the problem of not being capable enough to give birth to a kid between two women or 2 men IS a problem that coms wit homosexuality, as much as fucking up one's lungs is a problem created by smoking.
I agree wholeheartedly. Therefore I fully support such couples in using their mental and emotional faculties to the fullest in coming up with the solutions to their problem that best serve them, given their other choices and consequences. I furthermore support them looking far and wide for resources that help them define their purposes and what they choose regarding acquiring children. And I support them utilising any resources available to the best of their ability, knowing that when they take on the precious trust of raising a child whatever way, they will have the strongest foundation of love and resources to raise that child as healthy as is possible.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
the problem of not being capable enough to give birth to a kid between two women or 2 men IS a problem that coms wit homosexuality, as much as fucking up one's lungs is a problem created by smoking.
its not a problem though.....not to be able to give birth, that say man and woman did in the beginning of time.
science is changing that, we need to be able to roll with these changes, or otherwise we'll just screw ourselves over.
if we've been doing science since the beginning of time, you know each step takes us closer to creation.
especially in this day and age, we're just scared of opening up more, because we don't want to let go of what we know, and we're afraid of the uncertainity that change brings.....this is so fundamentally about that.
i'm so unconditional about whatever i learn, no if's ands or buts, but no, this can't apply to that, or no....but still. do you know what i mean?
I agree wholeheartedly. Therefore I fully support such couples in using their mental and emotional faculties to the fullest in coming up with the solutions to their problem that best serve them, given their other choices and consequences. I furthermore support them looking far and wide for resources that help them define their purposes and what they choose regarding acquiring children. And I support them utilising any resources available to the best of their ability, knowing that when they take on the precious trust of raising a child whatever way, they will have the strongest foundation of love and resources to raise that child as healthy as is possible.
its such a give and take relationship though. like in any relationship.
at the risk of toying with the child's future and upbringing???
who amongst us would like to be such a child??
The problem is that 95% of us ARE such children!
95% of us in the western world are considered psychologically messed up. We were all born into families with challenges and problems. Many of us choose to have children and "toy" with them, and continue the cycles of our own dysfunction. It's human nature. It's pretty clear that by virtue of being human, homosexuals are afforded that choice just like the rest of us. I, personally, would prefer to be part of the environmental aspect of evolving life constructively, and supporting humans and making the world a better place. I also choose not the be part of "the problem" with judgment, blame and perpetuating stigma and stereotypes because I have enough knowledge to know that my blame, stigma, stereotypes and ideas of controlling others are about my own self.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
before that tell me what the hell does same sex marriage have to do with progress?
Same sex marriage would be looked upon by some as progress because it would give gays the opportunity to be recognized by the state as committed couples, and they'd receive the benefits that come with that.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
95% of us in the western world are considered psychologically messed up. We were all born into families with challenges and problems. Many of us choose to have children and "toy" with them, and continue the cycles of our own dysfunction. It's human nature.
thats a very pertinent point you raise.
i'd like to start a new thread about that.
check out the moving train
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
this is an obsurd topic. how about the kids raising kids, or lack there-of for a better term. how about the sad neglected children of all of these straight parents. kids are a reflection of their parents. oh yeah, and how about all of these kids who are without sufficient living opportunities, whom may desire the chance at a real family environment regardless of the sexual preferences. if anything, gay individuals possess a strength and the ability to persevere with a heightened sense of resilience. Due mostly in part to the shit they have to deal with day in and day from all of those individuals who are homophobic due to their own insecurities. Sexual preference does not factor into what does or does not make a good parent. Its love, care, and a sincere understanding to the quintessential value that children are. Taking their needs into consideraton first. not their own selfish desires. Lets get real here, children are fucking up by the thousands on a daily basis. not because they are bad kids, but because their parents fucked up somewhere. you know the old saying, negative attention is better than no attention at all. well, this applies to kids, especially in situations of neglect. if an individaul is going to give a child the chance they truly deserve in life. then why should i care what their sexual preference is?
"We as individuals are art...Our minds are the beauty!"
if anything, gay individuals possess a strength and the ability to persevere with a heightened sense of resilience. Due mostly in part to the shit they have to deal with day in and day from all of those individuals who are homophobic due to their own insecurities.
I agree.
