3 ms·

It is also an advantage for children to be raised in homes where their parents are billionaires, but that doesn't make every other family unfit.

anon291 3y ago
Sure. As long as we're clear that a mom and dad are best, I'd agree
- autoexec 3y ago
  You're confused. Just because there is an advantage in one area that does not make something optimal. Moms and dads are great. What actually matters tho is that children are exposed to men and women who love and support them so that they can learn from them and from the dynamics of their relationships.
  - anon291 3y ago
    Okay. So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? I'm not talking about optimal. I'm talking about better than the alternative. All else being equal, should we prefer to place a child in sate custody with a mother and father or to same sex parents. By your statement on it being advantageous above, I'd say we should prefer mom and dad. But now you're contradicting yourself
    - clipsy 3y ago
      > So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? No.[0] [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=62ba8a777738 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-rais...
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Okay. So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? Living with both a mother and father can certainly have its perks. The main one being easy accessibility to a role model of both sexes. There are plenty of other situations that would provide that same advantage though. Families come in all kinds of configurations, especially when you get into multi-family/generational living situations, none of which is inherently better or worse for the child by sole virtue of the sex of the those involved. Child A living with a mother and father isn't guaranteed to be better off than Child B living with two fathers. Just like Child B isn't guaranteed to be worse off than Child C who lives with a mother and a grandmother and a grandfather even through there are benefits to having more people in the home caring for and watching over the child. If you didn't grow up in a household with both your parents and grandparents you didn't have that advantage, but you weren't disadvantaged because of that either. It's like saying that having two kids, one a boy and one a girl is "best". It absolutely has its advantages sure, but that doesn't make it best or mean that anything other than that is "worse".
- t-writescode 3y ago
  There's a layer below what is being said here and the implication thereof that I'm afraid you may be missing. It doesn't actually matter what is "best", what matters is what is possible. The world doesn't run on "best", ever. It runs on "good enough" or "better". When people push for the ideology that I read as you asking for us to agree on, the results tend to be harmful. You say "two parents that birth their child and stay together are best". The words gets twisted "being a single parent hurts your child"; "having a step parent hurts your child"; "having same-sex guardians hurts the child". Then the policy gets made that harms even further, "same sex couples cannot adopt", "divorce is illegal"; or, the lesser form, harm is caused to the child through broken families who have been tricked into believing that "it's good for them to stay together for the sake of the child". Stances and arguments and acquiescing to those perspectives has a tendency to walk down very harmful paths very quickly; and, if it's not your intent to push or argue for the policies listed above, it absolutely is what the people you're referencing will push or have pushed, or people who come after you will push.

anon291 3y ago

Sure. As long as we're clear that a mom and dad are best, I'd agree

autoexec 3y ago
You're confused. Just because there is an advantage in one area that does not make something optimal. Moms and dads are great. What actually matters tho is that children are exposed to men and women who love and support them so that they can learn from them and from the dynamics of their relationships.
- anon291 3y ago
  Okay. So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? I'm not talking about optimal. I'm talking about better than the alternative. All else being equal, should we prefer to place a child in sate custody with a mother and father or to same sex parents. By your statement on it being advantageous above, I'd say we should prefer mom and dad. But now you're contradicting yourself
  - clipsy 3y ago
    > So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? No.[0] [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=62ba8a777738 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-rais...
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Okay. So you don't believe having both male and female parents is an advantage over having same sex on s anymore? Living with both a mother and father can certainly have its perks. The main one being easy accessibility to a role model of both sexes. There are plenty of other situations that would provide that same advantage though. Families come in all kinds of configurations, especially when you get into multi-family/generational living situations, none of which is inherently better or worse for the child by sole virtue of the sex of the those involved. Child A living with a mother and father isn't guaranteed to be better off than Child B living with two fathers. Just like Child B isn't guaranteed to be worse off than Child C who lives with a mother and a grandmother and a grandfather even through there are benefits to having more people in the home caring for and watching over the child. If you didn't grow up in a household with both your parents and grandparents you didn't have that advantage, but you weren't disadvantaged because of that either. It's like saying that having two kids, one a boy and one a girl is "best". It absolutely has its advantages sure, but that doesn't make it best or mean that anything other than that is "worse".
t-writescode 3y ago
There's a layer below what is being said here and the implication thereof that I'm afraid you may be missing. It doesn't actually matter what is "best", what matters is what is possible. The world doesn't run on "best", ever. It runs on "good enough" or "better". When people push for the ideology that I read as you asking for us to agree on, the results tend to be harmful. You say "two parents that birth their child and stay together are best". The words gets twisted "being a single parent hurts your child"; "having a step parent hurts your child"; "having same-sex guardians hurts the child". Then the policy gets made that harms even further, "same sex couples cannot adopt", "divorce is illegal"; or, the lesser form, harm is caused to the child through broken families who have been tricked into believing that "it's good for them to stay together for the sake of the child". Stances and arguments and acquiescing to those perspectives has a tendency to walk down very harmful paths very quickly; and, if it's not your intent to push or argue for the policies listed above, it absolutely is what the people you're referencing will push or have pushed, or people who come after you will push.