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

[Silhouette]

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?...

...So to fill detrimental gaps left by gay couples, you are advocating that gay couples take on a regular and consistent third member of the opposite gender to be sure the kids have the role model they need? A role model is a regular presence who for the child's sake must remain consistent and available for the full impact of the missing gender in the home.

Again, I am not suggesting anyone do anything. I am suggesting that your argument that a same gender role model is necessary can still include gay couples.

Yeah, only 50% of the time. What about the other 50%? What about children born of wedlock (surrogacy) with gays where one parent always sells out their interest in the child to two "parents" of the same gender? 50% of the time that results in a child who is going straight into "Prince's Trust" detriment territory: no male role model for boys. no female role model for girls. AKA no father or no mother.

This is a social experiment with predictable results: harm to children.

 

[Syriusly]

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?...

Which of your feet do you use to kick puppies?

 

[Syriusly]

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?...

...So to fill detrimental gaps left by gay couples, you are advocating that gay couples take on a regular and consistent third member of the opposite gender to be sure the kids have the role model they need? A role model is a regular presence who for the child's sake must remain consistent and available for the full impact of the missing gender in the home.

Again, I am not suggesting anyone do anything. I am suggesting that your argument that a same gender role model is necessary can still include gay couples.

Yeah, only 50% of the time. What about the other 50%? What about children born of wedlock (surrogacy) with gays where one parent always sells out their interest in the child to two "parents" of the same gender? 50% of the time that results in a child who is going straight into "Prince's Trust" detriment territory: no male role model for boys. no female role model for girls. AKA no father or no mother.

Prince's Trust never mentions mother or father- just role model. Who the role model can be is not defined- could be father- could be grandfather- could be a coach or a youth leader or a Big Brother or a teacher.

I have known lots of kids who have had role models beyond their parents, and the Prince's study once again doesn't support anything you claim.

 

[Montrovant]

Mother/female Father/male.
Which one of the two gay men in a gay "marriage" is the female?...

...So to fill detrimental gaps left by gay couples, you are advocating that gay couples take on a regular and consistent third member of the opposite gender to be sure the kids have the role model they need? A role model is a regular presence who for the child's sake must remain consistent and available for the full impact of the missing gender in the home.

Again, I am not suggesting anyone do anything. I am suggesting that your argument that a same gender role model is necessary can still include gay couples.

Yeah, only 50% of the time. What about the other 50%? What about children born of wedlock (surrogacy) with gays where one parent always sells out their interest in the child to two "parents" of the same gender? 50% of the time that results in a child who is going straight into "Prince's Trust" detriment territory: no male role model for boys. no female role model for girls. AKA no father or no mother.

This is a social experiment with predictable results: harm to children.

What is it you think the word wedlock means?

The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be.

The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach. It could be a nanny. It could be any of a vast array of people in a child's life. Nor is it necessary for there to be a parent of the same or opposite gender in the household for someone to have children. It isn't necessary for heterosexuals, but you want to make it so for homosexuals. Because you hate gays. Everyone reading your thread after thread on the subject probably understands very clearly that is what they boil down to.

 

[Silhouette]

1. What is it you think the word wedlock means?...2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be. ... The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach....

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

 

[Montrovant]

1. What is it you think the word wedlock means?...2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be. ... The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach....

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

1. Wedlock is the state of being married. That is why the phrase for a child born to unmarried parents is a child born 'out of wedlock'. Yet here you are, making up new and different meanings for words you don't understand.

2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index (which, I might point out, deals with children in the UK), never says what defines a positive same gender role model. It doesn't mention whether the respondents had single parent households, gay parents, or heterosexual parents where the parent of the same gender was not a positive role model. You have no idea, based on the information given in the Index, what the actual situations of the children without a positive same gender role model were. Despite this lack of information, despite this lack of clear causation, you latch onto the idea that gay parents are going to hurt children because, clearly, you have a problem with gays.

Did you champion changes to our laws to try and prevent single parents from having children? Have you fought against easy divorce? Have you ever even thought about the possible harm to children raised by heterosexual parents who don't provide a positive same gender role model? I'm going to guess the answer is no.

