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

[Silhouette]

Do you think sperm donation is the same as child trafficking?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's complicated law. I do know that if a child is to be transferred in custody it should have a guardian ad litem for every step of that process. Or perhaps you believe that any old adult who birthed a child is legally qualified to oversee its interest every step of the way...like no woman strapped for cash would ever consider selling her infant to creepy customers when she already has six of her own..? Just let the "booming industry" self-regulate will you?...The New York Times...not me.. labelled what's going on in California "an industry"...

The customers aren't creepy. The woman having the baby is. Lots of couples can't have children. Many go overseas to adopt. That's how desperate they are.

I disagree. I think two adult men conspiring to deprive a child of a mother is creepy. And any woman agreeing to place a child in that detrimental situation is equally guilty of being creepy. Money is changing hands during all this and therefore, a child is being trafficked.

Most people agree that if a child is sold into a situation where s/he can be predicted to suffer in any measureable way (a motherless child is a tragedy. A fatherless child is a tragedy), then the transaction is the definition of child-trafficking.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think sperm donation is the same as child trafficking?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's complicated law. I do know that if a child is to be transferred in custody it should have a guardian ad litem for every step of that process. Or perhaps you believe that any old adult who birthed a child is legally qualified to oversee its interest every step of the way...like no woman strapped for cash would ever consider selling her infant to creepy customers when she already has six of her own..? Just let the "booming industry" self-regulate will you?...The New York Times...not me.. labelled what's going on in California "an industry"...

The customers aren't creepy. The woman having the baby is. Lots of couples can't have children. Many go overseas to adopt. That's how desperate they are.

I disagree. I think two adult men conspiring to deprive a child of a mother is creepy.g.

Well of course that is how you look at everything- to you everything is about 'gay men' conspiring to do something.

A gay or lesbian couple who use surrogacy want a child for the same reason that any straight couple wants a child. No one goes into parenting intending to deprive a child of anything- but if people didn't have children just because they might deprive their child of something no children would be born.

At least the children born of surrogacy have parents who chose to have kids, who went through the effort and difficulties to have kids- and didn't just accidentally get knocked up through a one night stand, or because a guy chose not to use a condom.

Everytime you accuse the parents of children born through surrogacy of child trafficking- you insult those children who actually are victims of child trafficking.

And note- you HAVE NEVER STARTED A THREAD ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING.

You only start threads to attack homosexuals.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you think sperm donation is the same as child trafficking?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's complicated law. I do know that if a child is to be transferred in custody it should have a guardian ad litem for every step of that process. Or perhaps you believe that any old adult who birthed a child is legally qualified to oversee its interest every step of the way...like no woman strapped for cash would ever consider selling her infant to creepy customers when she already has six of her own..? Just let the "booming industry" self-regulate will you?...The New York Times...not me.. labelled what's going on in California "an industry"...

The customers aren't creepy. The woman having the baby is. Lots of couples can't have children. Many go overseas to adopt. That's how desperate they are.

I disagree. I think two adult men conspiring to deprive a child of a mother is creepy. And any woman agreeing to place a child in that detrimental situation is equally guilty of being creepy. Money is changing hands during all this and therefore, a child is being trafficked.

Most people agree that if a child is sold into a situation where s/he can be predicted to suffer in any measureable way (a motherless child is a tragedy. A fatherless child is a tragedy), then the transaction is the definition of child-trafficking.

You are lying about the definition of child trafficking and you are lying when you say a child is being sold. Your entire premise, as with pretty much every premise you use on this site, is based on lies.

 

[Silhouette]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

 

[Syriusly]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. .

Well you say all sorts of bullshit.

A large part of it lies- all of it intended to harm homosexuals.

 

[Montrovant]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

Ah, so any single adult must be prevented from having children? Does that include if, say, a woman is pregnant and the father dies? Would the woman need to abort? What about gay couples who were raised by single parents? Gays or single adults raised by someone other than their parents? Do they get to have children? And how, precisely, are you planning to prevent these people from having children?

Oh, and gays are not required to be married in order to have children. Does that mean you want married gay couples to be prevented from having children but gay couples who are not married can do what they want?

You really don't think these things through before you thrown them out there, do you?

 

[Seawytch]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. .

Well you say all sorts of bullshit.

A large part of it lies- all of it intended to harm homosexuals.

I'd say Sil needs a hobby that isn't bashing gays.

My partner and I had our children years before we could legally marry.

