I refuse to debate the difference between religion and sexual preferrence.....but on your second point... Do you think that you walk in to a sperm bank, make a withdrawal and inseminate yourself to get pregnant? Please tell me you're joking.
he makes no point.....comparing being born into a religion and being placed with 2 guys for parents is ridiculous MC...do you have children
why not? do you think one is a choice and the other isn't? as long as you have the cash i really doubt they care what you do with it.
you obviously don't have a clue as to how the process works so Im not going to argue with you about it
as a matter of fact... one is a choice made by everyone BUT the person it affects the most...the child one is not a choice
your parents did not choose to be Jewish and/or raise you Jewish? Religion is a involuntary biologial function now?
To make a long story short.....there are many things that you have to do before you just decide to inseminate...never mind go through an in vitro cycle...its not as easy as waking up one day and deciding you are going to the hospital to get some sperm.
Look...like I told you, i won't ague religion issues versus sexual preferrences...they aren't apples and apples IMO...one of the reasons I wont argue the point with you is that I know next to nothing about religion, religious philosophy etc. Ask someone else that question.
I'll concur with mc mark's observation. i know several children of gay couples and they are no worse for wear then other kids. I guess it seems 'odd' until you've accepted it...but the kids adapt pretty well.
you already did when you said one is a choice and one isn't. if you're confident about that then back it up
i gave you my opnion of why one is and one isnt...if you didnt like it then i dont know what to tell you
dude...enough...you obviously disagree with me and find my opinions on gays having kids offensive....just leave it at that
And just to make another point. As far as I know, none of them has ever EVER had their parents try to espouse one sexual lifestyle over the other.
NJRocket, Forget sperm banks and adoption - a gay couple could easily find a woman to carry the child for them, while a lesbian couple could easily find a man to impregnate one of them. They'd then have a kid - no way to prevent that. Juan Valdez, I agree that many different moral codes can be (and have been) brought to the table when discussing public policy. However, the founding fathers also included logic and reason (as would be expected from people living during the Age of Reason) as a key component when determining law. So ultimately, the issue of gay marriage should be decided not on ancient teachings, but by rational reasoning. Unfortunately, this is very difficult when you have competing philosophies (Christianity vs. humanism) assuming the inherent rightness of their viewpoints. Personally, I think the homosexual organizations have done a piss-poor job presenting their case for gay marriage. Instead of finding stable, non-threatening and attractive couples who personify the good side of gay marriage, they've allowed flaky celebrities like Anne Heche (who comes off like a wacko) and Melissa Etheridge (who chose David Crosby - DAVID CROSBY - to be the father of her child) to become the default faces of gay relationships. This is no way to win what is (in many ways) a public relations battle. The Civil Rights Organizations planned their fight of segregation for decades, and only made their challenge once they identified the right plaintiffs (attractive and non-threatening) and sympathetic allies in the legal system. If, for example, they had used someone like Jack Johnson to be their plaintiff in an interracial marriage case, they would have had their asses handed to them. I have seen little evidence of similar patience or planning in the homosexual organizations. I don't like the fact that something as important as equal rights must be tarnished by such superficiality. You didn't see it when free speech was significantly defended Larry Flynt (a truly repulsive individual). But I don't think that will work in this case - homosexuality seems to inspire some kind of innate 'ick' reaction in many people. Combine that with religion, and you're facing a large population that has no interest in discussing the issue rationally. The only way to fight this is to present plaintiffs who are attrative and sympathetic enough to inspire people to put aside their biases.
