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

[Silhouette]

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.

Yes, because they provide a mother and father to the children; whereas gays and lesbians are incapable of doing that 100% of the time. As to them manufacturing babies using donor eggs and sperm, are they screened for fit parenting? What I mean to say is, do they at least provide a mother and a father to the children coming into their home? If "yes", then that number one concern is checked off the list.

When hetero marrieds use surrogacy, their daily lesson to the kids that arrive is' we had to use others' biology to make you appear in our lives, but you (little daughter) and you (little son) can clearly see that your gender has a specific daily role in the raising of children, vital and superior to mere biological reproduction..

That lesson is simply absent to both genders of kids in any gay home. Those children will 100% of the time absorb the daily lesson "this gender (missing mother, missing father) is not essential to family life or a functioning adult world by extension. This is how children process unspoken lessons. Which is absolutely devastating to a child whose gender isn't there. Or same with a child who is, who learns to regard the missing parent gender as "a machine for my use of reproduction only".

Fast forward three generations and we will have quite a few massively-depressed or sociopathic "good citizens" filling the ranks of the separate states. And hence the reason they/we wanted a say in the matter..

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, because they provide a mother and father to the children; whereas gays and lesbians are incapable of doing that 100% of the time. .

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

 

[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.

Yes, because they provide a mother and father to the children; whereas gays and lesbians are incapable of doing that 100% of the time.

Then you just moved your goal post. Rendering your 'genetic parent' gibberish irrelevant to your argument. And abandoned the moment it doesn't work.

Sigh....exactly as I told you you would.

As to them manufacturing babies using donor eggs and sperm, are they screened for fit parenting?

As much as any hetero parents. Yours tandards has nothing to do with how fit the parents are. But if the parents are gay. if they're gay, you assume they are unfit.

That's irrational and gloriously irrelevant. Just as your claims that surrogacy is 'child trafficking'...if the parents are gay.

What I mean to say is, do they at least provide a mother and a father to the children coming into their home? If "yes", then that number one concern is checked off the list.

Checked off your list. But you are irrelevant to this process. You don't dictate any terms to any parents nor is your opinion the basis of 'fit' or 'unfit' parents.

The only standard you set is that of irrational animus toward gays.

 

[Silhouette]

What I mean to say is, do they at least provide a mother and a father to the children coming into their home? If "yes", then that number one concern is checked off the list.

Checked off your list. But you are irrelevant to this process. You don't dictate any terms to any parents nor is your opinion the basis of 'fit' or 'unfit' parents.

The only standard you set is that of irrational animus toward gays.

The majority (I'll bet the deed to my house it's running over 90%) of people who self-govern in this country and who collectively act as guardians ad litem for all our children thereby, ARE INDEED RELEVENT TO THIS PROCESS...a fact which I have a feeling you're going to be painfully aware of as this legal discussion evolves..

Even gays feel their experience of having a mother and father is necessary. Only the hardest of hard core hard left lunatics believe in this "uncharted brave new world social experiment depriving kids of moms or dads as a legitmate tax-subsidized institution"...using kids as lab rats.

 

[Skylar]

What I mean to say is, do they at least provide a mother and a father to the children coming into their home? If "yes", then that number one concern is checked off the list.

Checked off your list. But you are irrelevant to this process. You don't dictate any terms to any parents nor is your opinion the basis of 'fit' or 'unfit' parents.

The only standard you set is that of irrational animus toward gays.

The majority (I'll bet the deed to my house it's running over 90%) of people who self-govern in this country and who collectively act as guardians ad litem for all our children thereby, ARE INDEED RELEVENT TO THIS PROCESS...a fact which I have a feeling you're going to be painfully aware of as this legal discussion evolves..

The majority of people don't have any problem with gays adopting.

By a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. And that's adopting children. You are arguing that gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to raise their OWN children. Which would garner even less support that opposing adoption.

Again, your personal and irrational animus toward gays has nothing to do with what the pubic supports. And you set no standards of 'fitness' of any parent. Nor have the slightest relevance to any adoption, surrogacy, or parenting.

And of course, your imaginary gibberish about 'child trafficking' has no legal relevance. As you don't know what the term means. Nor how it is applied in the law. Surrogacy isn't it.

 

[Silhouette]

If a lesbian gets pregnant, she did so with a father. Yet lesbians reserve the "right" to use men as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a father in a child's life. If gay men rent wombs to produce children, they reserve the "right" to use women as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a mother in a child's life.

