Not in disagreement. I good family is a good family, period. However, it is still unnatural by definition. Traditional has nothing to do with what is unnatural, and by extension, what is natural. I thought you of all people would have appreciated me coming in here and helping you out. You focused on a definition of natural that you provided in context. I thought it was a good one, but ultimately unsupportable, and what these characters did was beat you over the head with it for 100 pages, patting each other on the back at your
perceived ineptitude. I was going to PM you the way out - by not focusing on what is natural, but what is unnatural, because the
dictionary definition for what is unnatrual would be all you need to prove your point, and by extension you would provide definitive clarity to your concept of what was natural. Homosexuals together cannot produce children that shares the DNA of both parents. This is unnatural. It could be argued that giving away a child for adoption is also unnatural, or aborting one.
The best these clowns can do is argue, "so what if it's unnatural" it still a good thing.. Why is this important to get them to argue this way? Figure it out, or pay attention and I'll show you exactly why it's important.
Tim-