You can't pick nits too. I was describing my brother and sister-in-law and all their children were conceived the old-fashoned way (according to my brother).
The fact that you presumed I was describing a homosexual "couple" proves my point.
Shalom.
No it doesn't and I don't believe you. This statement seems to me to be a non sequitur given the topic of discussion. You may have been thinking that in your mind, but you stated it in this post indirectly (meaning in a post to another) in response to my initial claim that marriage was about procreation. Your genderless description also fits the current term "gayby," and I agree that you were perhaps being intentionally vague in order to entrap someone with a response that "proves your point," when it really doesn't.
-PJ