Nope. I was raised by my dad alone from an early age. He never remarried. We had a lot of fun together growing up, and he always spent time with me and my brothers. We did camping trips and hiking and hunting and skiing. We're all relatively rounded individuals, with good self-esteem and are productive members of society.
Obviously I had a mother, but we grew up just fine without one in our lives. I wouldn't change it for the world. Sure, I'm not as girly as I could be, but I'm happy and I can take care of myself. What better gift can a parent give other than the ability to be self-suficient?
2007-05-01 07:25:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Strengthening both the immediate and extended family would do much to help society as a whole.
Children can persevere, and great people often come out of adverse, or less than ideal situations. But A child is given a better chance at feeling secure, and growing in confidence in a complete and loving family.
2007-05-01 14:23:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by G's Random Thoughts 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why are you answering your own question?
And this is a loaded question:
1st: Are both biological parents required?
2nd: If mother and father re-marries, would mother and step-father do?
3rd: In the case of a gay female couple, would two females be adequate in raising a child, biological or adopted?
You do know how complicated the answer to this question can get.
From a Christian perspective, it is best to have the two biological parents (mother and father) raise the child. It is assumed that the parents are responsible and loving.
2007-05-01 14:28:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by flandargo 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Having a distinct father and mother is not nearly important as having loving adults in your life. The way this question is worded you'd think that any child that has 1 parent, no parents or 2 same-sex parents is destined not to live a good life, and that to me is ignorant.
A child with good mentors and role models such as a coach has just as good of a chance of growing up well
2007-05-01 14:22:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chris 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Ideally, having both parents to rear the children would be the best. However, if either one of the parents cannot (or will not) equitably contribute to the nuturing and growth of the child, it would probably be better for someone else to step in and act as a "surrogate" parent. Drug abuse by a parent, mental/physical/sexual abuse, and apathy don't contribute anything to a child's life--it only creates a hostile environment.
2007-05-01 14:25:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by tigergal1029 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sure, every child needs the nurturing care of a mother and father. I feel bad for kids whose parents have split at the age of, say, 8 or 5 or 12...
2007-05-01 14:18:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cold Fart 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
In order for a child to be born there must be a male and female parent, yes.
Once the child is born, one competent parent is far better than two morons. And two fathers or two mothers is just as good as one of each. And two divorced parents is better than two parents who remain in a loveless marriage.
2007-05-01 14:19:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think they need a village. Lots of adults looking after them to keep them straight. Parent(s) can't be everywhere, but uncles/aunts/grampas/grammas always seem to know where you've been and what you did wrong THIS time....
P.S. I had two parents and I prayed that they would divorce. A one-parent household WOULD have been a happier household than a two-parent household in my case.
2007-05-01 14:18:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tina Goody-Two-Shoes 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
Spell check is free, try it.
A child needs love, attention and guidance. It doesn't matter if one person or two people are giving the child what they need. It doesn't matter if it is two men, two women, a man and a woman or a single parent that provides for the child.
2007-05-01 14:18:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by millajovovichsboyfriend 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Forgetting the spiritual purpose of marriage and misunderstanding sex to be the goal of family life, lusty men and women directly engage in sexual affairs without the troublesome formalities and responsibilities of a legal relationship. Such foolish people argue that "sex is natural." But if sex is natural, pregnancy and childbirth are equally natural. And for the child it is certainly natural to be raised by a loving father and mother and in fact to have the same father and mother throughout his life. Psychological studies confirm that a child needs to be cared for by both his father and his mother, and thus it is obviously natural for sex to be accompanied by a permanent marriage arrangement. Hypocritical people justify unrestricted sex by saying "it is natural" but to avoid the natural consequence of sex-pregnancy—they use contraceptives, which certainly do not grow on trees. Indeed, contraceptives are not at all natural. Thus hypocrisy and foolishness abound in this age.
2007-05-01 14:21:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
2⤋