There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait. I'm not sure about how that is a form of "reverse racism." I don't see how the ability of some members of society to entice other members of society to sell their eggs, sperm or wombs can not be an expression of class privilege. The industry functions as a marketplace, according to free market principles. Some can afford things. Some cannot.
There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait. I'm not sure about how that is a form of "reverse racism." I don't believe you
I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.I understand that the cause of sexual liberation is something that is in your interest. And that you prioritize sexual freedoms as being more important then the fulfillment of obligations to others in such forms as child rearing. This ugly accusation really says oh so much more about you, than it does me. Please demonstrate, without selecting only partial thoughts, ideas, or statements and taking what I actually wrote out of context, how you have come to understand that. You keep whining about unfair responses to your posts, and yet you have clearly done just that, here. How about you prove I hold that opinion, instead of just stating it, or apologize for making unfounded accusations. Or do you lack the moral fiber to hold yourself to a reasonable standard?
You clearly didn't understand my point Lausten.Evasion, does not nullify the statements you are responding to and it does not score any gains for your assertions.
I don't think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal.Wanna bet?
PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to "own up" to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it. Is "Wanna bet?" is your idea of a worthwhile challenge to a strait froward statement? What is the purpose of chopping up someone else's post into only the partial thoughts or ideas that you want to challenge. Certainly it is not for fairness and clarity. Wouldn't it be far more fair to quote them in their entirety and highlight the portions you wish to challenge? Do you deny that using only parts of what someone said does not have a clear tendency to misrepresent what they expressed? Can you please do us all the favor of leaving our posts intact for the sake of fairness and clarity?
If the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on. Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women. (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)The propagation of a society has not just to do with the sexual generation of children but also with the raising of those children to the stage of independence and beyond. I believe that many of society's ills could be improved upon by improving upon the situation of how children are raised. Impregnating wives by "any healthy man that the married couple agrees on" means the deliberate making of a partial-orphan situation. Without condemning orphans, it is fair to say that there are many problems that are unique to orphan situations. Also, the breaking of the sexual exclusivity pact between a married husband and wife, by definition, weakens the degree of commitment between partners. Subsequently, it weakens the emotional bonds of the relationship, because they are less exclusive, which lessens the stability of the family as a support structure for the children. You really throw the word "orphan" around in a derogative and inflammatory manner to casts shame about. And, it devalues your arguments. Surely there are more objective words in your repertoire. do you also call children born out of wedlock, bastards? You appear to have an almost Victorian era obsession with social class and assigning people to their stations as you see fit. It displays an acute lack of compassion and equanimity. You whine about fairness and then turn around make unfair statements about others. If you truly value fairness, why do you not strive to include it in your discourse. There is an old idea that "the things we disdain in others, are actually parts of ourselves we are afraid to, or refuse to acknowledge".
If the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on. Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women. (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)The propagation of a society has not just to do with the sexual generation of children but also with the raising of those children to the stage of independence and beyond. I believe that many of society's ills could be improved upon by improving upon the situation of how children are raised. Impregnating wives by "any healthy man that the married couple agrees on" means the deliberate making of a partial-orphan situation. Without condemning orphans, it is fair to say that there are many problems that are unique to orphan situations. Also, the breaking of the sexual exclusivity pact between a married husband and wife, by definition, weakens the degree of commitment between partners. Subsequently, it weakens the emotional bonds of the relationship, because they are less exclusive, which lessens the stability of the family as a support structure for the children. Ok, I see now that, you are saying that the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is NOT ONLY encouraging propagation but ALSO, the "optimal" raising of children. So you are saying that only heterosexuals should be issued a marriage license by the State, because only heterosexuals can pair up to produce and raise their own jointly biological children AND that this is the optimal condition for children's development, therefore the State should not encourage any other condition for children to be raised, by issuing marriage licenses to persons such as homosexuals who cannot meet all of these optimal conditions. Here are some key points that call that position out: (AFAIK, heterosexuals who get married are under no obligation to have children in the first place.) Heterosexual married couples who do have their own jointly biological children do not ALWAYS have what it takes to raise children optimally. Heterosexuals are going to continue to produce children out of wedlock. So there are always going to be children who are not being raised optimally. If you had young children, and had no extended family or godparents or friends to take them in the event of your and your spouse's sudden death, which would be the most optimal for them: 1) foster care - no? 2) Adoptive parents (in a committed loving marriage) who have or will have their own biological children - maybe? 3) Adoptive parents (in a committed loving marriage) who want children but who are unlikely to ever have their own biological children - maybe even better? The #3 option might be most optimal for all of the children (and there will always be many) who do not have biological parents or extended family or godparents who are willing and able to care for them most optimally. Hence, My contention is that even in your line of reasoning that marriage is about what is in the interest of the State, the #3 option can be filled by married homosexual couples, thus it is in the State's interest to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples who want to adopt, or who one day may want to adopt children.
