How many religions need external aid to have children?

How many single parent households need external aid to have children?

how many IVF families require external aid to have children?

Well, to be honest, society and the environment pretty much have children conditioned relative to what is and is not attractive pretty early.  Finding skinny girls attractive, for instance, is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Previously, thin would mean poor, which is the opposite of now.  Also, tanned would indicate outdoor labor, so pale skin was considered more attractive.  Conditioning is very powerful, a lot more powerful than people realize.

You can make pretty much anyone like anything, or hate anything, by association.  That's why those hair club ads have the person looking sad in the "before" picture and happy in the "after" picture, to create an association between those concepts.  One of the more famous psychological experiments produced boot fetishes in men who did not have that fetish previously.

Single parent families don't need help to have children, but the statistics indicate why it is a benefit to have a stable two-parent/married household to raise children. Even then, people don't seem to have problems with unbiased studies being performed on children of single parent households.

IVF families do require external aid, and the main reason why heterosexual couples require IVF is due to waiting far too long to have children. At the same time, I don't think anyone would be all that offended if someone ran unbiased studies to compare the results of children raised in households were the parents were older.

Way to miss the point...

How is the birth relevant to the household a child grows up in?

Actually, no ...

How men rank the attractiveness of women based on body weight generally follows a normal distribution with the mean being (essentially) the ideal weight and body fat levels in terms of health.

While Venus in this image may not be the stick thin model that gay-men and women prefer from fashion magazines, she does have the proportions of a woman at a very healthy body weight; and her defined abs indicate that she is not significantly over-weight.

I think you missed the point ...

If marriage is about providing the best outcomes for children doesn't it have to be proven that gay couples can provide similar or better outcomes for children before you claim that they can be married?

What are you talking about?  When did I say anything about over-weight being attractive?

Sorry I assumed your comment "Finding skinny girls attractive, for instance, is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Previously, thin would mean poor, which is the opposite of now." was related to the commonly repeated myth that fat women were attractive in the renaissance.

With that said, I think my core point stands: men have been fairly consistent with what they've found attractive although the fasion industry (which is not controlled by heterosexual men anymore) has drastically changed its standards over the past several decades.

What would make a Homosexual couple less equipped to raise a child than a straight couple? Also, what if a Married couple decides not to have children? Why do children have to be the driving force of a marriage? And most importantly, Who are you, or I, or anybody to say that two adults who love each other can't get married because we're unsure of how they'll be as parents? There are plenty of crappy straight parents.