The most reliable indicator of a person’s future in prison is a father in prison. The reason more criminals come from single mother homes is because their fathers are in prison.
Who would ever suggest that the child of a deceased father is as likely to end up a criminal than the child whose father is in prison?

Poverty does have a correlation to criminality. Single mothers cannot make the same money a single father can, and women are actually discouraged by society when it comes to working outside the home during their child’s early years-married or not. Men are encouraged to work and solicit help from women outside the home-which they must do.

The suggestion that single mothers somehow contribute to delinquincy simply by virtue of being single is a gross generalizaton.

While I agree with your general point about people incorrectly assuming that folks on a site like this are coming from the left, we do have to remember that all things are relative.

I suspect that just about everyone that posts (or ever did post) on this site is probably well to the left of deremes. His posts on other websites about race would make southern segregationists appear downright liberal.

To some degree, I regret engaging with him and probably won’t do so in the future.

Although I’m not sure why “deremes” is so angry, it would be great if they spoke in sentences containing fewer than 6 phrases connected with commas.

I also find it strange that any of the people who come to this gay-positive website to “dis-prove” something gay-supportive or to “prove” something from the side of those who demonize gays are quick to point out how “left” of the political fence their opposition supposedly sits. As if being gay or gay-supportive has anything to do with “leftism.” Additionally, as if being from “the left” automatically negates one’s intelligence, grasp of reality, or moral compass. Rather, many of the people who contribute to, support, and visit this website are certainly not sitting left of center, religiously or otherwise.

Well, that was easy.

Your portrayal of factual studies available to any silly left-wing feminist that reveal that single mothers produce all the criminals in society as, how did you put it, “mysogynistic rants,” is, as Ayn Rand informed us, a tactic characteristic of the leftist mentality, which is to always and ever deny facts that contradict leftists’ egalitarian presuppositions, in this case, the laughable assumption of the equality of the sexes, as if, as she says, the mere sound of the words coming out of their mouths makes real the egalitarian fantasy they long for. The fantasy of which you wish to convince yourself by describing my mention of established studies in the social sciences that reveal the inferiority of females in child rearing when left to their own devices without the better judgment attendant upon the male brain as “mysogynistic rants” is, apparently, and tiresomely, that egalitarians don’t have to pay attention to such studies, no, they don’t, that they are nothing but wild expressions of hatred for women, that females are equal to males, they are too, damn it, and I won’t listen to all your damn facts that prove otherwise, and that anyone such as myself, deremes, who has the temerity to claim otherwise, who dares to bring up counterexamples to the egalitarian gender assumption, such as documentation in the social sciences of the inferiority of females in child-rearing practices, is well, a misogynistic ranter, yes, he is. Yeah, that’s the ticket, a misogynistic ranter. Nice going, fellow, and so predictable of a leftist. Oh, and, by the way, as I indicated, I’ve only begun.

But if I am to allow you access to my personage and honest point of view, unbiased by presuppositions, having successfully circumvented, as I have, all attempts by leftists to train me as a child to be a mindlessly conventional, knee-jerk, little egalitarian, try to connect your thoughts rationally. I can’t make heads or tails out of such a confusion as, “. . . statistical correlation between absent father/overbearing mother.” What does “between absent father/overbearing mother” mean?

Let me gently ask: What study reveals that there is no statistical correlation between an early attachment break with the father and a son later identified as homosexual? To the objection that I’m demanding proof of a negative, I reply that I’m demanding no such thing. This is not metaphysics or theology. Such a study establishing the absence of the correlation is testable, and would actually be proof a positive, though seemingly expressed as a negative, that there was no early attachment break between the father and homosexual son in most cases, in other words, that they remained intimately attached, no sensed break.

So then, I’ll answer the question for you, there is no such study, which is precisely why Nicolosi is free to run around the world making the claim that there is a correlation. In other words, neither your side nor his has sufficient factual back-up for their contrary claims.

The only claim that seems to have such back-up is that homosexual identity is biologically based. And even that is merely a probability, not a certainty yet. But even assuming it were a certainty, that would say nothing about the correlation question–attachment break between father and son and the latter’s subsequent homosexual identity–inasmuch as if the early attachment break between father and son was not antecedent to turning out a homosexual son, it could still be consequent thereto.

