Does Same Sex Marriage promote family?

OscarB63 said:

so then you will have to pay a clinic to do the artificial insemination, yes?

also, if they are just going to be a "baby momma" why would you have to marry them?

Click to expand...

Oh for pete sake. I get your point. It could be more costly than just adopting from the state. That is easy for you to say. You are in a heterosexual relationship, likely married. It's different for gay couples.

CriticalThought said:

Oh for pete sake. I get your point. It could be more costly than just adopting from the state. That is easy for you to say. You are in a heterosexual relationship, likely married. It's different for gay couples.

Click to expand...

no different than for single parents. :shrug:

but let's get back to your friends. if they are willing to surrogate for you, why not just "do the deed" instead of going the whole AI route? It's not like it's just "casual sex" you are doing it for a purpose.

what is the big deal?

OscarB63 said:

no different than for single parents. :shrug:

but let's get back to your friends. if they are willing to surrogate for you, why not just "do the deed" instead of going the whole AI route? It's not like it's just "casual sex" you are doing it for a purpose.

what is the big deal?

Click to expand...

It's gross. I'm not even sure I would physically be capable of doing it.

OscarB63 said:

adoption is only incredibly expensive if you want a cute baby girl from china or a little Romanian boy. If you go through your state department of human resources it doesn't cost much of anything. We adopted both of our younger sons through DHR and the state not only paid all the court costs, but they also pay us a monthly stipend for each boy until they turn 18.


the only thing I had to pay was a $25 fee to have new birth certificates made

Click to expand...

Once again: easier said than done for a lot of people, depending on where you live. The legal fees here to make it happen are quite expensive, and very, very, very rarely (though not banned) have gay couples been able to adopt (unless one is already a biological parent).

Thus a surrogate would be easier for many couples.

I'm glad Alabama makes it easy (at least for straight married couples).

CriticalThought said:

It's gross. I'm not even sure I would physically be capable of doing it.

Click to expand...

really? if the only way I could get a kid, and I really wanted one of "my own", was to have gay sex...I'd suck a dick in a heartbeat, no matter how gross I think it is.

FilmFestGuy said:

Once again: easier said than done for a lot of people, depending on where you live. The legal fees here to make it happen are quite expensive, and very, very, very rarely (though not banned) have gay couples been able to adopt (unless one is already a biological parent).

Thus a surrogate would be easier for many couples.

I'm glad Alabama makes it easy (at least for straight married couples).

Click to expand...

I guess Alabama figures it's cheaper in the long run to pay the adoption expenses rather than support the kids for 10-15 years in the foster care system.

Hicup said:

Who said anything about being immediate? Are you deliberately being dishonest? It's ok, you can say it clearly. Little Johnny is family, and is the immediate descendant of poor mamma and papa..

Click to expand...

Just be an adult and say that you said nothing about "immediate". I am sitting here thinking about little Johnny being found among the wreckage and people trying to determine who was his family... that is "immediate" in your scenario, that's all. If you want to start being a dick, I'll just chalk you up as a totalwaste of time and not a partial waste of time, with regards to taking you seriously.

So, little Johnny IS family even though his parents are dead and Sara is NOT family, even though Tim is dead. Serious disconnect going on here. Little Johnny obviously would have ONCE been family before his parents demise just as Sara was ONCE family before Tim's demise.

Y

ou said -

I couldn't prove it if Tim died, and we had no DNA? That's kinda the point isn't it? Tim and Sara are NOT family, however they were ONCE a family; that is before Tim's demise.


Tim-

Click to expand...

If little Johnny's parents bodies were never found since they were eaten by sharks that died and sunk into the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and were forever destroyed by the Divergent Plate Boundary then you would not be able to prove that little Johnny was an immediate descendant of his parents any more than poor Sara whom you are claiming is no longer my sister in a legal, cultural or moral sense just because she... wait, his semen dissolved into her on accident and that should leave a trace element. Even if it doesn't. You are simply making a justification argument, discounting all reason in order to classify "family" into some tight little corner in order to exclude people that you don't approve of. "Family" is a human concept. Whatever language you use, the term and idea is a human social construct... so you really have nothing other than a fearful and offensive mindset.

