Gay men are more likely to have a gender preference for their adopted child whereas heterosexual men are the least likely.
Gay men are more likely to have a gender preference for their adopted child whereas heterosexual men are the least likely.
and the very next sentence: What's more, couples in heterosexual relationships are more likely to prefer girls than people in same-gender relationships
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting read beyond that PF. A few paragraphs after that they note...
ReplyDelete"Unlike biological parents, adoptive parents can choose the gender of their child."
And that is one of the most important aspects of the fairness of life. The biological reality of the uncertainty of what will come from the union is what directs the need for marriage. Committed to the uncertain future of boy/girl dovetails with the expectation of marriage for equal gender representation and integration. Marriage equality in how each gender supports the other becomes a much more solid basis of putting away personal bias. And that is what makes an ideal marriage, a good marriage. Equal gender representation is center of all we hope to find fair and equitable in marriage.
So with a real marriage ideal of responsible procreation we less invested in their personal biases -- or at least sexuality driven gender biases.
These personal biases are worthy of note...
"Lesbians tended to focus on their perceived inability to socialize a child of the opposite gender, and gay men most frequently cited concerns about boys being more likely to encounter harassment than girls."
The heterosexual side was more inexplicable, though it the author did represent one bias in a more approachable way...
"heterosexual men's preference for a son reflected patriarchal norms, including keeping the family name going and gender identity considerations i.e. their own masculine interests."
Moving on we found...
"When explaining their preference for a boy, lesbians most frequently mentioned their own atypical gender identities, including the fact that their own interests tended to be more masculine and tomboyish, whereas gay men most often highlighted that they felt more confident about their ability to raise and socialize boys."
"Unlike biological parents, adoptive parents can choose the gender of their child."
ReplyDelete"And that is one of the most important aspects of the fairness of life. The biological reality of the uncertainty of what will come from the union is what directs the need for marriage."
Maybe this was true in the 1950's but now through hormone injections we can alter the sex of the child before it comes to the stage where sex developes, or we can eliminate an unwanted pregnancy and try again.
I don't advocate arbortion, I oppose it, I'm merely pointing out a flaw in your facts.
My H-G,
ReplyDeleteIts always a honor to see you posting comments here. I won't speak much on how your misuse of the term "sex" when it is more the gender presentation that is altered through hormone replacement therapy. Thats a secondary issue to the point.
I don't need to say much about the statistics on abortion due to gender, though I have read them and they are horrifying. The fact remains, you can no more select the gender of your child through abortion than you can choose the kind of car you want by running the ones you have off a cliff.
What I will point out is how your examples show the importance of marriage equality being based on the quality of each gender's representation in the marriage itself. For each decision rings against our understanding of humane treatment of children. Both should be guarded against.
I know that for many embroiled in a deceitful view of equality, the ability to find potential harm from heterosexual couples seems like a way to level the playing field. But they always fail to note this is not an identity of "breeders" out to protect each other, warts and all. We don't ware some scarlet letter like "GLBT" to brand us into a gang for protection and intimidation of others.
We support marriage. And we support marriage in how it expects equal gender representation, not to exclude deserving loving couples but to give the example of what true equality is for people to live up to. Think of it as a way to cleanse the inner vessle, to police ourselves if you simply must brand people by the genders of their relationships.
In this example you bring we see clearly the usefulness in gender integration in marriage to teach people who have gender biases for their children to love the other gender, by expecting that same love and commitment to an uncertain future with their spouse of the other gender. Its not a perfectly discrete law, but it is highly effective.
So tell me once again, where exactly is the "flaw"? It looks more like you provided even more evidence for my point...
You must have not read my post correctly, or you have not heard about what I speak of. Scientists can now inject the unborn baby with hormones and control whether the unborn child becomes male or female. The child is born as normal, only the outcome is assured by this intervention.
ReplyDeleteMy second point is that we also can tell what sex an unborn child is before it is born. If someone wanted a boy and a girl was forming they could choose to abort and try again with a new fetus.
Temper temper, Mr H-G. It is sad to see that you are not open to the dialog your "flaws" seem to find.
ReplyDeleteHosty-G: You must have not read my post correctly,...
ReplyDeleteThis is what I read:
Scientists can now inject the unborn baby with hormones and control whether the unborn child becomes male or female. The child is born as normal, only the outcome is assured by this intervention.
No such scientific, peer reviewed study has ever been conducted on humans, much less offered as a service to people generally. If your intent was to set some kind of facts straight, you failed. If, on the other hand, your intent was to show the importance of maintaining the vital link between marriage and procreation, your extrapolated scenario does at least do that.