rec.arts.movies.past-films

On 19 sep, 19:34, kfw1...@ wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:01 am, Martin Koolhoven
> wrote:
>
> > I think this conversation is strange in onother
> > way. We're talking about their right to adopt which should be
> > something completely different from there right to marry.
>
> I agree the issues are separate, but the same data has to be examined.

Actually, I don't agree with that.


>
> > Here's an FRC article on gay health with dozens of citations from
> > secular sources: / ?i=IS01B1Doyou think kids
> > benefit from healthy parents?
>
> > Sure. Are unhealthy parents forbidden to have children? Should they?
>
> Excuse me. First of all, you forgot to acknowledge that there are all
> sorts of secular sources providing data you claim is only coming from
> the religious right.

I'll look into it again. Everytime I looked, God came into the picture
somehow. I admit, I didn't check everything.


And the issue is not whether gays should be
> forbidden to have kids. As you know, or as you know if you can read, I
> have not suggested that they should be forbidden.

Then I really don't understand your reasoning. They can have kids, but
they can't marry. Why not? Because marrying is better for kids.


The issue isn't even
> whether kids are better off with gay parents or no parents and in an
> orphanage.

In a way, it is.


I have answered that question, and no I won't repeat my
> answer.

Then I missed it.


Please don't ask leading questions that imply I believe things
> I don't. The issue is whether we want to call gay parenting as good as
> straight parenting without studying it,

No it isn't. The question is whether they can marry or not. By no
means the label marriage is a stamp for good parenting.


so that more and more
> bisexuals will leave their marriages for gay relationships,

A silly assumption.

and more
> and more gays will have test tube kids, and more and more kids besides
> those orphans will have gay parents.

I really don't see your point.

MK