Political correctness is destroying New Zealand

[kiwi_2005]

Rugby legend Sir Brian Lochore says political correctness is destroying New Zealand.

Sir Brian, who coached the All Blacks to their 1987 Rugby World Cup victory, urged fathers to let their children take risks - but to lay down rules and impose "consequences" if rules are broken. He was speaking at a breakfast hosted by educators Parents Inc yesterday.

The group's founder, Ian Grant, told more than 1000 fathers at the event that society was turning fathers into "male mothers" obsessed with safety instead of adventure.

"Our society is trying to turn fathers into male mothers. You ain't," he told them.

Sir Brian, who captained the All Blacks from 1966 to 1970, laid the blame on political correctness.

"We are living in a PC world which is destroying us, where you actually can't put the hard word on people when they have digressed and committed bad blunders," he said.

"One of the advantages of being a farmer is that I was able to work with my children. You can take them on the back of your motorbike, which you're not supposed to do any more.

"You can take them on your horse, which you're not supposed to do any more.

He said his daughters went to a rugby game at three weeks old, and later played in the mud while their dad downed a jug in the bar after a game.

"In the evenings we went to the rugby parties with the kids, who slept in the back of the car. We can't do that any more because we haven't got rid of the perpetrators that actually destroy our society."

He said he trusted his friends to discipline his children and they trusted him to discipline theirs.

"My friends were my children's role models and I was my friends' children's role model," he said.

"The one thing I believe is important in life is respect. They respected authority, they respected teachers, I respected the teachers. We lack a great deal of respect for authority nowadays, there's always someone protesting.

"Respect and role models are very important in life. You as a father, with the aid of your partner - I can't say 'wife' these days, PC. You are the one who sets the ground rules. And don't ever tell me that the kids don't want to know where the line is. They do."

As a coach, he told the All Blacks they could do anything they liked off the field as long as they didn't annoy anyone or break anything.

"All I had to say was, 'Hey boy, I think you're annoying me,"' he said.

"People have to make decisions, and people do make mistakes. But make sure that you take action - that there are consequences, and that you actually follow them through.

"Yes, I smacked my children, but I've never hit them. Yes, I smacked other people's children, but I never hit them. But we are not allowed to do that any more in this PC world."

A West Auckland father who runs the Changeworks Trust for young people referred by schools and the Youth Court, Ron Hepworth, told the Herald later that Sir Brian was "coming from a different era".

"What does 'PC' really mean?" he asked. "PC, to me, is the awareness that a community has around statements and behaviours that are really hurtful. They're small, but they're aimed at people who are less empowered than the person who is complaining about PC.

"I get brassed off with PC at times too, but ultimately it's changing the community's attitude to things. It's actually not okay to laugh at Asian children, it's actually not okay to say, 'That's a thing a woman would do,' and all those generalised put-downs."

Mr Hepworth will co-lead a "journey to the falls" in the Waitakeres for fathers and their sons as part of Waitakere City's Fathering Week next week, and agreed with Sir Brian that men should encourage their children to take more risks than their mothers might.

"There is a male way in which men approach circumstances, and there is a female way in which women approach circumstances," he said.

"If either of those parties are not there, it's my observation that there is a distortion in the way that children are experiencing the world."

[Dowly]

PC stinks! And I mean every dang aspect of it! I started my crusade against PC last Saturday in the pub I usually drink in = 4 week ban. :p Need to find me another pub.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

"There is a male way in which men approach circumstances, and there is a female way in which women approach circumstances," he said.

Oh yes. That is true, and it remains true even after having filtered out the many clichées about sexual role behavior there are. that this is so massively ignored in today'S world, makes me crazy, and sad. A father is not a mother, and vice versa.