What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to "own up" to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it.
Can you please do us all the favor of leaving our posts intact for the sake of fairness and clarity?I am trying really hard to avoid responding to all of the personal attacks by sticking to the topic, but I can't help pointing out the irony that this post was "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:59 AM by Handydan ]" /---MY EDIT---\ In this topic alone, so far---> Post #30 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:15 PM by Handydan ]" Post #31 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:13 PM by Handydan ]" Post #42 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:22 AM by Handydan ]" Post #43 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:25 AM by Handydan ]" Post #44 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:59 AM by Handydan ]" Post #45 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 01:41 PM by Handydan ]"
Ok, I see now that, you are saying that the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is NOT ONLY encouraging propagation but ALSO, the "optimal" raising of children.We are talking about propagating and not about procreating. Yes. Mammals need to be raised by parents (biological or adoptive) in order to thrive.
So you are saying that...No. I am saying precisely what I said.
Heterosexual married couples who do have their own jointly biological children do not ALWAYS have what it takes to raise children optimally.That's what I said. We agree.
My contention is that even in your line of reasoning that...What you are arguing against is not and has never been my line of reasoning. I have not expressed anything like that anywhere.
the #3 option can be filled by married homosexual couples, thus it is in the State's interest to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples who want to adopt, or who one day may want to adopt children.That's what I said. We agree.
What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to "own up" to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it.
Can you please do us all the favor of leaving our posts intact for the sake of fairness and clarity?I am trying really hard to avoid responding to all of the personal attacks by sticking to the topic, but I can't help pointing out the irony that this post was "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:59 AM by Handydan ]" /---MY EDIT---\ In this topic alone, so far---> Post #30 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:15 PM by Handydan ]" Post #31 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:13 PM by Handydan ]" Post #42 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:22 AM by Handydan ]" Post #43 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:25 AM by Handydan ]" Post #44 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:59 AM by Handydan ]" Post #45 by HandyDan "[ Edited: 06 November 2014 01:41 PM by Handydan ]" It really sucks to be you, huh? Moving on
It really sucks to be you, huh?How can you post something so hateful?
It really sucks to be you, huh?How can you post something so hateful? If that's not the pot calling the kettle black.... I will not engage you any further. Please return the favor.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?Relevant to society. 1) Gays only make up a small portion of society. 2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large. Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation. Sterile heterosexuals can't reproduce, either. What should we do about them? Prevent them from getting married because they are "irrelevant"? "What's good for the goose . . . " LoisNon-Sequitur.
But society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society. It's a win win.This is wrong, though. Gay relationships can't be on the same level as straight relationships because the dynamic of same-sex partners is very different from that of different-sex partners. Can't be on the same level as far as what? And in what way? You need to explain that because it makes no sense. Unless, it only makes sense to you.The same level of social relevance. And the words "social relevance" means what according to you exactly?Relevant to society. 1) Gays only make up a small portion of society. 2) Since only a man and a woman can reproduce, straight relationships are fundamentally more important to society at large. Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation. Sterile heterosexuals can't reproduce, either. What should we do about them? Prevent them from getting married because they are "irrelevant"? "What's good for the goose . . . " LoisNon-Sequitur. Explain if you can. Lois
Midatlantic: I am gay and married to my partner. Reading through some of your comments, I wanted to respond, although I am clearly late in this thread. However, the fact that the gay population is “small” is not really relevant because it is obvious that gays are a minority but that argument could be used to deny any minority any right and it actually sounds like a dangerous, inhumane argument to be concerned with the majority demographic only. Obviously, heterosexuals can reproduce, but that doesn’t not by default make them higher on the “social relevance” concept you introduced…I know plenty of children of heterosexual parents raised in terrible homes (alcoholism, drugs, lack of parental guidance and so on). Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who have a child simply because they failed to employ an effective method of birth control while you can be guaranteed that any gay couple who has children together it will be on purpose, with intention and take a great deal of financial resources to secure the adoption; which leads to the next point…isn’t adoption of a parentless child “socially relevant”? And that subsequent family we want and need equal protection under the law and validation within the community. And while on the subject, as a gay man, I love how heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage say it’s “gay marriage” that will “ruin” marriage when the heterosexual marriage has been increasingly failing since the 1960s. Furthermore, since the arguement here seems to be “social relevance” I think you would have to prove how granting same sex couples the right to participate in marriage would subtract from the “social relevance” of heterosexuals…I doubt we’re going go hear straight couples say, “Damn, we can’t get married and have kids now.”
