This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

When it comes to parenting, the effects left on their children will be environmental, not always genetic. People on both sides usually agree. But my opponent’s thesis goes as follows: 1. Culture dictates the actions of parents. 2. Men, currently, are irrelevant due to culture. 3. Culture forces societal norms. 1. Culture dictates the actions of parents. There is one biological fact in parenthood: all children have two parents. One is male, the other is female. The identity of one’s parents is an irrevocable fact, something every person has to cope with. Even if we assume two parents are the same (for example, two lesbians can match a married couple) it ignores the fact the children are often adopted or came about through artificial insemination. The child, who often does not know the other parent, then longs to be with the parent. Evidence indicates this is a fully biological function given to the children from birth [1]. So even if we assume my opponent is correct, the effect on the child is partially biological, invalidating no-difference theory. Now, since men and women share the same genome in parenting there [was] a default no-difference. But if both parents function the same way, this would lead to conflict and a less efficient family unit. Studies done on animals indicate after a few generations the animals evolve to create specialization. Professor Allen Moor says, “Males and females share the same genome so these differences in genetic influences between the sexes had to evolve from the default of no differences between the sexes. This occurred because of sex differences in shared genetic influences on other traits. But the evolution of this specialisation also helps reduce conflicts between the parents and form an efficient family unit, reinforcing the genetic differences between the sexes.”[2] Some studies on mammals have obtained similar results. Female rats seem to act differently when their estrogen receptor levels are changed or suppressed. The study’s abstract notes, “Suppression of ERα[estrogen receptors] in the preoptic area almost completely abolished maternal care, significantly increasing the latency to pup retrieval and significantly reducing the time the moms spent nursing and licking the pups.”[3] 2. Fathers are irrelevant Although my opponent didn’t necessarily mean to say it in a harsh manner, he essentially said, in the current culture, men do not seem to affect children. This belief, although the consensus in the nineties, is increasingly false. See, if culture was dictating parenthood, then this would make complete sense. But the vast preponderance of evidence negates this position. Indeed, the research agrees with the conclusion that not all children do the same in different households, children do best with married mothers and fathers. The research can be summarized as follows[4]: Lesbian mothers interact with children in different ways than heterosexual mothers. The presence of a father reduces the chance that his children will use drugs or become criminals. Children raised by lesbians were more sexually active, the presence of a father helps promote chaste. One biological aspect: Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex. People with the best sexual lives are raised by both genders. When interacting with people in the future, the father is actually more important than the mother. For boys, when going through puberty they need to begin to interact with the father. The father teaches the child how to be assertive, how to be “a man”. It seems as though fathers are still relevant to children, and not necessarily irrelevant as my opponent claims they are. Now, my opponent says fathers can be good parents, but mothers in current culture are more imperative. What is interesting, now, is that research actually notes fathers are more important to children [4]. The cultural norm is that the mother is more important, but since the outcomes for children are more determined by a father this is reason parenthood is not environmental or cultural. Indeed, men having a penis is one of the reasons fathers are fathers. Girls need the father as a male role model so she can interact with the opposite sex. If he was a woman, that probably would not work out. So, even if my opponent wins every other point in this debate, no difference theory is invalidated because men help their daughters interact with men. Research shows lesbians and single mothers cannot fill this role [5]. As stated, it is a biological (not a cultural) urge for children to meet both of their biological children [1]. Research shows biological parents raise the best children [4], and single parent families and homosexuals generally do worse [5]. Due to the fact research indicates the urge is biological, and when children live with the parents, presumably no urge exists, and they do better, this only means many of the children’s outcomes are determined by the parent’s biological makeup, not culture as my opponent assumes. Overall, fathers are still extremely important, and parenting is not a [fully] cultural action. 3. It is unjust to force societal norms If I may ask, how is this relevant to the debate? Since we are debating the outcomes for children in a scientific sense, I do not see how whether or not forcing societal norms onto parents is necessarily relevant. If this were a debate about the legality of same-sex adoption, this point would be extremely relevant. However, since we are looking at the outcomes of children, I do not see how this relates to the debate. I have also shown many of the outcomes for children related to fathers are biological in origin. Girls need a man to teach them how to talk to men, and boys need a man to teach them how to be a man. Boys need mothers so they can talk to women, etc etc. These are fully biological functions, not cultural norms, that directly influence the outcomes of their children. Now, this is not to say all outcomes of children are dictated by their parents biological makeup (though I have proven a lot of it is directly related the parents sex), but the fact mothers act the way they do due to genetic differences [3], and a fathers sexuality directly influences his children [4], it is impossible to say most child rearing is dictated by cultural norms. To reiterate: this point is mostly irrelevant. Norms being unjust =/= no difference theory is valid/invalid. CONCLUSION: I did not feel I needed a case because a lot of my evidence was put in the rebuttals. Although the sex of a parent seems arbitrary, love simply isn’t enough. Psychologist Trayce Hansen argues “mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide. … Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.”[7] Although it seems as though the sex of one’s parents is arbitrary, the effect on the child is large and very important. The sex of someone’s parents hugely affects children [8]. 1. Jennifer Roback Morse. “Love & Economics: It takes a family to raise a villiage” 2009. 2. http://tinyurl.com...; 3. http://tinyurl.com...; 4. A. Dean Byrd. “Dual Gender Parenting for Optimal Child Development” Journal of Human Sexuality (2010). 5. Walter R. Schumm, “Child Outcomes Associated with Lesbian Parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacey’s 2010 Report” Journal of Human Sexuality (2011). 6. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, “Homosexual Parents” Adolescence, 1996. 7. http://tinyurl.com...; 8. http://tinyurl.com...;