For the same reason I am against legalising adoption of children for homosexual couples. It is not about such couples not being able to feed a kid and to dress it in cloathes, but about role models, and the forming of the kids psyche. And like we know that children growing up with just one parent are prone to form different social behavior patterns much later in their life that muist be assessed to make things slightly more difficult for them, especially there is a higher vulnerability to develope a depression later on, or handicapped behavior towards the other gender making the issue of relation-forming eventually more difficult, I expect nothing different for children growing up in homosexual family-surrogates that are not the psychological equivalent to an intact family. Hell, i alreaedy makes a difference wether you grow up as a single child, or have brothers or sisters. the longterm consequences mjst not be drmataic, but can be dramatic. as I said: it is not about later handicaps that are a certain consequence, but an increased vulnerability, a higher probability for such consequences.

[NeonSamurai]

Ok Skybird, I'm going to have to take you on now...

Originally Posted by Skybird

For the same reason I am against legalising adoption of children for homosexual couples. It is not about such couples not being able to feed a kid and to dress it in cloathes, but about role models, and the forming of the kids psyche. And like we know that children growing up with just one parent are prone to form different social behavior patterns much later in their life that muist be assessed to make things slightly more difficult for them, especially there is a higher vulnerability to develope a depression later on, or handicapped behavior towards the other gender making the issue of relation-forming eventually more difficult, I expect nothing different for children growing up in homosexual family-surrogates that are not the psychological equivalent to an intact family. Hell, i alreaedy makes a difference wether you grow up as a single child, or have brothers or sisters. the longterm consequences mjst not be drmataic, but can be dramatic. as I said: it is not about later handicaps that are a certain consequence, but an increased vulnerability, a higher probability for such consequences.

First off there is no evidence to back up your claim that children raised by homosexual parents develop a "malformed psyche". In fact early research suggests the opposite, that the development of the children is both normal and healthy, and that they are just as likely to be heterosexual as adults as the average child is. They also do not suffer any self identity issues, or gender confusion either.

Second your comparing apples and oranges and attributing issues in the wrong direction. Children of single parent families have all sorts of problems not so much because its a single parent family, but because the vast majority of single parent families are close to or in the poverty level. The dynamics of the family is mainly due to lack of money and the single parent having to work all the time (assuming the parent is a responsible person). Poverty causes a great deal of stress and friction inside a family, which leads to depression and other such mental issues. Poverty also causes many issues for the child outside of the family, particularly relating to friends and education. Any issues with forming bonds with others that the child may develop would most likely have to do with the child forming an insecure attachment with the parent due to the parent hardly being around to nurture the child, what with having to work all the time to make ends meet.

Now on to role models. Are role models important? Yes they are, however its only at a very young age that children will use their parent(s) as their primary role models. From the parent(s) & other caregivers the infant will learn basic behaviors and the process of genderization starts. Homosexual parents will generally treat their child in the same way as far as gender as any other type of parent would. Also children are born preprogramed to act male or female which is then modified by the process of genderization. You can't turn a boy child into a girl or vice versa, and any attempts at gender reassignment have been major and often traumatic failures. Also if a child is lacking a gender role model from their parent(s) then they will select someone else who fits their need be it a secondary family member (aunt, uncle, grandparents etc), or secondary caregiver such as at a daycare or the like. As the child grows older they will seek their role models outside of the immediate family.

In conclusion, there is no solid evidence to support your view (and there exists a decent amount of counter evidence). Also growing up a single child or with siblings does have an effect, but typically not a major one unless there is further issues inside the family structure. Usually the effect is very minor (and in some ways it can even be advantageous). There is no evidence of any impairments or other developmental issues in children raised in non heterosexual environments which can be attributed only to the parents not being hetero.

Now having said that I feel I should mention that I myself am not homosexual in any way. I do however believe that all situations and individuals must be judged honestly, fairly, and without bias. I also feel that its far better for a child to be raised in a loving happy family regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, then to be raised by the system. The system screws up more kids in far worse ways then your typical homosexual couple is ever likely to (especially given that they get more heavily scrutinized by the system before they can adopt).

Oh as for political correctness, I am against it as well for many different reasons including how it tends to favor certain groups over other groups, how its constantly abused, and how it submerges ones feelings (even if wrong or incorrect) rather then addressing them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Ok Skybird, I'm going to have to take you on now...

