[quote=Zeta-Flux;185852]Now, to the heart of my question. The task force paper asserts that "Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects." So, imagine that Steve is a bisexual man, equally attracted to both genders. He is trying to decide whom to form a relationship with; Sally or Sam. Is it the case that whomever he chooses, the relationships would be "equivalent...in essential respects"?
[/quote]
Yes, Steve's hypothetical relationship with Sally is absolutely equivalent (or should be) to his alternative relationship with Sam. That is irrespective of whether Steve chooses to bring up children with either partner. And both possible partnerships (with or without children) would constitute a family, much more so than most of the 10 example groups you listed elsewhere in that posting.

I appreciate that you are just using bisexual Steve's "choosing" between Sally and Sam as a convenient example and that you already know what I am about to say. But because there is so much general ignorance about bisexuality, I would like to point out that bisexual people don't "choose" who they fall in love with any more than, say, heterosexual Betty might choose whether she marries John or Philip. Falling in love and settling down with your partner/family works in just the same way whether you are straight, gay or bisexual (except that in many parts of the world society's pressure makes it very hard or impossible to couple up with a member of the same sex, and precisely that societal prejudice can change people's behaviour with the result that they and their potential partners and families end up very unhappy).

[QUOTE=wblipp;185889]Obviously not an essential aspect of EVERY family. Post menapausal widows have been known to marry. Infertile men have been known to marry.[/QUOTE]William, I agree. As mentioned above, there are numerous definitions of "family". Are each of these types of families essentially equivalent? See the hypothetical I raised.

----------------------

[QUOTE=Brian-E]Yes, Steve's hypothetical relationship with Sally is absolutely equivalent (or should be) to his alternative relationship with Sam. That is irrespective of whether Steve chooses to bring up children with either partner. And both possible partnerships (with or without children) would constitute a family, much more so than most of the 10 example groups you listed elsewhere in that posting.

I appreciate that you are just using bisexual Steve's "choosing" between Sally and Sam as a convenient example and that you already know what I am about to say. But because there is so much general ignorance about bisexuality, I would like to point out that bisexual people don't "choose" who they fall in love with any more than, say, heterosexual Betty might choose whether she marries John or Philip. Falling in love and settling down with your partner/family works in just the same way whether you are straight, gay or bisexual (except that in many parts of the world society's pressure makes it very hard or impossible to couple up with a member of the same sex, and precisely that societal prejudice can change people's behaviour with the result that they and their potential partners and families end up very unhappy).[/QUOTE]Brian-E, thanks for your response.

In my experience, one does choose whom to fall in love with, and whom to marry. Taking free will out of the picture makes love something that I find disgusting and carnal. Love is more than physical attraction.

I also have to disagree with your assertion that a relationship without children is equivalent to one with children. There are, in my opinion, essential differences. Such families differ emotionally, with respect to the use of time, what one is concentrated on, etc...

Finally, I have to honestly say I'm surprised that you expect if Steve joins with Sally or with Sam the relations would be equivalent. In one relationship, the two can physically unite to create children. In one relationship there are complementary genders; and I think we'd agree that genders are essentially non-equivalent in many ways. In the other, there are equal genders, who can understand one another at a level the opposite-gendered couple cannot. There would be no birthing process. Or dealing with hormonal periods and PMS. etc...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185967]In my experience, one does choose whom to fall in love with, and whom to marry. Taking free will out of the picture makes love something that I find disgusting and carnal. Love is more than physical attraction.[/quote]
I'm not suggesting there is complete absence of free will when you fall in love. But I don't believe it's so simple - for most people anyway - that someone like your bisexual Steve would likely be in a position to say to himself: "here's Sally, here's Sam, which one should I most sensibly fall in love with". Overpowering emotions such as love (and a few others such as grief or terror) cannot always reliably be switched on or off using rational considerations. Some control is there but other involuntary factors play a part too and are often overriding.

[quote]I also have to disagree with your assertion that a relationship without children is equivalent to one with children. There are, in my opinion, essential differences. Such families differ emotionally, with respect to the use of time, what one is concentrated on, etc...[/quote]Of course whether you have children or not plays a crucial role in the structure of the family and how you spend your time. All I'm saying is that a pair who choose not to have children (or cannot have them) are just as valid as a family unit as a pair who do have children.

[quote]Finally, I have to honestly say I'm surprised that you expect if Steve joins with Sally or with Sam the relations would be equivalent. In one relationship, the two can physically unite to create children. In one relationship there are complementary genders; and I think we'd agree that genders are essentially non-equivalent in many ways. In the other, there are equal genders, who can understand one another at a level the opposite-gendered couple cannot. There would be no birthing process. Or dealing with hormonal periods and PMS. etc...[/quote]There is a growing number of countries in which same-sex couples can and do become parents by following a number of possible routes. I am fortunate to live in one such country. The fact that the two will not both be biological parents is not a major issue. Your points about same- or different genders, whether or not birth occurs with one of the partners of the relationship, and issues of hormonal periods and PMS, all seem to me unimportant details. All couples (and their children if applicable) have their particular issues to deal with, sometimes unique to the particular family. It's all part of life.So what?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;185978]I'm not suggesting there is complete absence of free will when you fall in love. But I don't believe it's so simple - for most people anyway - that someone like your bisexual Steve would likely be in a position to say to himself: "here's Sally, here's Sam, which one should I most sensibly fall in love with". Overpowering emotions such as love (and a few others such as grief or terror) cannot always reliably be switched on or off using rational considerations. Some control is there but other involuntary factors play a part too and are often overriding.[/quote]I don't agree with the "overriding" part, but I agree that my example was very simple. Feel free to make it more complex to avoid the issue you raise, if you so desire. For example, Steve might be considering which gender he wishes to start courting. If he never courts Sally, he'll never fall in love with her. etc...