 

[Silhouette]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

Ah, so any single adult must be prevented from having children? Does that include if, say, a woman is pregnant and the father dies? Would the woman need to abort? What about gay couples who were raised by single parents? Gays or single adults raised by someone other than their parents? Do they get to have children? And how, precisely, are you planning to prevent these people from having children?

Tragic situations do not reinvent the standard for a child's best interests. A motherless child is always a tragedy, they will always have less than their peers and suffer thusly. Same with fatherless. Because people stumble into or plan these situations is unfortunate. But we're talking about sending a child into that situation pre-manufactured that way, where one adult receives money to ship the child off to a tragic situation. That is child-trafficking.

 

[Montrovant]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

Ah, so any single adult must be prevented from having children? Does that include if, say, a woman is pregnant and the father dies? Would the woman need to abort? What about gay couples who were raised by single parents? Gays or single adults raised by someone other than their parents? Do they get to have children? And how, precisely, are you planning to prevent these people from having children?

Tragic situations do not reinvent the standard for a child's best interests. A motherless child is always a tragedy, they will always have less than their peers and suffer thusly. Same with fatherless. Because people stumble into or plan these situations is unfortunate. But we're talking about sending a child into that situation pre-manufactured that way, where one adult receives money to ship the child off to a tragic situation. That is child-trafficking.

You said a child must be given every opportunity a parent had, in relation to how they were raised. If a gay couple were both raised without a mother than, per your reasoning, they could have a child and still be given every opportunity they were. Now you have decided to move the goalposts, as usual, and change it to a standard you are making up on the fly as to what potential parents must provide their children. Apparently, based on what you are saying about the law, you seem to think this should be enforced legally, although you have yet to say how that would be done. You've also ignored the fact that the standards you are creating here do not exist in the law or in society; parents do not have to provide anything but the bare essentials, for the most part, in order to raise their children and are almost entirely unregulated when it comes to having children in the first place. You are trying to make that different when it comes to gays because you don't like gays.

This is in addition to your making up your own definition for child trafficking as well as continuing to lie that children of surrogacy are somehow being sold, while ignoring that nearly all births involve someone getting paid. You also haven't explained why having a particular parent is 'vital'. Preferred, better, those words I can understand. It clearly isn't vital to live or become a productive, happy member of society; people have done so throughout history without one or even both parents.

I'm sure I will have more questions about the various holes in your reasoning later, which you will also ignore so as not to admit to said holes.

 

[Skylar]

In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. .

Well you say all sorts of bullshit.

A large part of it lies- all of it intended to harm homosexuals.

I'd say Sil needs a hobby that isn't bashing gays.

My partner and I had our children years before we could legally marry.

I'd say Sil doesn't know what he's talking about. And is willing to trade his health for an opportunity to try and hurt gay people. He's already told us how damaging poster here is. And he posts for no other reason than to try to tell us why we need to hurt gay people.

 

[Syriusly]

I
Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.
.

I just want to point out that Silhouette has a perfect 100% record of whacky legal theories.

At one time she was proclaiming that the entire State government of California was guilty of breaking Federal law by instituting "Harvey Milk Day"- based of course- entirely upon her invented definitions.

This is just another example of her lunacy.

 

[Silhouette]

What you're actually up to is introducing a strawman or several into this important conversation.

Meanwhile, back to the topic:
*****
..In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

Ah, so any single adult must be prevented from having children? Does that include if, say, a woman is pregnant and the father dies? Would the woman need to abort? What about gay couples who were raised by single parents? Gays or single adults raised by someone other than their parents? Do they get to have children? And how, precisely, are you planning to prevent these people from having children?

Tragic situations do not reinvent the standard for a child's best interests. A motherless child is always a tragedy, they will always have less than their peers and suffer thusly. Same with fatherless. Because people stumble into or plan these situations is unfortunate. But we're talking about sending a child into that situation pre-manufactured that way, where one adult receives money to ship the child off to a tragic situation. That is child-trafficking.

You said a child must be given every opportunity a parent had, in relation to how they were raised. If a gay couple were both raised without a mother than, per your reasoning, they could have a child and still be given every opportunity they were. Now you have decided to move the goalposts, as usual, and change it to a standard you are making up on the fly as to what potential parents must provide their children. Apparently, based on what you are saying about the law, you seem to think this should be enforced legally, although you have yet to say how that would be done. You've also ignored the fact that the standards you are creating here do not exist in the law or in society; parents do not have to provide anything but the bare essentials, for the most part, in order to raise their children and are almost entirely unregulated when it comes to having children in the first place....

