Marriage Neuterists, what they know that isn't true; part 1

A recent commenter noted the biggest of the big lies told by marriage neuterists, saying that "same-sex couples have the same needs as opposite-sex couples".

The thrust here is that there is no difference between a same-sex couple and one that integrates both genders. It is constructed keeping focus clearly on the adults, with the children put in the margins (if mentioned at all). Lets see how this works if we can keep the adult focus, and only look at gender disparities. Read on to see how this works...

One of the greatest disparities there are between the two arrangements is that the latter has an intrinsic attachment between the man and the woman, in that they have a child who naturally exists as their blood and kin. That attachment makes the man and the woman blood and kin also, but also notes the physical reality of their relationship in the form of a child who needs to be raised. Only those two people can give to the child the realization of all their rights and entitlements to know and cherish their own heritage and identity.

Once that is severed, Renee has done a great job in noting how disproportionately the burden of having children weighs on women compared to men. Child birth (except in medically altered situations) always unites the child and the mother. Men are, sadly, all to often not present in a child's life by the time they are born. They have the easiest escape or abandonment route. And a woman, having had a child, becomes more likely to have health problems arising from complications of that pregnancy.

But even when a child is born a disparity begins between the pay that a woman gets and the pay that a man gets. As Feckless noted,

When I did the research for Why Men Earn More in 2005, I discovered that nationwide never-married women who had never had children earned 117% of the wages of never married men who had never had children.

What Feckless and others have suggested is that the gender gap is a manifestation of how women are more naturally attached to their children. They want jobs that give them the liberty of staying home more, and having more flexible time. They take more stable jobs, that involve fewer risks to their health. All so that they can be there for their children when their children need them. And women who want job stability while planning to get pregnant for the first time will chose these jobs even before they have children.

So how does this point to a need that a couple with the potential of children is different than the same-sex couple? With gender differences, the easiest way to draw this line is to simply group the two genders into each same-sex couple. That would show that one set is unequal to the other, but then we already know seperate but equal is not equal. No that is just tip-toeing up to the point that gender disparities that exist are best dispelled by integrating them, then any extra earnings a man might make is shared by the woman. And so is the housework, etc...

Simply put, the need for couples with both genders is based in equality. They need to have their relationship recognized because the equality between them needs to be encouraged. Often this has to do with the burden of responsibility for the children they create together, but it is even more intensely understood when you go to the child's perspective -- something all to often marginalized or forgotten.