i have a degree in Psychology and a PGCE and youe argument from authority is BS – I have been a scoial worker and i have woprked with abused kids if that helps
It is a complicated picture and it requires more than the simplistic tabloid sound bite explanations that you offer
Yes I may be the case that where the parents stay together kids do better..its like a happy home makes you happy…fricking Genius stuff this

i would also guess divorce makes you poorer and less happy when your parents split up

Perhaps better to compare them [divorced] to people who stay in unhappy loveless marriages though than those who are happily married and love each other

when you compare chalk and cheese what you find is meaningless.

The oldest male child takes control at home, not good for the teachers, the mother or the siblings.

Not good Do you mean worse than the alternative or worse than if the dead parent was still alive?

It doesn’t Graham, It’s a reply to your post about depriving children of having two mums/dads.

I’ve provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good. I had to spend time pulling dusty books of library shelves and trying to deal with fatherless 14-year-old heads of household, I’m sure that Google will throw up plenty of studies for you to read without even standing up.

Edit to reply to Junkyard: the children from Indian families with both parents present were good students.

it’s absurd that it has a different name.

I agree also, but does it really matter that much if it’s called something else?

emsz – from your internet persona you don’t seem the kind of person that would be overly bothered either way. Maybe apathy isn’t the right attitude but surely I’m not the only person who has other things to worry about?!

Do you mean worse than the alternative or worse than if the dead parent was still alive?

Worse than if one parent was a zombie?

What does the educational outcomes of the children have to do with whether gay people should be treated equally?

I’ve provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good.

See I’d maybe agree with that. But a role model doesn’t have to be a parent.
Just because a child has two dads doesn’t mean there are no good female role models in their lives.

As I said, children of wealthy parents do “better” than children of poor parents. So do you or the cardinal object to poor people getting married on the same basis?

I’ve provided evidence to support the Cardinals view that depriving children of either the male or female role model is not good.

Can you now explain how that applies to the argument that gays should or shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

Yes – I’d like to know that one – I can’t even have kids so how does the kids argument stop me getting married??

Rachel

tonyd – Member

“it’s absurd that it has a different name.”

I agree also, but does it really matter that much if it’s called something else?

4 pages in and you can’t tell?

What does “BS” stand for Junkyard. I assume it means you’re calling me a liar (again). As a psychologist you should know how people react when you acuse them of lying and what other people will think of the accuser when it’s clear i’m not lying. The paper I quoted states children with same-sex parents do less well, I’ve linked it, that doesn’t make me a BSer.

Edit: I’m not making a connection Mike and Rachel, I’m just supporting what the Cardinal says about children being deprived of male and female parents. I just think “marriage” is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

I just think “marriage” is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Why?

I just think “marriage” is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Despite the fact that this is what the vast majority of people will call it and understand it to be? And that it has no legal difference other than name?

You’re still neatly skipping round my point that children also “do best” with wealthy parents. Should we allow rich same-sex marriage and disallow marriage of low income couples? Surely that would be “better” for children?

Or maybe we should just have a different word for marriage between poor people? 🙄

You’re still neatly skipping round my point about children “do best” with wealthy parents.

And around the fact that changing the name of the same sex union isn’t going to magically alter the number of children with married heterosexual parents.

The cardinal is just trying to justify the long standing homophobic views of the catholic church.

I haven’t skipped around your point about children doing best with wealthy parents, Graham. I have stated that children also benefit from having both male and female role models, and given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school – irrespective of the wealth of the family.

Still skipping around it then. 🙄

miketually – Member

I just think “marriage” is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Why?

Because he’s a homophobe trying to justify his prejudices.

“Gay marriage “madness” says man who believes his magic biscuits turn into chunks of Jesus when you eat them”

That about summed it up for me.

I haven’t skipped around your point about children doing best with wealthy parents, Graham. I have stated that children also benefit from having both male and female role models, and given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school – irrespective of the wealth of the family.

So if I give you a specific example of a gay couple with lovely kids, you’ll change your mind?

I’d rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike.

Your friends’ children are “kids” now, it will be interesting to see how they do as they mature and enter the adult world.

I know a bloke who spent half his life being brought up by two “dads”.
One of the nicest and well balanced people I know.
Only problems he’s had is sh.t from idiots who thought it was wrong.

Your friends’ children are “kids” now, it will be interesting to see how they do as they mature and enter the adult world.

I’m sure they’ll do as well as other kids who’ve been brought up by gay parents.

Maybe they’d do even better if their parents could get married? Not allowing their parents to get married won’t make their mums go off and marry men, so why not let them?

I’d rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike.

Previously, you were basing your opinion on the dictionary.

My posts are a mixture of reporting and opinion. The language I’ve used makes it clear which is which, Mike.

That “marriage” refers to a heterosexula union is my opion. If you have adiffernt opion, voice it.

How well children do as a fuction of their environment, family situation, schooling and so on, is the subject of lots of research some of which I’m reporting. It is not my opinion, it is other people’s work. I’m quoting it in response to posts that give alternative views.

but does it really matter that much if it’s called something else?

Yes it really really does matter. If you call it something else it will be treated as something else.

To quote Zizek “Words are never ‘only words’; they matter because they define the contours of what we can do.”

It’s not just that it will be treated as something else – it will BE something else.

I don’t want similar rights, I want equal rights. Simple, isn’t it?

and Edukator – don’t worry about the children thing – I’m doing a pretty okay job of being a godfather to one child and godmother to another thank you very much.

(uh uh – was that the sound of a head exploding??)

Rachel

Adam w sums the whole thing up in one sentance very well.

