CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking?

[Syriusly]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?

I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation. You are, once again, making shit up. In case you missed it the many times you have been told before, what you consider the ideal is not the basis for law in this country. In the case of parentage, what is considered the ideal by the majority is still not the basis for law. I would guess that the majority of people would say that having drunks as parents is not the ideal, yet there are no restrictions on drunks having children. The same is true of convicted criminals, members of various religions, people of any given political beliefs, etc. etc.

So again, if you think the vast majority of adults in this country agree with your stance, go try and have the laws changed. Good luck with that.

Yeah- well Silhouette is only obsessed about homosexuals- not as if she cares about kids being raised by single parents- as long as the single parent is not gay.

The vast majority of children being raised without a mother or father are kids who have had one parent or the other in essence abandon them. Silhouette doesn't care about them- as long as their parent is not gay, the mother could be a crack whore pimping out her kids, and Silhouette would be okay with that.

The second largest group are kids who have no parents- in the foster system- awaiting adoption- again Silhouette doesn't give a damn about them- so long as they are not adopted by homosexuals, she is fine with them rotting in the foster care system or ageing out and being dumped on the streets.

But- a child who is conceived in a test tube- implanted in the womb of a woman because the egg donor cannot birth a child, and born to that surrogate mother- damn- Silhouette deeply and truly cares about that child.

Well if if the parents are gay.

 

[Silhouette]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?

I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

Let's dissect what you just said here starting from your last point and working backwards:

1. You admit/allude to that biological parents are the ideal situation

2. Then you say that a majority of people are peachy keen with children being in a less than ideal situation. (which is a lie, flat out and you and I both know the opposite is true in the 90%tile range.)

3. You then say that "anyone is capable of being a parent". But if that were true psychologically (we aren't just talking biology here with rented wombs), adoption agencies would fling their doors open to any person walking through and hand out orphangs like a pez dispenser...but they don't do that...do they?

4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having it and we would all concede (the 90% who agree with me and myself) that "Montrovant is right, let's just remove all oversight and let anyone rent wombs and finance baby(child)-machines all they like"

I suggest that the world may be ready for the scientific side of your frankensteinian baby-project to "anyone and everyone who wants them"; but that it ISN'T ready for the outfall of where that industry (thank you for that correct assessment New York Times) is heading socially and psychologically..

 

[Syriusly]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?

I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. .

No- that is just your current spin.

As Montrovant keeps pointing out- in surrogacy- in most cases- the natural mother(egg donor) and natural father(sperm donor) become the parents of the child born from the woman who provided the surrogacy.

You for some odd reason object to this- and want some form of government deciding whether or not the natural mother and father should have their own baby.

 

[Silhouette]

Who is the "mother" in a gay male "marriage" Syriusly?

 

[Skylar]

Who is the "mother" in a gay male "marriage" Syriusly?

What possible relevance does that have to your pseudo-legal gibberish that surrogacy is 'child trafficking'?

 

[Syriusly]

Who is the "mother" in a gay male "marriage" Syriusly?

Who is the 'grandfather" in a heterosexual marriage Silhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

Who is the "mother" in a gay male "marriage" Syriusly?

Who is the 'grandfather" in a heterosexual marriage Silhouette?

1. That isn't an answer to my question, it's a dodge. Answer the question: "who is the mother in a gay male marriage"?

2. There are two grandfathers and two grandmothers alive or dead in any hetero marriage. Something else...there are two grandfathers and two grandmothers in a gay male marriage...today anyway.. Fast forward two generations of mad-science rented-womb babies and that will not necessarily be the case.. It is conceivable (please, pardon the pun) that four generations from now there could be "children of" gay male couples who do not have a single matriarch in their "family line" as far back as three generations.

Scary if you think about it. And THAT will be a component of the formed mind walking around in society, who will then vote and teach his male offspring from a rented womb to vote...and so on. Ancient Greece is literally right around the corner..

Thanks for bringing that up Syriusly. That was something even I hadn't contemplated.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is the "mother" in a gay male "marriage" Syriusly?

Who is the 'grandfather" in a heterosexual marriage Silhouette?

