Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left

[ScreamingEagle]

The Left had three sacred cows.......race....class....gender....but then came along gay men.....and somehow 'sexual orientation' got jimmied into the mix....and they brought along a Trojan Horse.....

gay demands for surrogacy have ripped the leftist causes to shreds...

Surrogacy is the use of a contract, by which a woman agrees to carry a gestating child in her womb for another party (usually an infertile heterosexual couple or a gay male couple), and also agrees to abandon the child to the couple who has engaged her services.

Compensated surrogacy means that the carrier is paid to rent out her womb.

Uncompensated surrogacy means the carrier turns over the child without receiving anything for the lost tie between her and the baby – she receives no remuneration and will be subject to the other party’s orders, in terms of when she gets to see the child, if at all. In many cases, there is an expectation that the carrier will simply be erased, and the child will never know who she is.

Between compensated and uncompensated surrogacy, we have a choice between baby-selling and baby-theft.

.....

Surrogacy is wrong, whether it’s traditional or gestational. The former involves a woman turning over a child that is genetically hers, while the latter involves a “carrier” woman turning over a child conceived with another woman’s egg and a man’s sperm through in vitro fertilization.

“Gestational surrogacy” is favored because no legal mother exists, insofar as one woman provided the egg and another woman provided her womb. By pitting these two women against each other (usually they do not even know each other), the agents make it virtually impossible for either of them to sue for custody of the resulting child.

It is almost inconceivable that the movement to legitimize surrogacy could have set up shop on the American left, where the three most sacred cows are race, class, and gender – all of which are areas of inequality aggravated and abused by the surrogacy industry’s pattern of using poor women of color, especially overseas, to breed human beings who are then placed under the ownership of wealthy men in the United States, the lion’s share of whom are white.

Here the left’s snake eats its head. The more that ostensibly progressive groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign sink into the quicksand of surrogacy and all it represents, the more the left ceases to be any kind of recognizable left at all. What’s even more agonizing is the fact that all this happened because of one colossally bad decision made in the 1970s: to include “gay men” in the pantheon of groups that were ostensibly fighting against oppression.
.....

By casting gay men as powerless, the left sealed their doom. A new crop of “allies” possessing financial and social capital far in excess of people of color, women, or the working class was bound to rise quickly to power and take over the whole movement, mowing down everything in their path, including the sacred goals the movement began with.

Gay men are men – to wit, men who define themselves as men-loving men who refuse to be involved with women. It’s reasonable not to hate people for existing in such a male-centered way, but on the other hand, it’s unreasonable to endorse without any caveats any aim or demand that such a group might articulate. Gestational surrogacy is a dream come true for woman-hating chauvinists who are bound to congregate under such an umbrella: men enjoy all the “phallic” privilege that the bourgeois patriarchy can provide, and women are put in their place. Not even in the kitchen, no – in a barracks somewhere, patrolled by goons who will snatch away their babies whenever the men demand it.
...

The greatest evil of slavery was the fact that children were taken from their parents and sold to other people, because the wound could never be healed. Even once they were freed, the descendants were denied their own origins and had to live with the scars of having been torn from their own kin, as well as the memory of having been someone’s property.

Articles: Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

 

[bodecea]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

As was invitro fertilization. But suddenly it's all about the coupling. No coupling of male and female naughty bits creating the child, it no longer counts. You're not a "real" parent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Surrogacy is wrong..."

That's as far as I got. Nonsense.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

surrogacy laws are all over the map...far from being 'perfect'....

 

[bodecea]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

surrogacy laws are all over the map...far from being 'perfect'....

And...that is the fault of gays somehow....right?

 

[Plasmaball]

what private citizens do is their business.You guys are running out of things to use as your arguments.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The Left had three sacred cows.......race....class....gender....but then came along gay men.....and somehow 'sexual orientation' got jimmied into the mix....and they brought along a Trojan Horse.....

gay demands for surrogacy have ripped the leftist causes to shreds...

Surrogacy is the use of a contract, by which a woman agrees to carry a gestating child in her womb for another party (usually an infertile heterosexual couple or a gay male couple), and also agrees to abandon the child to the couple who has engaged her services.

Compensated surrogacy means that the carrier is paid to rent out her womb.

