Political correctness is destroying New Zealand

[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.