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that exceptions to the rule is how society should set legal standards. I'm saying in general that if society seeks to institutionalize depriving a child of either a mother or father where it is pre-planned and money changes hands, then society has created a new standard wherein a child's predictable demise (the tragedy of being motherless or fatherless) can be done for money.

That is to say, society if listening to your arguments would have to give a stamp of approval to looking the other way while this goes on.

 

[Montrovant]

What you're actually up to is introducing a strawman or several into this important conversation.

Meanwhile, back to the topic:
*****
..In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. After all, children must be given every opportunity a parent had, if at all possible. Since gays and lesbians had access to a mother and father, seeking newly today as a matter of "law" to deprive a child in their midst of such a fundamental opportunity would be negligence.

So, gays by virtue of marrying are declaring to the world "we want nothing to do with children". And if knowing a child would suffer without a father or mother in their home, gays insist they DO want children, then what gays are really saying is, "we selfishly want to deprive a child of vital needs for our own agenda"...

Therefore, anyone selling or taking money to ship a child off to such a home is guilty of child trafficking.

Ah, so any single adult must be prevented from having children? Does that include if, say, a woman is pregnant and the father dies? Would the woman need to abort? What about gay couples who were raised by single parents? Gays or single adults raised by someone other than their parents? Do they get to have children? And how, precisely, are you planning to prevent these people from having children?

Tragic situations do not reinvent the standard for a child's best interests. A motherless child is always a tragedy, they will always have less than their peers and suffer thusly. Same with fatherless. Because people stumble into or plan these situations is unfortunate. But we're talking about sending a child into that situation pre-manufactured that way, where one adult receives money to ship the child off to a tragic situation. That is child-trafficking.

You said a child must be given every opportunity a parent had, in relation to how they were raised. If a gay couple were both raised without a mother than, per your reasoning, they could have a child and still be given every opportunity they were. Now you have decided to move the goalposts, as usual, and change it to a standard you are making up on the fly as to what potential parents must provide their children. Apparently, based on what you are saying about the law, you seem to think this should be enforced legally, although you have yet to say how that would be done. You've also ignored the fact that the standards you are creating here do not exist in the law or in society; parents do not have to provide anything but the bare essentials, for the most part, in order to raise their children and are almost entirely unregulated when it comes to having children in the first place....

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that exceptions to the rule is how society should set legal standards. I'm saying in general that if society seeks to institutionalize depriving a child of either a mother or father where it is pre-planned and money changes hands, then society has created a new standard wherein a child's predictable demise (the tragedy of being motherless or fatherless) can be done for money.

That is to say, society if listening to your arguments would have to give a stamp of approval to looking the other way while this goes on.

I am not laboring under any of your assumptions. I simply used the reasoning you presented and asked if that same reasoning should be applied to various situations. It isn't my fault if you don't want to have your reasoning used in situations not of your choosing.

Society hasn't sought to institutionalize depriving a child of a mother or father. First, gays have been having children long before gay marriage was legalized. Second, marriage and having children are not the same thing; one is not required for the other. Equating the institution of marriage with having children is something you cannot seem to stop doing despite it not being the same thing.

A child's demise? Are children dying of not having a mother or father? Are the children of single parents dropping dead when they realize they don't have 2 parents? Your hyperbole is funny in a sad sort of way.

Money changes hands in almost every birth. Why is it only with gays that you find that cause for alarm?

You can repeat yourself all you like, that doesn't mean your made-up definition of child trafficking is correct.

 

[Syriusly]

What you're actually up to is introducing a strawman or several into this important conversation.

Meanwhile, back to the topic:
*****
..In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. .

Why do you keep spamming the same idiotic opinion of yours?

 

[Seawytch]

What you're actually up to is introducing a strawman or several into this important conversation.

Meanwhile, back to the topic:
*****
..In fact, I'd say that two people "gay marrying" are declaring to the world that they don't want children. .

Why do you keep spamming the same idiotic opinion of yours?

Trolling for haters...

 

[Silhouette]

I am not laboring under any of your assumptions. I simply used the reasoning you presented and asked if that same reasoning should be applied to various situations. It isn't my fault if you don't want to have your reasoning used in situations not of your choosing.....1 Society hasn't sought to institutionalize depriving a child of a mother or father. First, gays have been having children long before gay marriage was legalized. 2 Second, marriage and having children are not the same thing; one is not required for the other. Equating the institution of marriage with having children is something you cannot seem to stop doing despite it not being the same thing.....A child's demise? 3 Are children dying of not having a mother or father? Are the children of single parents dropping dead when they realize they don't have 2 parents? Your hyperbole is funny in a sad sort of way..

