What it’s like to have two mothers
sashmackinnon.com
sashmackinnon.com
That said, in the absence of a father figure for instance, kids will look for role models in anyone, like their preferred uncle, a teacher, the Clint-Eastwood-from-Gran-Torino-next-door, superheroes, etc.
So whether the kids are raised by a female couple, a male couple, 3 people, 2 wolves, it's not really a problem as long as the kids can interact with a multitude of people. What you definitely do not want is radical parents and an homogenous environment.
Just as an example, here is research that says otherwise:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.ht...
The researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.
Another example:
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/parents-gender-chil...
Children usually benefit from having two parents instead of one. The gender of each parent, however, does not have a significant impact on a child's success.
I said that "male (or female) role model is an important part of the development of kids", not that "having both a father and mother is an important part of development kids", because kids will interact with people of both sexes and develop mental models accordingly - kids are not limited to learning only from their parents.
The fact kids look upon role models of both sexes is plain old behaviorism.
I replied to your baseless assertions that kids need male role models and both genders for their development: "in the absence of a father figure kids will look for role models [several examples of male role models]", "you don't want a homogeneous environment". My links show research that specifically says this is not true. The author of the article goes to great lengths to say it's not true. Do you have any facts or personal experiences that say otherwise?
(If by "uncle" and "Clint Eastwood next door" you didn't mean a male role model, and by "homogeneous environment" you didn't mean gender-homogeneous, then what did you mean)?
The researches show that there's no evidence of the importance of genders on parenting, and I agree.
That is quite different than saying exposure to people of both genders is not important. It is important just as it is important for children to be exposed to people of different age, ethnicity, culture, opinion, and such. This exposure helps them build complete mental models of how other people behave, which is important for the development of empathy and self-image.
FYI, kids grow up just fine in culturally and ethnically homogeneous environments. There is a world outside the United States or wherever you happen to be from. There are very large countries out there made up entirely of one ethnicity and one culture, and not everyone in those countries is devoid of empathy.
You read what you wanted to read.
Here is the thought experiment, heterosexual girl raised by two women, marries a young man, who behaves badly in the relationship. Now it is clear that one should never tolerate abuse in a relationship but people do all the time, and they make excuses for it if they are emotionally compromised. So what prevents our heroine from not rationalizing "oh this is normal for men in the role of husband." ? That would be the wrong conclusion but they may not have an intimate (or internal) model of a good hetrosexual relationship. It works the other way as well of course, gay children raised by heterosexual parents not having a role model for a well functioning gay marriage.
I don't know if that is a "big" problem or just an existing flavor of the "kids in a good/bad family environment" knowledge. But as the article points out, we're still about 10 years away from the first wave "second generation" kids from gay parents reaching a sizable enough cohort to make any useful observations.
Of course your last point suggests the question, "What sort of city would twins raised by gay wolves found?" :-)