Uncompensated surrogacy means the carrier turns over the child without receiving anything for the lost tie between her and the baby – she receives no remuneration and will be subject to the other party’s orders, in terms of when she gets to see the child, if at all. In many cases, there is an expectation that the carrier will simply be erased, and the child will never know who she is.

Between compensated and uncompensated surrogacy, we have a choice between baby-selling and baby-theft.

.....

Surrogacy is wrong, whether it’s traditional or gestational. The former involves a woman turning over a child that is genetically hers, while the latter involves a “carrier” woman turning over a child conceived with another woman’s egg and a man’s sperm through in vitro fertilization.

“Gestational surrogacy” is favored because no legal mother exists, insofar as one woman provided the egg and another woman provided her womb. By pitting these two women against each other (usually they do not even know each other), the agents make it virtually impossible for either of them to sue for custody of the resulting child.

It is almost inconceivable that the movement to legitimize surrogacy could have set up shop on the American left, where the three most sacred cows are race, class, and gender – all of which are areas of inequality aggravated and abused by the surrogacy industry’s pattern of using poor women of color, especially overseas, to breed human beings who are then placed under the ownership of wealthy men in the United States, the lion’s share of whom are white.

Here the left’s snake eats its head. The more that ostensibly progressive groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign sink into the quicksand of surrogacy and all it represents, the more the left ceases to be any kind of recognizable left at all. What’s even more agonizing is the fact that all this happened because of one colossally bad decision made in the 1970s: to include “gay men” in the pantheon of groups that were ostensibly fighting against oppression.
.....

By casting gay men as powerless, the left sealed their doom. A new crop of “allies” possessing financial and social capital far in excess of people of color, women, or the working class was bound to rise quickly to power and take over the whole movement, mowing down everything in their path, including the sacred goals the movement began with.

Gay men are men – to wit, men who define themselves as men-loving men who refuse to be involved with women. It’s reasonable not to hate people for existing in such a male-centered way, but on the other hand, it’s unreasonable to endorse without any caveats any aim or demand that such a group might articulate. Gestational surrogacy is a dream come true for woman-hating chauvinists who are bound to congregate under such an umbrella: men enjoy all the “phallic” privilege that the bourgeois patriarchy can provide, and women are put in their place. Not even in the kitchen, no – in a barracks somewhere, patrolled by goons who will snatch away their babies whenever the men demand it.
...

The greatest evil of slavery was the fact that children were taken from their parents and sold to other people, because the wound could never be healed. Even once they were freed, the descendants were denied their own origins and had to live with the scars of having been torn from their own kin, as well as the memory of having been someone’s property.

Articles: Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left

Wow, an anti-gay commie. Fiscally left and socially right. A -true- statist. This combination is also often referred to as, "busy body", and should be told, repeatedly, to mind its own ******* business, keep its hands out of your wallet and its opinions out of your bedroom.

I'm speaking, of course, about the guy who wrote the article, not you Screamin Eagle. I think. Unless you see eye-to-eye with this guy's drivel, which you might. . .

Anyway, let's get to substance. My first question to you is this: Why is it wrong to "sell" a baby, assuming that it's to a family who will treat it well and everybody involved is a willing participant? I have a feeling you're not going to use logic, and simply give me a really sarcastic response that makes it clear that your feelings on this are dogmatic, something along the lines of, "You think it's okay to put a price on a human being!?"

I would then respond with, "It's inevitable. Everything has a price. Who's actually being hurt, here?"

So, if "people sacred, money not!" was gonna be your comeback, save it and just respond to the response.

I can't help but notice all the slavery references here, too. First off, when you say that surrogate babies are sold into -OWNERSHIP- by rich white American men, gotta straight call bullshit. Owning a human being isn't legal here in the US. Insofar as there probably are some hidden cases of slavery in this country, it's not the fault of surrogacy laws. It's the fault of people doing evil shit that's ALREADY ILLEGAL! Making the illegal aspects overlap isn't actually going to hinder the illegal slave-trade. Hate to break it to you, but the following will never be uttered anywhere: "I know it's already illegal to own these slaves that I keep caged up in the basement of my mansion, and I'm okay skirting that law. Now, though, they want to make it illegal to have the slaves birthed for me! One law was one thing, but I'm not gonna break TWO laws! Guess it's time to reform."

