His statement as to how one should logically justify hetero-only marriage is exactly the way I've always felt.
If you want to convince me that marriage is meant only for heterosexual couples, you will need to prove the following:
- Marriage is primarily about raising children; and
- Children have the right to a male father and a female mother.
Therefore, you would have to focus on the second.
Frankly, in doing so, you'd also have to prove to me that gender is the defining characteristic for a human being.
That is to say, one of the concepts behind the need for a male father and a female mother is that a child needs a role model of the same gender (especially in how to interact with the opposite gender).
I do not disagree with this.
However, I also assert that a child with autism also needs a role model with autism.
A child needs a role model as how to interact with the same gender.
A gay child needs a gay role model.
A child who excels in mathematics needs a role model who excels in mathematics.
A child who is passionate about painting needs a role model who is passionate about painting.
A child who must interact with aborigines needs a role model who interacts with aborignes.
So, if we were to say that, ideally, a boy needs a male role model to show him how to be a male and how to interact with women, I would need to see logical proof that such is the most important, basic, and vital aspect of a person's life and well-being.
Frankly I'm not convinced it is.
I know people who get along splendidly with the opposite gender, playing their own gender roles perfectly... in fact, it's really all they know how to do... and, frankly... they aren't much good to society. I mean, if all you can do is know "how to be the typical male" or "how to be the typical female" what exactly can you make out of life?
Furthermore, role models are found not just in parents but in peers, siblings, teachers, professionals... everywhere. My parents are my role models for completely different reasons than my friends' parents are role models to my friends. My parents are my role models for completely different reasons than they are to my siblings.
Each person is an individual. We each value different things. We each search for different things in this life.
Ideally our parents aren't our role models for one specific or main thing.
Ideally our parents are the ones who guide us through this life to discern what traits merit emulation.
They are the ones who provide love, guidance, and protection.
Which brings me to the other argument for male-female relationships: a child needs a provider and protector (male) as well as a nurturer (female).
It is ludicrous and completely illogical to me to claim that one person is more capable of loving, providing, protecting, or nurturing based on physiology.
That's not to say that I don't understand there are differences, significant even, between males and females.
However, to proclaim that there are significant differences between males and females while completely ignoring that there are significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is hypocritical.
Furthermore, it's also hypocritical not to admit to the significant differences between one heterosexual and another, between one person and another.
I have personally witnessed heterosexual couples where the father is the nurturer and the mother is the provider/protector.
... so, it's going to take quite a bit for anyone to prove to me that children have the right to be raised by a male-female companionship.
It is my belief that a child has the right to be raised by parents who will love, provide, protect, and teach.
Ideally, in my opinion, it is the individual's choice to seek out and choose the person who would best match him/her in parenting without any constraints -- such as "You can only parent with [Group XX]."