Irvine511 said:
first, can you tell me what, in this day and age, are the exclusive, male-only husbandly duties in a marriage? and are the exclusive, female-only wifely duties in a marriage? other than the actual birthing of a child, and breast-feeding (something which many married women choose not to do), what, pray tell, is there in the institution of marriage that requires opposite genders? what are these unique sex roles other than merely misogynistic disguises that have been used for years to tell women what they can and cannot do, and men what they can and cannot do.
"Mysogynistic disguises"... doesn't sound that far from those who refer to marriage simply as legalized rape. In a way this seems to prove Jacoby's point that part of this whole conversation is about refusing to recognize the very differences that define us as men and women in the first place.
It's interesting to me that gay activists seem to use the "I'm made this way/I can't change it" argument when defending homosexuality, but seem to argue the reverse when it comes to the conversation of sexuality and marriage. If you want to argue that you're genetically a certain way, that's fine -- but isn't part of the point of this argument that you can't change, that you are a certain way and can't help it, which automatically moves you into a predetermined process? So why wouldn't it be any different when the conversation turns to the differences between male and female? (Arguably an even more important distinction than sexual orientation/preference.)
The way you are means certain things, and it seems to me that rebelling against the genetic programming (or intelligent design, depending on your choice of martini) that defines men and women as such, and which further defines fathers and mothers, is pointless. Men and women ARE different creatures -- biologically, emotionally, etc. They are, they have been since the dawn of time, and to rail against it seems to be pissing into the wind.
I'll share my take on the uniquely husbandly duties in a marriage, but it would be from a faith-based perspective that has previously been disregarded elsewhere on this message board. (Too much heteronormativity.) However, as the Judeo-Christian perspective is one that has defined Western civilization, I'll post it anyway...
"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...feed(ing) and car(ing) for her, just as Christ does the church"
Bang. A specific call for husbands. Gender-specific, not one mirrored in the words for wives, but central to the marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship was designed by God to illustrate His relationship with us, then you can't separate out gender identifications, because God is the very One throughout the Bible -- New and Old Testament (the book of Hosea comes to mind) Who draws those lines in the first place.
When I was getting married, my mentor told me, "The best way to be a good father is to be a good husband." My children will watch me and my habits and learn and replicate them...for better or worse. Hopefully, they will learn how women should be treated, they will learn how love and affection are shown, they will learn what love is. Moreover, many of us on this board can probably pinpoint the strengths and failures of our fathers, and how they've impacted us. There is something unique and specific that children learn about the world from they interact with their fathers....again, for better or worse. There's a reason scripture talks about how the sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generations.... I know that it's true that much of my father's brokenness is my own. Why else do the sons of deadbeat dads often turn into deadbeat dads themselves? (A unique but growing reality, particularly in the inner city.)
Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.
he also doesn't seem to think that gay people can adopt, or have biologically related children, and that child-rearing is the exclusive province of the heterosexual. THIS DRIVES ME ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. i will show you 10 homosexuals who will make better parents than 99% of the heterosexuals out there. should we deny children the right to great parents simply because they are gay? are a bad mother and father better than two good gay dads? does this so-called "right" to opposite-gendered parents trump the far more basic "right" for a child to have *good* parents? please, please, please -- marriage is much, much, much more than about raising children. is a healthy marriage the ideal place to raise children? probably.
I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.
I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?
I don't think Jacoby is saying that gay parents *can't* parent. It comes down to a question of what is *best.* I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal. There are hundreds of thousands of husbands and wives out there desperate to be parents who either A) can't afford the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to adopt or B) get lost in the process somewhere. The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?
I'm not trying to piss you off, Irvine...I just don't think this argument can be considered closed.