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

[Skylar]

Sil is still peddling The Prince's Trust Study as proof of her claptrap?!

Yeah, its pointless. Sil knows she's full of shit. As demonstrated by her stark refusal to discuss any of her lies about the study. Any time you ask her where the study says that a positive same sex role model has to be a parent.....she'll omit the question from any reply and refuse to discuss it.

Even Sil has admitted that the Prince Trust Study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Making her lies moot.

We know it. Anyone reading the thread learns of it. And Sil knows it.

What we're seeing is the rhetorical equivalent of self soothing. With the audience for Sil's lies.....being Sil. She's trying to convince herself far more than any of us.

Yeah, it is pretty much why I stopped participating her threads. She isn't interested in discussion, only repeating the same dumb shit over and over in a lame attempt to console herself. While it was fun before the court ruling now it is just sad and pathetic to behold. Not even her rabidly anti-gay cronies are coming to defend the nonsense that is the premise of this thread. lol

Yeah, with the court victory, the rhetorical masturbation has kinda lost its edge. Sil is her own audience. And I don't think even she is buying her bullshit.

 

[Montrovant]

Have you never heard of people who lived lives as straight but eventually came out as gay? Some of those people got married and had children in those marriages. If they ended up with custody of those children after coming out, you could have children born in wedlock being raised by gay couples...

Yes. I've also heard of people who were married coming out as serial killers, rapists, drug addicts, alcoholics etc. But that doesn't mean their illness instantly qualifies them as "good parents". The rule of keeping kids away from out of wedlock by creating marriage isn't a foolproof guarantee that each and every single marriage will work. It is instead an earnest attempt at the brass ring for the sake of children. If we have no standard to protect them having a steady mother and father in their home, then we have chaos, and their safety will be at risk.

You're "logic" seems to be "since there are exceptions to the rule, the rule must be discarded and the hell with what children need". My logic is "the rule will never 100% be achieved, but we will strive to reach that number always for the sake of children."

You said that every child in a gay home was born out of wedlock. I was simply refuting that claim, pretty effectively I think. The rest of your post is a bunch of silly crap you came up with all on your own.

Oh, and marriage wasn't created to prevent out of wedlock children. Before marriage there was no wedlock. Children couldn't be born out of an institution which didn't yet exist. Yet here you are arguing that marriage was created to prevent children from being born outside of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?ed.

Once again you are just lying.

You lie a lot

The Prince's Study you refer to doesn't even mention 'mother' or 'father'.

You just lie.

A lot.

 

[Silhouette]

You said that every child in a gay home was born out of wedlock. I was simply refuting that claim, pretty effectively I think. The rest of your post is a bunch of silly crap you came up with all on your own.

Oh, and marriage wasn't created to prevent out of wedlock children. Before marriage there was no wedlock. Children couldn't be born out of an institution which didn't yet exist. Yet here you are arguing that marriage was created to prevent children from being born outside of marriage.

Please point me to a link where it shows that two men can conceive. Or where two women can conceive. Both parents of a child are NEVER in a gay home. It is physically impossible.

 

[Skylar]

You said that every child in a gay home was born out of wedlock. I was simply refuting that claim, pretty effectively I think. The rest of your post is a bunch of silly crap you came up with all on your own.

Oh, and marriage wasn't created to prevent out of wedlock children. Before marriage there was no wedlock. Children couldn't be born out of an institution which didn't yet exist. Yet here you are arguing that marriage was created to prevent children from being born outside of marriage.

Please point me to a link where it shows that two men can conceive. Or where two women can conceive. Both parents of a child are NEVER in a gay home. It is physically impossible.

And yet you've never called the children of straight couples concieved through the use of artificial insemination, donor eggs or surrogacy 'born out of wedlock'.

Your standards are as inconsistent as they are imaginary. And have no bearing on our law. Wallow in legal irrelevance.

 

[Montrovant]

You said that every child in a gay home was born out of wedlock. I was simply refuting that claim, pretty effectively I think. The rest of your post is a bunch of silly crap you came up with all on your own.

