Love has no leaders, and our leaders have no love.

The thought process of some people consistently perplexes and astounds me. Yesterday I read the following message in an online group that I subscribe to for foreign language exchange:

"To start with, I'm against homosexuality. You can guess then that I'm against homosexual marriages and -of course- I'm against any law that aproves children adoptions by these couples. Poor children... they would grow with a twisted idea of what a family should be."

The above message was in response to someone's suggestion that the group discuss off-topic items to make the group less boring. In response to the above message, s omeone mentioned that choice was up to the individual. As a result the same person as above replied:

"...I agree with you that everybody is free to decide what to do with their life. I respect people's choice, but that doesn't mean I aprove it. That's what I call tolerance. However, when it comes to adoption, a third person is involved: a child. This child cannot decide if he wants to be raised by an homosexual couple. He's not able to decide anything at all. So, the goverment must choose what it's best for him. I think homosexuality goes against nature... a child is bring to this world only through the union of an egg (women) and a sperm (men). Even in labs, they need these two components. What does this tell you? A family should be formed by a dad, a mum, and their kids. That's what God established."

Of course, what this person is ignorant of is parthenogenesis, which of course is the scientific terminology for the occurrence of two females producing offspring without the assistance of any males (and it should be noted that this DOES occur naturally in some species). A recent news article from December 2006 even points to a pair of female Komodo dragons that have produced offspring without sperm. Astonishingly, parthenogeneis is not a new thing. A July 2001 article shows that Australian scientists found a way to fertilize an egg without the need for sperm. However, due to women clearly lacking the genetic makeup of males, only girls can be born. And in a 2004 article, Japanese scientists were reported to have been successful at creating baby mice without any sperm. Granted, it took them over 400 times to get it right, but clearly it can be done.

All scientific facts aside, I have to wonder what people, such as the person whose comments I have posted above, have against love. The person stated that they were against children being adopted by homosexual couples because "they would grow with a twisted idea of what a family should be." To which my first thought is, 'yes, because possibly living to adulthood in an orphanage is much better than having two loving dads/moms.' People that bring God into the argument are always of the position that love/family and homosexual relationships are mutually exclusive. In reality they are no more mutually exclusive than heterosexual relationships. I often wonder with people of this thought persuasion what exactly their obsession is with homosexuality. These people expend so much energy spouting off about how <<insert choice inflammatory language here>> homosexuality is that I suspect they spend more time thinking on all things gay than gay people themselves do! Yet, because they think that love/family and homosexual relationships are mutually exclusive they would rather leave children with no family than have them in what they fail to see as a family in 2 men or 2 women. I challenge them to walk into any orphange and ask any child there if they would rather remain at the orphange (possibily through adulthood) or leave with a homosexual couple that wanted to adopt them. I suspect they would not like the answer they would receive.