[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: So, homosexuality is purely done for birth control? Boy, did I ever have the wrong impression!

That's not even a very good dodge! Surely you realize this reasoning has a flaw. There may be other arguments out there, but I don't think you can stick to your guns on this one.

If you'll go back and read my page 1-3 posts about this, you'll find that one good argument is that we NEED as many couples as we can get -- homosexual or not -- to adopt children that are in need of a home. As I mentioned in those posts, two fathers is better than none. Procreation brings about a lot of issues. Homosexual couples provide a great social service in that they often adopt -- providing a home for a kid that otherwise would have none.

I think the social/family benefits of homosexual couples outweight the detriments. I mean, these people are going to be couples regardless -- they have already chosen that lifestyle with or without the right to marry. As well, they also currently DO adopt (with only 1 parent being on the paperwork). Recognizing that this is a real and existing form of family unit in the US is a social good -- otherwise you are branding all the kids adopted by gays and making them second-class citizens, no matter how they grow up and whether or not they choose to be gay.

I just don't see the argument based on procreation standing up to reasonable, unbiased scrutiny. [/QUOTE]Sure I can! For one, homosexuals are not sterile! How's that?