 

[Syriusly]

1. What is it you think the word wedlock means?...2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be. ... The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach....

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.).

You are being even more bizarre than usual. Born in wedlock= born to married parents- if the parents are married when the child is born, the child is born in wedlock, doesn't matter the gender of the parents. If a child is born outside of wedlock, the parents are not married- again- doesn't matter what the gender of the parents is.

You would prevent children of gay parents from being born in wedlock. If you could.

 

[Syriusly]

1. What is it you think the word wedlock means?...2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be. ... The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach....

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

Again- you just are putting words into the Trust study that are not there.

What does the Prince's study say? First of all- this is a study about Youth unemployment

ROLE MODELS AND GANGS
According to the respondents of the
survey, a lack of positive role models is
one key issue that is driving young people
to join gangs.

Keyfindings:

• Fifty-nine per cent of young people agree that a lack of positive role models drives young people to join gangs
• More than half of young people do not have a parent that they consider a role model (58 per cent), while around one in five (18 per cent) admit that they have no role model at all
• 30 per cent of young people with no role model admit to feeling worthless. This compares to 17 per cent of all young people

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/PDF/YOUTH_INDEX_2014.pdf

Notice- it is about 'positive role models' and not having 'a parent that they consider to be a role model'.

Nothing about gay parents.

 

[Seawytch]

Since I was a surrogate for gay men...I can speak from experience. Sil is full of shit.

 

[Montrovant]

1. What is it you think the word wedlock means?...2. The Prince's Trust Youth Index does not say that role models must be parents. Nor does it say that role models must live with the child. It does not specify who a role model can be. ... The child of a same sex couple can have a role model of the opposite gender of that couple. It could be another family member, like and aunt or uncle. It could be a teacher. It could be a coach....

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

Again- you just are putting words into the Trust study that are not there.

What does the Prince's study say? First of all- this is a study about Youth unemployment

ROLE MODELS AND GANGS
According to the respondents of the
survey, a lack of positive role models is
one key issue that is driving young people
to join gangs.

Keyfindings:

• Fifty-nine per cent of young people agree that a lack of positive role models drives young people to join gangs
• More than half of young people do not have a parent that they consider a role model (58 per cent), while around one in five (18 per cent) admit that they have no role model at all
• 30 per cent of young people with no role model admit to feeling worthless. This compares to 17 per cent of all young people

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/PDF/YOUTH_INDEX_2014.pdf

Notice- it is about 'positive role models' and not having 'a parent that they consider to be a role model'.

Nothing about gay parents.

To be fair to Sil (although why I bother doing that I'm not sure) that's a different year than the one she usually quotes. I think she uses the 2011 Index.

However, to lift a quote from the 2014 version that's relevant :
Our programmes can reach vulnerable young
people who have lost all hope for the future,
providing positive adult role models who can
boost confidence, motivation and ultimately
give them the support they need to find a job.

Notice how the Prince's Trust authors believe they can provide positive adult role models? Clearly, those are not going to be parents. So, the authors of the Indexes themselves say that parents are not the only positive adult role models, completely discrediting Sil's idea that the Index claims parents must be the same gender role models children need.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

However, to lift a quote from the 2014 version that's relevant :
Our programmes can reach vulnerable young
people who have lost all hope for the future,
providing positive adult role models who can
boost confidence, motivation and ultimately
give them the support they need to find a job.

Notice how the Prince's Trust authors believe they can provide positive adult role models? Clearly, those are not going to be parents. So, the authors of the Indexes themselves say that parents are not the only positive adult role models, completely discrediting Sil's idea that the Index claims parents must be the same gender role models children need.

Yes, children of UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES are basically beggars, begging for whatever psychological crumbs they can be thrown. It doesn't mean the crumbs sould be considered a prime loaf of intact bread...

What we are discussing here is a situation where children are being PURPOSEFULLY MANUFACTURED from wedlock (where one parent is not in their home, always) into the "bread crumb" situation....where money changes hands in that insidious transaction...

...and how THAT is the same as child-trafficking if you buy the definition as being "children sold (by one or both parents) into a situation predictable to their detriment."...

