For all intents and purposes: Yup. I'd like to hear your distinction that makes it different though.
Oh I have no doubt that you might try to harangue them a bit for their lifestyle, but frankly if you'll roll over on your principle, you'll roll over if they demand (under penalty of disaffection) you not bring it up again.
As to whether or not I have children, please explain how that affects the conclusion. Mind you, I'm neither confirming, nor denying, but pointing out you are reduced to a variation of "playing the race card." When you can quantify what difference parenthood makes in deciding between the supremacy of ones religious convictions, or familial associations, I will answer.
If you have to ask, you don't have children.
For all intents and purposes: Yup. I'd like to hear your distinction that makes it different though.
I started to reply to the above, but finally erased the better part of a paragraph. With all the respect I can muster, I can only say that we're so far apart on this that we can barely communicate. I don't understand you at all, and to be frank, I'm kinda tired of trying to see where you're coming from. I'm becoming more and more convinced that I can't.
As for asking if you had children being the equivalent to the race card, hardly. I was seeking to know if you were intellectualizing the love a father feels for his children, or if you'd actually walked in those shoes. I'm really hoping it's the former. It wouldn't help me understand you any better, but it would give me hope. If you are a parent, then you and I are as the night the day.
So with that. Consider this my concession. You win. I don't understand you, I can't understand you, I won't understand you. Take your pick. I don't care. The end result is the same: Our fundamental views of the situation are different that we can't even really disagree, let alone agree.