[NeonSamurai]

First, I was talking about single children and children growing up with just one parent, from t here I started to form a parallel to children with homosexual parents, were one mother or one father in the sexual-role-understanding is missing. Second, I refer to sociological and psychological findings on single children and children grwoing up with one missing parent, I was confronted with back then (if you don't know, I have been clinical psychologist, but am no more). Third, I spoke of missing sexual role models and the missing experience of seeing a mom and a dad acting differently increases vulnerabilities to build later handicaps in social behavior (becoming isolationistic, for example), or becoming depressive. An increased vulnerability to a given risk may lead to a consequence, or not, it is not a 100% sure thing. but the probability for the evnt becoming a reality grows.

I was aware you were a psychologist. However I do not agree with your drawing a comparison between single parent and homosexual couples. For one thing children are not raised in a vacuum and can easily gain the "missed experience of seeing a mom and dad acting differently" outside of the immediate family. Also your statements are contrary to current psychological research which indicates that the issues you mention do not occur. The children have not shown an increased vulnerability to mental illness. Further I would add that there is a huge difference between a child having access to only one parent (who is most likely working most of the time to support them) vs two parents (regardless of sex), such as access to resources (money), more time spent with one or both parents (two parents have to work less then one does to support the family), etc.

See above. Taking the statement as it is, you are wrong. Gender confusion I did not even mentioned. I spoke of chnaged social behavipr, and meant greater possible inhibitions.

That statement is not incorrect and follows current research. No you did not specifically mention it, I did to point out that they are non issues.

That attribution of problems of single children to poverty is your wokring hypothesis that you must prove then. I say it can be a factor in some cases, and in others not. In my school class, there were mostly middle class kids. And most were single kids. your theory here alraedy would blow up.

Your misunderstanding, I was referring to single parent children (ie only one parent and 1 or more children), not single child families (2 parents 1 child). Poverty is very much a factor for single parent children, and its neither my working hypothesis or my personal theory, again I'm referring to actual research. As for single child families, the dynamics are totally different, single child parents tend to be middle to upper middle class families, they tend to have some advantages over multiple child families, and of course some dissadvantages (some slight social issues with peers) overall.

that is wrong, totally. We know that role models may chnage in type and quality of leanring process, depending on age, but learning by role models actually even takes place in teenage and young adults age. Pushging it, one could even argue that even old adults in their thirties and fourties may face such chnages in their living environment, that they start by learning from role models again, although probably not sexual ones anymore, that process already is completed at that age.

I did not say learning by rolemodels ceases at an early age, I said that its only a potential issue when the child is very young and mainly using their parrents and other primary care givers as role models. Later on its not an issue as children will shift (change) their role models to people outside of the immediate family.

You claim that, but its just a claim. Also, role modelling of the type we adress here is about changes in male and female (not to mention homosexual female and homosexual male) behavior that are subtle, and not that evident and obvious as you seem to imply. we talk of hard to describe, very complex, very subtle differences.

No its not a claim, again studies have shown that there isnt a significant difference in how homosexual parents treat adopted children vs straight parents.

See above. Nobody talks of turning boys into girls or vice versa, I nowhere talked of such a thing.

What, I'm not allowed to bring my own arguments in? I made reference to it to demonstrate that children are pre programed to act in certain ways based on their sex. (that was added not so much for you but at anyone else who would claim that a homosexual couple will "turn the child gay" or what ever else) Research has clearly shown that children do not have these issues, their sexual and gender identity not affected in the long term.

Could be, must not be. Findings from exmainations with single parents only indicate that it is not so easy as you describe it. also, such "surrogates" must be available. But maybe they are not.

Typically its not a problem. It is unusual for a child not to be exposed to other people which could act as a surrogate. The problem with using single parent families as the base is that there are a host of other issues that can be present and those other issues could be the cause of the problem, not that the child only has one parent. Child Psychology research has indicated that young children regularly learn from all kinds of sources outside the direct family, even from strangers. Unless the child is living in a bubble or is chained under the stairs of the basement, the child will be exposed to the missing gender quite regularly and can pattern themselves from that.

