I couldn't disagree with this anymore if I tried. The kid absolutely needs a mother and a father in order to be conceived. So why once the child is born is it now ok that the child needing both parents is all the sudden optional? Kerpal gave a good answer imo.
Just because 2 partners are required to fertilize a child, it does not mean they are both necessary in order to raise it to be a healthy, productive member of society.
This statement basically defeats your entire argument. You have conceded that healthy, productive members of society can be raised in an "alternative" home environment. Thus, your claim that both a mother and father are required is refuted.
but this isn't the original way it was meant to be.
"Meant" to be by whom or what?
It takes two people to make a baby,therefore,those two people should raise the baby.
The conclusion does not follow the premise: just because two people produced a child,
whyis it necessary that they both must raise it?
Even if the child does turn out fine being raised by only one parent,the child will have a longing,a curiosity,a void created by the absense of a mother or father.
This is a sweeping generalization. And just because the child is cognizant of differences between its living situation and the norm, it does not necessarily lead to harmful consequences. Besides, greater than 50% of all marriages in the United States end in divorce anyway. A very large number of American children grow up in "alternative" housing arrangements.
As long as a child is well provided for, nurtured in a loving, supporting environment and is given opportunities to succeed in life, the child has everything he or she needs to be successful.