Anything else. I can keep shooting you down all day...

One day I hope to sue every state that prohibits two parent adoption on the grounds that they are not acting in the best interest of the child or respecting the right of a child to have a two parent home.

CriticalThought said:

One day I hope to sue every state that prohibits two parent adoption on the grounds that they are not acting in the best interest of the child or respecting the right of a child to have a two parent home.

Click to expand...

I actually sued DHR for custody of my first adopted son. they wanted to give him to him crackhead mother's 3rd cousin, who had just gotten out of prison after 25 years for murder. I sued on the grounds that giving custody to this convicted murderer was not in the best interest of the child and won. 1st time in the state that a foster parent had sued DHR for custody and won.

OscarB63 said:

really? if the only way I could get a kid, and I really wanted one of "my own", was to have gay sex...I'd suck a dick in a heartbeat, no matter how gross I think it is.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that isn't comparable to what you are asking me. In order for it to be comparable, I would say you would have to actually have sex with a guy until you orgasmed. With that in mind could you...

1. Maintain an erection while having sex with a guy?
2. Achieve orgasm while having sex with a guy? (so that you could deposit your semen)

CriticalThought said:

Sorry but that isn't comparable to what you are asking me. In order for it to be comparable, I would say you would have to actually have sex with a guy until you orgasmed. With that in mind could you...

1. Maintain an erection while having sex with a guy?
2. Achieve orgasm while having sex with a guy? (so that you could deposit your semen)

Click to expand...

I could maintain an erection and achieve orgasm with a goat if that's what it took. In my mind, I'd be doing Katy Perry.


that is one thing I don;t get about gay dudes. how physically repulsive you find the thought of having sex with a female. My first roommate in college was a gay dude and he walked in on me and this girl once. the next day he asked me how I could do that, said he'd rather stick a knife in a girl than **** her.

OscarB63 said:

I could maintain an erection and achieve orgasm with a goat if that's what it took. In my mind, I'd be doing Katy Perry.

Click to expand...

I'm honestly not sure whether or not I could. I honestly would have to try before I know. Some gay guys I have talked to about having sex with women say that they couldn't get an erection and others have gone the whole way and found it better than having sex with men. I think its an individual and cirumstantial thing.

Hiccup, pay attention!

CriticalThought said:

Yeah, you have made up your own definition of family. It's that simple. I have never heard of a definition of family as narrow as the one you are advocating in this thread.

Click to expand...

No no no... it is really simple. Not A family, but family!

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it is your individual definition and it is so narrow that it is completely useless and irrelevant to this thread.

Click to expand...

Thats just the thing... it is so narrow that it is useless in any common sense aspect of communication. But what is most interesting is that it can so easily be turned around against him. If one believes in Adam and Eve, then according to him we all share DNA so we are all Family, meaning homosexual relationships are family too... IF one believes in evolution, then again, we all derive from the first single celled organisms which evolved into the first humans and that is why we all share 98% (or whatever it is) of the same DNA, hence we are all family again, including same sex couples.

CriticalThought said:

I'm honestly not sure whether or not I could. I honestly would have to try before I know. Some gay guys I have talked to about having sex with women say that they couldn't get an erection and others have gone the whole way and found it better than having sex with men. I think its an individual and cirumstantial thing.

Click to expand...

wouldn't hurt to try.

like the old Life cereal commercials. I'm not gonna try it, you try it. I can see you with a chick now....hey CT, he likes it :lamo

OscarB63 said:

wouldn't hurt to try.

like the old Life cereal commercials. I'm not gonna try it, you try it. I can see you with a chick now....hey CT, he likes it :lamo

Click to expand...

I got A's in math (even Calculus) - didn't mean I liked it. The ability to do something doesn't mean one derives true pleasure from it.

FilmFestGuy said:

I got A's in math (even Calculus) - didn't mean I liked it. The ability to do something doesn't mean one derives true pleasure from it.