1. Society HAS institutionalized motherless and fatherless children by passing gay marriage. They created a brand new institution "gay marriage" where as a function of the structure of that institution a child WILL ALWAYS BE deprived of either a mother or a father. The point of marriage up until this year has been to keep a mother and father in a child's home.

2. That is up for debate. In fact, the reason marriage started since the dawn of human civilization was to keep the father in the home with a mother with children. This was so the children did not become a burden on society from single motherhood; and the belief that a father was vital in addition to a mother in the vital psychological formation of the tribe's future adults.

3. Children aren't dying of being molested by and large. So your logic is that if a child isn't dying from something then it isn't harmful to them? A child being deprived of either a mother or a father is harmful to them. Gay marriage as a brand new institution is the structuralizing of that harm as an institution. Society had a right to weigh in on this. But 5 creepy assholes in DC took that right away from them. Two of those assholes will be impeached the moment this election is over next year.

There is nothing that is a hyperbole about children being deprived of a mother or a father as a matter of a new institution. It is sick and sad for the children. Noted that you are downplaying the demise of children for your stance. It would seem obvious on its face that anyone minimizing actual harm to children should not be allowed around them. (nor to pass judgment on new institutions whose structure will deprive them of vital needs)

Back to the topic which is that children placed into homes by their very description there will never ever be either a mother or a father, for money, is taking money to assign a child to a tragic situation of deprivation. There is no other term to describe that transaction other than "child trafficking". And if you would soften the receipt of money to put a child in a depriving situation to them, then a good lawyer would use that as a defense for another child-sale that "at least didn't result in the child dying"....to use your logic...

I assume that most children sold to others don't wind up dying. People who pay good money for "things" tend to not want them to disappear. So dying isn't the question here. Though of course it is the epitome of the problem. The real question is taking money for a child you're placing into psychological harm.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not laboring under any of your assumptions. I simply used the reasoning you presented and asked if that same reasoning should be applied to various situations. It isn't my fault if you don't want to have your reasoning used in situations not of your choosing.....1 Society hasn't sought to institutionalize depriving a child of a mother or father. First, gays have been having children long before gay marriage was legalized. 2 Second, marriage and having children are not the same thing; one is not required for the other. Equating the institution of marriage with having children is something you cannot seem to stop doing despite it not being the same thing.....A child's demise? 3 Are children dying of not having a mother or father? Are the children of single parents dropping dead when they realize they don't have 2 parents? Your hyperbole is funny in a sad sort of way..

1. Society HAS institutionalized motherless and fatherless children by passing gay marriage. They created a brand new institution "gay marriage" where as a function of the structure of that institution a child WILL ALWAYS BE deprived of either a mother or a father. The point of marriage up until this year has been to keep a mother and father in a child's home.
.

Totally false.

Society allowed motherless and fatherless children by allowing divorce.

There is no new institution- marriage is now just more inclusive.

Marriage does not require children, and does not mean that there will be children- whether or not couples who happen to be homosexual marry is unrelated to whether or not they are raising children.

Before same gender couples could marry, they were having- and raising children.
Now many of those couples can marry- and have and raise children.

Once again I will point out- your objection is to allowing the children of same gender couples having married parents.

Once again I will point out that if two men get married- they will not always be parents- so your claim that a child will always be deprived a mother if two men are allowed to marry is just false.

Once again I will point out that preventing two men from getting married does not somehow magically mean that the children that they are raising have mothers.

Once again I will point out that all of your objections are simply part of your ongoing hate campaign against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Back to the topic which is that children placed into homes by their very description there will never ever be either a mother or a father, for money, is taking money to assign a child to a tragic situation of deprivation. There is no other term to describe that transaction other than "child trafficking". .

That is entirely your fantasy. There is no evidence that a child will 'suffer' from any deprivation- nor is there any guarantee that any child in any other situation will end up with a mother or father.

Your fantasy has nothing to do with 'child trafficking'- and your continued claims are just an insult to the children who are really suffering from being trafficked for sex around the world.

