Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Those are mandatory costs. If the couple choose the alternative they incur the greater costs of having a child.
Not to mention, if they have Roman Catholic ideology, they are forced into severe moral compromises if they pursue abortion and contraception.
In short, having a child costs, the alternative costs. Homosexual couples are not forced into these predicaments.
|
So you've gone from being able to possibly have children if a couple chooses as a justification to having the possibility of an accidental predicament as a justification.
First, this line of reasoning is so absurd I'm surprised I'm still at it. You are obviously turning this issue over and over in your mind while grappling with what is really prejudice. You are still starting with the conclusion and reverse-engineering a reasoning. You'll work it out in time, if you can see truly, but I guess in the meantime I'm along for the ride as a counselor to help you get where you're going.
Here's a couple -- they're mostly-lesbian bisexuals (they like to do men occassionally, but long-term can only be with a woman) with an open relationship who attend swingers parties. They have the possibility of having an "accidental" child. Moreover, they're both practicing Catholics so they don't believe in birth control of any kind. They have the exact same possibilities of the hetero couple you mentioned.
Oh, and if one of the gets pregnant, they do intend to keep the baby. No blessing should be denied. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]
Now, scurry along and dream up some new "test" to distinguish these ladies and their possible predicament from your much-beloved hetero couple.
Or, just be big about it and realize your prejudice. [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]