[refurb]

They undermine it by:

- claiming a single parent household is no worse for children than a two parent household

- claiming men have no particular importance in the raising of children

- financially supporting (in some cases subsidizing) single parent families

[kevinventullo]

Do they? I can see the third bullet in practice, although I think it’s more of a fix than a cause for single-parent homes.

On the other hand, my social circle is highly educated and well-off and I’m not sure I know a single person who would agree with the first bullet.

The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off?

[pclmulqdq]

The third bullet here is basic economics. When you create demand for a product by subsidizing it, people will create supply.

Practically, these subsidies mean that poorer women who could marry the father of their children will often choose not to because they are getting money from the government that exceeds what the man can bring in. It is a little bit like the effect of a very high minimum wage: it helps a certain group of people, but prices many others out of the market. Each step of the process is a perfectly rational economic decision, and it completely destabilizes the home.

I have witnessed this firsthand with some of my relatives, who unfortunately behaved exactly as the microeconomics predicted. They had children out of wedlock, wanting to get married but also wanting to keep their benefits, and then ended up separating because the man's attempt to work like a dog to provide more than the government burned him out (he actually wanted to get married and do the right thing).

Edit: I also want to add that I'm pretty sure the second point here is not true. Lesbian and gay two-parent households don't seem to have worse outcomes than heterosexual couples.

[kevinventullo]

Thank you for sharing. It sounds like this is an unfortunate side effect of the law and not the intention, though. I wonder whether the laws could be updated to prevent these perverse incentives.

[hotpotamus]

So are government benefits super generous or are these men just unable to make good wages despite "the man's attempt to work like a dog"?

[pclmulqdq]

Minimum wage * 50 hours per week is less than the benefits you would lose from it. There is literally a >100% marginal income tax at the bottom income brackets if you factor in loss of benefits. This also was in New York where benefits and taxes are high.

[hotpotamus]

Ok, is this a problem? And if so does that mean there is some solution?

[number6]

> The second point I’m less clear on myself: is there evidence that children of lesbian couples are somehow worse off?

No the aren't: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.h... "The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."

[em-bee]

i don't think that is what the second point is about. there is a difference between having two involved parents and having one of the parents present but not involved with the kids at all. regardless of the gender, the latter will affect the children in different ways.

[refurb]

For point #2, we can follow the idea to its logical conclusion. (Note: I have zero issues with gay parents, this is just a thought exercise)

If it stands to reason that if the children of lesbian parents are indistinguishable from those of mixed-sex parents, then men play no particular role in the upbringing of children, no? They can be swapped out by a woman with no change for the child.

And conversely if a child raised by two gay men are indistinguishable from mix-sex parents, then woman play no particular role in the upbringing of children, no? Replace the mother with another man and nothing changes in that child's upbringing?

And therefore, one could argue that a single parent (only a man or woman) are only worse off due to limited parental resources (not to be underestimated), but not because an opposite sex partner would add anything unique to the childrearing.

[crmd]

Children raised in a non-dysfunctional two parent household (regardless of parental gender / sexual orientation) witness healthy interdependence, cooperation, negotiation, trust, respect, conflict resolution, love etc. between their primary caregivers during their critical development period. Raising a child with a good partner is about more than resource availability.

[refurb]

So you agree males add nothing of value to a two adult parental unit?

[hackerfromthefu]

Having both genders is really valuable, by providing role modelling and interaction with the neuro-diversity of both genders.

Of course these days some people think the genders are not different, or whatever, some people think every strange though under the sun. I'm not speaking to those people they can believe whatever they want.

Have a read of 'Families and how survive them' for some detailed analysis of the roles of both genders in childrens development at various stages in their life.

[crmd]

No I don’t agree - see sibling comment about neurodiversity.

[slfnflctd]

That's an entirely partisan take, and a hacky one.

There are plenty of wealthier families who shelter their children in ways poorer families cannot who have exactly the opposite views & approaches from what you described. Those efforts are often carried out through churches.