frens all the talk about same sex parenting households was really interesting. although im against troonism i for years had payed no thought to THE GAYS but the more i think about it the less friendly i am towards it. if you guys have more studies or any books or any material discussing homosexuality i would love to read it.
Pre-Obergefell, the rallying cry was that same-sex marriage/adoption was wrong because "Kids need a mother and a father!" This was like anti-homeschoolers telling homeschooling supporters, "Kids need to be at school with other kids!" - tautologically assuming the premise.
Why do they need both sexes as parents? Families were already so broken and gender stereotyping so decried by this time that it wasn't clear. It was easy to fall for the idea that hey, there are so many kids who need loving homes, and are we just going to let them go unadopted and let them have
neither a mother nor father figure? Isn't the foster care system worse than the home of a vetted gay couple?
The problem with the national debate was that it centered the adults, not the children. All progressives heard was "Only heterosexuals can adopt children lovingly with pure intentions! Homosexuals are untrustworthy deviants!" and got offended on behalf of all the gay people who would never hurt a child. But that's not the real argument; one doesn't have to go that far. A same-sex couple, like a couple below the poverty line trying to adopt, can have the purest and most loving intentions - they're still a suboptimal environment for the child.
Children raised by a same-sex couple will either lack a parent of the same sex or a parent of the opposite sex. Lacking a same-sex parent is the more obvious problem: children naturally hunger for same-sex role models and need a parent who can relate to the distinct sex-based challenges of growing up. My dad was a great dad, but he sure wasn't great help with my physical and emotional "girl problems"; the best help I could get was from peers or women who did not know me as their own daughter, no substitute for actual motherly guidance. Fatherless boys are even worse off, when they have impulses that women can't even understand and all a mother can do is try to subdue and tame and scold away the behaviors that trouble her, leading him to repress and hate his male nature. Lacking a parent of the opposite sex gives children no role models for their heterosexuality - boys seeking a motherly woman and girls seeking a fatherly man will be seeking an image completely foreign to them, and they will have no understanding parent to confide in about "girl issues" or "boy issues" respectively.
Waiting to get adopted sucks, but what sucks even worse is having the possibility of a mother or father
closed off for the rest of your childhood. That's what happens when gay couples say "mine!" to kids that could've been adopted by a man and a woman. And that's assuming they even do adopt kids who need homes instead of ordering designer donor babies.
It's tempting to rely on statistics to suggest same-sex parenting is wrong because "bad things are more likely to happen." But let's not lose sight of the
mechanism, the
cause underlying all these negative outcomes. Their view of gender and sexuality is distorted from the start, before they can really understand how this world runs on the polarity between feminine women and masculine men. To develop a healthy gender/sexual identity of their own is an uphill battle, and this leads to the comorbid emotional and behavioral issues we see in the generation of homosexual adults.
What Allie gets wrong here (luv her ordinarily!) is that GCs don't believe "men and women are different" in the simple way that conservatives, innocent children, and virtually every society throughout human history believed. They believe 1) men and women are different physically and the physical differences matter, but 2) mentally we're all blank slates only influenced to be feminine or masculine by patriarchal socialization. The charge against transwomen being women is not "you don't have what it takes to serve a woman's role like us," but 1) womanhood refers to a biological reality transwomen don't share and 2) the mental and behavioral traits associated with womanhood are a product of oppression, so it's insulting to identify with them and claim to be truly a woman on that basis.
Once you make that huge easily falsifiable claim that men and women are blank slates, once you already have the tendency of accepting inconvenient data despite it offending the progressive agenda, it's not hard to go peak radfem. Mainstream progressive feminism handwaves the question away ("just because people are different doesn't mean they deserve equal rights! shut up and don't be a meanie about it!"), but radical feminism explicitly rests upon it (if gender cannot be abolished, there's no hope that a society without "patriarchy" will succeed). These women will never be able to successfully tackle the trans issue and protect women if they can't even be honest about the nature of women.
It reminds me of the "anti-SJW" pipeline: Equality for women is good -> Today's feminist movement sucks because it isn't standing for
real equality -> Wait, who said we even needed "equality"?