You forgot two other elements, "married", and "stable home".<quoted text>
What is YOUR point? You use the shibboleth that growing up with biological parents is the best environment for children.
Sigh.....I have acknowledged that the biological nuclear family home is not always possible. No shame in acknowledging that.But when I point out that that is not even possible, you say it isn't relevant anyway. Couldn't you hide your duplicity and hypocrisy a little better? Have you no shame?
Really?!!!! Are you that biased by the rainbow colored lenses through which you see the world, to claim that child welfare experts believe that married biological parents in a stable home is not the ideal environment for children?!!!!!That is your opinion, which is not shared by the child welfare experts.
Both mothers and fathers play important roles in the growth and development of children. The number and the type of parents (e.g., biological, step) in the household, as well as the relationship between the parents, are strongly linked to a childs well-being.(Nationally representative data on adoptive families are relatively new, and warrant a separate treatment.)You have never offered any credible substantiation of your claim.
Among young children, for example, those living with no biological parents or in single-parent households are less likely than children with two biological parents to exhibit behavioral self-control, and more likely to be exposed to high levels of aggravated parenting, than are children living with two biological parents. Children living with two married adults (biological or adoptive parents) have, in general, better health, greater access to health care, and fewer emotional or behavioral problems than children living in other types of families. Among children in two-parent families, those living with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to do better on a host of outcomes than those living in step-parent families.
- See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/...
Same support? Meaning we call an apple an orange? A same sex sexual relationship "marriage"? Is that the support you mean, or the various government programs available to children, parents, and care givers?But what if a good home with an adoptive mother and father is also not possible? What if the best available home is a same-sex couple? Why doesn't the family so-formed deserve the same support from our society as any other?
Ohhhhhhh....of course! That must be it. Sigh....no Jeffy, that's not it. Maybe you're arguing that "marriage" should be affixed to a whole array of adult relationships.Just because you are full of prejudice?
Not at all. If fact, family should step in when the bio mom and dad can't or won't raise the kids. Should we designated the relationship, "marriage", between two uncles/aunts?What about children who are adopted by their two uncles or their two aunts? Should they be yanked out of their extended biological families and placed with strangers?
Oh Madone!.......sigh.Just because you don't like same-sex couples?
A same sex couple is not equatable to an opposite sex couple who are the biological parents.And your point? We're talking about sociology here, not biology.
We don't designate all adult relationships "marriage" just because children are involved.And your point?
So you're not a married father, to a wife, raising your own children. Understood.As you know, I have a HUSBAND, not a wife. Your flippancy is not amusing to anybody but your juvenile self.
Thirteen between myself and my siblings.
No annulments needed.
Which of your parents would you exchange for a gender duplicate of them?