Given that there exist XY women and XX men who seem to function quite well in the world I suspect any actual genetic differences between the behavior of men and women are pretty minimal.
I mean, sure, you need a uterus to be pregnant and give birth, and male lactation is pretty damn rare, but lots of people adopt kids and use baby bottles and formula to feed infants so in today’s world even that is not as relevant a divide as in distant prehistory.
Now, there does appear to be some biological basis for gender identity, which is one reason I support the right of transgender people to seek whatever treatment or surgery required to make them feel more comfortable in their own bodies, but whether that’s a genetic thing or a pre-birth developmental thing I can’t say. But that’s a tangent for sure.
The rest is… well, there are tendencies but I think societal training can drown those out.
“Hardwired” implies instinct, which means it is a never-varying behavior universally seen in all individuals of a species. Since there is ample empirical evidence that this is NOT the case for human women, that throughout history a certain percentage of women have sought abortions, abandoned their infants, or even outright killed them I’d say your premise is fatally flawed.
It’s a romantic notion held by men. Women know differently.
In the debate we are dealing with and that made it to SCOTUS, civil “marriage” is a term of civil law. It refers to a special type of officially-sanctioned interpersonal sworn compact that requires both parties to enter freely and that entails having the two parties acquiring a whole panoply of [fortunately in modern times bilaterally coequal] rights, duties, responsibilities, burdens and privileges to one another and to the civil society that grants the official recognition.
*Nowhere *in the Family or Civil codes do I see one of the elements giving legitimacy to a civil marriage be the begetting of biogenetic offspring. Like we all have said, you do not need to be married to have and raise those.
When exactly all the same and equal rights, duties, responsibilities, burdens and privileges legally accrue to the same degree to the same form of sworn legal instrument, why call it something else? A Will is a Will, a lawsuit is a lawsuit, a charge of misdemeanor mopery is a charge of misdemeanor mopery. So, a civil marriage is a civil marriage.
That to you, cornopean, the word marriage itself carries some sort of transcendent essence centered around children being raised by both their biogenetic parents… is only of such relevance to the legal system’s application of Equal Protection of Law as what it is, the opinion of one citizen. Huzzahh for you.
When we call??? Wake up to reality-It IS marriage! The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America says so, and it IS so. When two same sex people get a marriage license and go through a marriage ceremony, they are legally married. Do you understand and acknowledge this very real fact?
Point of order: I think the argument he’s making is not that procreation is itself a required element of marriage, but that enforcing on a societal level the ideal of man-woman procreation is the purpose of marriage. He’s saying that one-man-one-woman fuckin’ and childraising has always been seen as a societal norm and marriage has always existed to enforce that norm.
Of course, he’s assuming that the norm in question is a net societal positive and therefore should continue to be encouraged and reinforced by the society. Which is not based in actual fact but in faith. But, yanno.
Boy, you sure didn’t know my family growing up. I learned very early I could run to nobody, my brothers ran to ME. Mom is a mean bitch, although not as mean as her own mother. Don’t get me started on her father. Dad was better, but he had been told to “leave childraising to me since I have an actual degree in it, you don’t tell me how to raise children and I won’t tell you how to manage workers”, and most of the time he complied; he still was a better caretaker than she was, hot temper and all.
The Bros actually got Mom to admit that I was more of a parent than she was, but yeah, in your imaginary world I wouldn’t have been there to co-parent :rolleyes:
Yeah, there’s this weird thing among some Christians where they believe some sort of magic bond is created the first time you have sex, not just the first time with a person (of the opposite sex, of course) but the first time ever, so that you and the other person become one flesh the way they believe wine and crackers become flesh and blood and after that you have to marry that person because anything else would be sinful adultery or something.
Solomon had more than one wife. Abraham only had one wife at a time. He was married twice, but the second marriage was after the first died, and while his first wife was alive, he also had a child with his slave (although he never married her).
Don’t worry about marriage, it’s been in a coma for years. Millennials might pull the plug for good. Gay people didn’t have anything to do with it. They might even bump up the marriage rates a little bit, who knows. I’m sure divorce lawyers are happy about it. If you want to find what killed marriage you’ll have to look elsewhere. Maybe it was no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, feminism, post-industrial ennui, your guess is as good as mine.
