This can't be good...

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by Prudence

... the ideal environment for kids is where they have a parent of each gender who stay married, don't beat each other, don't get fired from their jobs and lay around on the couch in their underwear for 6 years while the kids eat out of dumpsters, don't send their kids out to play in traffic while they pretend they're still kid/carefree, and can model appropriate intergender and interpersonal relationships, while instilling in the child both a sense of self-worth AND a sense of responsibility.

I agree with everything you say, except the part about a parent of each gender. My growing up Gay wasn't at all helped by my (eventually divorced and constantly screaming at each other) intergender parents. I don't think gender should enter, at all, in a child's education regarding interpersonal relationships. However, all things being equal, I was fed and clothed, driven to school and rehearsals, given swimming lessons, inocculated, taken on camping trips and to Disneyland, and generally raised as well as anyone else was raising kids in the 60's and 70's. Best? No. Good? Usually. Could it have been better? You bet. I love my parents, but I wouldn't want to live with them.

[SacTown Chronic]

I fvcking hate Texas. I wouldn't piss on Texas if it were on fire. I'll always blame Texas for spewing Dubya vomit on America's shoes.

That said, I do love the Dallas Cowboys though.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

I agree with everything you say, except the part about a parent of each gender. My growing up Gay wasn't at all helped by my (eventually divorced and constantly screaming at each other) intergender parents. I don't think gender should enter, at all, in a child's education regarding interpersonal relationships. However, all things being equal, I was fed and clothed, driven to school and rehearsals, given swimming lessons, inocculated, taken on camping trips and to Disneyland, and generally raised as well as anyone else was raising kids in the 60's and 70's. Best? No. Good? Usually. Could it have been better? You bet. I love my parents, but I wouldn't want to live with them.

I do think that kids are served better by regular and consistent exposure to adults of both genders interacting in a sane and positive way. The most convenient way to do this is to have one sane and functional parent of each gender interacting in a thoroughly nurturing and positive environment. [This is based in large part on my belief that men and women ARE different and pretending otherwise is a bunch of hoohaw. But that's another discussion.]

The reality is that we're all human and Utopia Happy-Family Land doesn't exist. Plenty of hetero parents scream at each other night and day. And plenty of gay and/or single parents do an exemplary job of filling in the gender "gap" with assistance from family and friends. Might not be best/perfection, but it's pretty damn good.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

I agree with everything you say, except the part about a parent of each gender. My growing up Gay wasn't at all helped by my (eventually divorced and constantly screaming at each other) intergender parents. I don't think gender should enter, at all, in a child's education regarding interpersonal relationships. However, all things being equal, I was fed and clothed, driven to school and rehearsals, given swimming lessons, inocculated, taken on camping trips and to Disneyland, and generally raised as well as anyone else was raising kids in the 60's and 70's. Best? No. Good? Usually. Could it have been better? You bet. I love my parents, but I wouldn't want to live with them.

The point that Prudence was trying to make was that in her opinion (and many other non-radicals) that the whole list of traits, which included but was not exclusive to a mother and a father, was the ideal situation. All other aspects being true (the parents love each other, love the child (children), provide a healthy, stable, nurturing environment, etc.) would be considered ideal. But that situation rarely exists. I too grew up in an environment where my parents fought continuously. I would have been much happier and healthier growing up with gay parents who got along.

A child, regardless of gender, needs to learn both masculine and feminine traits to be emotionally healthy. That can, in my opinion, be best learned from a father who is in touch with both his masculine and feminine sides and a mother who is in touch with both her feminine and masculine sides, where the mother and father are committed to, and love unconditionally, one another. Can a gay couple that fits all these factors except for gender still provide that for a child? Absolutely! But having two fathers or two mothers presents an additional challenge for a child in an otherwise difficult part of their life.

Do I support the Texas legislation? Absolutely not - it is completely assinine and backwards. Do I want to go back to the 50's and hold it as the symbol of ideal family life? Nope: the only difference back then was that people did not have the freedom to express how they felt so many couples pretended to be happy when they really weren't. It was a time of great hypocracy in the American way of life.

I believe that our society is in the middle of a tremendous change. New ideas and ideals are evolving, shattering old belief systems. Many people are fighting to hold on to those old beliefs because they are afraid of change (which is what you see in this proposed Texas legislation). While they may occassionally be successful in the short term, in the long run the change is inevitable and unstoppable.