Breastfeeding creates a bond between mother and infant that is not achievable in any other way.
Codswallop. And insulting to those women who for whatever reason have been unable or who choose not to breastfeed. For the sake of full disclosure, I breastfed all my four children for up to 2.5 years each; but I do not denigrate either the experience or the bonding ability of those mothers who did not breastfeed (perhaps, for example, because their milk dried up following a traumatic birth)
Not quite correct. Before the women's lib movement, most women were homemakers; i.e., they didn't work outside the home. Men were the breadwinners, and the jobs they did to win "bread" typically required that they wear pants--coal miners, lumberjacks, longshoremen, fire fighters, construction workers, soldiers, roofers, carpenters, mechanics, etc. Thus the expression "He wears the pants in the family" was not necessarily, as you suppose, a pejorative directed at women.
History fail, I'm sorry to say. For the majority of recorded history, only rich women (i.e. in the main, those supported by rich men) could afford to be homemakers. Most working class and single middle class women worked outside the home long before the equality movement gave more women the freedom to choose. Women were (and are) farmers, midwives, domestic servants, factory workers, authors, seamstresses, weavers, miners, wet-nurses, cleaners - so much more than just governesses and companions. But most written history concentrates on the lives of the rich, and it's necessary to do a bit of reading to really understand the everyday lives of the majority of ordinary people.
"Women's lib", as you call it, is a recent phenomenon, but working women have always been part of society both in the developed and the developing worlds. The movement towards legalising same sex marriage is doing for homosexual couples what the feminist movement did for women; to allow them to formalise what was already happening. Most families can point to an uncle, aunt or cousin who 'lived with their friend' all their lives; now those people can publicise their love and commitment the same way that opposite sex couples can.
General rules of thumb--as you demonstrate--tend to lead to sweeping generalizations, which are of little value.
Indeed. Generalisations about the way people behave such as linking promiscuity to sexuality, or sexual practices to sexuality, or gender roles in the 20th/21st century to the previous centuries, may be less than helpful.
Some homosexuals are promiscuous, some are not.
Some heterosexuals are promiscuous, some are not.
Some homosexual men practice anal sex with their partners, some do not.
Some heterosexual men practice anal sex with their partners, some do not.
Some homosexual couples have (or want) children, some do not.
Some heterosexual couples have (or want) children, some do not.
Some homosexual couples want to marry, some do not.
Some heterosexual couples want to marry, some do not.
No church or religious organisation is going to be forced to conduct marriages of same sex couples. Nobody needs to feel threatened by the extension of marriage to same-sex couples.
That some people find it threatening or difficult to accept that love and commitment cross gender and sexuality boundaries is not a good reason to prevent couples from marrying, any more than the laws in the US forbidding mixed race marriages were based on good reasons. All the reasons that have been made against same sex marriage in this thread reflect the reasons that used to be made against mixed race marriage - that the children would be confused about their racial identity (gender roles), or that black/white/yellow/purple people are inherently promiscuous so the marriages would end, or that it's 'against nature'. The so-called reasons are just as spurious, and just as outdated.