You’re not going to get anywhere here arguing for masculinity or male role models. In most liberal circles those concepts are generally met with hostility or used as punch lines.
You also won’t get anywhere with gender essentialism. A lot of people over the years have confused equality in a moral or legal sphere as literal equality in talents, interests, inclinations, desires, and so on. Clear differences are chalked up to societal indoctrination, patriarchy, stereotype threat, you name it. We’re all blank slaters now.
No reason to worry much about kids being raised by a gay couple. Two parents are better than one or none, right?
In our current views, the making of Ismael was statutory rape (menage a trois version). Not exactly an example of what I’d consider a desirable relationship.
So long as you don’t refer to them as parents! He’s got a long list of definitions for words that can’t be found in a dictionary. Apparently being a parent involves being part of some ritual hatching process.
I don’t know what the Netherlands has to do with a recent SCOTUS decision, but lets say that we know the population of the US is about 300,000,000, and about 10% is gay. 20% of them will want to marry, and given the fact that in most states they’ve only recently gained that right, but some of them are still minors, while others are not part of a couple, so a smaller number is actually marriageable. That means that something like 3 to 4,000,000 people will want to take immediate advantage of this new right. That’s a lot of people.
Those people want to know that if they are ever in an accident, the person who will be notified as their next-of-kin is the person who knows them best.
For people who are married, and have a living parent or sibling, imagine if a law were passed tomorrow recognizing “blood before paper,” meaning that your parents’ wishes would have precedence over anyone else’s, including your spouse’s, if you are unable to make decisions for yourself. If you have no living parents, but have living siblings, those siblings wishes take precedence over your spouse’s as well. It’s only when there is no immediate family member that the hospital staff finally turns to the spouse.
A lot of gay people, even those with registered unions and powers of attorney face hospitals that turn to family before partner, and only defer to the partner when there either is no one else, or in the rare case where the immediate biological family instructs the hospital to do what the partner says.
Don’t get me started on what happens on when there is a child involved. And by the way, marriage confers the “marital presumption” on the partner, even when the partner is the same sex. Civil Unions do not. The “marital presumption” is that anyone married to a woman who has a baby is the other parent of that baby. Unless that spouse protests right at the time of the birth, the spouse is legally the father, or, in the case of SSM, the “other parent.” No adoption necessary, as in the case of a civil union, and not all states allow such adoptions.
Except, again – and I really want to see cornopean respond to this point – there are one-man-one-woman couples who announce their intention to get married, and get told, we enforce, on a societal level, the following idea: not only is the ability to procreate not a required element of marriage, but it’s an element that you two need to establish is absent before we’ll let you marry; the purpose is the opposite.
Sure, I’ll agree. Don’t see why it’s relevant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, you’re talking about a tendency for a very large group on the one hand, and the personality/strengths/weaknesses of individual people on the other hand. It’s nonsense. Manhood is not marrying Womanhood here.
There are differences in how we’re allowed to express our emotions, but, having lived with menfolk my whole life, I note that they do appear to feel pain, love, anger, happiness, shame, joy, sadness, and, occasionally, pique. As do I. I can’t name a single emotion I experience that men don’t, unless you count Bleeding From My Vagina Sucks as an emotion.
You also seem to think that children never have any adult influences in their lives other than their parents, which is either crazy or chilling. If you want to posit that homeschooled seclusion is a bad environment in which to raise a child, I’m right there with you. (Not all homeschooling, just the “we never leave the house” kind.) But it has nothing to do with the gender of the parents.
Completely. John Gray is not a scientist of any sort. He did no research at all. He simply and completely made stuff up. That much of it resonated with a whole lot of people is interesting, but then again, Santa Claus resonates with a whole lot of people as well.
“Supposed” by whom? God? If God didn’t want people raised by other-than-their-biological-parents, then why does he let biological parents die?
And, just to be perfectly clear…you’re of the opinion that GOD was guilty of human rights violations by fathering a child he wasn’t there to raise, and that JOSEPH and MARY were an inferior set of parents because Mary was a single mother and Joseph just happened to live in the same household? Because it seems to me that if you want an example of how God wants children to be raised, maybe you should look at the example He set for you with His own Son.