I base this agreement on the fact that I come from two stigmatised groupings of parents. I was a "kid" having a kid at eighteen and was stigmatised and stereotyped for that. Then I developed two major mental illnesses. There are very few conditions that are considered worse alongside parenting than mental illness and homosexuality. It was the illnesses, stigmas, stereotyping and other unusual abuse I had to endure daily that caused me to grow and stretch beyond average in my own child-rearing practices. I've learned to be healthy far beyond many people I know. My children have an unusual amount of compassion, intelligence and psychological health, particularly if you consider what they've gone through.
It's my cockroach evolution theory--aka: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here are my thoughts on gay people raising children - I think it's great. In many cases these will be adopted children. And I believe that people who adopt children really love kids. It is a long process to have to go through.
er... thats the point. half the child WONT be theirs. either someone else ovaries or someone else's sperm.
might as well have a fully adopted kid.
why?
what difference does that make, anbd why is it yours, or anyone else's call to make? there are PLENTY of hetero couples who have families...and the children within are NOT from both parents. *shocking* some are children of divorce with remarriages affecting who they live with, some children actually have parents who die before they reach 18...some live with no parents per se, but with grandparents or aunts/uncles....and yes, even hetero couples do sometimes utilize sperm implantation or a surrogate, etc... b/c the couple together can't have a child that is BOTH of theirs.
what i find most interesting is the fact that you start a thread, don't like the answers..sure, it meandered much, but with such a topic it is bound to, and it wouldn't be pages and pages long otherwise if we ONLY covered answering yes/no towards belief of homosexuals raising children...complain about the answetrs and meandering...and basically take issue with those who disagree. haha. so much for discussion. if you have it all figured out, why ask for opinions? obviously, many of us do not feel the same as you do...and honestly, many of us just don't feel the need to 'tell' homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, how they can or cannot have a family. whethere hetero or homosexual...ANY couple that can meet the criteria needed for any assisted reproduction and/or adoption...should be afforded either choice...as sexual orientation has ZERO to do with being a good parent and uspportive/loving home. in fact, sexual orientation has precious little to do with most things, and what it has to do with is, or should be, completely private....none of it has anything to do with much in life.
i am not opposed to gays and lesbians getting married and enjoying the rights that married folk have.
having children is not a married person's "right." Its the opportunity they have because of their heterosexual relationship....
If you want the natural satisfaction of raising a child, then be in a natural relationship.
Jones Beach II (2000), Holmdel (2003), Camden 1, East Rutherford II, Gorge I, Gorge II (2006), MSG I, Boston II (2008), Spectrum II, Spectrum III, Spectrum IV (2009), MSG I, MSG II (2010), Prague (2012), Philly I (2013), Philly I, Philly II, Fenway I (2016), Fenway I (2018), MSG (2022)
So infertile hetero couples shouldn't do something unnatural like adopting?
completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.
Jones Beach II (2000), Holmdel (2003), Camden 1, East Rutherford II, Gorge I, Gorge II (2006), MSG I, Boston II (2008), Spectrum II, Spectrum III, Spectrum IV (2009), MSG I, MSG II (2010), Prague (2012), Philly I (2013), Philly I, Philly II, Fenway I (2016), Fenway I (2018), MSG (2022)
completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.
completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.
is it really necessary to differentiate it? who cares honestly? and who's 'right' is it to make this distinction/choice for someone else? if two people meet all the criteria for assisted reproduction or adoption, sexual orientation alone should NOT be a reason...why gets to make these calls and why? if our society deems it 'ok' for one couple, i just cannot fathom why it's ok to deny another simply based on orientation and nothing else. if someone wants to have a child and wants assistance, a practice completely approved by our culture...or if they want to adopt one of the many unwanted children out there...i just fail to see why one's sexuality makes one bit of difference. many a child grows up in a non-traditional family unit. if one can provide a loving and supportive home environment...that really should be it.
btw - so would you be ok with it if a lesbian or a gay male decided to go and have 'natural' sex with someone willing to do so...just so they may have a child? i mean, there ARE plenty of unwed mothers out there already...no rules telling a woman who is unmarried that she can't go and get herself pregnant...so if a homosexual were willing to engage in heterosexual sex once, or how many times it would take them, simply to have a child...is it ok then? b/c if all you are taking issue with is the method of HOW they become parents - which i still don't get in any case since i'ts ok for infertile hetero couples - but here they'd be doing so 'naturally'? then ok? hmmmmm...food for thought...and not outrageous either. also there ARE homosexuals who fathered/mothered children...then 'came out' with their homosexual lifestyle and raise(d) their 'natural' children....so......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahnimus
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.