Click to expand...

and never having tried it, one doesn't know for sure if they'd like it or not. :shrug:


I've had a colonoscopy, so I know that I don't like having large cylindrical objects stuck up my ass.

OscarB63 said:

wouldn't hurt to try.

like the old Life cereal commercials. I'm not gonna try it, you try it. I can see you with a chick now....hey CT, he likes it :lamo

Click to expand...

Maybe I will. Who knows. I'm not jumping at the chance anymore than I would be jumping at the chance to screw a dog.

Amazed said:

(smile) In other words you are a legend in your own mind, I get it.

Sorry Jerry....I am not quite as enomored of you as you are yourself...and as I peruse the thread you are agruing from both sides of your mouth which actually makes you completely irrelevant to a serious conversation.

Am I supposed to in awe of all those pretty ribbons?

Click to expand...

Well you did just call them "pretty".....

OscarB63 said:

adoption is only incredibly expensive if you want a cute baby girl from china or a little Romanian boy. If you go through your state department of human resources it doesn't cost much of anything. We adopted both of our younger sons through DHR and the state not only paid all the court costs, but they also pay us a monthly stipend for each boy until they turn 18.


the only thing I had to pay was a $25 fee to have new birth certificates made

Click to expand...

It's typically cheaper to adopt than open a daycare or become a foster parent.

American said:

The didn't know they were infertile when the got married.

Click to expand...

Prove that every infertile couple knew that they were infertile before they got married. Prove that most of them knew this. One of the most common reasons in the show "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant" that a married woman never questioned any of the symptoms of pregnancy that she was getting was due to believing that she was infertile, usually diagnosed while she was a teen. And there are some women who have to have hysterectomies at very young ages. Mumps in childhood can cause infertility in men. And there are those men and women who just don't want to have children at all, so they voluntarily get either a vasectomy or a tubal ligation before ever procreating (although most have to wait til they're at least 25 or around that age, depending on the doctor). Some people go into marriages knowing full well that they can not make children (hopefully their spouse knew this prior to marriage too).

Hicup said:

What is significant statistically for you to use the term, lots? I don't about you, but almost, if not every parent I know wanted kids, the when, and why may not be as so clear cut among the families I know, but the question of children was never an after-thought. There are tons of situations whereby creating a family is not ideal, even for heterosexuals, mainly where the best interests of the child are concerned; but these are material, and also exceptional. Heterosexual marriage, and by extension homosexual marriage, pin the argument to certain intrinsic characteristics that one infers as important to the underlying conclusion. That is, YourStar's premise. All things being equal, homosxual marriage, IMO does NOT promote families.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Is 6.6% (a figure from 1995 that is has been rising) of married couples choose to be childless couples enough for you to consider significant?

Childless By Choice - childless couples an emerging demographic - Statistical Data Included | American Demographics | Find Articles at BNET

That figure seems really close to the percentage of the population that is believed to be homosexual.

Here are some more facts about childless couples, whether voluntarily so or not, that you may not be aware of.

Childless Couples - Marriage - Families.com

Childless by choice - Roanoke.com

The one above says that about 18% of women between the ages of 40-44 do not have children.

And some info on infertile couples

Statistics on Infertile Couples - LoveToKnow Pregnancy

Statistics : American Pregnancy Association

The Fertility Race: Statistics

The link above states that 7.1% of American couples are infertile.

roguenuke said:

Is 6.6% (a figure from 1995 that is has been rising) of married couples choose to be childless couples enough for you to consider significant?

Childless By Choice - childless couples an emerging demographic - Statistical Data Included | American Demographics | Find Articles at BNET

That figure seems really close to the percentage of the population that is believed to be homosexual.

Here are some more facts about childless couples, whether voluntarily so or not, that you may not be aware of.

Childless Couples - Marriage - Families.com

Childless by choice - Roanoke.com

The one above says that about 18% of women between the ages of 40-44 do not have children.

And some info on infertile couples

Statistics on Infertile Couples - LoveToKnow Pregnancy

Statistics : American Pregnancy Association

The Fertility Race: Statistics

The link above states that 7.1% of American couples are infertile.