Oh, and marriage wasn't created to prevent out of wedlock children. Before marriage there was no wedlock. Children couldn't be born out of an institution which didn't yet exist. Yet here you are arguing that marriage was created to prevent children from being born outside of marriage.

Please point me to a link where it shows that two men can conceive. Or where two women can conceive. Both parents of a child are NEVER in a gay home. It is physically impossible.

Are you still unclear on the word wedlock? Wedlock is the state of being married. A child born to a married couple is born in wedlock. If a person lives as straight and has a child while married, that child is born in wedlock. If the parent then comes out as gay, gets into a relationship and raises the child with their partner, that child was still born in wedlock but is being raised in a gay home. In other words, a child in a gay home can still have been born in wedlock.

I realize you have had a hard time grasping the meaning of the word wedlock. Again, wedlock is the state of being married. Born out of wedlock means born to unmarried parents. What goes on after you are born has no effect on whether you are born in or out of wedlock.

 

[Montrovant]

Perhaps you could address your claim that marriage was created to prevent children from being born out of marriage Sil?

 

[Syriusly]

You said that every child in a gay home was born out of wedlock. I was simply refuting that claim, pretty effectively I think. The rest of your post is a bunch of silly crap you came up with all on your own.

Oh, and marriage wasn't created to prevent out of wedlock children. Before marriage there was no wedlock. Children couldn't be born out of an institution which didn't yet exist. Yet here you are arguing that marriage was created to prevent children from being born outside of marriage.

Please point me to a link where it shows that two men can conceive. Or where two women can conceive. Both parents of a child are NEVER in a gay home. It is physically impossible.

Parents are the adults who legally are the parents of a child- and yes- two men or two women are quite often both the parents of a child in a home.

Hopefully all homes with children are gay and happy.

 

[Silhouette]

And yet you've never called the children of straight couples concieved through the use of artificial insemination, donor eggs or surrogacy 'born out of wedlock'.

Your standards are as inconsistent as they are imaginary. And have no bearing on our law. Wallow in legal irrelevance.

In male/female marriages, there can always be an acceptable substitute for the missing mother or father or both. That is impossible in a "gay marriage".

 

[Montrovant]

And yet you've never called the children of straight couples concieved through the use of artificial insemination, donor eggs or surrogacy 'born out of wedlock'.

Your standards are as inconsistent as they are imaginary. And have no bearing on our law. Wallow in legal irrelevance.

In male/female marriages, there can always be an acceptable substitute for the missing mother or father or both. That is impossible in a "gay marriage".

What does that have to do with children being born out of wedlock?

 

[Silhouette]

And yet you've never called the children of straight couples concieved through the use of artificial insemination, donor eggs or surrogacy 'born out of wedlock'.

Your standards are as inconsistent as they are imaginary. And have no bearing on our law. Wallow in legal irrelevance.

In male/female marriages, there can always be an acceptable substitute for the missing mother or father or both. That is impossible in a "gay marriage".

What does that have to do with children being born out of wedlock?

Children in gay marriage are always missing either their mother or father. Always. No exceptions. 100% of the time. And when children are exchanged into that situation from a birth parent for money, that's child trafficking. A child missing either a mother or a father is a tragedy. Exchanging a child for money to go into a tragedy is child-trafficking.

 

[Montrovant]

And yet you've never called the children of straight couples concieved through the use of artificial insemination, donor eggs or surrogacy 'born out of wedlock'.

Your standards are as inconsistent as they are imaginary. And have no bearing on our law. Wallow in legal irrelevance.

In male/female marriages, there can always be an acceptable substitute for the missing mother or father or both. That is impossible in a "gay marriage".

What does that have to do with children being born out of wedlock?

Children in gay marriage are always missing either their mother or father. Always. No exceptions. 100% of the time. And when children are exchanged into that situation from a birth parent for money, that's child trafficking. A child missing either a mother or a father is a tragedy. Exchanging a child for money to go into a tragedy is child-trafficking.

Based on what definition of child-trafficking? So far as I can tell, the only one who defines child-trafficking this way is you.

You also completely ignored the question of how your post had anything to do with children being born out of wedlock, likely because you don't like admitting the tenuous grasp you have of the phrase.