[quote]Of course whether you have children or not plays a crucial role in the structure of the family and how you spend your time. All I'm saying is that a pair who choose not to have children (or cannot have them) are just as valid as a family unit as a pair who do have children.[/quote]The question here is not validity. The question is what psychologists tell their patients about relationships and families. Knowing what I know now, I would say that the psychologist was lying to me if he/she claimed relationships with children are equivalent in essential respects to relationship without them.

[quote]There is a growing number of countries in which same-sex couples can and do become parents by following a number of possible routes. I am fortunate to live in one such country. The fact that the two will not both be biological parents is not a major issue. Your points about same- or different genders, whether or not birth occurs with one of the partners of the relationship, and issues of hormonal periods and PMS, all seem to me unimportant details.[/quote]Then we simply disagree. I believe that there are essential differences between genders, and this plays over into differences between same-gender and different-gender couples. I also think those things listed above are not unimportant details to the couples living through them. The same-sex couple might appreciate not having to deal with opposite gender issues. The heterosexual couple might struggle with their differences. etc...

[quote]All couples (and their children if applicable) have their particular issues to deal with, sometimes unique to the particular family. It's all part of life.So what?[/QUOTE]The things I listed above were not particular issues, but common issues to most couples.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185984]The question here is not validity. The question is what psychologists tell their patients about relationships and families. Knowing what I know now, I would say that the psychologist was lying to me if he/she claimed relationships with children are equivalent in essential respects to relationship without them.[/quote]
I agree that having children changes everything for a couple. It must be the most important single decision they ever have to make together.
But how is this relevant to either the APA's report which Cheesehead introduced or to this entire thread's question of whether marriage should be opened to same sex couples? - considering that having children is by no means the exclusive prerogative of opposite sex couples.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;186010]I agree that having children changes everything for a couple. It must be the most important single decision they ever have to make together.
But how is this relevant to either the APA's report which Cheesehead introduced or to this entire thread's question of whether marriage should be opened to same sex couples? - considering that having children is by no means the exclusive prerogative of opposite sex couples.[/QUOTE]Or, indeed, couples.

Paul

[QUOTE=Brian-E;186010]I agree that having children changes everything for a couple. It must be the most important single decision they ever have to make together.
But how is this relevant to either the APA's report which Cheesehead introduced or to this entire thread's question of whether marriage should be opened to same sex couples? - considering that having children is by no means the exclusive prerogative of opposite sex couples.[/QUOTE]It was relevant because when answering my question about whether certain relationships were equivalent, you seemed to imply that it didn't matter if they did or did not have children. You might have wanted to limit your answer to the question of whether or not such relationships constitute families (which, as I've said multiple times, does not require children, under many definitions); but that was not the question I asked.

It is further relevant, I believe, to (at least) one of the claims of the APA task force that I listed earlier.

P.S. In one important sense, *having* children is indeed the prerogative of only opposite gender couples. In the other senses of *having* children, as Paul suggested, it doesn't even take a couple.

[QUOTE=xilman;186045]Or, indeed, couples.

Paul[/QUOTE]Among the human population, and without the aid of technology, it takes exactly two people. Were you thinking of cloning, or what happens in non-human populations, or were you thinking of "having children" in the broader environment of "raising children"? Perhaps you were thinking about the very small (and still undocumented) possibility of a human fertilizing itself?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;186065]Among the human population, and without the aid of technology, it takes exactly two people. Were you thinking of cloning, or what happens in non-human populations, or were you thinking of "having children" in the broader environment of "raising children"? Perhaps you were thinking about the very small (and still undocumented) possibility of a human fertilizing itself?[/QUOTE]There are a number of technological possibilities, as perhaps you hint. Let's not consider them [i]pro tem[/i].

Among the non-technological possibilities, consider the situations in which one parent dies before the child is born. Antenatal paternal death has been well documented for many many years. The maternal counterpart is more common these days than it was, at large part because of modern medical technology, but by no means unheard of back in the good old days. For all intents and purposes, the child(ren) concerned have only one parent for their entire independent life.

Fraternal twins by two different fathers are also well attested. It is far from clear to me that such an arrangement could reasonably be described as "a couple".

Cases of (perhaps willfully) mis-attributed fatherhood I'll leave for another day.


Paul

Don't forget conjoined twins, who also need each other along with their parents. Or chimeras. Or...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;186158]Don't forget conjoined twins, who also need each other along with their parents. Or chimeras. Or...[/quote]

That is a stupid response to well thought out objections by xilman. You obviously don't have a leg to stand on and are thus throwing in a straw-man.