I think he will grow up to be really smart and knowledgable. He'll learn more walking the street, than you'rs will in school.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
is it really necessary to differentiate it? who cares honestly? and who's 'right' is it to make this distinction/choice for someone else? if two people meet all the criteria for assisted reproduction or adoption, sexual orientation alone should NOT be a reason...why gets to make these calls and why? if our society deems it 'ok' for one couple, i just cannot fathom why it's ok to deny another simply based on orientation and nothing else. if someone wants to have a child and wants assistance, a practice completely approved by our culture...or if they want to adopt one of the many unwanted children out there...i just fail to see why one's sexuality makes one bit of difference. many a child grows up in a non-traditional family unit. if one can provide a loving and supportive home environment...that really should be it.
btw - so would you be ok with it if a lesbian or a gay male decided to go and have 'natural' sex with someone willing to do so...just so they may have a child? i mean, there ARE plenty of unwed mothers out there already...no rules telling a woman who is unmarried that she can't go and get herself pregnant...so if a homosexual were willing to engage in heterosexual sex once, or how many times it would take them, simply to have a child...is it ok then? b/c if all you are taking issue with is the method of HOW they become parents - which i still don't get in any case since i'ts ok for infertile hetero couples - but here they'd be doing so 'naturally'? then ok? hmmmmm...food for thought...and not outrageous either. also there ARE homosexuals who fathered/mothered children...then 'came out' with their homosexual lifestyle and raise(d) their 'natural' children....so......
Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one admits to being 'disabled', and the other is (rightfully) offended by the suggestion. And this differentiates them straight off the bat. This is nothing, I repeat, nothing - nothing nothing nothing - to do with sexual orientation. People can have sex with whoever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's to do with the health service's money being spent where it should be spent. The medical profession exists for those who need it. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.
If homosexuals want to argue that their orientation is NOT an abnormality in nature's correct design, fine. But let them adopt a child. Otherwise they are being hypocritical. Seeking medical intervention 'because they can' is wrong. I can get a face which looks like David Duchovny if I want these days; but I won't, because I don't need reconstructive surgery. I am not a burn victim, and - if I may say so myself - I am bloody good looking.
I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples - those who recognise that something has gone wrong with their biology, that they are 'disabled' in some way - is akin to a rich person deciding he/she's hungry, and so walking into a homeless people's soup kitchen and helping himself.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one is 'disabled', and that differentiates them straight off the bat. The medical profession exists for them. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.
If homosexuals want to argue that their orientation is NOT an abnormality in nature, fine. But let them adopt a child.
I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples - those who recognise that something has gone wrong with their biology, that they are 'disabled' in some way - is akin to a rich person deciding he/she's hungry, and so walking into a homeless people's soup kitchen and helping himself.
obviously, i see it in an entirely different light...and personally, i do NOT see your analogy at all - to me that just is to signify 'greediness'?..and if that's the case, i still fail to see the greediness in a homosexual couple wanting for a biological child to be any more greedy than a heterosexual one desiring the same. if the means exists for assisted reproduction, and it has been deemed acceptable by our culture..i think homosexuals have every right to utilize it as any other couple. b/c personally, who's to say that infertile couples 'deserve' to be 'fixed' then? obviously, nature has already decided they shouldn't have children, so why shouldn't they also have to adopt? hmmmm...perhaps b/c science has developed the means to assist those who need assistance - and we as a culture have encouraged this, and to me, that includes homosexuals. you can reword it however you like...and i will always disagree. you say it's not based on their homosexuality...and yet the only thing that differentiates them is their homosexuality...and i do not think it is yours, or anyone else's 'right' to tell ANY couple, hetero or homo, what they can or can not do for a family. 'let' them adopt? how kind. i say, let all couples choose from the viable alternatives out there.
and...you never even addressed the end of my post. would that be ok? engage in hetero sex to produce a child, then continue on with their homosexual lifestyler? b/c it seesm many take issue with 'how' the homosexual couple has a child..why, i do not know. no matter hoow you say it...sexual orientation should not interfere with assisted reproduction or adoption...and both choices should be available for any couple qualified.
btw - where $ should be spent? almost ALL costs for such are out of pocket..or if not, covered buy insurance paid for by one's employer and the employee...so where is funding not going where deserved? i don't think most infertile couiples consider themselves 'dsabled'...some may be, but i don't know many who think they are. and i also don't think all infertile heterosexuals feel and think as you do...it's kinda like people saying a one who is a parent probably isn't for abortion. it doesn't jive. one may actually be infertile AND agree that homosexuals are just as deserving of such services...just like one may have an abortion and/or support the rights of choice...and still go on and have a family. it's not all either/or...not for everyone anyway.
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
its not a problem though.....not to be able to give birth, that say man and woman did in the beginning of time.
science is changing that, we need to be able to roll with these changes, or otherwise we'll just screw ourselves over.
if we've been doing science since the beginning of time, you know each step takes us closer to creation.
especially in this day and age, we're just scared of opening up more, because we don't want to let go of what we know, and we're afraid of the uncertainity that change brings.....this is so fundamentally about that.
i'm so unconditional about whatever i learn, no if's ands or buts, but no, this can't apply to that, or no....but still. do you know what i mean?
at the risk of toying with the child's future and upbringing???
who amongst us would like to be such a child??
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
its such a give and take relationship though. like in any relationship.
95% of us in the western world are considered psychologically messed up. We were all born into families with challenges and problems. Many of us choose to have children and "toy" with them, and continue the cycles of our own dysfunction. It's human nature. It's pretty clear that by virtue of being human, homosexuals are afforded that choice just like the rest of us. I, personally, would prefer to be part of the environmental aspect of evolving life constructively, and supporting humans and making the world a better place. I also choose not the be part of "the problem" with judgment, blame and perpetuating stigma and stereotypes because I have enough knowledge to know that my blame, stigma, stereotypes and ideas of controlling others are about my own self.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Same sex marriage would be looked upon by some as progress because it would give gays the opportunity to be recognized by the state as committed couples, and they'd receive the benefits that come with that.
thats a very pertinent point you raise.
i'd like to start a new thread about that.
check out the moving train
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I'll meet you there.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I base this agreement on the fact that I come from two stigmatised groupings of parents. I was a "kid" having a kid at eighteen and was stigmatised and stereotyped for that. Then I developed two major mental illnesses. There are very few conditions that are considered worse alongside parenting than mental illness and homosexuality. It was the illnesses, stigmas, stereotyping and other unusual abuse I had to endure daily that caused me to grow and stretch beyond average in my own child-rearing practices. I've learned to be healthy far beyond many people I know. My children have an unusual amount of compassion, intelligence and psychological health, particularly if you consider what they've gone through.
It's my cockroach evolution theory--aka: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
why ??;)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i was meaning to point out the name of the thread to you, which incidentally is called "why".:D
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
why?
what difference does that make, anbd why is it yours, or anyone else's call to make? there are PLENTY of hetero couples who have families...and the children within are NOT from both parents. *shocking* some are children of divorce with remarriages affecting who they live with, some children actually have parents who die before they reach 18...some live with no parents per se, but with grandparents or aunts/uncles....and yes, even hetero couples do sometimes utilize sperm implantation or a surrogate, etc... b/c the couple together can't have a child that is BOTH of theirs.
what i find most interesting is the fact that you start a thread, don't like the answers..sure, it meandered much, but with such a topic it is bound to, and it wouldn't be pages and pages long otherwise if we ONLY covered answering yes/no towards belief of homosexuals raising children...complain about the answetrs and meandering...and basically take issue with those who disagree. haha. so much for discussion. if you have it all figured out, why ask for opinions? obviously, many of us do not feel the same as you do...and honestly, many of us just don't feel the need to 'tell' homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, how they can or cannot have a family. whethere hetero or homosexual...ANY couple that can meet the criteria needed for any assisted reproduction and/or adoption...should be afforded either choice...as sexual orientation has ZERO to do with being a good parent and uspportive/loving home. in fact, sexual orientation has precious little to do with most things, and what it has to do with is, or should be, completely private....none of it has anything to do with much in life.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you want the natural satisfaction of raising a child, then be in a natural relationship.
So infertile hetero couples shouldn't do something unnatural like adopting?
completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.