1. That isn't an answer to my question, it's a dodge. Answer the question: "who is the mother in a gay male marriage"?
.

Who is the grandfather in a heterosexual marriage Sihouette?

See- my question was intentionally as batshit crazy as yours.

Who is the mother in this marriage Silhouette?

 

[Montrovant]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?

You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?

I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

Let's dissect what you just said here starting from your last point and working backwards:

1. You admit/allude to that biological parents are the ideal situation

2. Then you say that a majority of people are peachy keen with children being in a less than ideal situation. (which is a lie, flat out and you and I both know the opposite is true in the 90%tile range.)

3. You then say that "anyone is capable of being a parent". But if that were true psychologically (we aren't just talking biology here with rented wombs), adoption agencies would fling their doors open to any person walking through and hand out orphangs like a pez dispenser...but they don't do that...do they?

4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having it and we would all concede (the 90% who agree with me and myself) that "Montrovant is right, let's just remove all oversight and let anyone rent wombs and finance baby(child)-machines all they like"

I suggest that the world may be ready for the scientific side of your frankensteinian baby-project to "anyone and everyone who wants them"; but that it ISN'T ready for the outfall of where that industry (thank you for that correct assessment New York Times) is heading socially and psychologically..

1. OK.....

2. What I said is that a majority of people seem fine having whoever is capable of it having a child, from a legal standpoint. People may not like various people having children, but there are very few people, I think, who would agree to having the right to have a child legally limited. As usual, stop making shit up.

3. That was a missed word, and for some reason the edit button isn't available on my post. I meant to say that anyone who is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. And that is certainly true. There are no legal limits on people having babies, barring extreme and unusual circumstance.

4. Again, no, the healthiest situation has never been the point. Legally, there are no basically no restrictions on who can have a baby or how many they have. If you can have sex and are both fertile, the law doesn't say anything about it. If you are infertile and can use IVF, for the most part, the law doesn't say anything about it. The only time the law may get involved in child birth is for people already convicted of crimes or otherwise limited based on past behavior by the legal system. No one needs to live up to any sort of 'ideal' standard in order to have a child. I have seen next to no outcry about this situation, in fact I have only ever heard people speak against the idea of any sort of legal restriction to having children.

My frankensteinian baby-project? Surrogacy is not in any way 'mine'. It is also not new. The world is not ready for it because it's already been around for years. Nor is it 'Frankensteinian' in any way. There is no resurrection, no mixing of body parts. It is a developing fetus in the womb of a woman who is not the mother. The law may not be clear on surrogacy in some places, people may not have put that much thought into it, but the outfall you talk about, this strange idea that it is child trafficking, is nothing but your own delusion.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, I hope you notice I am largely ignoring you.

 

[Silhouette]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?
You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?
I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

Let's dissect what you just said here starting from your last point and working backwards:
1. You admit/allude to that biological parents are the ideal situation
2. Then you say that a majority of people are peachy keen with children being in a less than ideal situation. (which is a lie, flat out and you and I both know the opposite is true in the 90%tile range.)
3. You then say that "anyone is capable of being a parent". But if that were true psychologically (we aren't just talking biology here with rented wombs), adoption agencies would fling their doors open to any person walking through and hand out orphangs like a pez dispenser...but they don't do that...do they?
4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having it and we would all concede (the 90% who agree with me and myself) that "Montrovant is right, let's just remove all oversight and let anyone rent wombs and finance baby(child)-machines all they like"
I suggest that the world may be ready for the scientific side of your frankensteinian baby-project to "anyone and everyone who wants them"; but that it ISN'T ready for the outfall of where that industry (thank you for that correct assessment New York Times) is heading socially and psychologically..

1. OK.....
2. What I said is that a majority of people seem fine having whoever is capable of it having a child, from a legal standpoint. People may not like various people having children, but there are very few people, I think, who would agree to having the right to have a child legally limited. As usual, stop making shit up.
3. That was a missed word, and for some reason the edit button isn't available on my post. I meant to say that anyone who is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. And that is certainly true. There are no legal limits on people having babies, barring extreme and unusual circumstance.
4. Again, no, the healthiest situation has never been the point. Legally, there are no basically no restrictions on who can have a baby or how many they have. If you can have sex and are both fertile, the law doesn't say anything about it. If you are infertile and can use IVF, for the most part, the law doesn't say anything about it. The only time the law may get involved in child birth is for people already convicted of crimes or otherwise limited based on past behavior by the legal system. No one needs to live up to any sort of 'ideal' standard in order to have a child. I have seen next to no outcry about this situation, in fact I have only ever heard people speak against the idea of any sort of legal restriction to having children..