I guess the above unrelated, diversionary, mysogynistic rants mean that you didn’t find any data to support your statement that there is a “factual” and “undeniable” statistical correlation between absent father/overbearing mother. That doesn’t surprise me really, since nobody else has either.

Again, you miss my point. Working backwards from your post, parenthetically, all studies on the subject reveal that single female-headed households produce most of the criminals in American society. The best social, intellectual, moral, and economic results as adults are those of children raised by single male-headed households, even better than the results for children raised by male-female couples. Children raised by single fathers get higher scores on IQ tests, do better in school, have a higher income as adults, are involved in much less criminal activity, get divorced less, and have less psychological problems needing intervention. The very presence of the female in the home is evidently a detriment to the psychological development of the children. Apparently the traditional nuclear family of father, mother, and children is not the best model for child-rearing outcomes. A single father-headed family works best for that. So much for the silly feminist claim that they don’t need men, including in the role as fathers of their children. In fact, the opposite is true. It is men who don’t need women around to undercut their more mature way of raising children. In an ideal world, mothers would bear and nurture children until the latter are weaned, probably around two years of age. At that time they would be taken away from the mothers to live with and be raised solely by the father. For the obvious best outcome for the child psychologically, socially, intellectually, and morally, the mother would be kept away from the child except to be allowed visitation privileges carefully supervised to ensure that she does not undo all the good the father has done between her visits. Only when the child is an adult would it be safe to permit the mother more access to the child, even as much time as they both would want.

It has been observed for a long time in the field of psychology and child development that rathers relate to children in a more mature manner, treating them like little adults, giving them more latitude and independence, while mothers continue to infantilize their children beyond adolescence into adulthood, over-tending them, over-worrying about them. But that is another story for another day.

To the objection that poverty–the Left’s usual plausible excuse for things going haywire in a person’s life–is the cause of the production of criminal offspring in single female-headed households, I reply that controlled for socio-economic level, single fathers do a spectacularly better job at turning their children into successful adults intellectually, economically, socially, and morally than single mothers. In other words, equally poor single fathers, struggling to hold down a low-paying job while feeding their children, are still better at raising them, at not turning their sons into criminals as single mothers do!

The point you seem to keep missing, and I’ll try to make, ho-hum, once again, is that it is increasingly the opinion of scientists in the relevant fields that homosexuality has a biological origin, either genetic or congenital, or both. Are you tilting at windmills again? Your question seems to: “Has the rise of single women raising children without a father in the household led to an increase in male homosexuality?” Who’s arguing that it has?

But even here your question indicates a lack of awareness of subtle distinctions, between sexual identity and sexual behavior. Has the rise of single women raising children without a father in the household led to an increase in male homosexual identity? Has it led to an increase in male homosexual behavior? Those are two different questions. I plump for the latter, inasmuch as both have increased at the same time in history. I’m aware, as you well know by now, of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Thus, my plumping is stated merely as an opinion, a suggestion, not a supportable factual conclusion. But even you have to admit that an increase in single female-headed households at the same period of time we have seen an alarming increase in homosexual behavior, especially by straight men, for whom gay-f___ing for fun has become increasingly fashionable, makes even you entertain the possibility of a causal connection.

But your question is irrelevant even for the likes of Nicolosi, in any event. Nicolosi’s claim is that an “early attachment break” with the father is the cause of male homosexuality. There is no such break with regard to single women giving birth and raising children. There’s no antecedent relationship with the father to be broken. Implied is that a child is better off never having had a father than having one but suffering such a break early on. Concerning divorced mothers with custody, most are aware of the importance to their children’s development of a good relationship with the father, or a good opinion of the father. Again, such a circumstance would present no psychological break with the absent father, only a physical separation, and so on.

Again, you miss my point about the chicken-egg problem with regard to the topic in hand. What I’m saying is that even if we were to grant Nicolosi’s postulate arguendo that a break with the father may exist in many or most cases with regard to homosexual sons, nonetheless, we must consider the possibility that such a break may be the consequence, not the cause, of the son’s inborn homosexual nature. That’s enough for now.