The fact of the matter is that most of the rich white Americans adopting surrogates are doing so because, for whatever reason, they and their partner are unable to have one of their own and want a family. IF they wanted a slave, why invest in a surrogate? Gotta wait 9 months for your slave to get popped out, and then its at least a few more years until he's strong and coordinated enough to actually do anything for you. Trying to tie this to slavery is more than just a little disingenuous. IT's flat out ******* stupid.

Lastly, the worse thing about slavery wasn't just that children were removed from their families. I've got several good friends who grew up in adopted households, couple of which never knew their biological parents, and their relatively successful and emotionally well-adjusted. The worse thing about slavery was the fact that it was all involuntary. If those women -wanted- to give up their babies, wouldn't have been that big of a crime against those women, now would it? IT's the -ripping away- of the babies that made it evil, not simply the separation. Trying to compare surrogate arrangements and outright child-theft as though they're the same thing is, again, flat out ******* stupid. I wish there was a more vulgar, eye-popping way for me to say that, too, cuz this part of the argument is like, HOLY SHIT ******* DUMB! I'm at a rare loss for words. Still not as dumb as the last thing I wanna address here.

"Uncompensated surrogacy means the carrier turns over the child without receiving anything for the lost tie between her and the baby – she receives no remuneration and will be subject to the other party’s orders, in terms of when she gets to see the child, if at all. In many cases, there is an expectation that the carrier will simply be erased, and the child will never know who she is.

Between compensated and uncompensated surrogacy, we have a choice between baby-selling and baby-theft."

theft [theft] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

steal [steel] Show IPA
verb (used with object), stole, sto·len, steal·ing.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.

Take some time to put these definitions together. Take a lot of time.

Now, given what theft is, a stolen baby would have to be a baby taken without permission or right, especially secretly or by force, or perhaps smuggled away from its rightful parent. In an uncompensated surrogacy, the surrogate is still a voluntary member of the operation. Nothing's being taken from her without permission, nothing's being smuggled away. That would be kidnapping, and even with legal surrogacy in some states, kidnapping, believe it or not, is still illegal -EVERYWHERE-. There are truly no words to describe how dense it is to call this theft. That means anything I give you without charging you for it is something you stole from me. People who speak and write professionally should take more time to think before they do so, and maybe even look into the definitions of basic terms before throwing them around haphazardly.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The Left had three sacred cows.......race....class....gender....but then came along gay men.....and somehow 'sexual orientation' got jimmied into the mix....and they brought along a Trojan Horse.....

gay demands for surrogacy have ripped the leftist causes to shreds...

Surrogacy is the use of a contract, by which a woman agrees to carry a gestating child in her womb for another party (usually an infertile heterosexual couple or a gay male couple), and also agrees to abandon the child to the couple who has engaged her services.

Compensated surrogacy means that the carrier is paid to rent out her womb.

Uncompensated surrogacy means the carrier turns over the child without receiving anything for the lost tie between her and the baby – she receives no remuneration and will be subject to the other party’s orders, in terms of when she gets to see the child, if at all. In many cases, there is an expectation that the carrier will simply be erased, and the child will never know who she is.

Between compensated and uncompensated surrogacy, we have a choice between baby-selling and baby-theft.

.....

Surrogacy is wrong, whether it’s traditional or gestational. The former involves a woman turning over a child that is genetically hers, while the latter involves a “carrier” woman turning over a child conceived with another woman’s egg and a man’s sperm through in vitro fertilization.

“Gestational surrogacy” is favored because no legal mother exists, insofar as one woman provided the egg and another woman provided her womb. By pitting these two women against each other (usually they do not even know each other), the agents make it virtually impossible for either of them to sue for custody of the resulting child.

It is almost inconceivable that the movement to legitimize surrogacy could have set up shop on the American left, where the three most sacred cows are race, class, and gender – all of which are areas of inequality aggravated and abused by the surrogacy industry’s pattern of using poor women of color, especially overseas, to breed human beings who are then placed under the ownership of wealthy men in the United States, the lion’s share of whom are white.

Here the left’s snake eats its head. The more that ostensibly progressive groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign sink into the quicksand of surrogacy and all it represents, the more the left ceases to be any kind of recognizable left at all. What’s even more agonizing is the fact that all this happened because of one colossally bad decision made in the 1970s: to include “gay men” in the pantheon of groups that were ostensibly fighting against oppression.
.....

