My objective here is not to give reasons to marry. It’s basically just recognizing the uniqueness of the male-female relationship that we used to call “marriage”. It was the one relationship with the capacity for procreation.
This thread originally started with wondering what gays gain from calling their relationship a “marriage”.
It’s not about legal rights. They can’t procreate. The best reason I’ve heard here is that the children of one of the persons in the same-sex relationship is subject to discrimination and contempt b/c of their family situation.
Is there any difference between men and women other than the obvious physical differences?
It is about legal rights.
I assure you, I can procreate.
You keep making statements that are untrue.
do not the men, who function in these cases as sperm donors, feel any sense of attachment to “their” children which they helped create?
again…is it only me who senses the extreme unnaturalness of this? Is Isaiah the prophet the only one who wondered if a mother could forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? What do these women do with these feelings of attachment to the child they just birthed and which they carried and nourished for nine months?
Not if people like you restrain yourself from discriminating and showing contempt because of their family situation. You are pointing out that there is a problem, and that the problem is you.
Legally no.
Beyond the physical differences no. There are no traits that can not exist in either sex.
Assuming you are gay, your “marriage” cannot procreate.
So, these things that are “self-evident” to you boil down to stereotypes, things that you “typically associate” with gender. And your “concern” for child welfare is an insistence that children be raised in a way that’s in keeping with the stereotypes you’re comfortable with. I’m not surprised to learn this; I’m surprised to see you admit it. How come you didn’t just say this in the OP?
I wonder if any case of someone acting outside of “typically associated” traits causes you this much distress–or is it only when gay people are involved? I’ll let you in on a secret: When my daughters get hurt, they always come to me. And my wife is the strict one; the kids come to me when they want to be spoiled. Maybe I shouldn’t admit these things. Does this mean that my wife and I aren’t really married? Are we just two opposite-sex single parents? Or some kind of 4-sided triangle?
In all seriousness, do you really think that a child with two male parents will have no one to go to if it cuts its foot on a piece of glass? THIS is what your concern about “ability to procreate” is about?
Are you sure you wouldn’t rather go find a choir to preach to? Your efforts at “preaching to the public” are looking pretty dismal.
-VM
Are there inclinations or patterns of behavior that women tend to exhibit? and vice versa with men?
I don’t think we were referring to exceptions but what is typically the case.
Again, have you ever spoken to a child? Or even an adult who was once a child? There are many families in which Mom, not Dad is the disciplinarian. There are many families in which Dad, not Mom, is the one you run to for comfort. There are certainly plenty of families in which Mom is the risk-taker.
You have been given a lot of excellent parameters for studying whether children raised in same-sex families do better than other children. I’d like to add one more - ask them. It is incredibly presumptuous of you to say that you know how people feel when there are actual living, breathing people who were raised in same-sex families who can tell you what it was like.
Again, when did you first realize that? :dubious:
The very same things you do. Surprised?
There’s been quite a bit happening on that front in the last few years.
And neither can many mixed-sex couples. Many more choose not to. Do you not wish to deny them the institution too? If not, why not?
I’m pretty sure you’ve been exposed to much better reasons to be loving than that. Like in the New Testament, for instance.
I would never show contempt for the children in a gay family. In terms of my own religious beliefs, that would count as “sin”.
Like many heterosexuals do I can procreate with people other than the person I’m married to.
You are currently doing so by claiming the children of same sex couples are being denied ‘basic human rights’ or whatever your earlier claim was.
Is Abraham the only one who thought it’d be okay to murder his child if he thought God said so? What if God had told Abraham to take Isaac, leave his wife, and move in with a man (and have sex with him)? Would it be okay then, even without that certain sexist something that women bring to parenting?
Are you really suggesting that the Bible is a good source of parenting advice? Because I’m thinking that a woman forgetting her child is far worse than a man murdering his.
Incidentally, in addition to supporting idiosyncratic definitions of “marriage”, our legal system also would not accept “God told me to” as a legal defense for murdering a child. Just sayin’.
-VM
How would you interact with the parents? Could you be friends with them? Could you accept them as they are? Could you accept the family as it is?
With the exception of “a single chick and some dude who sleep together.”
And the answer was “accuracy”.
You show contempt for them when you accuse their parents of committing a human rights abuse just by being their parents.
How about this? What if we test couples (regardless of gender combination) to ensure that at least one of them is “inclined to” male “patterns of behavior” and the other to female “patterns of behavior”.
Problem solved, right? Of course, that would mean that we would have to prevent some opposite-sex pairings (or just not call them “marriages”), but it’s for the good of the children, so I’m sure everyone will agree.
I know that when I see a “pattern of behavior”, I feel a real need to normalize it. Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if all people were different?
-VM
As boytyperanma and Miller adroitly point out, you have done so consistently throughout this discussion. You presume to know what they think, what they want, and what is best for them–despite direct and quantifiable evidence to the contrary. You presume to know what causes them harm. You tell them they are lesser, because their families are lesser.
Contempt? Most assuredly. Sin? Obviously, that’s up to you. Ego te absolvo.
.