I am not talking about morality, we are talking about the fact that you equated me or Christians to terrorist fundamentalist muslims because I dare to question your view of gay marriage. you are an intolerant person full of envy and hate.
Oooh, I'm convinced. So, next I typed in "the dude of life homosexual" and got 855,000 hits. Innnnnteresting. I should do more of this "research."
(Didn't the klan start in Indianapolis as well?) When Did George Orwell Move to Indianapolis? Posted October 4, 2005 | 07:59 PM (EST) stumbleupon :When Did George Orwell Move to Indianapolis? digg: When Did George Orwell Move to Indianapolis? reddit: When Did George Orwell Move to Indianapolis? del.icio.us: When Did George Orwell Move to Indianapolis? For years, libertarians and Republicans alike have complained bitterly about the left wing's interference in the private life of the average citizen. And they had some reason to do so: At their worst, social liberals can sometimes push too hard, acting as though there were only one proper way for to live and work. But just as the rightwing has shown, through the actions of Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, that they can be more dishonest and more corrupt than the left, the right wing is also proving how it can be more intrusive and autocratic when it comes to dictating the lives we lead in our own homes. The one place where Americans have generally assumed no one -- from the left or the right -- could interfere was the freedom to reproduce. An adult who wishes to have a child, has the right to have a child. Not any more. According to the gay news site 365gay.com, legislation has been introduced in the Indiana legislature to prohibit gays, lesbians and even single people from using medical science to assist them in giving birth. The bill has the support of State Senator Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis), who is the chair of the Health Finance Commission where the legislation is currently being considered. If passed, no Indiana doctor would be able to assist any pregnancy involving a woman who wishes to be artificially inseminated, or impregnated through an egg donor, or given in-vitro fertilization, unless the woman meets a number of conservative-based factors. Among these factors: The woman would have to be married to a person of the opposite sex. She would have to meet certain standards of a family lifestyle. She could not be a lesbian. She would have to engage in faith-based or church activities. There are a number of other regulations being considered, but the real point here is to prevent a lesbian from having a child with the help of medical science unless she is basically so closeted that she herself doesn't know she's gay. The other point here is something that has become a standard theme of the Republican party, despite the fact that its own chairman, Ken Mehlman, has never denied that he himself isn't gay: To try and do everything it can to make it impossible for a gay man or lesbian to live a normal and happy life. You just have to wonder: With all that's going on in the world, is depriving an American citizen of the right to use medical science to have a baby really one of the most pressing issues facing the country? If you live in Indiana, the answer seems to be yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-stone/when-did-george-orwell-mo_b_8343.html
here's medical progress for you ... http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_artificial_insemination.html The Incredible Shrinking Father Kay S. Hymowitz Artificial insemination begets children without paternity, with troubling cultural and legal consequences. Hereâs a Delphic riddle for our times: When is your father not your father? Answer: when heâs a sperm donor. Consider a case now before the Kansas Supreme Court. An unmarried woman in her early thirties decided that she wanted a child and asked a friend to be a sperm donor. He agreed, one thing led to another, which led to a syringe of his sperm, which led to the birth of twins. The mother says that she always intended to raise the kids alone and never wanted the friend involved in their lives. The donor says that he planned to be the twinsâ father in name and practice. There is no written contract. What does the contemporary Solomon do? Well, in a Kansas trial court, Solomon rules that without a contract the twins have no father. The man who provided half of the childrenâs genetic material has no more relationship to them than does the taxi driver who rushed their mother to the hospital when she went into labor. Now, assuming that the supreme court upholds the decision, the state of Kansas can celebrate adding two more fatherless children to its population, and Mom can rejoice by dressing her twins in bibsâavailable over the Internetâproudly announcing: my daddyâs name is donor. Youâd think that we had enough problems keeping fathers around in this country, what with out-of-wedlock births (over a third of all children are born to unmarried women, and, in most cases, the fathers will fade from the picture) and divorce (the average divorced dad sees his kids less often than he takes his car in for an oil change). But these days, American fatherhood has yet another hostile force to contend with: artificial insemination. This may sound a tad overheated. After all, AI has been around, by some accounts, for over a century. And the number of kids born through the procedure each year, though steadily growing, remains quite small relative to the millions of babies conceived, as we can now say completely without irony, the old-fashioned way. But aided by a lucrative sperm-bank service industry, an increasingly unmarried consumer base, a legal profession and judiciary geared toward seeing relationships through a contractual lens, and a growing cultural preference for individual choice without limits, AI is advancing a cause once celebrated only in the most obscure radical journals: the dad-free family. There are multiple ironies in this unfolding revolution, not least that the technology that allows women to have a family without men promotes the very male carelessness that leads a lot of women to become single mothers .... http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_artificial_insemination.html keep it up comrade ZZZZZzzzzzz, you're begining to remind me why I can't stand the left.
Fully fallacy driven argument from the klannish destroyed below: Man marries woman. Man impregnates wife. Wife has twins. Man dies in a car wreck. Woman raises children with no husband and no father to children. End of story. Klannish have no reasoning ability... Man marries woman. Man impregnates wife. Wife has twins. Man divorces wife and pays no child support. Woman raises children with no husband and no father to children. End of story. Again, Klannish have no reasoning ability. Man rapes woman. Woman has twins. Man goes to jail. Woman raises children with no husband and no father to children. End of story. A father is not necessary to have raise children in the three examples above, the state did not require the woman to go out and get another husband or father to her children, the state did not assign a husband and/or father...though she could have gone looking for one if she wanted to... Your vision of society is one of repression and control.
Children that do not grow up in a with a Father(Mother) are destined to be alot of things. But more often than not it wont be 100% normal. I know from firsthand experience. And have friends the same way. Two moms or two dads raising a child is not natural or a single parent for that matter. There has to be the joint influence of Father and Mother. Centuries of psychology have proved that. I praise anybody that adopts an unwanted child. Gay or straight. But to raise a child purposefully alone is a tragedy.