- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:39 pm to Pettifogger
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:39 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Interesting. I have always considered you a thoughtful poster, and it is good to see a well-reasoned opinion, even when it is different from my own. Perhaps especially then.
I believe it's a very perilous slope for humanity where people are increasingly opting to distance themselves from the human procreation process by contracting the bulk of it out to others. And of course, the woman who carries the child is ultimately (usually) entirely removed from the future life of the child. I think that's treading in very dangerous waters.
I'm not completely against surrogacy, I'm in particular open to its merits when involving family/friends. And I 100%, genuinely grieve for the women who cannot carry children. But I think we're already seeing it slip into very questionable territory. It's more and more a practice of the wealthy exploiting young women (gay and not). I don't think it's good for the culture, the child, or the exploited woman.
And yes, I'm certainly concerned about the use of surrogates for gay couples, but it's not limited to that.
The whole "exploitation" concern seems very "nanny state" to me. Opinions will obviously vary.
As to the child, I doubt that a surrogate baby will suffer any ill-effects from the fact that (s)he was incubated in a womb other than the womb of his/her genetic mother, and I am not concerned at all about the surrogate never seeing the child again. She was well-compensated and is not particularly different in concept from any employee who risks his physical health in exchange for money. Emotionally, sure, I can see that people might see the leasing-out of a uterus somewhat differently than (for example) a dangerous job in the oilfield.
1
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:49 pm to djmed
Can we undo gay marriage already? I don't support it anymore.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:54 pm to Bottom9
quote:
Easy. Why don't they befriend a lesbo couple and cum in each of the girls and boom both couples can keep 1 kid each.
Easy, when a gay couple has regular sex, they may never go back.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:56 pm to AggieHank86
I don't have much problem with the "nanny-state" thing - I think the general welfare of a state/locality/nation includes some measure of action against moral decay.
TBH I don't know when or if we'll ever honestly look at the impacts of surrogacy, especially now that it'll be intertwined with LGBT issues. But I certainly can't say broadly that it won't impact the child. Adopted children struggle all the time with the idea that their birth mother abandoned them (in various forms). It doesn't mean they don't recover and thrive, but it's not generally something I want children to experience.
I don't think our society is going to be particularly inclined to assess/study how children are impacted when their "birth mother" was leased. And when you consider the amount of time and energy that the behavioral/mental health community spends on any number of other efforts to measure impacts on children, it's kind of nuts that something so significant wouldn't be a huge thing to examine. Maybe they are/will, I don't know. But if so, I strongly suspect they'll start with the goal of determining that there are no ill impacts, as you seem to believe.
I think the thing I find most disturbing about your response here is the way you are nonplussed because of the fair "transactional" nature of it. That's some dystopian stuff for me, but I'm not a libertarian.
At this rate, well within my lifetime (hell, we're close to there already), surrogacy will be a full on way for the wealthy to conveniently achieve their goals of accessorizing-via-parenthood via outsourcing without the messiness of pregnancy. It's the procreation version of moral hazard IMO.
TBH I don't know when or if we'll ever honestly look at the impacts of surrogacy, especially now that it'll be intertwined with LGBT issues. But I certainly can't say broadly that it won't impact the child. Adopted children struggle all the time with the idea that their birth mother abandoned them (in various forms). It doesn't mean they don't recover and thrive, but it's not generally something I want children to experience.
I don't think our society is going to be particularly inclined to assess/study how children are impacted when their "birth mother" was leased. And when you consider the amount of time and energy that the behavioral/mental health community spends on any number of other efforts to measure impacts on children, it's kind of nuts that something so significant wouldn't be a huge thing to examine. Maybe they are/will, I don't know. But if so, I strongly suspect they'll start with the goal of determining that there are no ill impacts, as you seem to believe.
I think the thing I find most disturbing about your response here is the way you are nonplussed because of the fair "transactional" nature of it. That's some dystopian stuff for me, but I'm not a libertarian.