Midatlantic: I am gay and married to my partner. Reading through some of your comments, I wanted to respond, although I am clearly late in this thread. However, the fact that the gay population is "small" is not really relevant because it is obvious that gays are a minority but that argument could be used to deny any minority any right and it actually sounds like a dangerous, inhumane argument to be concerned with the majority demographic only. Obviously, heterosexuals can reproduce, but that doesn't not by default make them higher on the "social relevance" concept you introduced...I know plenty of children of heterosexual parents raised in terrible homes (alcoholism, drugs, lack of parental guidance and so on). Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who have a child simply because they failed to employ an effective method of birth control while you can be guaranteed that any gay couple who has children together it will be on purpose, with intention and take a great deal of financial resources to secure the adoption; which leads to the next point...isn't adoption of a parentless child "socially relevant"? And that subsequent family we want and need equal protection under the law and validation within the community. And while on the subject, as a gay man, I love how heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage say it's "gay marriage" that will "ruin" marriage when the heterosexual marriage has been increasingly failing since the 1960s. Furthermore, since the arguement here seems to be "social relevance" I think you would have to prove how granting same sex couples the right to participate in marriage would subtract from the "social relevance" of heterosexuals...I doubt we're going go hear straight couples say, "Damn, we can't get married and have kids now."You should read some of his recent post about black people. He probably supports eugenics.
Midatlantic: I am gay and married to my partner. Reading through some of your comments, I wanted to respond, although I am clearly late in this thread. However, the fact that the gay population is "small" is not really relevant because it is obvious that gays are a minority but that argument could be used to deny any minority any right and it actually sounds like a dangerous, inhumane argument to be concerned with the majority demographic only. Obviously, heterosexuals can reproduce, but that doesn't not by default make them higher on the "social relevance" concept you introduced...I know plenty of children of heterosexual parents raised in terrible homes (alcoholism, drugs, lack of parental guidance and so on).I hear that, but I disagree. Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.
Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who have a child simply because they failed to employ an effective method of birth control while you can be guaranteed that any gay couple who has children together it will be on purpose, with intention and take a great deal of financial resources to secure the adoption;FWIW, most children are accidental, but that doesn't mean they're unwanted. Also, the fact that adoption is difficult, doesn't mean will turn out great for the child.
which leads to the next point...isn't adoption of a parentless child "socially relevant"? And that subsequent family we want and need equal protection under the law and validation within the community.Interesting comments; you bring up points that get to the heart of the matter for me. I'm suspicious of gay couples raising kids in general. 1) To start with, many gay men are known for extreme hedonism. Gay women are known for hating men. 2) Since heterosexual coupling is the evolutionary standard, there is probably a psychological need to be raised by a man and a woman. 3) Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it's beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I'm aware of studies claiming "no difference at all", yet there's adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/06/behold-the-quartet-of-truth/
And while on the subject, as a gay man, I love how heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage say it's "gay marriage" that will "ruin" marriage when the heterosexual marriage has been increasingly failing since the 1960s. Furthermore, since the arguement here seems to be "social relevance" I think you would have to prove how granting same sex couples the right to participate in marriage would subtract from the "social relevance" of heterosexuals...I doubt we're going go hear straight couples say, "Damn, we can't get married and have kids now."I didn't say any of this.
Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.Please explain that. I recognize the words you are using but the way you put them together makes no sense.