By casting gay men as powerless, the left sealed their doom. A new crop of “allies” possessing financial and social capital far in excess of people of color, women, or the working class was bound to rise quickly to power and take over the whole movement, mowing down everything in their path, including the sacred goals the movement began with.

Gay men are men – to wit, men who define themselves as men-loving men who refuse to be involved with women. It’s reasonable not to hate people for existing in such a male-centered way, but on the other hand, it’s unreasonable to endorse without any caveats any aim or demand that such a group might articulate. Gestational surrogacy is a dream come true for woman-hating chauvinists who are bound to congregate under such an umbrella: men enjoy all the “phallic” privilege that the bourgeois patriarchy can provide, and women are put in their place. Not even in the kitchen, no – in a barracks somewhere, patrolled by goons who will snatch away their babies whenever the men demand it.
...

The greatest evil of slavery was the fact that children were taken from their parents and sold to other people, because the wound could never be healed. Even once they were freed, the descendants were denied their own origins and had to live with the scars of having been torn from their own kin, as well as the memory of having been someone’s property.

Articles: Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left

Wow, an anti-gay commie. Fiscally left and socially right. A -true- statist. This combination is also often referred to as, "busy body", and should be told, repeatedly, to mind its own ******* business, keep its hands out of your wallet and its opinions out of your bedroom.

I'm speaking, of course, about the guy who wrote the article, not you Screamin Eagle. I think. Unless you see eye-to-eye with this guy's drivel, which you might. . .

Anyway, let's get to substance. My first question to you is this: Why is it wrong to "sell" a baby, assuming that it's to a family who will treat it well and everybody involved is a willing participant? I have a feeling you're not going to use logic, and simply give me a really sarcastic response that makes it clear that your feelings on this are dogmatic, something along the lines of, "You think it's okay to put a price on a human being!?"

I would then respond with, "It's inevitable. Everything has a price. Who's actually being hurt, here?"

So, if "people sacred, money not!" was gonna be your comeback, save it and just respond to the response.

I can't help but notice all the slavery references here, too. First off, when you say that surrogate babies are sold into -OWNERSHIP- by rich white American men, gotta straight call bullshit. Owning a human being isn't legal here in the US. Insofar as there probably are some hidden cases of slavery in this country, it's not the fault of surrogacy laws. It's the fault of people doing evil shit that's ALREADY ILLEGAL! Making the illegal aspects overlap isn't actually going to hinder the illegal slave-trade. Hate to break it to you, but the following will never be uttered anywhere: "I know it's already illegal to own these slaves that I keep caged up in the basement of my mansion, and I'm okay skirting that law. Now, though, they want to make it illegal to have the slaves birthed for me! One law was one thing, but I'm not gonna break TWO laws! Guess it's time to reform."

The fact of the matter is that most of the rich white Americans adopting surrogates are doing so because, for whatever reason, they and their partner are unable to have one of their own and want a family. IF they wanted a slave, why invest in a surrogate? Gotta wait 9 months for your slave to get popped out, and then its at least a few more years until he's strong and coordinated enough to actually do anything for you. Trying to tie this to slavery is more than just a little disingenuous. IT's flat out ******* stupid.

Lastly, the worse thing about slavery wasn't just that children were removed from their families. I've got several good friends who grew up in adopted households, couple of which never knew their biological parents, and their relatively successful and emotionally well-adjusted. The worse thing about slavery was the fact that it was all involuntary. If those women -wanted- to give up their babies, wouldn't have been that big of a crime against those women, now would it? IT's the -ripping away- of the babies that made it evil, not simply the separation. Trying to compare surrogate arrangements and outright child-theft as though they're the same thing is, again, flat out ******* stupid. I wish there was a more vulgar, eye-popping way for me to say that, too, cuz this part of the argument is like, HOLY SHIT ******* DUMB! I'm at a rare loss for words. Still not as dumb as the last thing I wanna address here.

"Uncompensated surrogacy means the carrier turns over the child without receiving anything for the lost tie between her and the baby – she receives no remuneration and will be subject to the other party’s orders, in terms of when she gets to see the child, if at all. In many cases, there is an expectation that the carrier will simply be erased, and the child will never know who she is.

Between compensated and uncompensated surrogacy, we have a choice between baby-selling and baby-theft."

theft [theft] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

steal [steel] Show IPA
verb (used with object), stole, sto·len, steal·ing.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually followed by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.