2. I think there is a majority, 90% range, who would say a child deserves a mother and father....married preferably.
3. A limit to having babies might be a physical structure of a marriage that not only is minus a womb, but more importantly, minus a mother...a thing that according to the "new science" you're embracing, could mean in the future, 3 or 4 generations or more of a "family" who has no matriarch presence whatsoever. That might stand to skew our society a bit, dontcha think? And the SCOTUS's tyrannical-Five just rubber-stamped that without the permission of our entire society of whom this situation is going to affect deeply and permanently in ways even you can't forsee. And I'm going to bank that those ways are negative...on a hunch..
4. Last time I checked, two gay men are never fertile, nor ever could be. So it's always 1 gay man + a womb/mother that will not be present to mother the child; nor will there even be a substitute/adoptive mother of that child. There will simply be no mother for that child. And you want that to go without regulation and oversight? I say this is child-endangerment just begging to happen.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, I hope you notice I am largely ignoring you.

Silhouette- you largely ignore reality.

 

[HenryBHough]

Isn't it better to sell the whole baby instead of just parting them out?

 

[Montrovant]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?
You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?
I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

Let's dissect what you just said here starting from your last point and working backwards:
1. You admit/allude to that biological parents are the ideal situation
2. Then you say that a majority of people are peachy keen with children being in a less than ideal situation. (which is a lie, flat out and you and I both know the opposite is true in the 90%tile range.)
3. You then say that "anyone is capable of being a parent". But if that were true psychologically (we aren't just talking biology here with rented wombs), adoption agencies would fling their doors open to any person walking through and hand out orphangs like a pez dispenser...but they don't do that...do they?
4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having it and we would all concede (the 90% who agree with me and myself) that "Montrovant is right, let's just remove all oversight and let anyone rent wombs and finance baby(child)-machines all they like"
I suggest that the world may be ready for the scientific side of your frankensteinian baby-project to "anyone and everyone who wants them"; but that it ISN'T ready for the outfall of where that industry (thank you for that correct assessment New York Times) is heading socially and psychologically..

1. OK.....
2. What I said is that a majority of people seem fine having whoever is capable of it having a child, from a legal standpoint. People may not like various people having children, but there are very few people, I think, who would agree to having the right to have a child legally limited. As usual, stop making shit up.
3. That was a missed word, and for some reason the edit button isn't available on my post. I meant to say that anyone who is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. And that is certainly true. There are no legal limits on people having babies, barring extreme and unusual circumstance.
4. Again, no, the healthiest situation has never been the point. Legally, there are no basically no restrictions on who can have a baby or how many they have. If you can have sex and are both fertile, the law doesn't say anything about it. If you are infertile and can use IVF, for the most part, the law doesn't say anything about it. The only time the law may get involved in child birth is for people already convicted of crimes or otherwise limited based on past behavior by the legal system. No one needs to live up to any sort of 'ideal' standard in order to have a child. I have seen next to no outcry about this situation, in fact I have only ever heard people speak against the idea of any sort of legal restriction to having children..

2. I think there is a majority, 90% range, who would say a child deserves a mother and father....married preferably.
3. A limit to having babies might be a physical structure of a marriage that not only is minus a womb, but more importantly, minus a mother...a thing that according to the "new science" you're embracing, could mean in the future, 3 or 4 generations or more of a "family" who has no matriarch presence whatsoever. That might stand to skew our society a bit, dontcha think? And the SCOTUS's tyrannical-Five just rubber-stamped that without the permission of our entire society of whom this situation is going to affect deeply and permanently in ways even you can't forsee. And I'm going to bank that those ways are negative...on a hunch..
4. Last time I checked, two gay men are never fertile, nor ever could be. So it's always 1 gay man + a womb/mother that will not be present to mother the child; nor will there even be a substitute/adoptive mother of that child. There will simply be no mother for that child. And you want that to go without regulation and oversight? I say this is child-endangerment just begging to happen.

