Yipes! According to an article I posted somewhere in off-topic, women (unlike men) have no genetic propensity to a specific sexual orientation... so this could indeed lead to a world where men are no longer necessary...
Well not quite.
I bet it's expensive. Heh Heh Heh.
Not that I care. It's not a problem applicable to men that are alive today... more toward men who will be born as women... and what difference will that make? The last few men on Earth will no doubt have an easy time finding some niche in some womens' homes and will likely be pampered in ways we cannot imagine.

But as for reaching and opening bottles... More jobs will be created to make machines to do these things. And by then I will have made it into public office to declare the War on Icky Things in which all spiders, scorpions, and cockroaches will be eliminated just like all the poverty, drugs, and terrorism has been...
Oh... I guess they will need someone to kill icky things then.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

First, I do accept (perhaps I should say "in my opinion," but this one is a pretty strong one) that male dads, by their very presence, offer to their children a modeling figure that cannot be imitated by female mothers. Obviously, we are talking in generalities, or maybe due to the connotation that generalizing has as logically unsound we should say "we are talking in majoritalities." I do follow the idea that lack of the ideal does not mean presence of evil, so we have no disagreement there. However, if you agree that an ideal exists, why not strive for that instead of settle for the less desirous conditions? Your answer might be that you operate in reality rather than fantasy, and that although you recognize that ideal, that it is an ideal and is therefore not as suitable a method by which to form opinions as diagnosing the reality. (By this, I do not mean to enter words into your mouth, but rather to illustrate my desire to understand the truth and that I would hope to be able to see issues from as many angles as possible.) My response would offer my passion and commitment to the creation of a society that is a perfect in as many ways as humanly possible. This society would smell of true perfection as opposed to the perceived or contrived perfection that are Communism and Fascism. In order to attain this level of perfection, we must strive for the ideal and fight for that ideal as fiercely as possible, as long as it is a true ideal and not a propagandized representation or illusion. And, true, we must be able to operate in reality, but I posit that much of the reality observed in the world finds its rooting in human activity and beliefs. Similar to supply and demand, reality and human beliefs and actions work from each other, with reality influencing our beliefs and actions and our actions and beliefs influencing reality. Thusly, we can change reality through changing our beliefs and activity, and therefore we must strive to change our beliefs and actions to create a reality more aligned with the ideals that we desire.

You say that due to the existence of gay couples that would be better parents than some straight couples, we should allow all gay people to become parents. You make a conclusion based upon comparing the good within one group to the bad within another, when you should more precisely compare good to good, or perfect to perfect, or even bad against bad or worst to worst. Your comparisons need to translate evenly. The cliché is "comparing apples and oranges" and that construct leads to an illogical conclusion. However, you may be right that gay parents are fine and not detrimental, but I believe that you need to be more precise in your analysis and consideration of the evidence.

First, as I've been taught, I need to see the evidence you have that children of same-sex parents end up fine. I can see both sides in this case, but I wonder why, since nature has designed conception as the union of male and female DNA, children shouldn't grow up better in families, all other things equal, having both a male parent and a female parent? Many arguments from one side of the other involve the idea of "naturalness" as a measurement for morality or ethicality of certain actions or beliefs. I am undecided with respect to the relevance of nature in decision-making and to the validity of the basis by which one determines whether something is natural.

You then reduce my argument to the idea that teasing isn't the ruler of opinion, but I have recently learned that this is an example of a straw man argument. My argument considered the long-term effects of single parent childhood, not schoolyard behavior.

We shouldn't encourage or facilitate antisocial behavior. Your response is more of a dismissal of my argument than anything else. Maybe I am overreacting. There are some in this situation who would say that you are underreacting, but I just don't know enough to say who is reacting properly, or more properly than the other, or even what the correct reaction would be.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Los Angeles voters=dumber than rocks.

Anecdotal as it might be, I have seen enough evidence in my life that the things required of a parent are neither universal nor exclusive to the respective sexes. If indeed there are any differences especially male or female, wouldn't logic dictate that it is genetic anyway?
It is dangerous to allow stereotypes and generalities to trump individual circumstances. I would expect you, a libertarian, to understand that.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I do acknowledge that there are all types of people out there, whether they be male or female. It is a very common understanding that genetically, females carry two so-called "X" chromosomes and males carry one "X" and one so-called "Y" chromosome. These chromosomes are not simply indicators of sex classification, but carriers of vast arrays of genetic information. True, I do not really understand the specifics of what these chromosomes affect, it is true that generally different genes mean different characteristics. These characteristics, as I don't need to inform you, may be either physical or behavioral or both. This is what leads me to the belief that men and women bring different abilities to the relationship and to parenting. Of course this wouldn't mean that either sex is better than the other, but merely that we need both sexes to work together. Women can supply their strengths to make up for the weaknesses of men, and men make up for weaknesses in women. It is like notch-in-slots or dovetailing.

It is true that we should consider individual circumstances when making decisions, but policymaking affects everybody, so we also must consider the general plane. It is true that I am a Libertarian, but I am more conservative when it comes to issues that affect children. Sure, I might be wrong that children will do not as well with same-sexed parents. I am not a Libertarian idealogue. Am a Libertarian based on the fact that I agree with almost everything that Libertarians believe when looking at all the issues seperately. In fact, part of my Libertarianism is recognizing that legalizing same-sex parenting and marriage involves the passage of new laws, and I am against the enaction of new laws before the Legislature throws out old laws that suck, and the dissolution of old, non-working fingers of the government. I want what is good for society, whatever the politics of it. I am Libertarian because I think that libertarianism will do the most good for society, not because I am following any movement or "master."

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Los Angeles voters=dumber than rocks.

The problem is that no one can come up with anything specific that a male father can teach that a female with "masculine" qualities cannot. And whenever they do I can think of at least a few examples where it doesn't hold true- usually all it takes is my wife and I.
My wife is an engineer and an extreme left-brain dominant introvert. She has feminine qualities also. I tend to be social, nurturing, and other traits considered "motherly". Have masculine characteristics as well... But the end result is that if we had a child... I'd act as traditional "mother" and she'd act as traditional "father". It's not an exact match because theoretically we have all bases covered in case something is inherent to male or female... but it certainly kills a lot of traditional gender role ideas.
And I can't think of anything specific my inherent maleness or her inherent femaleness would do to a child.
The only semi-concrete thing people can come up with is "confusion" which is really an alarmist way of saying "the kids feel different from other kids". This is already faced by a myriad of other kids... and when it comes down to it, it is "less than ideal" rather than anything fatalistic or dangerous. Frankly I think I've seen more harm done by parents who overreact to "less than ideal" circumstances than the circumstances themselves.
I was a child of divorce, but I turned out fine. My parents minimalized the impact by being responsible in their choice. It stands to reason that gay parents can minimalize impact, as do most parents with a stigma attached.

The introduction of new laws you speak of... Superficially it is an introduction of laws... but realistically it is a removal of restrictions.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside