Quoted:
I don't get it, I created a post awhile back, saying "I don't think that gay women should be able to bear a child". I have my reasons for that, its in the post. %75 of the people that reply back said something along the lines of, "its not fair to control the gays, that's no different then gun control". WTF ever.
Now that someone basically posts the same post, but Rosie is the subject line, everyone is against her having a child, what gives?
How is this different then my post?
[>:/]
View Quote
There's a major qualitative difference between:
(a) interference in the reproductive rights of a group of people based on a broad criteria including, but not limited to, sexual orientation, race, income level, political affiliation, and...
(b) expressing the opinion that the world is [i]not[/i] a better place for a specific individual (in this case, Rosie O'Donnell) being responsible for the upbringing of any child.
Furthermore, her homosexuality is less of an issue for me (and I would guess a few others here) than her overall attitude with regard to firearms, individual responsibility, hypocrisy, entitlement, etc.
Also, the fact that she treats children as props, lifestyle accessories and, more than occasionally, a political shield is grossly objectionable to me. I found her morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt long before she announced to the world that she was a homosexual.