>the comradery and care two adults can have for each other can be reflected into children no matter the gender of the adults who serve as examples.
The love between a man and a woman is unique and no other arrangement replicates it.
The love between a man and a woman is unique and no other arrangement replicates it.
I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that.
So, since a child's life isn't impacted by the specific configuration that a penis and vagina can happen to join in, what do you mean?
Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?
I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.
Why do genitals matter?
Quantitatively false:
According to the team, there are almost 20 quadrillion ants on Earth right now. That’s a 20 followed by 15 zeroes, which is a number that’s hard to really get your head around.
In terms of tonnage and sheer numbers there are many many more ants than humans - clearly their method of producing life "wins".
As a quick heads up, they don't have loving two parent families.
Evolution only operates on "ability to live long enough and put oneself in a circumstance that enables making a baby."