Whether someone thinks a child deserves a mother and father is far different from whether a person thinks that having children should be legally restricted. I am very confident that 90% of the country does not want having children restricted as you would have it.

Sure, it's possible that 3 or 4 generations could have families with no matriarch presence. What you fail to understand is that that has always been possible, just unlikely. What you also seem to miss is that gays are a small percentage of the population, making that scenario yet more unlikely. Besides, that situation could easily occur with single parent households rather than the gays you so despise.

I don't mind some regulations or oversight with surrogacy, but not for the reasons or in the ways you envision. I am not looking to arbitrarily decide who is fit for being a parent based on their sexual orientation. I'd perhaps want to see legal safety measures in cases where surrogates attempt to assert parental rights.

You like to talk about precedents, so how about this : if you deny gays the right to have children because there is no mother or father in the home, wouldn't that set a precedent to prevent single parents from having children? A pregnant widow would, what, be forced to give up her child or have an abortion? A deadbeat father would, instead of being forced to pay support, be forced to live with the mother to help raise the child?

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

 

[Syriusly]

No. I am not concerned that changing standards are having a direct harmful effect on children. Despite your bloviating, I have not seen any compelling evidence that that is the case. Your argument is based on the idea that the makeup of the people caring for a child is a hugely important, perhaps the most important, factor in how that child grows. I think the truly important thing is that whoever raises a child cares for that child. Whether that is the mother and father, a single parent, gay parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, is far less important than that those people provide a loving, supportive environment....

What you or I think is less important than what the majority thinks. The majority is the custodian-at-Large in all manners of regulations involving the welfare of children. Is your next plan to put that before your pocket Justices on the Supreme Court to make just 5 people in DC the rulers of all things child-welfare?
You my friend are in a completely tiny minority, itty bitty teeny weeny tiny minority. I would put the number of people who believe that a mother and father are the most healthy parenting situation running about 90% or more. And if you doubt me, let's put it to a referendum, shall we? Or no? And if not, why not?

Whether a mother and father is the healthiest situation is not the point. We don't limit parenting to the 'best' situation. Anyone is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. Nowadays, thanks to advancements in technology, people who would otherwise not be physically capable of becoming a parent can. The vast majority of people in this country seem just fine with pretty much anyone becoming a parent, legally speaking. You think I'm in a tiny majority there?
I never said that having the biological parents raise a child isn't the ideal situation....

Let's dissect what you just said here starting from your last point and working backwards:
1. You admit/allude to that biological parents are the ideal situation
2. Then you say that a majority of people are peachy keen with children being in a less than ideal situation. (which is a lie, flat out and you and I both know the opposite is true in the 90%tile range.)
3. You then say that "anyone is capable of being a parent". But if that were true psychologically (we aren't just talking biology here with rented wombs), adoption agencies would fling their doors open to any person walking through and hand out orphangs like a pez dispenser...but they don't do that...do they?
4. Whether a natural mother and father is the healthiest situation IS THE ENTIRE POINT of this conversation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having it and we would all concede (the 90% who agree with me and myself) that "Montrovant is right, let's just remove all oversight and let anyone rent wombs and finance baby(child)-machines all they like"
I suggest that the world may be ready for the scientific side of your frankensteinian baby-project to "anyone and everyone who wants them"; but that it ISN'T ready for the outfall of where that industry (thank you for that correct assessment New York Times) is heading socially and psychologically..

1. OK.....
2. What I said is that a majority of people seem fine having whoever is capable of it having a child, from a legal standpoint. People may not like various people having children, but there are very few people, I think, who would agree to having the right to have a child legally limited. As usual, stop making shit up.
3. That was a missed word, and for some reason the edit button isn't available on my post. I meant to say that anyone who is physically capable of becoming a parent can do so. And that is certainly true. There are no legal limits on people having babies, barring extreme and unusual circumstance.
4. Again, no, the healthiest situation has never been the point. Legally, there are no basically no restrictions on who can have a baby or how many they have. If you can have sex and are both fertile, the law doesn't say anything about it. If you are infertile and can use IVF, for the most part, the law doesn't say anything about it. The only time the law may get involved in child birth is for people already convicted of crimes or otherwise limited based on past behavior by the legal system. No one needs to live up to any sort of 'ideal' standard in order to have a child. I have seen next to no outcry about this situation, in fact I have only ever heard people speak against the idea of any sort of legal restriction to having children..

