h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ask the children

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'The h2g2 Tour - How to Find Out More' to 'Ask the h2g2 Community'.

Don't shout me down for asking this, but:

Would a single sex couple have more difficulty raising a child of the opposite gender? This doesn't have anything directly to do with the sexaulity of the parents (although it is of course a consequence of it) and it certainly doesn't mean they should be prohibited from parenthood, but would, for example, a lesbian couple experience significant (if surmountable) difficulty raising a male child without a father figure?

You might well find people who'd claim that whichever gender role is missing is required. However, that assumes not only that neither of the couple fits that role well enough but also that no extended family members are adequately filling it. Also, on that count they are certainly no worse off (and probably better off simply by inherent variation and weight of numbers) than a single parent would be in trying to cover both traditional roles.

The authorities don't generally take children away from single parents. Some are even allowed to adopt children. So it would be extremely perverse to exclude same-sex couples under the pretence that they wouldn't do at least as good a job in principle as singletons would. Individual assessment would still be the only fair way to consider cases.

You're absolutely right, I'm not for a moment suggesting that the consideration should preclude same sex couples from being considered suitable for adoption or fostering, I suppose it merely raises the question of whether or not children benefit from having both male and female parents, whatever their sexual orientation. As you say, there's nothing fundamental about any sexual preference that suggests that the individual in question wouldn't make a perfectly good parent.

On an unrelated note, I saw Without a Trace the other night on channel four, featuring a hetrosexual couple who were expecting a baby even though the woman was HIV positive. Any thoughts on that subject? Or am I shamelessly highjacking this innocent thread?

Yeah start a thread on that benjy if that's what you're interested in.

I've only just stumbled on this thread and wish to put my 2 pennyworth in on the original question. I think a lot of people are stuck on literalism. I grew up in a conventional heterosexual family and always felt my father was more of a mother to me than my literal mother. Men can be 'mothers'. Women can be 'fathers'. I think both sexes can play either role when its neccessary. In many cultures children spend most of their time in a complex extended family, where different adults can play either role.

The only thing that matters is that a child is treated with love, respect and a degree of intelligence in my opinion.

I'm not sure that a non-couple, such as a gay man and a lesbian woman, is the best environment for children. I think kids are better off, as a general rule, with parents who are actually romantically involved. But this is (a) an instinctive opinion with no supporting evidence and (b) only a general rule, even if it's correct.

Basically, individual cases should be decided on their own merits.

TRiG.

A gay man and a lesbian woman could be romantically involved though. And a het couple could be married and not romantically involved. I don't think the issue here is how the relationship is constructed but whether it can give a child a good home. Nothing to do with sexual orientation at all IMO.

Also being raised by 'parents' isn't necessarily the only option. In some cultures some children are raised by grandparents or other relations. The whole nuclear family as The Way is a relatively recent occurrence (circa the industrial revolution?).


I find the OP pretty daft to be honest, and it's talking about fostering children not parenting them over their lifetime.