These "lessons by example" are going to produce generations of children with social adjustment and self-esteem issues. States incentivized heterosexual marriage because both genders present, any child in them would find "themselves" (via their gender) represented. Thereby the adjustment and esteem issues would at least have a fighting chance.

I'm saying this debate will boil down to gay men and lesbians' "right" to deprive a child of either a mother or father in their formative years 'as married' vs a child's right to have their gender represented as a role model in marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

If a lesbian gets pregnant, she did so with a father. Yet lesbians reserve the "right" to use men as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a father in a child's life. If gay men rent wombs to produce children, they reserve the "right" to use women as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a mother in a child's life.

These "lessons by example" are going to produce generations of children with social adjustment and self-esteem issues. States incentivized heterosexual marriage because both genders present, any child in them would find "themselves" (via their gender) represented. Thereby the adjustment and esteem issues would at least have a fighting chance.

I'm saying this debate will boil down to gay men and lesbians' "right" to deprive a child of either a mother or father in their formative years 'as married' vs a child's right to have their gender represented as a role model in marriage.

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

 

[Montrovant]

What I mean to say is, do they at least provide a mother and a father to the children coming into their home? If "yes", then that number one concern is checked off the list.

Checked off your list. But you are irrelevant to this process. You don't dictate any terms to any parents nor is your opinion the basis of 'fit' or 'unfit' parents.

The only standard you set is that of irrational animus toward gays.

The majority (I'll bet the deed to my house it's running over 90%) of people who self-govern in this country and who collectively act as guardians ad litem for all our children thereby, ARE INDEED RELEVENT TO THIS PROCESS...a fact which I have a feeling you're going to be painfully aware of as this legal discussion evolves..

Even gays feel their experience of having a mother and father is necessary. Only the hardest of hard core hard left lunatics believe in this "uncharted brave new world social experiment depriving kids of moms or dads as a legitmate tax-subsidized institution"...using kids as lab rats.

Necessary for what? You say having both a mother and father is necessary, yet children have been raised without one or the other throughout human history. Having a mother and father raise a child may be ideal, but it is not necessary.

 

[Skylar]

If a lesbian gets pregnant, she did so with a father. Yet lesbians reserve the "right" to use men as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a father in a child's life. If gay men rent wombs to produce children, they reserve the "right" to use women as baby-machines only, negating the huge importance of a mother in a child's life.

These "lessons by example" are going to produce generations of children with social adjustment and self-esteem issues. States incentivized heterosexual marriage because both genders present, any child in them would find "themselves" (via their gender) represented. Thereby the adjustment and esteem issues would at least have a fighting chance.

I'm saying this debate will boil down to gay men and lesbians' "right" to deprive a child of either a mother or father in their formative years 'as married' vs a child's right to have their gender represented as a role model in marriage.

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because this time Sil really, really means it?

 

[Skylar]

These "lessons by example" are going to produce generations of children with social adjustment and self-esteem issues. States incentivized heterosexual marriage because both genders present, any child in them would find "themselves" (via their gender) represented. Thereby the adjustment and esteem issues would at least have a fighting chance.

Says you, pretending to be a psychologist. Sil......please listen, as this point is fundamental:

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You really, really don't.

You can pretend to be a lawyer, but you don't know shit about the law. You can pretend to be a psychologist. Bu you don't know a thing about psychology. You're literally scrambling from one baseless, made up claim to the next, all in the pursuit of your personal hatred of gay people.

Hatred, you know something about.

I'm saying this debate will boil down to gay men and lesbians' "right" to deprive a child of either a mother or father in their formative years 'as married' vs a child's right to have their gender represented as a role model in marriage.

There is no 'debate'. As you don't get a say in whether gays or lesbians get to raise their own children. You're irrelevant to the process. And you don't give a shit about children. As you'll gladly hurt them by the 10s of thousands if it also means you can hurt gay people.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study never so much as mentions gays, gay parenting, same sex marriage, or any of your gibberish. It doesn't even measure the effects of any kind of parenting by your own admission.

You're hallucinating again.

 

[Montrovant]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So because you have repeatedly lied about the Prince's Trust Youth Index and because you were completely, totally wrong about the USSC taking it into account in their ruling on SSM, someone should suddenly believe what you say?

 

[Silhouette]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So because you have repeatedly lied about the Prince's Trust Youth Index and because you were completely, totally wrong about the USSC taking it into account in their ruling on SSM, someone should suddenly believe what you say?

People can read for themselves that a boy being deprived of a father or a girl of a mother suffer elevated depression, suicidal thoughts, indigency and a feeling of not belonging compared to their peers with both a mother and father. They just follow the link and read the quotes and links. Easy peasy. Debate solved.