At this rate, well within my lifetime (hell, we're close to there already), surrogacy will be a full on way for the wealthy to conveniently achieve their goals of accessorizing-via-parenthood via outsourcing without the messiness of pregnancy. It's the procreation version of moral hazard IMO.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:58 pm to djmed
family 
That's absurd on the order of calling your "fur babies" your "family".
That's absurd on the order of calling your "fur babies" your "family".
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:As I said, I anticipate that opinions will vary on that point. I am VERY libertarian, and I DO see it as simply "transactional."
I think the thing I find most disturbing about your response here is the way you are nonplussed because of the fair "transactional" nature of it. That's some dystopian stuff for me, but I'm not a libertarian.
If a man wants to hire-out his healthy body to do dangerous work in a coal mine in exchange for better pay than he would receive working the counter at McDonalds, good for him. If a woman wants to hire-out HER body (whether for surrogacy or for paid sex work, for instance) in exchange for good American money, good for her too. As long as she was an adult when she agreed to it, I don't want to hear about her "regrets" after the fact, either.
BTW, I see that someone downvoted you while I was typing. I assure that it was not me. I appreciate reasonable posts, even when I might disagree with their substance.
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Your understanding of logic and nuance are astounding (-ly bad). Tarzana is Simone de Beauvoir compared to you.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For all practical purposes, a gay couple is basically same same as any other couple where both partners are infertile.
Well sure, except for the fact neither of them are actually infertile.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:17 pm to AggieHank86
Yeah I know. I know your general outlook to some extent so I expected you'd acknowledge that.
But yeah, I still find it disconcerting.
But yeah, I still find it disconcerting.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:17 pm to jrobic4
quote:I would not have imagined you as a fan of Adam DeVine in Pitch Perfect.
Your understanding of logic and nuance are astounding (-ly bad)
My daughters love that film. We watched it (again) last week, and they quoted every line along with the characters. They were hilarious when they did this line from DeVine.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:35 pm to TrueTiger
Ridiculous. How many hetero couples adopt? Way way more than homo couples yet nobody feels bad or drums up sympathy for hetero couples and the money they have to spend.
As a father that adopted 2 babies and spent 100k to do it, all i have to say is STFU.
As a father that adopted 2 babies and spent 100k to do it, all i have to say is STFU.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:44 pm to djmed
quote:
Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Wait, gay couples have to do unnatural things to have children? And these unnatural things cost money?
Hold. The. Phones.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 9:02 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:quote:
Gay couples were not intended to start families.
Says who?
Literally science does.
- Mother Nature
Posted on 6/23/23 at 9:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For all practical purposes, a gay couple is basically same same as any other couple where both partners are infertile.
So few words so much retarded
Posted on 6/23/23 at 9:17 pm to rtiger
quote:
So they can push their mental illness on malleable minds that can't buy beer or smoke but can have irreversible surgeries that cause life long dependence on hormone injections to be who their sick parents told them to be?
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 6/24/23 at 7:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Depends upon the contractual language of the insurance policy that they choose to purchase. If it is covered by the policy for which they paid good money, yes. It is a matter of private contract. If the insurance company did not want to assume that risk, they did not have to sell that policy.
Do we really need to debate the terms of a private contract? You know damn well the question is whether the feds will force insurance companies to cover it, just like Obamacare mandated birth control and other items.
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:05 am to djmed
I've read most of this thread and I'm still trying to figure out why I'm supposed to care about the OBVIOUS fact that it's going to be harder and thus, more expensive, for gay men to have kids than it is for many other flavors of couples.
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:Is the article even claiming this?
For all practical purposes, a gay couple is basically same same as any other couple where both partners are infertile. I see no reason that they should pay more to "start a family" versus any other infertile couple,
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:06 am to djmed
They shouldn't have families at all.
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:07 am to AggieHank86
Hell no to insurance. Insurance is to cover unforeseen losses.
Gays know they can’t have children naturally.
Gays know they can’t have children naturally.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News