The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

I disagree because I think a child needs a mother and not two fathers
Reply 61
Original post by murpo
I disagree because I think a child needs a mother and not two fathers


What about two mothers? :rolleyes:
All I can say is Simba had two dads, and he became a king, so make of that what you will.
Original post by Tortious
What about two mothers? :rolleyes:


I don't agree with it because a child needs a father too, just not two fathers and no mother.

I think a father and a mother both offer different things to a child so if it is two fathers then they(the child) will never have experienced having a mother and what she can offer. Also a child will most likely be bullied if they have two fathers.
Reply 64
Original post by murpo
I disagree because I think a child needs a mother and not two fathers


I grew up without a mother. I turned out fine. Maybe social services should have taken me and my brother into care to protect us from the motherless home environment we were subjected to.

If same-sex couples what to have a child then there are ways to do it without adoption such at surogacy and using a sperm donar. But if they are willing and happy to go the adoption route then surely that's better for everyone? Especially for the children growing up in care.

I don't think that a child growing up same-sex parents will be any more disadvantaged than a child growing up with heterosexual parents. But if for some reason you DO believe that, do you think they would be more disadvantaged than children growing up in care without any family at all?
I have never, in my entire time on TSR, seen a thread as positive and non-argumentative as this. Yes they should. But can someone who is against it please enter this thread (with actual arguments, not "no, it's wrong"). I'm bored...
Original post by murpo
I don't agree with it because a child needs a father too, just not two fathers and no mother.

I think a father and a mother both offer different things to a child so if it is two fathers then they(the child) will never have experienced having a mother and what she can offer. Also a child will most likely be bullied if they have two fathers.


There is nothing that can be taught by a mother and a father that cannot be taught by two mothers or two fathers. We don't have traditional gender roles that are set by our sex anymore, this argument doesn't work.
And for example if a daughter is embarrassed to talk to one of her fathers about what happens when she becomes a woman, there are plenty of potential female relatives they could talk to if they found that easier and (without trying to be stereotypical here, just based on personal experience) a lot of gay men have close female friends.
Your argument also extends to single parent families, should parents who divorce not be allowed to keep their children? Or if their partner dies, should their children be taken away because they won't have a mother and a father?
Original post by murpo
I don't agree with it because a child needs a father too, just not two fathers and no mother.

I think a father and a mother both offer different things to a child so if it is two fathers then they(the child) will never have experienced having a mother and what she can offer. Also a child will most likely be bullied if they have two fathers.


This argument doesn't make sense. By your logic there shouldn't be any single parents allowed whatsoever. Which is completely illogical because single parents can produce healthy and well off children. Not to mention that basic psychology and sociology say that having a 'mother' and 'father' are not necessary.

And your bullying argument has already been addressed earlier in the thread. If you want to stop people from having children because they might be bullied, then nobody would be allowed to have children ever.
Original post by Zalachenko
Research? Give me evidence of your claims. Of course I've stated a personal opinion, it's as valid as anyone's. It's not biased, it's different to your's and that is why you claim it is. For it not to be biased and homophobic do I just have to say how much I appreciate homosexuals and how they should be able to adopt?

Give me a break, bull**** thread.


Well to start with...nobody cares if you 'appreciate' homosexuals. However, you have no argument to say that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Unless the two homosexuals are deemed unfit parents (with the same standards used for heterosexual couples) there is no logical reason as to why they shouldn't. There is a mountain of evidence to support what I just said. It has been a big area of research in the past decade or so in the field of psychology and sociology. Maybe you should do some basic research before posting next time and making yourself look like a fool?
Reply 69
Original post by cl_steele
anyone who does disagree with it knows full well if they speak out theyll be castrated by everyone else so they end up keeping their thoughts to them selfs :rolleyes:


Welcome to airstrip one.
As long as they can provide a secure and happy home for the child, then why not!

Surely 2 gay parents is better than no parents and being stuck in care.
Reply 71
In regards to having two dads or two mums and the whole "well, a child needs a male/female role model" I don't think anyone would say that a single mom or a single dad couldn't raise kids on his/her own -- like in the case that one parent dies. Even if the child has heterosexual parents, no one can guarantee that both of these parents will be present for the duration of their childhood/adolescence.

Plus, I don't think that missing a female or male role-model is a problem in childhood. It's not like boys need a dad to play football with, or that girls need a mum to put their hair in pigtails (and if anyone's seen Matilda, we all know that pigtails are a bad idea!) :ahee:

I'm kidding, of course. But seriously, I do realise that when puberty happens, girls may need some female advice and guys may need some male advice. I get that. But, for example, one of my parents' friends lost his wife to cancer and he has two little girls. Five and seven. For now it's not a problem. He's coping perfectly fine. I don't see why men are seen incapable of taking care of girls... how is that an argument? One day these girls are going to become young women, but no one in their right mind is going to go up to the poor man and say "listen, man, you need to get yourself a new partner because of puberty." That's ridiculous.