Don't mention that on the adoption form.
naděje umírá poslední
is it really necessary to differentiate it? who cares honestly? and who's 'right' is it to make this distinction/choice for someone else? if two people meet all the criteria for assisted reproduction or adoption, sexual orientation alone should NOT be a reason...why gets to make these calls and why? if our society deems it 'ok' for one couple, i just cannot fathom why it's ok to deny another simply based on orientation and nothing else. if someone wants to have a child and wants assistance, a practice completely approved by our culture...or if they want to adopt one of the many unwanted children out there...i just fail to see why one's sexuality makes one bit of difference. many a child grows up in a non-traditional family unit. if one can provide a loving and supportive home environment...that really should be it.
btw - so would you be ok with it if a lesbian or a gay male decided to go and have 'natural' sex with someone willing to do so...just so they may have a child? i mean, there ARE plenty of unwed mothers out there already...no rules telling a woman who is unmarried that she can't go and get herself pregnant...so if a homosexual were willing to engage in heterosexual sex once, or how many times it would take them, simply to have a child...is it ok then? b/c if all you are taking issue with is the method of HOW they become parents - which i still don't get in any case since i'ts ok for infertile hetero couples - but here they'd be doing so 'naturally'? then ok? hmmmmm...food for thought...and not outrageous either. also there ARE homosexuals who fathered/mothered children...then 'came out' with their homosexual lifestyle and raise(d) their 'natural' children....so......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Originally Posted by Ahnimus
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.
Reply With Quote
Oh man....hilarious one liner (ouch my sides are hurting!)
Why not? It's like an experiment!
I think he will grow up to be really smart and knowledgable. He'll learn more walking the street, than you'rs will in school.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one admits to being 'disabled', and the other is (rightfully) offended by the suggestion. And this differentiates them straight off the bat. This is nothing, I repeat, nothing - nothing nothing nothing - to do with sexual orientation. People can have sex with whoever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's to do with the health service's money being spent where it should be spent. The medical profession exists for those who need it. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.
If homosexuals want to argue that their orientation is NOT an abnormality in nature's correct design, fine. But let them adopt a child. Otherwise they are being hypocritical. Seeking medical intervention 'because they can' is wrong. I can get a face which looks like David Duchovny if I want these days; but I won't, because I don't need reconstructive surgery. I am not a burn victim, and - if I may say so myself - I am bloody good looking.
I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples - those who recognise that something has gone wrong with their biology, that they are 'disabled' in some way - is akin to a rich person deciding he/she's hungry, and so walking into a homeless people's soup kitchen and helping himself.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
obviously, i see it in an entirely different light...and personally, i do NOT see your analogy at all - to me that just is to signify 'greediness'?..and if that's the case, i still fail to see the greediness in a homosexual couple wanting for a biological child to be any more greedy than a heterosexual one desiring the same. if the means exists for assisted reproduction, and it has been deemed acceptable by our culture..i think homosexuals have every right to utilize it as any other couple. b/c personally, who's to say that infertile couples 'deserve' to be 'fixed' then? obviously, nature has already decided they shouldn't have children, so why shouldn't they also have to adopt? hmmmm...perhaps b/c science has developed the means to assist those who need assistance - and we as a culture have encouraged this, and to me, that includes homosexuals. you can reword it however you like...and i will always disagree. you say it's not based on their homosexuality...and yet the only thing that differentiates them is their homosexuality...and i do not think it is yours, or anyone else's 'right' to tell ANY couple, hetero or homo, what they can or can not do for a family. 'let' them adopt? how kind. i say, let all couples choose from the viable alternatives out there.
and...you never even addressed the end of my post. would that be ok? engage in hetero sex to produce a child, then continue on with their homosexual lifestyler? b/c it seesm many take issue with 'how' the homosexual couple has a child..why, i do not know. no matter hoow you say it...sexual orientation should not interfere with assisted reproduction or adoption...and both choices should be available for any couple qualified.
btw - where $ should be spent? almost ALL costs for such are out of pocket..or if not, covered buy insurance paid for by one's employer and the employee...so where is funding not going where deserved? i don't think most infertile couiples consider themselves 'dsabled'...some may be, but i don't know many who think they are. and i also don't think all infertile heterosexuals feel and think as you do...it's kinda like people saying a one who is a parent probably isn't for abortion. it doesn't jive. one may actually be infertile AND agree that homosexuals are just as deserving of such services...just like one may have an abortion and/or support the rights of choice...and still go on and have a family. it's not all either/or...not for everyone anyway.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow