>Deal intelligently with the situation... somehow >this makes me feel like >the comparison makes sense...
when I say "deal intelligently" I only mean understand the risks involved, weigh pros and cons, and then decide whether or not to have the child. I'm definitely not suggesting whether they "should" or "shouldn't," just that they fully comprehend their situation, whatever that may be.
>if >what I say now doesn't >change your basic objection, fine, >you have responded intelligently to >my questions and raised interesting >points.
>Two people "fall in love". >Their biological status makes having >a baby a questionable choice. > They decide to prevent >the possibility of pregnancy and/or >adopt, but stay together because >their love matters so much >to them.
> >Two people "fall in love". >Their biological status makes having >a baby impossible. They >decide to stay babyless or >adopt, but stay together because >their love matters so much >to them.
>Are these situations so different?
Different from what? From each other? No, not really. Just a matter of choosing NOT to have a child vs. accepting the fact that they CANNOT have a child.
Are those situations different from a gay couple adopting a child? Yes. There's no guarantee that a straight, "conventional" couple will raise a sane, well adjusted child. Conversely, there's no guarantee that a child raised by a same sex couple will grow up to be morally deficient or psychologically scarred.
"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna
"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty