Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> It's not homophobic to say that something is weird,
> >
> > Care to tell me what is "weird" about a couple wanting to have children
> > and using medical technology to overcome fertility issues? It's only
> > "weird" if you are biased against the couple for some reason i.e. you're
> > homophobic.
>
> It's not weird to want children. It *is* weird to use medical technology to
> overcome fertility issues, regardless of whether the people involved are
> straight or ***. Your hyperreactivity shows a bias on your part -- or maybe
> you just don't know what the word "weird" means. Here, let Merriam-Webster
> help you: "of strange or extraordinary character"

It may have been "weird" decades ago when the technology was in it's
infancy, but it is most certainly not "weird" now unless you are biased.

>
> Is it your stance that the practices of female couples using the same sperm
> donor and swapping embryos occur in a large portion of the population?

"Infrequent" does not equate to "weird".

> Female couples don't even comprise a large portion of the population!
> Therefore, Cat Cora's situation is BY DEFINITION weird.

Nope, "Infrequent" or perhaps "uncommon", but not "weird".

> It is in no way an
> adverse reflection on her sexual preferences; it's a simple and obvious
> commentary on her outlying status in the demographics.

Nope, it's a biased pejorative comment based on your prejudice.

>
> >> and it's not homophobic to say that something is complicated.
> >
> > Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> > you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> > heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.
>
> Read what I wrote, and point out where I said anything about custody being
> less complicated for heterosexual couples. Can't do it, can you? You posted
> a knee-jerk reaction to what you THOUGHT I posted, without reading what was
> ACTUALLY posted.

I read what you actually posted and the bias was quite clear.

> But harking back to the post which prompted me to write,
> the potential custody situation *would be* more complicated because of the
> method of conception and carriage to term.

Nope, that is your bias creeping in again. Child or children, and
formerly married parents - that's all. If you think that it's more
complicated because the children were conceived with the assistance of
medical technology, that is your bias.

> Your inability to admit that
> indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to recognize that some
> complex situations are less complex than others. Since you probably *are*
> able to recognize that, then by default you must be unwilling, which means
> that your mind is closed, and YOU are the biased one.

Nope, I'm pointing out your bias which is quite clear, however you are
unwilling to recognize it.

I have stated my bias quite clearly in the past - I am a devout atheist
and therefore biased against religious zealots, which oddly enough
represent the bulk of the homophobic population.

>
> >> I ran across the following, and thought it applicable he
> >>
> >> http://i44.tinypic.com/dy7z0y.jpg
> >
> > Not interested.
>
> Of course you're not: Why would you be interested, when your mind is
> completely closed?

My mind is quote open to rational arguments, and I haven't heard any
here.