you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Unnatural because females take children inside them, have a body to feed them and have that mothernal instict, touch, sensitivity, a father doesn't have. In nature males are usually just there to get female pregnant, and than is always the female taking care of kids. A family with no mother figure just feels more unnatural than the one with all males.And as a female, I don't like the prospect of a girl without a mother. There is something sacred and special bond between mother and daughter, a man cannot replicate it, even an effeminte one. Sure gay men can surely be great parents and raise great behaved kids, nobody said otherwise, but it will always feel a bit unnatural to see kids raised by only males.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'll agree to this with the addendum that fathers (heterosexual or homosexual) are essential to psychosocial development at the later stages (Erikson stages 3, 4, and 5). I don't buy into the idea that only Mom matters.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not only moms matter, of course. I just think mothers are more essential than fathers and more naturally programmed to raise kids. But both mother and fathers or at least both sex roles are necessary for a balanced development. I still think heterosexuals are the ideal family.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that heterosexual parents are ideal (though homosexual parents are better than none and better than bad heterosexual parents). And I agree that mothers are important.

I don't agree that fathers are less important than mothers, it's just that they are important at different developmental stages.