(spoiler)
...since the family has to decide which one of their member to sacrifice, the answer would be too obvious in a conventional male/female couple with a young daughter, as the traditional role model for the father would be to protect the females in his family. More suspense with a same sex couple (either male or female).
As far as I know gay couples use traditional role models as well. And isn't the weaker (=female) character sacrified in this one?
shareBoth good points.
But I suppose in the case of this film's same sex couple, where both men are of approximately the same build and age, which one is the "weaker" is entirely a matter of their personality (which you get to discover as the story unfolds), rather than biology (not saying some females are not physically stronger than some males; but most are not, and it would be immediately obvious from the beginning of the film).
What you said is a pretty interesting way of looking at the film, but that's only looking at it in a boring traditional way. That's because the sacrifice is not dependent on who's considered the weakest or the strongest---it's the fact that the couple was being told that a sacrifice was being required at all in the first place, which is disturbing enough.
shareThat's a really good point. Never considered that but it makes total sense.
shareAlso because it gave them a reason to think they were being targeted by homophobic religious fanatics. What other reason could they come up with when it seemed completely arbitrary that they were the ones chosen?
shareIt's that way in the book. It isn't like Shyamalan just randomly decided to make it this way.
shareI think it added an extra dimension to the plot to think they may have been targeted and not just tokenism.
share