Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.
When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please,
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.
2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.
3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.
4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?
5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.
6. Do I need to go on?
7. I appreciate the advanced thanks
Numbering added for response purposes...
1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.
Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)
2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.
Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)
3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.
Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)
4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?
Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers or same-sex married couples trying to conceive using the same methods that non-fertile heterosexual couples seeking medical assistance to conceive? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)
5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.
Irrelevant to the question about what deductions are only available to married couples producing a child and not a single person producing a child.
6. Do I need to go on?
Yes since you haven't provided a single example of a tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child, which was the question.
7. I appreciate the advanced thanks
Care to try again?
>>>>
I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:
1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.
2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended
So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.
If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question
If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.
Note to OP -
1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.
2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.
Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?
The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.
You first....
Why duck the obvious. The counseling is in regards to the marriage and the damage the reproduction caused to it.
It's another marketing red herring
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them
Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>
Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Why duck the obvious. The counseling is in regards to the marriage and the damage the reproduction caused to it.
It's another marketing red herring
Why duck the obvious, medical and counseling services are not treated differently for married couples, single persons, or for a non-married couple in terms of tax deductions which was the source of the original post.
If it's bonafide counseling (whether it be medical for reproductive purposes or psychiatric of mental health issues) it is treated the same under the tax code.
You do realize that single people can get counseling right? When single people get counseling they can use insurance just like us married folk. If the individual itemizes deductions then they can claim the medical expenses not covered by insurance if the expenses exceed 10% of AGI.
So again "No", there is no "special deduction" applicable only to married folks for getting medical, reproductive, post-partum depression, etc. counseling - the same deductions apply to non-married persons.
>>>>
Why duck the obvious. The counseling is in regards to the marriage and the damage the reproduction caused to it.
It's another marketing red herring
Why duck the obvious, medical and counseling services are not treated differently for married couples, single persons, or for a non-married couple in terms of tax deductions which was the source of the original post.
If it's bonafide counseling (whether it be medical for reproductive purposes or psychiatric of mental health issues) it is treated the same under the tax code.
You do realize that single people can get counseling right? When single people get counseling they can use insurance just like us married folk. If the individual itemizes deductions then they can claim the medical expenses not covered by insurance if the expenses exceed 10% of AGI.
So again "No", there is no "special deduction" applicable only to married folks for getting medical, reproductive, post-partum depression, etc. counseling - the same deductions apply to non-married persons.
>>>>
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
You call it single parent households and I refer to households missing a gender parent. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either.So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
You call it single parent households and I refer to households missing a gender parent. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either.So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
You are being obtuse. The lack of a gender parent in the home is the issue. Single parent homes and homo situations both lack that necessity.You call it single parent households and I refer to households missing a gender parent. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either.So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Are there two parents in the households you are referring to? The answer is no.
You're trying to use broken homes as evidence to support your claim. You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
When you compare intact gay to intact straight households, there is no difference in outcomes. How do YOU explain those outcomes if children need a mother and father as you claim and not two parents as all studies show?
You are being obtuse. The lack of a gender parent in the home is the issue. Single parent homes and homo situations both lack that necessity.You call it single parent households and I refer to households missing a gender parent. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either.So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Are there two parents in the households you are referring to? The answer is no.
You're trying to use broken homes as evidence to support your claim. You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
When you compare intact gay to intact straight households, there is no difference in outcomes. How do YOU explain those outcomes if children need a mother and father as you claim and not two parents as all studies show?
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.
Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.
When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime
Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.
And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the fuck out of you.
Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?
That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.
My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!
Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
Sure singles often go to marriage counseling.
It is strange why anyone would compare those two groups. Both have male/female coupling.
Only those couplings produce ALL THE CHILDREN BEING ARGUED ABOUT.
100%
It obviously does. That's because he's too stupid to comprehend a homosexual couple who adopts is legally the same as a heterosexual couple who adopts. It drives him crazy that such folks receive government benefits for bing married. Even worse for him, depending on the state, such couples receive even more benefits for adopting kids than they get for their own biological children.Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.
And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the fuck out of you.
Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?
That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.
My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!
Your gay marriage had nothing to do with it, anyone can adopt or be inseminated
So? We are still legally the parents of our children and we are also legally married. Neither has anything to do with the other. Without the wife, I'd still get the tax breaks for the children and without the children, I'd still get the tax breaks for the wife. (and we'd both still legally be their parents)
Hope it annoys you.
Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.
And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the fuck out of you.
Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?
That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.
My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!
All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.
So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.
Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.
So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?
Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?
Unless we are redefining the word "real" then no, your children would have one "real" parent, and one that played no part in their creation.
Is this an important part of your argument?