 

[Montrovant]

I am not laboring under any of your assumptions. I simply used the reasoning you presented and asked if that same reasoning should be applied to various situations. It isn't my fault if you don't want to have your reasoning used in situations not of your choosing.....1 Society hasn't sought to institutionalize depriving a child of a mother or father. First, gays have been having children long before gay marriage was legalized. 2 Second, marriage and having children are not the same thing; one is not required for the other. Equating the institution of marriage with having children is something you cannot seem to stop doing despite it not being the same thing.....A child's demise? 3 Are children dying of not having a mother or father? Are the children of single parents dropping dead when they realize they don't have 2 parents? Your hyperbole is funny in a sad sort of way..

1. Society HAS institutionalized motherless and fatherless children by passing gay marriage. They created a brand new institution "gay marriage" where as a function of the structure of that institution a child WILL ALWAYS BE deprived of either a mother or a father. The point of marriage up until this year has been to keep a mother and father in a child's home.

2. That is up for debate. In fact, the reason marriage started since the dawn of human civilization was to keep the father in the home with a mother with children. This was so the children did not become a burden on society from single motherhood; and the belief that a father was vital in addition to a mother in the vital psychological formation of the tribe's future adults.

3. Children aren't dying of being molested by and large. So your logic is that if a child isn't dying from something then it isn't harmful to them? A child being deprived of either a mother or a father is harmful to them. Gay marriage as a brand new institution is the structuralizing of that harm as an institution. Society had a right to weigh in on this. But 5 creepy assholes in DC took that right away from them. Two of those assholes will be impeached the moment this election is over next year.

There is nothing that is a hyperbole about children being deprived of a mother or a father as a matter of a new institution. It is sick and sad for the children. Noted that you are downplaying the demise of children for your stance. It would seem obvious on its face that anyone minimizing actual harm to children should not be allowed around them. (nor to pass judgment on new institutions whose structure will deprive them of vital needs)

Back to the topic which is that children placed into homes by their very description there will never ever be either a mother or a father, for money, is taking money to assign a child to a tragic situation of deprivation. There is no other term to describe that transaction other than "child trafficking". And if you would soften the receipt of money to put a child in a depriving situation to them, then a good lawyer would use that as a defense for another child-sale that "at least didn't result in the child dying"....to use your logic...

I assume that most children sold to others don't wind up dying. People who pay good money for "things" tend to not want them to disappear. So dying isn't the question here. Though of course it is the epitome of the problem. The real question is taking money for a child you're placing into psychological harm.

Although syriusly pretty much covered this, I'll respond directly as well.

1. No, society has done no such thing. First, marriage does not require children. Second, gays have been having children before they could legally marry. Third, there is no reason a child of a gay couple cannot have a mother or father. It may be unlikely or unusual, but I don't doubt it has and will happen. Someone might have lived as straight, had a child, and then come out as gay and gotten married. The child would still have a mother and father. Or perhaps a gay couple might come to an agreement with a third party to have a child, raised by the gay couple, but with the other parent involved as well. Whatever the case, there is nothing in marriage between gays which allows for having children where it wasn't before.

2. You can debate, but you are clearly wrong. Whatever the origins of marriage, it clearly is not a requirement in US marriage to have children. One can marry and divorce as many times as one likes without ever having children or even being capable of having children. There is nothing I'm aware of in marriage law which mandates children or the ability to bear children. I would argue your ideas of the origin or marriage as well, but it is irrelevant.

3. You said 'a child's predictable demise'. Do you understand the word demise? I imagine you don't as you've had trouble with the definitions of so many other words. Demise does not mean harmful. Saying that being without a mother or father is a child's demise is either hyperbole or a total misunderstanding of the word. the definition of demise And society can still weigh in on gay marriage. There is nothing preventing a constitutional amendment. I also find it extremely funny that you think 2 USSC justices are going to be impeached. Certainly, based on all of your previous legal predictions, we can guess how accurate this one will be.

Again, demise does not mean what you seem to think it does. I am not 'downplaying the demise of children'. Gay marriage is not killing any children. Nor have you actually shown actual harm done by gay marriage; you have made claims about it, sure, but other than lying about what a particular Prince's Trust Youth Index says, you haven't actually provided evidence of your claim. Nor have you been willing to put the label 'child trafficking' on any births other than those involving gays, despite various examples showing how, based on your reasoning in this thread, many different circumstances would fall into that label. You have continued to say that children of surrogacy are being sold, which is also a lie. Not only is it a lie, but there are already laws regarding buying or selling human beings, yet somehow no one has been charged for selling a child with surrogacy.

Care to actually address your lies this time, or will you simply repeat them yet again?

 

[Silhouette]

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..