That is such staement by you now. I am no longer active in the job, and these things never were parts of my special fields, but I have seen statistical reasearch results that rejects your claims, i also got the feedback of a very good girlfriend of mine who works for the juenile's social-psychiatric service in Hamburg now, dealing with such family constellations. She also would reject your claims - this time by practical experience. she also wrote her dissertation about it, but I am not aware that is is publicly available, else i would link you directly.

And I can throw textbook citations, and research papers back at you if you can access any of the psychology databases. As for your friend if her paper is available in English (I sadly do not speak German) on any of the databases or online journals I could probably find it. I can also pull out experts in the field too (even my sister)

That is not my concern anyway. Your orientationk, whatever it is, brings you neither smypoathy nort antipatyh from me. I just refuse to equal the social importance for the community of the smallest social cell - families - to that of homosexual couples, and insist on heterosecual families are given priority over singles, friends, and homosexual couples, and why I am against homosexual couples adopting children, i have explained. That'S all - I am not on a crusade against homosexuals, nor do I dsicriminate them against that as ong as they do not parade with their orientation and try to take special benefit from it.

That was not directed at you, but rather anyone else who reading it thought "OMG hE is TEh gaYz!". I am not declaring that you are on a crusade or anything else, nor am I personally attacking you. But I do not agree with your assertion, so I am debating it with you (politely I hope).

That could be. But I prefer them being adopted by heterosexual couples, (and the other usual material preconditons fulfilled, of course). Its better for the children, and it does not erode the priviliged posotion of the reglar heterosexual family, due to its importance for the social community/nation as a whole. If you compare it to an image of a society where homosexual couples are the norm instead of heterosexuals, you can hardly imagine that society to survive without insane ammounts of technomedical interventions that mother nature obviously did not have on her mind - else she would have designed mammals to be better suited for evolutionary survival by being homosexual. but from a genetic point of view, as well as a social view for us humans at least, it works better with two sexes forming the norm. The genpool gets better mixed the way it is. That homosexual behavior is far more spread amongst mammal species does not mean it is a second norm. It remains to be a - evolutionary dysfunctional - exception from the norm, caused by anormal aberations in the way the organism functions, processes chemical signals, and reacts to them. Usually a male should not get aroused when smelling a male's sweat, our gene'S program is different: a male shall eventually be aroused if smelling a female'S sweat and her genetic set is sufficiently different to his own, so that their kids would benefit from a good genetical mixture making suffient difrerence and increasinf survivability and health. That si the idea behind genepools and two sexes mixing it again and again. to that, homosexuality never can be argued to be a second "normal" norm equal in normality to heterosexuality. It is not. that is no discrimination- that simnply is the reality. Our attitude must include two things then: not to deny this simply natural fact then, and not to conclude from the fact that homosexuality is an aberation from the natural norm that this gives us the right (or that there even is a need) to discriminate homosexuals. Its just that biologically, and for our social communities, heterosexual realtions are far more important and thus shall have privileges over single people, people being friends, and homosexual relations. I am single myself - note that I exlcude myself too from the group of privileged people in that defintion, and I fully accept that heterosexual couples enjoy certain advanatges (taxes for the most) that I could not claim for myself. I undertand the concept behind it, and think it is correct.

Well in a sense I agree with you, and also disagree at the same time. Homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective is a complete dead end, I can't really argue that. However I would not say that hetero couples are more valuable in society either. Hell there are way more then enough people breeding and keeping the species going (far far to many if you ask me), and that is not threatened in any way by homosexuals wanting to adopt (I will add at this point that I would have an issue with science enabling homosexual couples to mate and produce offspring, just as I have issues with cloning and the like). I still say that its far better then letting the system raise the child. Heterosexual couples are not facing extinction here or anything even close.

Anyhow I think we have reached the point where we are going to have to start offering citations to back up our "claims". I'm willing to if you so wish but I will state that I won't have time to cite stuff until at least the weekend, and that even then my time is limited and so I can't spend the hours it would take looking up all the research which backs up my statements. I also have full access to most of the major Psychological and Sociological Databases (PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, etc), though I sadly can not offer whole texts if you do not have access. It also could be that results have been different in Germany due to cultural differences. I am referring to North American research and the like and I cannot say with absolute certainty that those results can be generalized beyond North America.