 

[Montrovant]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So because you have repeatedly lied about the Prince's Trust Youth Index and because you were completely, totally wrong about the USSC taking it into account in their ruling on SSM, someone should suddenly believe what you say?

People can read for themselves that a boy being deprived of a father or a girl of a mother suffer elevated depression, suicidal thoughts, indigency and a feeling of not belonging compared to their peers with both a mother and father. They just follow the link and read the quotes and links. Easy peasy. Debate solved.

Sure, anyone can read that....in your posts. Unfortunately for you, they cannot read that in the Index, since that is about male or female role models, not specifically mothers and fathers. Which, as usual, you ignore.

 

[Syriusly]

You say a lot of things without any evidence, and you make a lot of predictions which turn out wrong. Why should anyone think that has changed?

Because of this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So because you have repeatedly lied about the Prince's Trust Youth Index and because you were completely, totally wrong about the USSC taking it into account in their ruling on SSM, someone should suddenly believe what you say?

People can read for themselves that a boy being deprived of a father or a girl of a mother suffer elevated depression, suicidal thoughts, indigency and a feeling of not belonging compared to their peers with both a mother and father. They just follow the link and read the quotes and links. Easy peasy. Debate solved.

Except the study doesn't say that at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Sure, anyone can read that....in your posts. Unfortunately for you, they cannot read that in the Index, since that is about male or female role models, not specifically mothers and fathers. Which, as usual, you ignore.

There are direct quotes from the study that say "boys without a father...." and "girls without a mother..." and they go on to cite the damage done. Like I said. Argument over. People can read the study for themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure, anyone can read that....in your posts. Unfortunately for you, they cannot read that in the Index, since that is about male or female role models, not specifically mothers and fathers. Which, as usual, you ignore.

There are direct quotes from the study that say "boys without a father...." and "girls without a mother..." and they go on to cite the damage done. Like I said. Argument over. People can read the study for themselves.

Go on- provide those quotes- here is the link- because sure looks like you are lying again.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

I just opened it- and using 'search'- not one mention of mother or father in the document.
Doesn't mention gay, doesn't mention marriage- what it does mention are role models

k
Young men without positive male role models are
three times more likely
than their
peers with male role models to lack a sense of belonging. They are also
significantly
less likely
to feel happy and confident than those with male role models. They are
three
times more likely
to feel down or depressed all of the time and
significantly more
likely
to admit they can’t remember the last time they felt proud.
More than one in
three (36 per cent)
say they lack a sense of identity
k
One in five (20 per cent)
of young women with a female role model in their lives feel
anxious “all” or “most” of the time compared with
34 per cent
of female peers without
female role models in their lives.
Almost one in four
(23 per cent) feel rejected “all” or
“most” of the time compared with
11 per cent
of their peers

 

[Silhouette]

Two men renting wombs..teaching the children in the home by wrote that females are "non-essentials"...both boys and girls learn this lesson into their bone marrow..

...and all without a custodial paper trail...and for money...to the detriment of children...

...and HOW is this intrinsically different from trafficking? If two gay men can do this with a womb, why not a single one? If he makes enough money?

etc....etc....etc...

 

[Montrovant]

Two men renting wombs..teaching the children in the home by wrote that females are "non-essentials"...both boys and girls learn this lesson into their bone marrow..

...and all without a custodial paper trail...and for money...to the detriment of children...

...and HOW is this intrinsically different from trafficking? If two gay men can do this with a womb, why not a single one? If he makes enough money?

etc....etc....etc...

How is it different from trafficking? You are a fool. Trafficking involves the selling or exploitation of children, forcing them to work for the adults involved. Surrogacy is using someone else's womb to carry your child. Are the children of surrogacy somehow being forced into sweat shops unbeknownst to those around them? Does surrogacy somehow provide a form of camouflage that doesn't exist in the average pregnancy? Are the children of surrogacy being sold to anyone? The answers to all of these questions is, of course, no. Surrogacy is no more dangerous than any other pregnancy as far as child trafficking is concerned. Which you either know and are ignoring, as is your wont, in order to try and make a point (hoping that someone who reads it will be willing to also ignore the obvious facts) or you are truly an idiot. Hell, perhaps both.

And how does whether a single man or a gay couple use surrogacy in any way relate to child trafficking? Of course, considering you haven't shown any relation between surrogacy and trafficking before now, I'm sure you will not answer this, either. You'll just continue to spew nearly random connection hoping one will stick somewhere.