and how successful have those societies been?

By what measure?

“My only point here is that when you have at least two parents (one parent is obviously less desirable for logistical reasons).

Quite utilitarian of you Jeff. It’s all about “logistics”

Nice cherrypick. There is an obvious logistical difference between one parent and multiple parents. I was simply acknowledging that, not claiming that it was the only issue.

“…i think you will find that ethics and emotional attachment are far greater factors in a child’s success than quantity and gender.”

Ummmmmm…what on earth do you base this on? If this were true, I guess you could make the case that the Lebensborn were the ultimate in child care.

If the Nazis had been high on ethics and emotional attachment, you might be right.

Do you really think that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that it is not the ideal for as many children as possible be raised by their own mom and dad?

I didn’t assert anything. I just pointed out that the crux of your argument was unproved. You are relying solely on your “common sense”.

Does it all come down to utility and complementary personalities on TV sit coms?

I’m not convinced that those are the only factors, but I do believe they are among the biggest factors, with emotional attachment being the single most important.

Say it ain’t so…you did NOT invoke “Full House” to support an argument…did you?

“In some cultures, it’s not uncommon for several generations of a single family to live together. In such a situation, aunts and uncles are essentially extra parents.”

OK Jeff…and how successful have those societies been? Mud huts and loin cloths…certainly the type of societies we should look to as models. The nuclear family is the basis for society (hello there…the only way to reproduce is how) and the societies that have recognized that are in a big clump called Western Civilization. Let’s compare apples to apples.

“My only point here is that when you have at least two parents (one parent is obviously less desirable for logistical reasons).

Quite utilitarian of you Jeff. It’s all about “logistics” except for this ethreal non-sequitur:

“…i think you will find that ethics and emotional attachment are far greater factors in a child’s success than quantity and gender.”

Ummmmmm…what on earth do you base this on? If this were true, I guess you could make the case that the Lebensborn were the ultimate in child care.

Do you really think that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that it is not the ideal for as many children as possible be raised by their own mom and dad? Does it all come down to utility and complementary personalities on TV sit coms? You must value our species more than you are letting on here Jeff.

No, what is well-documented (ALL social science evidence shows this) is that children do best when raised by their own (biological or adotpive) mother and father.

I stated it the way I did because studies typically compare common situations such as the following: children raised by traditional families, children raised by a single mom, and children raised by adopted parents. I would be very surprised if you could find a study the impact of three or more parents.

Let me ask you, if composition of a “parental unit” matters not

I haven’t asserted that it doesn’t matter. I only asserted that the pros and cons of 2+ parents of various compositions haven’t been studied to a point where we can conclusively say “mom + dad is really the only good way.”

why wouldn’t it be preferable for all kids to be raised by more than two people, how about those six hippies in the commune?

If the “six hippies” act as loving parents, it could be preferable. It would probably be pretty hard to get “six hippies” to take a loving interest in a single, so that’s probably why you don’t see it in practice.

As for your comment about “nature”, there are many species and cultures that form different types of families. In some cultures, it’s not uncommon for several generations of a single family to live together. In such a situation, aunts and uncles are essentially extra parents.

I know it’s fiction, but no one batted an eye at the sitcom Full House, which featured a widowed father and two uncles raising three girls. In fact, both uncles complimented the father’s personality traits and gave the girls a well-rounded upbringing.

My only point here is that when you have at least two parents (one parent is obviously less desirable for logistical reasons), i think you will find that ethics and emotional attachment are far greater factors in a child’s success than quantity and gender.

No, what is well-documented (ALL social science evidence shows this) is that children do best when raised by their own (biological or adotpive) mother and father. Jeff, come on. Common sense and nature dictates here. This falls into the category of “things you can’t not know.”

“you seem to be asserting that the composition of the parents also has a significant impact on the future of the child. I’m not aware of a significant amount of research that demonstrates that to be true.”

Of course I’m saying that it matters whether a child is raised by her own mom and dad or by six dudes in a commune. Let me ask you, if composition of a “parental unit” matters not, than why wouldn’t it be preferable for all kids to be raised by more than two people, how about those six hippies in the commune? Are suggesting that it’s advisable for society to just throw its hands up and say that just any old combination of any number of people are just as good as a child’s own mother and father?

I am not claiming that every child who grows up without one parent or another or is forced into an arrangement like the one described by the story that inspired this post will be Cukoo for Cocoa Puffs. Nor am I saying the every child raised with one mom and one dad (the only possible combination of “parents” of course) will avoid crack addiction, a hard-core porn career and compiling a collection of Bjork’s acoustical performances.

Ok. Such absolute assertions would be easy to disprove, so it’s good that you’re distancing yourself from them. However, you go on to say:

What I am saying is that it’s bad enough when individuals make the egotistical choice to purposely deny a child one parent or the other (this includes slimy deadbeats dads who abandon their families), or when groups of adults, for their OWN purposes, pretend that the definition ‘parents’ can be extended to as many people as the court decides, throwing complete confusion and turmoil into the life of an innocent child.

The benefit to a child of having two parents versus one is well documented, but you seem to be asserting that the composition of the parents also has a significant impact on the future of the child. I’m not aware of a significant amount of research that demonstrates that to be true.