First off there is no evidence to back up your claim that children raised by homosexual parents develop a "malformed psyche".

I did not claim that. I was far more specific in my description.

In fact early research suggests the opposite, that the development of the children is both normal and healthy, and that they are just as likely to be heterosexual as adults as the average child is.

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.

Second, these findings,
They also do not suffer any self identity issues, or gender confusion either.

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.

Second your comparing apples and oranges and attributing issues in the wrong direction. Children of single parent families have all sorts of problems not so much because its a single parent family, but because the vast majority of single parent families are close to or in the poverty level.

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.

The dynamics of the family is mainly due to lack of money and the single parent having to work all the time (assuming the parent is a responsible person). Poverty causes a great deal of stress and friction inside a family, which leads to depression and other such mental issues. Poverty also causes many issues for the child outside of the family, particularly relating to friends and education. Any issues with forming bonds with others that the child may develop would most likely have to do with the child forming an insecure attachment with the parent due to the parent hardly being around to nurture the child, what with having to work all the time to make ends meet.

See above.

Now on to role models. Are role models important? Yes they are, however its only at a very young age that children will use their parent(s) as their primary role models. From the parent(s) & other caregivers the infant will learn basic behaviors and the process of genderization starts.

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.

Homosexual parents will generally treat their child in the same way as far as gender as any other type of parent would.

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.

Also children are born preprogramed to act male or female which is then modified by the process of genderization. You can't turn a boy child into a girl or vice versa, and any attempts at gender reassignment have been major and often traumatic failures.

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

Also if a child is lacking a gender role model from their parent(s) then they will select someone else who fits their need be it a secondary family member (aunt, uncle, grandparents etc), or secondary caregiver such as at a daycare or the like.

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.

In conclusion, there is no solid evidence to support your view (and there exists a decent amount of counter evidence). Also growing up a single child or with siblings does have an effect, but typically not a major one unless there is further issues inside the family structure. Usually the effect is very minor (and in some ways it can even be advantageous). There is no evidence of any impairments or other developmental issues in children raised in non heterosexual environments which can be attributed only to the parents not being hetero.

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.

Now having said that I feel I should mention that I myself am not homosexual in any way.

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.

I do however believe that all situations and individuals must be judged honestly, fairly, and without bias. I also feel that its far better for a child to be raised in a loving happy family regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, then to be raised by the system.
The system screws up more kids in far worse ways then your typical homosexual couple is ever likely to (especially given that they get more heavily scrutinized by the system before they can adopt).

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.

[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.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Dowly

PC stinks! And I mean every dang aspect of it! I started my crusade against PC last Saturday in the pub I usually drink in = 4 week ban. :p Need to find me another pub.

Bans remeber them well back in my youthful days if you got banned from one pub you would get banned from all of them as they would spread word that kiwi, lost the plot got in a bar fight give him a 6 month ban. One day i found myself banned from every pub in town
That was the day i discovered home brew:rotfl:

Funny how small towns like the one i live in have more pubs than you can shake a stick at, to make a community happy pubs are very important Cause reality is we all like to get pissed.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh yes. That is true, and it remains true even after having filtered out the many clichées about sexual role behavior there are. that this is so massively ignored in today'S world, makes me crazy, and sad. A father is not a mother, and vice versa.

For the same reason I am against legalising adoption of children for homosexual couples. It is not about such couples not being able to feed a kid and to dress it in cloathes, but about role models, and the forming of the kids psyche. And like we know that children growing up with just one parent are prone to form different social behavior patterns much later in their life that muist be assessed to make things slightly more difficult for them, especially there is a higher vulnerability to develope a depression later on, or handicapped behavior towards the other gender making the issue of relation-forming eventually more difficult, I expect nothing different for children growing up in homosexual family-surrogates that are not the psychological equivalent to an intact family. Hell, i alreaedy makes a difference wether you grow up as a single child, or have brothers or sisters. the longterm consequences mjst not be drmataic, but can be dramatic. as I said: it is not about later handicaps that are a certain consequence, but an increased vulnerability, a higher probability for such consequences.