Take some time to put these definitions together. Take a lot of time.

Now, given what theft is, a stolen baby would have to be a baby taken without permission or right, especially secretly or by force, or perhaps smuggled away from its rightful parent. In an uncompensated surrogacy, the surrogate is still a voluntary member of the operation. Nothing's being taken from her without permission, nothing's being smuggled away. That would be kidnapping, and even with legal surrogacy in some states, kidnapping, believe it or not, is still illegal -EVERYWHERE-. There are truly no words to describe how dense it is to call this theft. That means anything I give you without charging you for it is something you stole from me. People who speak and write professionally should take more time to think before they do so, and maybe even look into the definitions of basic terms before throwing them around haphazardly.

wow....you think it's OK to sell a baby....to put a price on a human being.....that's the plain face of evil....

you're also deluded....this kind of unnatural 'baby-making' is right up the alley of YOUR gay liberal commie agenda...'gay marriage' partners creating contracts with surrogates in which to plant their IVF babies are only helping to push the disintegration of the family even further.....

for example.....with this unnatural process how do you define 'mother' anymore.....? is it the biological mother who provided the egg.....or the 'mother' surrogate who bore the baby.....or the gay 'mother' who is to raise the child.....?

also when things become contractual it always becomes about the money.....just like you want children are simply becoming a 'product' to be bought and sold....

if this isn't the height of self-indulgence i don't know what is.....if you can't have a child naturally why not just adopt....?

and whatever happened to the left's proclaimed protection of women, the poor, and races....? women are being used as simply breeders, poor women are targeted for their surrogate services, and poor women of color are very susceptible to this abuse....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This board has an unhealthy obsession with fags.

 

[pvsi]

The Left had three sacred cows.......race....class....gender....but then came along gay men.....and somehow 'sexual orientation' got jimmied into the mix....and they brought along a Trojan Horse.....

gay demands for surrogacy have ripped the leftist causes to shreds...

And that is why we are now stuck with a right winger president. got it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why dont you save time and just state that all groups but white men are destroying America? Geez...

 

[buckeye45_73]

what private citizens do is their business.You guys are running out of things to use as your arguments.

It would be if they kept their business private, they don't.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What happened to personal freedom, righties?

 

[g5000]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

Exactly. Hetero couples have been using surrogate mothers for decades.

I guess ScreamingEagle didn't notice until gays started using them, and suddenly surrogate motherhood is a *** invention!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

Exactly. Hetero couples have been using surrogate mothers for decades.

I guess ScreamingEagle didn't notice until gays started using them, and suddenly surrogate motherhood is a *** invention!

it's not their invention but it's obvious gays are taking surrogacy to a whole new level....despite all the Left's professed 'concern' for race, class, and women....

since gays don't give a shit about women it's easy for them to just use women as 'rented' incubators.....

and the child is simply becomes another 'product' to be bought and sold....with complete disregard for its biological heritage and familial connections....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This board has an unhealthy obsession with fags.

i agree....but the Left is obsessed with using them to promote their agenda against religion, the family, and conservative values.....the 'political' section of the Board would be pretty empty if 'gay issues' got its own category.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Surrogate mothers are perfectly legal in several states. This was established before the lgbt movement became a big thing. Next question?

Exactly. Hetero couples have been using surrogate mothers for decades.

I guess ScreamingEagle didn't notice until gays started using them, and suddenly surrogate motherhood is a *** invention!

it's not their invention but it's obvious gays are taking surrogacy to a whole new level....despite all the Left's professed 'concern' for race, class, and women....

since gays don't give a shit about women it's easy for them to just use women as 'rented' incubators.....

and the child is simply becomes another 'product' to be bought and sold....with complete disregard for its biological heritage and familial connections....

And this is different when Hetro couples do it how? Less colorful language?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This board has an unhealthy obsession with fags.

i agree....but the Left is obsessed with using them to promote their agenda against religion, the family, and conservative values.....the 'political' section of the Board would be pretty empty if 'gay issues' got its own category.....

Did you forget you are the author of this thread?

 

[JakeStarkey]

what private citizens do is their business.You guys are running out of things to use as your arguments.

It would be if they kept their business private, they don't.

They don't have to anymore than you or me.