I'm suspicious of gay couples raising kids in general.Yes, we all see your bigotry.
1) To start with, many gay men are known for extreme hedonism. Gay women are known for hating men.Stereotypes prove nothing. Do you have any peer reviewed research backing your opinion?
2) Since heterosexual coupling is the evolutionary standard, there is probably a psychological need to be raised by a man and a woman.This is an unsupported assertion.
3) Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it's beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I'm aware of studies claiming "no difference at all", yet there's adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/06/behold-the-quartet-of-truth/Anecdotal evidence does not trump scientific research.
Midatlantic: I am gay and married to my partner. Reading through some of your comments, I wanted to respond, although I am clearly late in this thread. However, the fact that the gay population is "small" is not really relevant because it is obvious that gays are a minority but that argument could be used to deny any minority any right and it actually sounds like a dangerous, inhumane argument to be concerned with the majority demographic only. Obviously, heterosexuals can reproduce, but that doesn't not by default make them higher on the "social relevance" concept you introduced...I know plenty of children of heterosexual parents raised in terrible homes (alcoholism, drugs, lack of parental guidance and so on).I hear that, but I disagree. Even though it sounds callous to assign social relevance, the fact of potential reproduction makes a scale of relevance necessary.
Furthermore, there are heterosexuals who have a child simply because they failed to employ an effective method of birth control while you can be guaranteed that any gay couple who has children together it will be on purpose, with intention and take a great deal of financial resources to secure the adoption;FWIW, most children are accidental, but that doesn't mean they're unwanted. Also, the fact that adoption is difficult, doesn't mean will turn out great for the child.
which leads to the next point...isn't adoption of a parentless child "socially relevant"? And that subsequent family we want and need equal protection under the law and validation within the community.Interesting comments; you bring up points that get to the heart of the matter for me. I'm suspicious of gay couples raising kids in general. 1) To start with, many gay men are known for extreme hedonism. Gay women are known for hating men. 2) Since heterosexual coupling is the evolutionary standard, there is probably a psychological need to be raised by a man and a woman. 3) Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it's beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I'm aware of studies claiming "no difference at all", yet there's adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/06/behold-the-quartet-of-truth/
And while on the subject, as a gay man, I love how heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage say it's "gay marriage" that will "ruin" marriage when the heterosexual marriage has been increasingly failing since the 1960s. Furthermore, since the arguement here seems to be "social relevance" I think you would have to prove how granting same sex couples the right to participate in marriage would subtract from the "social relevance" of heterosexuals...I doubt we're going go hear straight couples say, "Damn, we can't get married and have kids now."I didn't say any of this. No, it's not guaranteed an adoption it will turn out "great" for the child, but then again it is not guaranteed to turn out "great" if adopted by a hetero couple either. Sure there can be extreme hedonism among gays, but those will not likely be the ones starting a family in the suburbs either. Do you really believe the "hedonist" types will be adopting??? And that goes for any hedonist, regardless of orientation. There is need for love that parents can offer. As long as the traits necessary for positive social and emotional well being and growth are present in the home, that may be sufficient. And I know you didn't say any of the things at the end, that's why I prefaced with, "And while on the subject."
Mid Atlantic: “I’m suspicious of gay couples raising kids in general.”
Darron: “Yes, we all see your bigotry.”
I don’t. Please explain how Mid-Atlantic’s views are bigoted. To me, it comes across that you are simply trying to deflect from the points that he is making by attacking his character.
Mid Atlantic: "Since its likely the child of the gay couple will be heterosexual, it’s beneficial for the child to see a man and woman interacting as romantic partners. I’m aware of studies claiming “no difference at all”, yet there’s adults raised by gays who say otherwise: A recent example - Nonreligious Questions "
Darron: “Anecdotal evidence does not trump scientific research.”
Come on Darron. From a social scientific perspective, the unfavorable testimony of persons who were raised by homosexual “parents” is entirely valid as a scientific means of measuring the effect of gay parenting on them. It is certainly as valid as would be a favorable testimony by such persons.
You are welcome to say that such social scientific discussions lack the lack the level of objectivity of the physical sciences. But then quit pretending your arguments have anything more objective behind them then the ones you disagree with. Quit demanding, from others, a level of certainty that you, yourself, can not offer.