 

[Montrovant]

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

However, to lift a quote from the 2014 version that's relevant :
Our programmes can reach vulnerable young
people who have lost all hope for the future,
providing positive adult role models who can
boost confidence, motivation and ultimately
give them the support they need to find a job.

Notice how the Prince's Trust authors believe they can provide positive adult role models? Clearly, those are not going to be parents. So, the authors of the Indexes themselves say that parents are not the only positive adult role models, completely discrediting Sil's idea that the Index claims parents must be the same gender role models children need.

Yes, children of UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES are basically beggars, begging for whatever psychological crumbs they can be thrown. It doesn't mean the crumbs sould be considered a prime loaf of intact bread...

What we are discussing here is a situation where children are being PURPOSEFULLY MANUFACTURED from wedlock (where one parent is not in their home, always) into the "bread crumb" situation....where money changes hands in that insidious transaction...

...and how THAT is the same as child-trafficking if you buy the definition as being "children sold (by one or both parents) into a situation predictable to their detriment."...

You are a willfully ignorant fool. Wedlock is being married.
Wedlock Definition of wedlock by Merriam-Webster
Wedlock - definition of wedlock by The Free Dictionary
Wedlock Define Wedlock at Dictionary.com

Within each of those pages they also show the phrase 'born out of wedlock', which is born to parents who are not married. Your use of the word is simply wrong. Your unwillingness to admit that is an example of how you debate this subject; you ignore anything which disagrees with you.

You claimed that the positive role models described in the Prince's Trust Youth Index must mean parents. I gave you direct evidence that the people who do the survey do not consider parents the only positive role models. In fact, the survey authors appear to believe they can provide positive role models themselves. Once again, this shows that you have no idea what the Index actually says and instead make up your own crap and pretend it comes from the Index.

If you want to make up new definitions for multiple words and phrases, as well as lie about a UK survey about general health and well being of youths, then sure, you can make an argument that surrogacy is child trafficking. If you use the actual definitions of the words and phrases involved, and if you don't lie about what some survey says, then no, there is no argument at all. Surrogacy is not child trafficking. You only try to say it is in an attempt to demonize same sex parents.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. ...

God you just are delusional.

You clearly have no clue what wedlock actually means.

And the Prince's study says no such thing.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

However, to lift a quote from the 2014 version that's relevant :
Our programmes can reach vulnerable young
people who have lost all hope for the future,
providing positive adult role models who can
boost confidence, motivation and ultimately
give them the support they need to find a job.

Notice how the Prince's Trust authors believe they can provide positive adult role models? Clearly, those are not going to be parents. So, the authors of the Indexes themselves say that parents are not the only positive adult role models, completely discrediting Sil's idea that the Index claims parents must be the same gender role models children need.

Yes, children of UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES are basically beggars, begging for whatever psychological crumbs they can be thrown. It doesn't mean the crumbs sould be considered a prime loaf of intact bread...

What we are discussing here is a situation where children are being PURPOSEFULLY MANUFACTURED from wedlock (where one parent is not in their home, always) into the "bread crumb" situation....where money changes hands in that insidious transaction...

...and how THAT is the same as child-trafficking if you buy the definition as being "children sold (by one or both parents) into a situation predictable to their detriment."..

You are a willfully ignorant fool. Wedlock is being married. Within each of those pages they also show the phrase 'born out of wedlock', which is born to parents who are not married. Your use of the word is simply wrong. Your unwillingness to admit that is an example of how you debate this subject; you ignore anything which disagrees with you.

I can always tell when I've struck a raw nerve, the ad hominems come right out at the fore. The facts are that a child born where the parents are not together is a child born of wedlock. PERIOD. The fact that gays are paying to have children manufactured out of wedlock is disgusting. It is illegal when you consider the defintion of child trafficking and that money changed hands to accomplish this.

You claimed that the positive role models described in the Prince's Trust Youth Index must mean parents. I gave you direct evidence that the people who do the survey do not consider parents the only positive role models. In fact, the survey authors appear to believe they can provide positive role models themselves..