But to be honest, I don’t really care that some old man who wears a dress says. He’s not even that good a drag queen, and that hat is just ridiculous.

Perhaps we should all bear that in mind, i may even get a t shirt printed with it on, to weart on Sundays. 😯

Simple, isn’t it?

Unfortunately both sides in this think it is simple.

Which makes it complicated. 😉

the children from Indian families with both parents present were good students.

So loosing a father is a bad thing I don’t think anyone will disagree. The point is the comparator should be Indian families who lost a father where the eldest did not become the “father figure”. What was the outcome of these children? I assume we can all prima facie accept that loosing your father when you are school age has a bad affect on you.

Worse than if one parent was a zombie?

😀

What does “BS” stand for Junkyard. I assume it means you’re calling me a liar (again)

I clearly accuse your argument and not you

youe argument from authority is BS

ie you have a PGCE it does not make what you say true. I have PGCE all frogs can fly as a far more extreme example.
I did more that that I explained why it is not a great study and why there is debate. Do you wish me to quote papersback to you? Will that then prove my point there is a debate and it is not conclusive or as easy/simple as you portray?

As a psychologist you should know how people react when you acuse them of lying and what other people will think of the accuser when it’s clear i’m not lying

Yes they all seem to be taking your side and thinking poorly of me on this thread. Lets not get side tracked by acrimony or ad hominems

The paper I quoted states children with same-sex parents do less well, I’ve linked it, that doesn’t make me a BSer.

Its all correlation anyway so it is quite weak as we would still need to know the reason why this state [same sex] has the bad affect*

Given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school – irrespective of the wealth of the family.

That is an anecdote and not actually research and see above – you are nt using the correct comparator for “disruptive element” and need to see what happens if they dont..I would refer some actual research rather than your account of what your lecturer [ a teacher I would assume] said about this

I’d rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike

Oh the irony
*Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42 Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.

Again I think we can all accept that divorce is bad [less good than happily married parents] for kids however

Considerable evidence exists that a conflict-ridden marriage jeopardizes the well-being of children (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989). Based on this, ending a conflict- ridden marriage may actually boost rather than undermine children’s wellbeing.Recent evidence suggests that children in divorced single parent families
do better than children in high conflict, intact families (Amato, 1993; Amato & Keith, 1991; Peterson, 1986; Peterson & Zill, 1986). In fact, a review of 92 studies documented strong and consistent support for the parental conflict explanation of the differences in child well-being between divorced and nondivorced
families (Amato, 1993; Amato & Keith, 1991).

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis02c04.pdf
[paper cited in your paper]

Yes, you’re probably right, Spin.

I do understand why an organisation that is seeing so many of their systems dismantled over recent years might rebel against another one being pulled out of their control. It can’t be easy.

Rachel

ad hominems

What about arguments ad homomen?

I’d accept them as valid in this case…

Edit: If I have a fault it’s a slight tendency to flippancy.

@Spin – made me laugh, anyway!

Wow, good work JY, the conclusions of the paper cited by the paper cited by Edukator are pretty conclusive.

Lifer – Member
4 pages in and you can’t tell?

I can tell that it matters to the half dozen or so posters that are making regular and valid arguments, however in a forum full of people that love to argue the t0ss I’m surprised there aren’t more vocal and polarised opinions being put forward. (Perhaps we need to wait for Eastenders to finish!)

That in itself speaks volumes, so when you extrapolate out to a largely apathetic nation is it any wonder that it’s only discussed when some old codger comes out to make an inflammatory statement on behalf of an organisation that has a fraction of the influence it would like? Most people don’t know or care enough about this issue to even have an opinion (in my opinion).

So, Junkyard, in terms of well being of the children we now have:

Good: united heterosexual parents

Not so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven’t yet divorced, same-sex parents.

You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents. I could start to divide same-sex couples up into stable/conflictual/happy/unhappy etc. but it would simply reveal subtrends within the overall trend – which says that on this point at least, the Cardinal has a point.

In my opinion trends aren’t justification enough to discriminate against entire groups which brings us to issues such as should gays have the right to adopt; I said something earlier about each case on its merits.

I don’t see the irony BTW, just a clumsy attempt to mock me.

is it any wonder that it’s only discussed when some old codger comes out to make an inflammatory statement on behalf of an organisation that has a fraction of the influence it would like?

Must have missed that that he had come out, i knew all along of course. 😯

project – Member
Must have missed that that he had come out, i knew all along of course.

Aren’t they all just one small slip from being outed?

You know it is a hard life being gay. Every day – every SINGLE day – I have to work my utmost to bring about the destruction of morality. The latest ruse amongst us gays is to get married. That’ll do it for sure. I can see cracks in the sky now as it is about to cave in. (We also get Tesco Clubcard points for every conversion. I’m working up to a new coffee machine.)

The next idea I have forwarded onto central command: Gay Lesbian And Metrosexual Order, Underhanded Resistance Of United Sodomites (G.L.A.M.O.U.R.O.U.S. for short) is to infiltrate society with older creepy men who wear purple dresses and badly-fitting hats.

Oh, wait…. 😀

😀

He’s not a gay, he’s a very naughty boy

Good: united heterosexual parents
Not so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven’t yet divorced, same-sex parents.

You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents

Rightio, can I subdivide based on other studies then?

Good: united heterosexual, high-income, white, non-immigrant, tall, good looking parents, whose parents also had successful marriages and live nearby to provide a support network.

Not so good: everyone else.

Would you be so happy to defend the Cardinal if he’d said that?
Or is it just that his particular prejudice matches your own?