Sorry for late reply: In vitro fertilization and surrogates. Basically you do not need to have sexual intercourse with someone in order to have children. Just need egg/sperm donor and you are set

I believe that both males and females offer different gifts to their children. There are certain things that come easier to males than they do to females, an vice versa. I believe that if two males raise a child the child might be missing out on a female influence. That's why we were created this way, male and female.

You don't need to have sex to make babies.

I commented on this in another reply if you want to reference that.

I don't care what you believe unless you can prove the children are actually harmed, "Gender roles are culture based, and while most cultures distinguish only two genders, some recognize more. Androgyny, for example, has been proposed as a third gender. Other societies have been claimed to see more than five genders, and some non-Western societies have three genders – man, woman and third gender." Also, that's sexist AF.

I can't prove it which is why I prefaced everything with "we believe." What's sexist about what I said? We value men and women equally and they have an equal part in the family decisions and structure. Let me ask you this: does a person's thoughts and opinions have any weight in determining what gender you are born as? If a man decides later in life to be a woman, does that mean he is no longer genetically a male? In our church we place great value on becoming comfortable with the gender you were born with. There are some people who are born hermaphrodites, and for those people I believe for the most part they are given the freedom to decide what gender they want to be in life. However to be born a hermaphrodite is extremely rare.

You can't take away someone's rights over a threat you can't prove exists. The idea that all women and only women give off a "feminine influence", and that men do the opposite, is blatantly sexist. Sex and gender are two different things, one is biological, the other psychological, so yes, of course it does.

I don't understand what "threat" you are talking about. And I don't think anyone's rights should be taken away. My original post was about how I may not agree with a gay person's lifestyle but I don't think anyone has the right to enforce a gay person to "not be gay." I guess in our church we have different opinions on gender than you. I believe that men are men and some things come easier to them than they do to women, and vice versa. I don't think that's sexist, it's just natural. It's logical to me that the ideal family structure would be a husband and a wife, since they both have unique gifts they can offer their children. There are men and women who due to circumstances have to raise a child as a single parent. I am pretty sure you are already familiar with some of their stories about how difficult it is to be both a mother and a father at the same time. It's possible, but really hard to do. I am confused as to your statement that sex is psychological and gender is biological. I was conversing under the impression that sex and gender were the same thing.

The threat that children will grow up handicapped in some way if they have gay parents, and that therefore gay parents should not raise children. The terms are often used interchangeably, but your gender role is not tied to your physical body. It's a social construction.

thats a thing sir