Response to post by kaylaluv
"It is NOT our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children, anymore than it is our business to evaluate if
interracial couples should raise children, or if two non-educated people should raise children, or if two atheist people should raise children, etc.
I hear you but I am not sure how that works out in practice. Here we frown upon the idea of evaluating/assessing an arguably unnatural base that is
same-sex marriage in terms of potential effect on the children resulting therefrom.
And the suggested examples above have all been subject to some kind of debate - particularly interracial marriage, which was once not an accepted
'norm' right? But this is not related in essence. We are designed able to procreate interracially, mixed - intellect, opposing-circumstance, opposing
religions...these are social constructs and not fundamental, natural issues.
My point is that people were not designed to be able to procreate with same sex partners. No mammals are! Meaning that, beyond the issue of
fertilisation there is a host of hormonal, instinctive and bodily responses that are required for the union to facilitate the base for growing this
new life and the child's development further on. The problem of not having a direct father figure in a female only parentage arguably proves less of a
problem in this respect than lack of a mother in a male-male union. This has the potential for far reaching psychological implications for the child.
(Please note that I am not excluding the possibility of it working out perfectly well in some cases. But the potential for damage is more likely
precisely because it is unnatural)
If we were meant to be doing this we would be equipped for it! That's my only concern with this. I am a naturalist who feels that everything was made
to be (or evolved to be) for a certain reason. This is not about social implications of such a marriage but the biological (and resulting or
causative, as the case may be) psychological NATURE of it.
A sterile man and woman adopt a child. The child develops into an amazing being. The kid is loved, nurtured, guided. Another such couple turn out to
be monsters and the kid ends up severely disturbed. Both scenarios can also happen in a same-sex marriage (or any marriage for that matter). But here
is the thing - do you know how hard it is to be awarded a child to adopt? Do you know how harsh a scrutiny you have to undergo? Just because your body
malfunctioned and you could not produce own child! I think it should be AT LEAST eqaually hard for same-sex marriage to be allowed to raise a child.
Either that or remove all obstacles to having children in all cases. THEN we can talk about equality and human rights!
I personally don't care who raises children and if they raise them well. I usually concern myself with raising just my own child. I don't really care
if same-sex marriage is legal or not because I think marriage in general is a social-legal convenience at best. My life with my partner was the same
before and after the signature - Just harder to get out if someone has a change of heart
The debate above is purely philosophical - stemming from my psychology studies and fueled by curiosity as to the reason for all this fuss about
same-sex marriage...something that I do not comprehend being rather confined by my naturalism.
All the best
edit on 1-12-2011 by Alexandra9 because: quote not showing properly
edit on 1-12-2011 by Alexandra9 because: quote
still not showing properly
edit on 1-12-2011 by Alexandra9 because: quote fixed