3 pages in 12 hours. Hurm. Going back a bit here:

Quote:

Pariah said:
I wouldn't define that as "so many" when trying to correlate distinction with homosexual couples' inability to have children. Especially since that number isn't a world-wide assesment. Furthermore, a single-digit percentage of America's infertile cases borderlines on nussaince(sp) moreso than a standing concern. If it was around say 25% percent averages for every country on the globe, that would make your argument more appropriately notable.



I don't know what the number of infertile couples around the globe is, just as you don't know what the number of homosexuals around the globe is. I don't see it as being more or less of an argument if it's 25% or 2.5%. As Wednesday said, that's semantics. It's a problem either way.

You pretty much side-stepped the entire issue, which was that the argument that homosexuality is wrong(or unnatural or whatever other terms used) because a homosexual couple cannot directly produce offspring is flawed.

Homosexuals can still be parents. They can still raise children. Having a same-sex partner doesn't automatically make you any less loving or caring.

MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.