2. I think there is a majority, 90% range, who would say a child deserves a mother and father....married preferably.
3. A limit to having babies might be a physical structure of a marriage that not only is minus a womb, but more importantly, minus a mother...a thing that according to the "new science" you're embracing, could mean in the future, 3 or 4 generations or more of a "family" who has no matriarch presence whatsoever. That might stand to skew our society a bit, dontcha think? And the SCOTUS's tyrannical-Five just rubber-stamped that without the permission of our entire society of whom this situation is going to affect deeply and permanently in ways even you can't forsee. And I'm going to bank that those ways are negative...on a hunch..
4. Last time I checked, two gay men are never fertile, nor ever could be. So it's always 1 gay man + a womb/mother that will not be present to mother the child; nor will there even be a substitute/adoptive mother of that child. There will simply be no mother for that child. And you want that to go without regulation and oversight? I say this is child-endangerment just begging to happen.

Whether someone thinks a child deserves a mother and father is far different from whether a person thinks that having children should be legally restricted. I am very confident that 90% of the country does not want having children restricted as you would have it.

Sure, it's possible that 3 or 4 generations could have families with no matriarch presence. What you fail to understand is that that has always been possible, just unlikely. What you also seem to miss is that gays are a small percentage of the population, making that scenario yet more unlikely. Besides, that situation could easily occur with single parent households rather than the gays you so despise.

I don't mind some regulations or oversight with surrogacy, but not for the reasons or in the ways you envision. I am not looking to arbitrarily decide who is fit for being a parent based on their sexual orientation. I'd perhaps want to see legal safety measures in cases where surrogates attempt to assert parental rights.

You like to talk about precedents, so how about this : if you deny gays the right to have children because there is no mother or father in the home, wouldn't that set a precedent to prevent single parents from having children? A pregnant widow would, what, be forced to give up her child or have an abortion? A deadbeat father would, instead of being forced to pay support, be forced to live with the mother to help raise the child?

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

Absolutely true.

 

[Silhouette]

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

Gay men can't be parents. They need a womb. And, you're right. There has to be a line drawn on 3 or 4 generations of male-only "gay marriage" families with not a single matriarch to expose children raised decade after decade to a motherly role model. That's going to change the fundamental structure of society over time....not to mention deprive the children of a vital element to their lives as a new type of "sanctioned institution". If gay men can't have babies, they can't have babies. And how are lesbians getting pregnant when "men aren't important"? All these lessons the little sponge-minded children are going to soak up without a single word spoken. This is no longer a conversation about "gay rights". It's a conversation about society's rights to carve and define its own collective destiny.

 

[Montrovant]

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

Gay men can't be parents. They need a womb. And, you're right. There has to be a line drawn on 3 or 4 generations of male-only "gay marriage" families with not a single matriarch to expose children raised decade after decade to a motherly role model. That's going to change the fundamental structure of society over time....not to mention deprive the children of a vital element to their lives as a new type of "sanctioned institution". If gay men can't have babies, they can't have babies. And how are lesbians getting pregnant when "men aren't important"? All these lessons the little sponge-minded children are going to soak up without a single word spoken. This is no longer a conversation about "gay rights". It's a conversation about society's rights to carve and define its own collective destiny.

I see you have ignored my points about the limited number of gays in the population as well as the fact that having multiple generations without a matriarch or patriarch is already possible with single parents.

The structure of societies always change over time. It's not that it changes you are so upset with but how it is changing.

Clearly, gay men can have babies. Again, you are simply opposed to how they can do it.

Do you think all lesbians consider men to be not important?

