You have your beliefs, but they are not supported by fact. A hetero marriage filled with adultery, abuse, financial instability, alcoholism, smoking, ignorance, poor nutritional diet would be preferable to a gay marriage where fidelity, love, financial stability, proper nutrition, etc. were the available? Makes zero sense. You see homosexuality as a perversion, which is a moral, and not a scientific judgment...we both know that. You don't approve of their sexual behavior, not for scientific reasons...but for personal reasons. None of this is rational. Your thinking was prevalent when white women first began to marry black men...most of the bigots saw this as a perverse and abnormal. Is homosexuality a choice? I don't know, and it really doesn't matter. No man should be forced to have sex with women and get married in a sham marriage simply because he wants to have children and is gay, no woman should be forced to have sex with a man and get married to a man in a sham marriage just to have children even though she is gay. The same goes for those who seek to have no sex but still want children, or those who enjoy sex with the same sex but still want children. If gay is a choice, it is none of anyone's business. You think more damage is done to the family structure via the abuse of alcohol or by the small percentage who are gay? We tried prohibition, it failed, and so will prohibition of homosexuality. You speak as if homosexuality is something new.... Your mind is very narrow, and irrational, that is 4 sure.
it doesn't matter to you whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It does to me. A black man doesn't have a choice, he got his black skin to protect him from the sun, females exist in every single living species. Both sexes are critical to reproduction and thus the survival of the species Gays ? Their existence contradict the theory of evolution, what would a specie develop a self-destructive suicidal trait (their inability to reproduce) and if truly "they were born like that" as some of them claim, how comes their sexual organs do not reflect that ? There is no key-hole coupling.
The existence of a gay man or woman contradict the theory of evolution? LOL! You do know that with modern science it is not even necessary for men and women to have intercourse to produce children, right? Too funny... Right now, because of the evolution of medical and biological science if everyone turned gay, we would still survive as a species... LMAO...
NOPE, The fact that Eggs and Spermatozoids are handled in a lab doesn't mean the underlying relationship ISN'Tl heterosexual (try to produce a kid with two eggs). Gays are a contradiction to the theory of evolution. They don't make sense, they're useless and disposable because they contribute 0 to the survival of the species..
Nonsense. A gay man may need a surrogate woman, but since they are available, and since medicine has evolved to the point where he need not marry that woman, nor live with that woman, a relationship beyond the sperm of the man and the egg and womb of the woman are all that are required. Sexual preference has nothing to do with basic biology and birth of a child. Your obsession that sexual preference that is different than your is a perversion is as outdated as the Mann act...
I get the point hat you want to compare apples and oranges. Obviously placing orphans in a low-conflict environment is highly desirable if not absolutely necessary. You have two potential adoptive families, both stable and low-conflict. One is a traditonal heterosexual marriage and the other is a homosexual couple. You have a baby that needs a home. Where do you place the baby?
Do you EVER think about the KID ! The KID is the son / daughter of a FATHER & a MOTHER. He NEEDS them both. The fact that science can HIDE some of this underlying FACT doesn't mean that it's not a FACT. A child is not the product of two fags, it's the product of the genetic material of a MAN and a WOMAN. You're spewing nonsense. Have you ever eaten a STEAK ? An animal has been slaughtered in the process. The fact that you and your clueless date don't want to "see" that doesn't mean steaks grow on trees. it's still a FACT. I'm not vegetarian by the way.
I place the baby where it gets the very best care possible. If we truly have apples to apples in a gay couple vs. a straight couple, as a realist I would lean to the straight couple, simply because the child would likely not have to explain to other children who are the product of ignorant bigoted parents why he didn't have both a mother and a father. However, the chances of apples to apples is much lower than you would think. If a gay couple can provide a better environment than a staight couple, then I go with the gay couple. What is best for the child is what matters most, and we should look at any and all possibilities. Now, your example is for adoption only. What of the gay couple who have the money to hire a surrogate? Why should they be denied the right to be married with children? Does anyone disagree that we have systemic problems in the family structure of America today? Why exclude any alternative that may help the child have a better life, simply because of ignorant prejudice? Okay, in an ideal world... Now, let's compare the data of reality, i.e. divorce, abuse, poverty, adultery, conflict etc. vs. a stable family of homosexual parents. Get the point yet? The article makes no comparison of the less than ideal reality of America today vs. long term studies of children brought up by stable, loving, well educated, conflict free, financially stable gay parents. [/QUOTE] I get the point hat you want to compare apples and oranges. Obviously placing orphans in a low-conflict environment is highly desirable if not absolutely necessary. You have two potential adoptive families, both stable and low-conflict. One is a traditonal heterosexual marriage and the other is a homosexual couple. You have a baby that needs a home. Where do you place the baby? [/QUOTE]
A man and woman marry, have children. The man is a soldier who is then killed in Iraq, leaving a widow and children. The woman does not remarry. The children were too young to have any memory of their father. Do the children need a new father, or do they have a father who is dead? It really doesn't matter if the father was known, or was some sperm from a sperm bank...what matters is that child knows that the parents of the child who are living and or were living when they chose to have that child, love the child and care for the child. Single parents, and children of single parents living successful lives will take great issue with your illogical position.
Unfortunate exceptional case. Their father will live through the memories of their mother. They still know they have a father who loved them, totally different than a child who's denied his origins. Intentions are extremely important.