Kazan, there is an enormous difference between a miscarriage and the deliberate, cold-blooded "termination" of a pregnancy. If you can't see that, then I truly pity you. I also pity your lack of belief in God, but I'm not going to go into that.
Does it matter if a fetus is dependent on its mother for its survival? Does that make it any less of a human? I, for one, say no. A fetus is a separate organism, with its own unique genetic pattern, created at the moment of conception. It has the same right to live a full life as its mother does. I've always thought it to be ridiculous how some people could argue that, just because the fetus is not born or fully developed, it is any less of a human life. A fetus meets all of the biological criteria of human life; there is no realistic way that you can claim that a fetus is anything less than human. My "tautology," showing my "simple-mindedness," was meant to reinforce that point: every person once started out as a single fertilized egg. That one cell contained all of the potential to create a lifetime of personal experiences, accomplishments, and emotions. You advocate throwing all of this away for reasons of convenience. Even if you don't believe the fetus itself is human life, surely you acknowledge that a newborn baby is. Obviously, a fetus will someday become that newborn. Are you willing to sacrifice the potential of a life that could accomplish great feats just to protect some precious "right of choice" that does not even exist in the first place?
It is true that, in some cultures, polygamy and other practices are and have been the norm and accepted standard. But for the vast majority of civilized human history, spanning thousands of cultures and peoples, marriage has been defined as one man, one woman. What changed in the past three years or so to make this definition malleable? I don't see anything different with the world. Why is this suddenly such a huge issue? If homosexuals always desired marriage, why wasn't it an issue in the past? I myself see the drive for same-sex marriage as an attempt to foist the homosexual lifestyle on society as "normal" and "acceptable." Call me a bigot, but it is not. You know that the biological function of human sexuality is to produce offspring, and obviously, a homosexual couple cannot do so unassisted. Marriage, as an institution, was developed to foster development of the family unit. Same-sex marriage is yet another assault on the basic family structure, which has been the cornerstone of society for thousands of years. Yeah, sounds like a great idea to end all that for "equality's sake," doesn't it?
About the EU: I personally disagree with it, and I don't understand the rationale of nations that joined it. My last post didn't change my position but merely clarified. As I said, I would like it if the EU was no more, but I consider the issue to be one which Europe will decide for itself, for good or ill. Interestingly enough, recent financial predictions have suggested that the Euro will most likely fail within several years' time. It seems as though this experiment in global government, which I consider to be very dangerous, will not succeed.
Once again: one who does not want the "normalcy" of a same-sex couple forced onto them by a bunch of ultra-liberals is not a bigot, no matter what your opinion is. I do not see anything wrong with the actual state of homosexuality, since I understand that it is at least in part influenced by factors beyond a person's control. However, being a homosexual does not give one the license to "marry" someone of one's own sex. Homosexuality can be psychologically treated, just as excessive heterosexual sex drive can. I am personally against both homosexual and heterosexual activity outside of the marriage of a man and a woman, for the purpose of bringing forth new life. If you want to keep calling me a bigot, I can't stop you. In response, however, I will say that I see you as morally decrepit. If there is any way that we can see past these limited judgments of each other, let's try to.
Poll