Of course you don't want any conversation to be about gay rights. Granting rights to people is too easily sold. You want to try and warp any conversation to make it seem that gays are ruining the world because you hate them for whatever reasons. You also seem to fear them, considering gays to have a great deal of power considering their estimated numbers. Or perhaps, much as you don't want to think it, society is actually moving toward accepting gays all on its own. Maybe the collective destiny society is carving out is the one you are so opposed to. But you aren't actually interested in anything society wants, unless it happens to agree with your agenda, are you?

 

[Silhouette]

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

Gay men can't be parents. They need a womb. And, you're right. There has to be a line drawn on 3 or 4 generations of male-only "gay marriage" families with not a single matriarch to expose children raised decade after decade to a motherly role model. That's going to change the fundamental structure of society over time....not to mention deprive the children of a vital element to their lives as a new type of "sanctioned institution". If gay men can't have babies, they can't have babies. And how are lesbians getting pregnant when "men aren't important"? All these lessons the little sponge-minded children are going to soak up without a single word spoken. This is no longer a conversation about "gay rights". It's a conversation about society's rights to carve and define its own collective destiny.

I see you have ignored my points about the limited number of gays in the population as well as the fact that having multiple generations without a matriarch or patriarch is already possible with single parents.
The structure of societies always change over time. It's not that it changes you are so upset with but how it is changing.
Clearly, gay men can have babies. Again, you are simply opposed to how they can do it.
Do you think all lesbians consider men to be not important?

The CDC indicates that that number is on the increase. Gays have a term in longstanding vernacular. It's called "to turn out". It's when a young boy is contacted sexually by another man and thereby imprinted to be homosexual himself. In recent years it is society itself that seems to be doing this above the radar in the form of a new social trend in urging young males to experiment "being gay/bisexual"...with disasterous results.

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth Age HIV by Group HIV AIDS CDC

I would suggest that not only are the infections on the increase, but the numbers of boys doing gay sex in general. You know how fads work in youth I'm assuming? Monkey see, monkey do. It costs roughly $500,000 per patient from diagnosis to untimely death from HIV as it progresses eventually and inevitably to AIDS. I wonder how much longer this nation can afford to play pretend that "gayness is born that way!". It's "turning out" to be quite a foolish blind spot.

Gay men never have babies together in a "marriage"..nor can they ever provide a mother. Lesbians never have babies together in "marriage" nor can they ever provide a father. Each needs the opposite gender's genetic material to reproduce...a missing parent 100% of the time. That is an institution that is not in any child's best interest. From the genetic missing parent there needs to be a custodial trail of some type, some oversight. Manufacturing parentless/deprived children for money is the issue I have trouble with. It cuts that protective bond and puts a child up for sale, at least half of them, on the market.

 

[Skylar]

Gay men never have babies together in a "marriage"..nor can they ever provide a mother. Lesbians never have babies together in "marriage" nor can they ever provide a father. Each needs the opposite gender's genetic material to reproduce...a missing parent 100% of the time.

So what? Hetero couples with an infertile mate use donor eggs or donor sperm all the time. People adopt all the time. And they are universally recognized as the parents of any children they raise.

The only time you call into question if these are the parents of the children they raise....is if the parents are gay. And your animus toward gays has no relevance whatsoever to the child's best interest.

That is an institution that is not in any child's best interest. From the genetic missing parent there needs to be a custodial trail of some type, some oversight. Manufacturing parentless/deprived children for money is the issue I have trouble with. It cuts that protective bond and puts a child up for sale, at least half of them, on the market.

The 'genetic parent' gibberish is meaningless. A child needs a caring family. Not 'genetic parents'. Your entire basis of argument is ludicrous. And of course, only applied if the parents are gay.

Rendering your 'genetic parent' idiocy yet another pointless proxy, a rhetorical horse for you to ride that you will discard the moment it is no longer convenient to your argument. Like your imaginary care about the welfare of children. You don't give a fiddler's fuck about children. You care about attacking gay people. And any child that doesn't allow you to do this...is beneath your consideration.

 

[Syriusly]

And I think it's clear that when you call for regulation and oversight of surrogacy, what you really want is a ban on gay parents.

Gay men can't be parents.

Gay men are parents all the time.

Some are parents because they donated sperm.
Some are parents because they adopted a child whose straight parents had abandoned him or her.

But Gay men are parents- no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.