I know boys that grow up with one parent if that parent is male then most likely will grow up to be a man with good quality's. Not always true but statistics show here that single dads make better parents when it comes to boys. Mothers tend to be far to protective or let them run wild as soon as hes a teenager.

[Skybird]

Neon Samurai, I do not evade, but it seems we are set to disagree and then it is becoming too time-consuming to discuss the detailed way we do her. All I can say is that I see common sense and findings such as base my opinion on, are in coformity - it makes no sense to assume that the missing of the mother of father does not make a difference on a subtle level that rasises the chance that eventually a kid will be affected by this subtle difference, due to the long time it is exposed to it. A male acting as a mother or a female acting as a father is not the same and never can be the same like a male father and a female father, both genders have their very different pschological ways to deal and to approach things and other people, and create different social "climates". I see it as favourable if a child sees both these variables in its life, and thus I reject adoption by homosexual couples like it is also not praticed to allow adoption by single individuals. My conclusion on the possible longterm consequecnes I also see strengthened by simple reality observation when referring to juvenile psychiatric services - here the doctors and psychologists often are confronted with cases of kids and juveniles becoming symptomatic in their social behavior due to one parent maybe getting killed, and is missing.

And one principal thing though. One of the reasons I quit psychology was - becasue it is so politvcally correct, if that is not ironic. For histopricx reasons psychology has a massive inferiority complex and constantly thinks it must prove that it is as hardcore science as real hardcore sciences like physcis (but it is not, I say). This resulted in a relatively blind and uncritical copying of working procedures practioces in other sciences, namle physics: a lot of "precise measuring" is taking place although there is not a single psycho-test that is measuring anything in the defintiioon of the word, and a lot of hard scientific work was and is being done that mimics the way of approaches in other sciences - without ever asking if that is recommendable and advisable and really makes sense. Popper made differences between sciences, and taloks of hard sciences, and pseudo-sciences, and psychology belongs to the latter. As a result from this internal schizophrenia, wanting to be hardcore science, but being softcore or even pseudo indeed , In the 50s psychology started to orient itself towards the pubölic sector, and claimed importance and relevance by starting to "fulfill" and prove the socially or politically wanted immages of what human mind and social behavior and community should be. you will hardly find a science where the basic paradigms have been chnaged so often, as in psychology, and today this problem - thats what it is indeed - is more dominant than it was at the high time of behaviorism. The individuality of the individual now gets defined and expressed by psycholgy, and by that it becomes a massproduction of individualism that makes it uniform, not individual. Nevertheless politically wnated control of social systems, and psychology today work hand in hand, posychology poicks the goals of politics and proves them and then feeds them back, by that it has found an ally in form of politics that then helps it to push itself into soiciety and "psychologise" more and more space in the social and public envrionment. Today, it is politically wanted to negeate differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, that is poltiically correct, and it is wanted that differences between natives and emigrants get rejected as well, or that the problpems foreign children in school classes cause, do not get relaised, but talked away . So - at least that is the situation in Germany - psychology has started to produce the wanted evidence that there are no social differences between natives and emmigrants, and research shows that foreign children in classes not being familiar with the local culture donot make serious differences for the education flow. Of course, botzh is absurd and practioners in social services and education can tell you stories about it, basing on observation.

so you see, I not only have given up psychology for reasons of being deadlocked in an forever confrontation with theb officially wanted paradigms in institutions, I also tend to be distanced and sceptical about the latest findings and studies in psychology that get done - and this especially when it comes to kids and children. I have no family of myself, but I am very close friend with two families both having children, and I see it being diferent than what officially is said by eithe rpoliticians or psychologists. One of the moms is also psychologists, we worked together in our diploma project, and her husband is teacher. My grandfather also was teacher.

We cannot help it, we must disagree on things here.

