new thing? Have you, or someone you know, been a part of something and then felt a twinge of embarrassment after realizing how stupid that was at the time and then wondered what caused you, or that person, to do it in the first place?

The structure of society as an institution that shapes decision-making is a total institution. Very few people escape its grasps, and those who do are considered oddities. We can't escape having our consciousness shaped in a large part by society because we are actively engaged in society on so many levels.

So, respectfully, I ask you to consider that even though there are technically no legal barriers to having absolute freedom of choice, that our social contexts create what are seen as viable and desireable choices for us that quite often match gender and other stereotypes - and that it isn't coincidental, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "natural predisposition".

There is something highly problematic about talking about the way people "naturally" are - people are so highly adaptable. You may think of women as naturally being great mothers, and yet I know many people that would be considered awful with children. Whatever that "natural predisposition" is that you think women have is making a no-show in these people. With so many exceptions and differences in outcomes, coupled with explanations that can be linked to social contexts, how does talking about "natural predisposition" help us in these kinds of discussions in any way. At best, the argument will be weak because it is basically impossible to scientifically research what "natural predisposition" is. At worst, it will enforce stereotypes needlessly and continue the cycle of social construction that disenfranchises some people in some ways for no good reason. In less than a month, there is a good chance that here in Oregon a ballot measure could pass that will make it illegal for homosexuals to get married according to our state constitution. If this passes because of beliefs about certain kinds of people being inadequate for no reasons other than misinformation and assumptions that are totally unproven, then it will be a sad time for many people which will show how social contexts shape decision-making in a limiting fashion and in a detrimental way.

So yeah, some things we're born with, and some we assimilate.
Thanks for that.

Children of Homosexual Parents

"Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality."

you noticed who's doing that content analysis...who decides what problems to "attribute"? Family Research Council. Not exactly impartial, mmmkay?

Everyone has an agenda.
It was hard enough trying to find a parenting article that wasn't written by feminists.

adysav -- no control group?

Besides, there's bias and there's bias. Saying everyone has an agenda is not the same thing as saying everyone's equally unbiased.

Because it's absolutely absurd to listen to women on the topic of what women can do.

Well, if you're not going to respond to me in more than an over-generalized way, I'll just ask you a question at a time -


How are you able to tell the difference between what we're born with and what we assimilate?


I think this is particularly important to answer considering that you're using many different studies to illustrate something about gay parenting that, from my view, are mired with information that says nothing about what we're born with (or without).