Click to expand...

So...6.6% of heteros chose to be childless, while 66% of lesbian couples chose to be childless....and gay couples are even lower....so why are we supposed to accept the notion that SSM is like OSM?

Bodhisattva said:

Just be an adult and say that you said nothing about "immediate". I am sitting here thinking about little Johnny being found among the wreckage and people trying to determine who was his family... that is "immediate" in your scenario, that's all. If you want to start being a dick, I'll just chalk you up as a totalwaste of time and not a partial waste of time, with regards to taking you seriously.

So, little Johnny IS family even though his parents are dead and Sara is NOT family, even though Tim is dead. Serious disconnect going on here. Little Johnny obviously would have ONCE been family before his parents demise just as Sara was ONCE family before Tim's demise.

Y

If little Johnny's parents bodies were never found since they were eaten by sharks that died and sunk into the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and were forever destroyed by the Divergent Plate Boundary then you would not be able to prove that little Johnny was an immediate descendant of his parents any more than poor Sara whom you are claiming is no longer my sister in a legal, cultural or moral sense just because she... wait, his semen dissolved into her on accident and that should leave a trace element. Even if it doesn't. You are simply making a justification argument, discounting all reason in order to classify "family" into some tight little corner in order to exclude people that you don't approve of. "Family" is a human concept. Whatever language you use, the term and idea is a human social construct... so you really have nothing other than a fearful and offensive mindset.

Anything else. I can keep shooting you down all day...

Click to expand...

What I said stand's on its merits. Your problem, like CT, and whomever else agree's with you, inferred what you thought I meant. I made a simple (entirely factual) statement about family, and whether YS' premise held up to that standard. I was careful to include words like "strictly", and "fundamental" in my language, specifically because of individual DP members that have reading trouble.

Let's try it one more time, but this time a little pithy becasue I grow tired..

Sara and Tim, and little Johnny are a family, but Sara, and Tim are NOT family! <<-- See how easy that was?

Moreover, even if one were to ignore my "narrow" assertion (Although I'm not entirely sure why some are even arguing over this point), I have already given my opinion on exactly why homosexuality, and by extension homosexual marriage in and of itself does NOT promote... FAMILY! They can have families, but without some clever "trickery" they are intrinsically unable to perform the deed, unless you narrow for yourself whether a coupling can be called a family.




Tim-

Hicup said:

Sara and Tim, and little Johnny are a family, but Sara, and Tim are NOT family!

Click to expand...

Sara and Tim share a blood relative in lil Johnny, that makes them "A family".

Hicup said:

What I said stand's on its merits. Your problem, like CT, and whomever else agree's with you, inferred what you thought I meant. I made a simple (entirely factual) statement about family, and whether YS' premise held up to that standard. I was careful to include words like "strictly", and "fundamental" in my language, specifically because of individual DP members that have reading trouble

Click to expand...

.

To be family is to be A family... end of story. Your attempt to qualify your statement wreaks of desperation.

Let's try it one more time, but this time a little pithy becasue I grow tired..

Click to expand...

Delusions of grandeur can do that to you...

Sara and Tim, and little Johnny are a family, but Sara, and Tim are NOT family! <<-- See how easy that was?

Click to expand...

They are A family that is family in every sense of the word...

Moreover, even if one were to ignore my "narrow" assertion (Although I'm not entirely sure why some are even arguing over this point), I have already given my opinion on exactly why homosexuality, and by extension homosexual marriage in and of itself does NOT promote... FAMILY! They can have families, but without some clever "trickery" they are intrinsically unable to perform the deed, unless you narrow for yourself whether a coupling can be called a family.

Click to expand...

You are having trouble understanding the term promote... to promote family can be as simple as those that engage in, or have A family, are promoting family. It is not narrowing oneself, it is accepting how it really is. Heterosexuals do not promote family any more than homosexuals, and no less either... You say that they can have a family, well they are promoting family by having a family and why you can't or won't accept this fact is beyond most reasonable people's understanding...