Kiwi, my opening remark I did not meant to intentionally hijack your thread, but as an additonal illustration. But as it sometimes is - it nevertheless just happened. Sorry!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Bans remeber them well back in my youthful days if you got banned from one pub you would get banned from all of them as they would spread word that kiwi, lost the plot got in a bar fight give him a 6 month ban. One day i found myself banned from every pub in town
That was the day i discovered home brew:rotfl:

Funny how small towns like the one i live in have more pubs than you can shake a stick at, to make a community happy pubs are very important Cause reality is we all like to get pissed.

Hehe, this small town has plenty of bars/pubs too. As for the ban, the crappy thing is that the pub I got banned from, is owned by a guy who has a sort of monopoly on bars/clubs in the town. He has tons of them here, sooo the ban is automatically spread around to the other places in his chain. Luckily, there's a new joint I've been to a few times, big, no lines and good music (mostly old rock 'n roll & metal).

[NeonSamurai]

Yes I agree, we disagree on this topic, so be it

Like I said I see issues drawing parallels between single parent families and homosexual families, the dynamics and potential problems are quite different between the two. I am also going by current research which clearly demonstrates the issue you expect (and I would too logically) does not in fact exist. Perhaps those studies are incorrect or biased, but it certainly would not be the first time that psychological research has demonstrated that common knowledge is in fact wrong.

You certainly are correct regarding psychology and political correctness, though I would mention it has infected all of academia. People like to think it prevents biased thought, but quite often its the reverse and that it is in fact causing a bias. To me psychology is part art (philosophy) and part science, and constantly evolving. To be a good scientist one must attempt to remove oneself from all biases, and examine the gathered data with open eyes and not try to interpret the data in the way we want it to be, but rather how it is. In modern psychology's defense I would point out that far more experimentation is going on now then pure theorizing. Part of the reason why theory in psychology has changed so frequently is because a lot of the theories were not backed up by real evidence, or any experimentation (or invalid experimentation).

I myself have not abandoned psychology, though I do see some of the issues you mention. My only solution is to critically examine the research and see if the reasoning behind it is sound or not. Of course also psychological theory is never 100% and does not match with every individual, there will always be exceptions where the model doesn't fit. As for our original topic, I myself can rationalize children growing up happy and well adjusted in a homosexual family, as long as the two parents are good loving parents who support and take care of the child. It may not be the ideal situation, but when is there ever an ideal situation?

Anyhow with respect we must disagree as you say

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Kiwi, my opening remark I did not meant to intentionally hijack your thread, but as an additonal illustration. But as it sometimes is - it nevertheless just happened. Sorry!

No problem, carry on.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Dowly

PC stinks! And I mean every dang aspect of it! I started my crusade against PC last Saturday in the pub I usually drink in = 4 week ban. :p Need to find me another pub.

With you there dude! I go out of my way to be as un PC as possible. Glad there are a few of us left in this crazy world

[Wolfehunter]

Best example. Archie bunker show. Very funny show very open. What are the chances of seeing a show like that today? Not going to happen.


Todays political push is to make men into wusses and women into Rambo. :rotfl:Goodluck.

I'll educate any kid who needs it. Children today have no consequence. State provides their needs to escape. Making it more difficult for parents to be a parent. Their has always been low income family for hundreds of years. That bull statement.

Problem is stable strong family hierarchy today. State has almost destroyed our abilities to parent our children. They force all members to work like slaves and put our children into day cares and have strangers bring up our children. Having stranger put alien values into our children?

How are parents suppose to know and understand their kids when they always off to work? How are kids suppose to know what they stand fore when their is no true parent to help in need?

But I don't care what the state has to say or do. This issue isn't exclusive to New Zealand. Its happening everywhere. Media is helping of course. MTV is a great example?

[Tchocky]

He said his daughters went to a rugby game at three weeks old, and later played in the mud while their dad downed a jug in the bar after a game.

"In the evenings we went to the rugby parties with the kids, who slept in the back of the car. We can't do that any more because we haven't got rid of the perpetrators that actually destroy our society."

Yes, this is what destroys society. The barbarians are indeed at the gates.