azimuth - 4/17/2005 4:14 AM
respectfully, kuan, I have to ask....how can all of these options be "the best environment"? I think by definition, the "best" requires a singular example.
Wouldn't you say?
Well, Azimuth, I think you are purposely narrowing the discussion down to a point where there is no other choice than yours. The point I got from kuan1's post was for every kid there is a single solution, and, if that solution consists of a positive and caring environment created by the parents, then whether or not the parents are mom and dad, mom and mom, dad and dad, and so forth is not as important as it might seem.
If you twist it around a little it also suggests a kid with a mom and mom who are loving, caring and positive is probably better than being in a home with a father who has his hands in your pants between episodes of beating your mother. I would agree with that even though I do not find the gay lifestyle likely to be the most advantageous arrangement for raising children.
I recognize most kids don't have the most advantageous arrangement. They don't get to choose, they just have to deal with what it is when they arrive. On a scale of arrangements that are possible, arranged with best possible at the top, and worst possible at the bottom, I don't think I would find a line with all the gay possibilities in the list below it and all hetero possibilities above it. It is the same with wealth, and nearly any criteria you use to order your list. However, in all the lists, a positive, caring environment will always elevate the possible family strucure compared to any other possibility that lacks such characteristics.