Factualist said:
Sacred is totally meaningless to rational people, reals over feels my man
Sacred is a word, that has meaning: Holy. Holy and Sacred mean that it is special, and "set apart". Something that is set apart, to me is something that in this sense is protected, and necessary, or required (to some end, like life), and not to be lost. Why is a man and a woman the best option to raise any child? Because they're who produces it. Nobody else needs to agree with them, and their choice to be together is a choice or action that led to life itself. It doesn't challenge anything much. It goes with the flow. It's where we come from, and where we need to return to, regardless, in some way or another, to continue, and what requires the least work/energy, and least commitment and investment and cooperation of the fewest people (like in a machine, the fewest moving parts, least likely to be broken, or require outside fixing, like government), is a "marriage" between two: male and female, who only need to be partner to each other, and life centered in 'god'.
A woman and a woman or a single woman would require the cooperation of a male that is willing to forfeit his rights/his-autonomy (granted many men will jump at the chance, and many men are desperate) over his direction, to volunteer his semen, and often this means he hasn't quite achieved a fulfilled state, with his own family/children (and maybe needed
money). Two men adopting children seems to require that people failed at some point. A marriage between a man and a woman to create offspring, and further "society", and the "social-construct" (foundation...) is
sacred, holy, because it is the one thing for it (offspring, furthermost of human race) not predicated on failure of some sort, and requires the fewest, necessary ingredients to function, and doesn't require others, at all. Not really. It's the only match-up that needs to happen, that can't be subtracted. That's why it's "set apart", lifted up, and special.
Would I be mad at two gay men that "adopted" my children in the event of me becoming separated from them, and my wife disappearing in tsunami? No. I'd be thankful for them, and I might even take-up protecting them, and "our-rights", to exist, peacefully once I am somehow reunited with my children - having known they were taken care of. My main concern is keeping things in focus...not becoming lost in what we think "equality" is. I don't know. I also think that a man and a woman are the best option to raise any child, because any child, male or female, should have good models of male and female, and again, the most-least complicated mash-up is a man and a woman, committed to what comes next, and both there for the child(ren).. I don't mean to be absolutely condemning, but I am rather a minimalist, in respects.
(im sure you guys are already aware lol)
