It certainly undermines the claim of exclusivity for heterosexuals based on promoting children. And, OK, maybe I shouldn't have said marriage. How about civil unions?
And what does homosexuality have to do with this? Well, I read a good number of posts lately that disclaim on the evils of homosexuals in the context of the same-sex marriage question. Some really over the top. And since I often equate homosexuality to sterility, and since this article is about sterility, well, there you go. It’s like some posts above bringing in Islam and declining birth rates of Westerners. They are not directly linked to the article’s topic, but they are not random either.
And here's another homosexual tangent to the article: Suppose one of these lifestyle sterile women gets pregnant.
“Oh dear,” says she. “I’ll just pop down to Dr. Death’s Abattoir for Lifestyle Sterility and get this unviable tissue mass taken care of, before it ruins my figure. Lord, I don’t want some other sap to foist my hopes on. I’d be a terrible parent anyway.”
Now the woman has neighbors, two men living in conjugal sin. They tell her, “Darling, nothing can ruin your figure, because you never had one in the first place. Look we have been saving for that beautiful yacht, but we cannot condone killing an innocent baby just because you like to fool around, aren’t careful, and are so selfish that nothing – not even human life – can come between you and your pathetic, mortal hopes. We’ll financially support you through your pregnancy, compensate you for your year of giving up your lifestyle, and then we’ll adopt the baby. You don’t have to foist your hopes on no one. We’ll foist our hopes on this 'some other sap,' as you so selflessly call it.”
See, I just connected the article to gay adoption.
I guess you have an axe to grind in favor of gay marriage and you want to relate it to every post here. I won't bore you the facts about the failure of that proposition both politically and electorally in this county. But keep trying to convince us, the "closed minded."