Again...and I'll repeat this until it sinks in....THE ADULT CHILDREN OF THE SURVEY OSTENSIBLY WERE NOT RAISED IN A VACUUM...THEY ALREADY HAD CONTACT WITH AT LEAST ONE POSITIVE ADULT PERSON OF THEIR GENDER AT LEAST ONE OR EVEN TWO DAYS OF THEIR LIVES. So it is not that they didn't have peripheral contact with an adult person of their gender, it's that they didn't have R-E-G-U-L-A-R contact with an adult person of their gender that cared about them intensely enough to mentor them.

SO, unless you're suggesting a law be made that requires gay couples to have a REGULAR mentor of the child's missing gender in the home, you are advocating children born (in the case of gays, pre-ordered) out of wedlock and entering into situations that can be predicted to be to their detriment....for money...


...AND...how is that different from child trafficking again?

 

[Montrovant]

1. Wedlock is a child born where the parents are not married. All children placed in gay homes are born of wedlock. In surrogacy for gays, money changes hands. (Biology 101. Two men or two women can N-E-V-E-R be the two natural parents of a child. ie: wedlock.)

2. The Prince's Trust survey found for a missing regular and reliable role model specific to the child's gender. Unless the children reporting problems from this syndrome were raised in a belljar, they too had contact with teachers, coaches and members of their same gender. It was the lack of a regular and consistent role model that the study covered. So unless you're for requiring a law saying that an uncle, aunt, coach or teacher have an attached apartment to the family home, who takes meals with them and goes on vacation with them, gay "marriages" are part of the peril to be anticipated from the Prince's Trust findings..

However, to lift a quote from the 2014 version that's relevant :
Our programmes can reach vulnerable young
people who have lost all hope for the future,
providing positive adult role models who can
boost confidence, motivation and ultimately
give them the support they need to find a job.

Notice how the Prince's Trust authors believe they can provide positive adult role models? Clearly, those are not going to be parents. So, the authors of the Indexes themselves say that parents are not the only positive adult role models, completely discrediting Sil's idea that the Index claims parents must be the same gender role models children need.

Yes, children of UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES are basically beggars, begging for whatever psychological crumbs they can be thrown. It doesn't mean the crumbs sould be considered a prime loaf of intact bread...

What we are discussing here is a situation where children are being PURPOSEFULLY MANUFACTURED from wedlock (where one parent is not in their home, always) into the "bread crumb" situation....where money changes hands in that insidious transaction...

...and how THAT is the same as child-trafficking if you buy the definition as being "children sold (by one or both parents) into a situation predictable to their detriment."..

You are a willfully ignorant fool. Wedlock is being married. Within each of those pages they also show the phrase 'born out of wedlock', which is born to parents who are not married. Your use of the word is simply wrong. Your unwillingness to admit that is an example of how you debate this subject; you ignore anything which disagrees with you.

I can always tell when I've struck a raw nerve, the ad hominems come right out at the fore. The facts are that a child born where the parents are not together is a child born of wedlock. PERIOD. The fact that gays are paying to have children manufactured out of wedlock is disgusting. It is illegal when you consider the defintion of child trafficking and that money changed hands to accomplish this.

You claimed that the positive role models described in the Prince's Trust Youth Index must mean parents. I gave you direct evidence that the people who do the survey do not consider parents the only positive role models. In fact, the survey authors appear to believe they can provide positive role models themselves..

Again...and I'll repeat this until it sinks in....THE ADULT CHILDREN OF THE SURVEY OSTENSIBLY WERE NOT RAISED IN A VACUUM...THEY ALREADY HAD CONTACT WITH AT LEAST ONE POSITIVE ADULT PERSON OF THEIR GENDER AT LEAST ONE OR EVEN TWO DAYS OF THEIR LIVES. So it is not that they didn't have peripheral contact with an adult person of their gender, it's that they didn't have R-E-G-U-L-A-R contact with an adult person of their gender that cared about them intensely enough to mentor them.

