No way to raise a boy

[Eagledad 2777]

>>the official interpretation of the APA is that the *credible* evidence out there supports that childen in households with two same-sex parents are just as successful in all measurable ways as children in households with two opposite-sex parents.

 

But, again, you''''ve made your opinion of the APA incredibly clear from previous posts. However, like you, I am also nauseated by the misrepresentation of research for political gain (such as a "traditional family, anti-SSM" agenda).

[fgoodwin 23]

eamonn writes:

 

"Spending time worrying and focusing on Boys not being boys is a waste of time."

 

I guess that kinda depends on what it means for a boy to "be a boy", doesn''t it? You sortof have to establish what it means to be a boy first, before we can know (or worry) about what it means to *not* be a boy, right?

[Gonzo1 10]

Fred, That sounds like gobbledygook.

Dan, what Fred posted is psychobabble.

 

I believe children who grow up in opposite sex, two parent families do better than those kids who don''t.

 

I wish I could cite study after study, but I suppose you would cite others that prove kids grow up just fine with lesbian parents or gay parents or single parents or whatever. I''m sure kids like Billy Blythe Clinton can grow up to become President someday, but his story is for perhaps another thread, another day. Our Lieutenant Governor in Georgia grew up with a single mom, he''s a good guy. I believe the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the time, kids do better with mom AND dad. I suppose we could look to any "inner city" and find more answers.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Gonzo1, "Fred, That sounds like gobbledygook.

Dan, what Fred posted is psychobabble."

Heh, heh, I just love to hear you talk dirty...

 

This sounds like we''re about to enter a nature/nurture discussion. Before I had children I was firmly of the belief that nurture (upbringing, society, peer groups, economic status, etc.) was the primary control of our personalities. My wife and I then entered into an uncontrolled experiment with an ''n'' of 2. I think we decided to rethink the idea that nurture controls things about 6 months into the experiment. Years later, we sometimes wonder if nurture has a chance, maybe the Presbyterians are right after all, heh, heh.

So with regard to boys being boys, I am ready to accept the idea that there are real hard-wired differences between males and females, and by this I mean differences beyond the reproductive stuff although it''s probably strongly related in an evolutionary sense.

Sure, given the genetic legacy and developmental sequence that is hard-wired, nurture can certainly change persons through limits or opportunities. But that basic hard-wiring is undeniable and difficult to overcome for most persons.

 

And...to bring this full circle, given that this potentially allows a biological basis for determination of many of our traits and characteristics, I''d say that Presbyterians ought to fully embrace evolution as a rational explanation and validation of their faith. H''mm, I really LIKE that!

[fgoodwin 23]

gonzo, if you think what eamonn wrote is psychobabble, that''s fine -- I was just asking him to amplify his point.

 

I''d still like to hear from him what he thinks it means to be a boy.