While there are clear advantages to children having same-sex role models there is no requirement that the role model be a parent.
Would you have the women stay with their abusers and their beaters so that the child can have “two parents”?
People don’t leave relationships because they’re good, safe and healthy.
Love is what helps a kid grow well and the comradery and care two adults can have for each other can be reflected into children no matter the gender of the adults who serve as examples.
The love between a man and a woman is unique and no other arrangement replicates it.
I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that.
So, since a child's life isn't impacted by the specific configuration that a penis and vagina can happen to join in, what do you mean?
Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?
I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.
Why do genitals matter?
Quantitatively false:
According to the team, there are almost 20 quadrillion ants on Earth right now. That’s a 20 followed by 15 zeroes, which is a number that’s hard to really get your head around.
In terms of tonnage and sheer numbers there are many many more ants than humans - clearly their method of producing life "wins".
As a quick heads up, they don't have loving two parent families.
Evolution only operates on "ability to live long enough and put oneself in a circumstance that enables making a baby."
As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation.
I'll make my point without sarcasm then: Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept. If you're serious and actually want me to find you studies, please describe, in detail, what evidence would change your mind. I want to have a clear understanding of the requirements and goal posts before I make effort towards that. If you don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can only conclude the question was in bad faith.
You think I'm denying your claim that "men need fathers". That's because you're spoiling for a fight instead of trying to have a reasonable conversation.
Before I can take you seriously, you need to start showing some awareness that there are potential alternative explanations for what you claim is too obvious to require evidence. The questions and criticisms your comments raise and the fallacies your comments perpetrate are obvious and plentiful enough that you should be able to anticipate at least some of them yourself, and preemptively respond to them as a way of strengthening your case and making your comments substantive. Instead, you're continuing to make low-effort comments and treating this forum like a playground for your trollish behavior.
You could be making a case, instead you're just demanding others carry your water for you.
Requirement no. Advantage yes.
No.[0]
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-rais...
Living with both a mother and father can certainly have its perks. The main one being easy accessibility to a role model of both sexes. There are plenty of other situations that would provide that same advantage though.
Families come in all kinds of configurations, especially when you get into multi-family/generational living situations, none of which is inherently better or worse for the child by sole virtue of the sex of the those involved.
Child A with living with a mother and father isn't guaranteed to be better off than Child B living with two fathers. Just like Child B isn't guaranteed to be worse off than Child C who lives with a mother and a grandmother and a grandfather even through there are benefits to having more people in the home caring for and watching over the child.
It's like saying that having two kids, one a boy and one a girl is "best". It absolutely has its advantages sure, but that doesn't make it best or mean that anything other than that is "worse".
It doesn't actually matter what is "best", what matters is what is possible. The world doesn't run on "best", ever. It runs on "good enough" or "better". When people push for the ideology that I read as you asking for us to agree on, the results tend to be harmful.
You say "two parents that birth their child and stay together are best". The words gets twisted "being a single parent hurts your child"; "having a step parent hurts your child"; "having same-sex guardians hurts the child". Then the policy gets made that harms even further, "same sex couples cannot adopt", "divorce is illegal"; or, the lesser form, harm is caused to the child through broken families who have been tricked into believing that "it's good for them to stay together for the sake of the child".
Stances and arguments and acquiescing to those perspectives has a tendency to walk down very harmful paths very quickly; and, if it's not your intent to push or argue for the policies listed above, it absolutely is what the people you're referencing will push or have pushed, or people who come after you will push.