Talk:77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

Damn

Damn, all and fine till you went and exposed the dirty little fact that girls who do not live with their fathers gets their periods earlier! so girls who live with TWO fathers? they just must not get periods at all. and by the way, men are soooooooo fucking much more important to families than women are, you see. it says so, right there. if a dad leaves, the family breaks down. but if a mom leaves, well it's all just hunky dorey. which means we should have gay marrage for men, just not women.--GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Scorched Earth

This... screed I guess, is a great example of how Same-Sex marriage opponents use "HULK SMASH!!!" talking points that throw everyone but the most 50s era, but not really existing nuclear families under the bus in the mad crusade. One wonders if they are active aware of that, and that's part of the plan/don't care, or are just so blinded they fail to notice such things? --Revolverman (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all about re-framing the argument to make these people into victims. I'm pretty sure it's intentional and they're fully aware that they're fuelling a persecution complex. ^theist 10:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Human Aggression Symposium

I attended this interesting series of talks at the University of Utah in 2010, and felt I should relay that these notions about 'step parents and adopted parents are inferior to biological parents' are at least well accepted enough to not raise a fuss. If I recall correctly a talk about human longevity (or why women don't die shortly after menopause,) had some data on the mental health of children with separated parents (including some mention of the earlier onset of menstruation, but this statistic is true for any stressful living conditions,) and how having available grandparents significantly softened the blow. This is starting to sound like evidence that just having people that care about you and take care of you is more important than having biological parents, and I'm inclined to take it that direction, but I'd be preaching to the choir so I'll move along to another talk I attended.

This talk was about the increased rates of infanticide when women remarry, and that this is something we can actually measure is a much more striking point than anything in the pamphlet. It applies mainly to situations where people are threatened with starvation anyway, so it wouldn't apply to any relevant portion of homosexual couples adopting children and is almost a non-issue in this country anyway. The talk went through how we can see this behavior in the animal kingdom when males make a significant contribution to the rearing of young, and concluded that we shouldn't just assume that step-parents will automatically love a child like it is there own. Rather they are most often taking care of the child as an act of generosity (at least at first,) and an actual loving relationship would develop over time.

I understand that stating "citation needed" is more about not guessing where the author was drawing these claims from, but because the talks I attended were from a point where that field had just grown enough to bring so many experts together I have some fairly niche knowledge, especially for a wiki without a specific biological emphasis. I'm not completely confident about presenting this concisely on the main page, especially when I can only cite these sources to such a weak degree, but these complex relationships do undermine aspects of many of these claims.

I've have some significant computer failures since then but with some luck I think I can dig up the notes I took for these talks, if anyone is interested. Zorku (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mainspace

Any reason this couldn't be mainspace? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

None I can see, looks a perfectly normal rebuttal article to me - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Actual reasons for supporting marriage between women and men

What about #viable# reasons - apart from 'Most people seem happy to have such relationships' and 'it appears that children benefit from being in stable long term environments'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think all "viable" reasons are just generic benefits from marriage in of itself. Otherwise, there is no special superpower you get if you marry the opposite sex or something, aside from maybe avoiding dealing with bigoted cake makers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And there are usually legal and other benefits. And there are a far wider range of marriage arrangements than the fundies expect (the Scottish system, the several forms of Roman marriage etc). Anna Livia (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The real reason to support man/woman marriage is that you support marriage regardless of gender combination, and man/woman marriage is one such combination. - Linneris (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"This argument can be applied to any child had out of wedlock - perhaps those born following a rape - or any child where a single parent is involved" About that...

I don't think that this argument is actually that illogical, since Christian fundamentalists seem to oppose single parenthood and having kids out of wedlock just as much as they oppose gay marriage, so it is logically consistent. 149.19.33.17 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)