I think that by the time the kids grow into teenagers, you'll have acquired female - or male - friends, as well as teachers who may be willing to help and other such role models. Plus, there's information on the internet. I'm sure that the parents would be willing to educate themselves. I mean, technically, they've got twelve years time to understand puberty.
I never relied on my mother to explain how to do things. I knew because we were taught in school, because I have female friends and because I frequent the internet. I really don't see that as such a huge problem.

As far as the bullying, you're probably never going to eradicate the chance of your child being bullied. Kids are cruel and there's a chance of being bullied if you have heterosexual parents as well. That's hardly a legitimate excuse. There's only so much you can do to protect your kids. There's a chance of them being bullied for being fat, for being skinny, for wearing glasses, for having a different haircut, for wearing purple, for reading, for listening to certain music, for wearing certain clothing, for having dark skin, for having light skin, for being mixed-race, etc, etc. I was bullied for being German. What can you do to prevent that?

Plus, as others have said before me, if you eradicate laws prohibiting homosexual couples from marrying and adopting, it may become more frequent in the future and lesson the amount of bullying.

The whole argument of kids turning out gay themselves is ridiculous and I won't even comment on that. Everyone with a bit of sense knows that it isn't true.
Sorry for writing so much. I'm a bit passionate about the topic.
:rolleyes:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
This argument doesn't make sense. By your logic there shouldn't be any single parents allowed whatsoever. Which is completely illogical because single parents can produce healthy and well off children. Not to mention that basic psychology and sociology say that having a 'mother' and 'father' are not necessary.

And your bullying argument has already been addressed earlier in the thread. If you want to stop people from having children because they might be bullied, then nobody would be allowed to have children ever.


http://boysraisedbysinglemums.blogspot. co.uk/2009/01/single-mothers-children-responsible-for.html

Boys need a male role model. Accepted wisdom except when it comes to this issue.

[video="youtube;sFBOQzSk14c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c[/video]
Original post by green.tea
http://boysraisedbysinglemums.blogspot. co.uk/2009/01/single-mothers-children-responsible-for.html

Boys need a male role model. Accepted wisdom except when it comes to this issue.

[video="youtube;sFBOQzSk14c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c[/video]


A male role model doesn't need to come from a 'father'. In fact much of adolescent's and children's role models are not their parents. They are teachers, athletes, uncles, ministers, etc. (and aunts, and nuns and such to cover the girls). Please accept knowledge, not 'wisdom' that has shown to be utterly false. Children don't need both a mother and father.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
A male role model doesn't need to come from a 'father'. In fact much of adolescent's and children's role models are not their parents. They are teachers, athletes, uncles, ministers, etc. (and aunts, and nuns and such to cover the girls). Please accept knowledge, not 'wisdom' that has shown to be utterly false. Children don't need both a mother and father.


Gangsters, Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse etc.

How do you account for the research that clearly shows that a disproportionate number of problem people come from homes without a mother and a father?

Your putting gay rights above the rights of children and of society as a whole.
Original post by green.tea
Gangsters, Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse etc.

How do you account for the research that clearly shows that a disproportionate number of problem people come from homes without a mother and a father?

Your putting gay rights above the rights of children and of society as a whole.


How do you account for the overwhelming majority of kids who turn out well from single parents? I'm not putting any of the child's rights after gay rights. You realize that the research shows that such situations seem to result from other social factors rather than having a single mother or father. Or do you think we should take children away from parents who divorce, or lose their spouse?
Reply 76
Yes, i fail to see any problem with it
Original post by green.tea
Gangsters, Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse etc.

How do you account for the research that clearly shows that a disproportionate number of problem people come from homes without a mother and a father?

Your putting gay rights above the rights of children and of society as a whole.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/marriage.conf.zy.html

You should also go look at the sources NYU posted earlier.
(edited 11 years ago)
I'd rather have two moms than two dads, just to put it out there!
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
How do you account for the overwhelming majority of kids who turn out well from single parents?


Yeah, so if our policy only results in 20% of the affected kids becoming a criminal or killing themselves thats ok because its a minority.

I'm not putting any of the child's rights after gay rights.


Yes you are

You realize that the research shows that such situations seem to result from other social factors rather than having a single mother or father.


Lets see your research.

This article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/01/deniscampbell.theobserver
Struggles to back up its stance with anything other than anecdotes and statistics from single parents themselves asked about how well they think theyre doing. They could easily be turned on their head.

65 per cent do not believe that children of single parents are more likely to suffer low self-esteem than their peers;


So 45% of obviously biased single parents think children are more likely to suffer low self-esteem. Regardless of their own position as a single parent.

Or do you think we should take children away from parents who divorce, or lose their spouse?


No. But I dont think life/luck/bad decisions etc often creating situations that are far from ideal is a reason to implement policies that will.

Latest