Considering you can show no detriment to the child in being raised by homosexuals, it boils down to you being selfish in your desire to keep kids away from parents that you don't "morally" approve of.

You would rather have kids be orphans instead of going to loving homosexual homes. You would rather have the kids be orphans than know a loving mother or father who happens to be gay.

That's pretty damn selfish of you...

If by that you mean I reply to you, then you are wrong.
I don't "love" talking to your circular thoughts.
It's a something I do to fight boredom.


You keep trying to compare homosexuality to dysfunctions, but then you completely fail to back up your false analogy.
Dwarves are limited in many PHYSICAL ways.
Blindness is a PHYSICAL incapability to see.
Diabetes? Physical impairment.
Dyslexia? An impairment that prevents people from reading properly.

Homosexuality is not a defect. Gays can reproduce just as good as straights can.
The only means by which you label it as a "defect" is when you assume that people have to have an attraction for the opposite gender. And make no mistake, it is an assumption. It is an assumption rejected by the medical and scientific community.
Being attracted to the same gender IN NO WAY inhibits our lives.


I don't recall you ever asking until just now.
And I am awe-struck that you would ask such an inane question.

Gays can reproduce just fine. Our bait and tackle work just as well as heterosexuals do.
I have no idea why you would think that having children would suddenly make a "homosexual" not a homosexual. Homosexuality speaks to SEXUAL ATTRACTION to people of the same gender.
That doesn't mean anything about capability to procreate.


1) "finally agreeing"? If you only had the capacity to comprehend that I never changed my position on the subject.
You just finally got what I have been saying all along for years, which is actually pretty damn sad...

2) Actually, what I said clearly showed that the government HAS NO NEED to encourage the "former".
And since no aspect of marriage rights "encourages" procreation, your argument is obviously inaccurate.

No aspect of marriage is enhanced if a child is present (or procreated).
No aspect of marriage is diminished if a child is not present (or not procreated).
There are over 1,000 rights and privileges associated with marriage. NONE of them include any "encouragement" for the married couple to procreate or have a child. Not a single damn one of them.

It's pretty deceitful to try and pretend marriage is about "procreation" when there is no real part of it that has ANY encouragement for "procreation".

I know people who think one is defective if they are not attracted to large breasts.

That's only a "gays are icky" argument. Being gay is neither defective, immoral or illegal.

Some like them big, some like them small, and some don't like them at all. There is no "normal" preference.

And still, you completely FAIL to show any reason why...
I mean, we point out that there are over 2 million kids with gay parents, and the fact that means with regards to gays being able to procreate doesn't even penetrate your comprehension.

Sexual ATTRACTION does not mean anything regarding PROCREATION capability.


2 million kids say you're wrong.
Gays can and do procreate.

And you call it a "defect", but each time the debate as to WHY you call it a "defect" comes up you inevitably tuck tail and run...


Again, you cannot comprehend the difference between ATTRACTION and PROCREATION.
I have no attraction to my hand, but I still masturbate with it.
Just because somebody can get off with somebody or something doesn't mean there is any real sexual attraction there.