SO, unless you're suggesting a law be made that requires gay couples to have a REGULAR mentor of the child's missing gender in the home, you are advocating children born (in the case of gays, pre-ordered) out of wedlock and entering into situations that can be predicted to be to their detriment....for money...


...AND...how is that different from child trafficking again?

I posted links to three different dictionary websites which all defined wedlock as being married. Where are you getting your supposed 'facts' about the definition of the word? Further, the phrase 'born out of wedlock' is a fairly common one, which refers to a child born of parents who are not married. It was also listed in the dictionary pages I linked, and has been used in media and entertainment plenty of times. You have shown not one single, tiny shred of evidence that your definition of wedlock is used by anyone other than yourself.

Again, you are an idiot. Not every adult that has regular contact with a child is a role model. Most will not be considered role models by the children. In fact, in the 2014 Index which Syriusly linked, it says this, "
More than half of young people do not
have a parent that they consider a role
model (58 per cent), while around one in
five (18 per cent) admit that they have no
role model at all"

Do you think that more than half of the respondents had no parent at all? Do you think 18 percent had no regular contact with any adults? Or could it be that just because a child has an adult around regularly doesn't mean that person is a positive role model? And that a positive role model can be any number of different people?

I'm not advocating anything you are making up. And surrogacy does not involve children being born for money. At most, a womb is rented. At least one parent still gains custody of the child after it is born. It is not, to anyone but you, child trafficking to pay for services involved in pregnancy.

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home. Only a mother (a person with a womb) and father (whose semen impregnates that womb) can be a child's parents. Two gay men can never produce a child, ever. And in the case of gay "marriages", the condition of putting a child in that home means that there was a premeditated pre-order of a wedlock birth for money, knowing full well ahead of time that that child would be permanently deprived of a mother (or father in the case of lesbians) for life. This is institutionalized child neglect for money.

Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

 

[Montrovant]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home. Only a mother (a person with a womb) and father (whose semen impregnates that womb) can be a child's parents. Two gay men can never produce a child, ever. And in the case of gay "marriages", the condition of putting a child in that home means that there was a premeditated pre-order of a wedlock birth for money, knowing full well ahead of time that that child would be permanently deprived of a mother (or father in the case of lesbians) for life. This is institutionalized child neglect for money.

Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

You have used contradictory definitions of the word wedlock in just that post. You start by saying out of wedlock means the two parents are not in the same home (not quite, but at least close) and then go on to describe a surrogacy birth of a child going to a married gay couple as a wedlock birth. Wedlock is not your personal word to define, particularly when you can't seem to come to an agreement among yourself about what it means. Wedlock means the state of marriage. Out of wedlock births are children born to parents who are not married. Period. Until society changes the definitions, that's what they are.

So now child neglect is child trafficking? Changing yet more definitions on the fly, are we?

Clearly, not everyone agrees with you that a child going to gay parents is neglect. More clearly, very very few people, if any, would agree that surrogacy constitutes child trafficking, whether the parent(s) of the child are gay or straight.

Care to find any other words or phrases to change the definitions of in an attempt to demonize gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home.

It matters because once again you just pull crap out of your ass- you keep copying and pasting your own definition of wedlock rather than the real definition.

Just like you refer to things not in the Prince's Study as if they were there, and you refer to a non-existent Mayo Clinic Study.

You just make crap up.

 

[Syriusly]

I
Again...still failing to see how that isn't child trafficking?

That is because your brain is focused on how to make gay parenting the same thing as 'child trafficking'

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter how many links you post when the definition of children born out of wedlock is when the two parents are not in the same home.

It matters because once again you just pull crap out of your ass- you keep copying and pasting your own definition of wedlock rather than the real definition.

Just like you refer to things not in the Prince's Study as if they were there, and you refer to a non-existent Mayo Clinic Study.

You just make crap up.

Is a child born of two people's genes who are not together a child born of wedlock? Yes.

So, a child placed in a gay home is always a child of wedlock. Surrogacy to gay homes is always using children born of wedlock. In these cases a child born of wedlock is pre-ordered with money to be placed in a home without a mother or father...a vital role model is missing and this will result in the child's demise in a predictable way. Child's demise + parental absence + money = child trafficking.