Tony, that is called bandwagon effect, a cognitive bias not very different from group thinking. Not conducive to debate.

Regarding your comment about progressive liberals...well, what can I say? I never voted left in my whole life. It's a textbook ad hominem argument, and it ends my participation in this thread.

Who gets to decide where the goalposts are? Some users here seem to define them quite quickly and will shoot down anyone who thinks they should be a little closer or further. Not to mind that, I myself don't know and don't care that much about the goalposts as I'm not competing in the game, and not shouting from the sidelines. You can try get me involved, but if I've no interest please don't start barraging those of us not interested as being a piece of crap for not sharing your passions.

The idea that there might be laws existing for so long might be indicative of a general consensus or more likely, general apathy of the population to whatever the laws have defined. Which makes moral grandstanding on either side painful to watch as most people just don't care and wishes everybody would quite down. I'm sick of being told that I have to think a certain way or I'm a left wing nut or a religious fundamentalist. I'll mosey my way down the middle.

uhm which right?

Excellent. So... You don't want to get involved, but got involved anyway to tell everyone else to sit down and STFU?

No-one is telling you to think in any way. Or to read the thread.

Mind you, it has reached car crash proportions so I can understand the rubbernecking.

Watch out for those splinters in the erse.

You could, you know, not read a thread that doesn't interest you?

It kind of is. Though I'll happily be proved wrong if you can explain why you think only one man and one woman should have a child. Please don't bother quoting scripture as evidence/support.

What rights of children? The right to have loving parents?

They're the only couple who can actually conceive a child?

Two women could conceive a child via artificial insemination. Or if one was bi-sexual and cheated. Or in worse circumstances where one got raped, for example.

Oh, with the assistance of the other sex you mean.

Or a doctor and a sperm donor.


The closed minds on here are worse than usual.

Makes no difference to who will have to bring up the child though, does it? Or should the child immediately be taken into care until a heterosexual couple can be found?

again, that is an appeal to nature. that is an arbitrary line that you need to defend as to why that is the case. Given that the previous posts have posted that there are ways for same sex couples to have babies, your point is obsolete

Is there an argument about where babies come from now?

No, just as to the relevance of that point in regards to the outcomes of children.

Given that all ways involve a man and a woman, your point obsolete.

Is artificial insemination even permitted for single women (gay or not) in Switzerland yet?

Tom

The obsession with the conception is the moot point here.

Those 10 seconds of bliss have zero influence on the child’s upbringing.

Arguing about who can biologically have children when the debate is about who can bring children up is a massive strawman, which I’d ask you to stop repeating.

Give me one good reason, based on evidence, that heterosexual couples make better parents than same sex couples. That’s all I’m asking, one factual reason that isn’t an appeal to nature or scripture.

2 gay dudes and 2 gay girls decide to use insemination to have 2 kids and each couple takes one.




problem solved.




you still fail to provide any valid point. given that artificial insemination keeps taht rule. they can have kids.

Sounds like a bunch of weirdos to me. I'm not sure them raising kids is a good idea.

No - just ask your parents.

Just wondering if there's any evidence that they don't.

(btw - 10s? How sad ).