Homosexual marriage II

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'm really not understanding your point. According to your profile, it shouldn't be news to you that sperm and egg are used for reproduction. And couples, or larger or smaller groups identifying as "families" need both a sperm and an egg to effectively meet in order to have children.

Familes that don't have eggs that work for this make arrangements to get some, before or after fertilization. Families that don't have sperm do the same. This is true whatever the genders or sexual preferences of the adults involved.

So, it seems you're upset, but I'm not tracking why.

Because it's a chance to attack gay marriage, even if the reason doesn't make any particular sense.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by inked

My, my, my. All this talk about biology when we were discussing "family". I take it from the learned discussions of sperm acquisition and banking and the legal ins-and-outs that there is a definite problem with lesbians not having sperm sui generis, as it were. Where are the equal-time discussions of egg banks for homosexual male couples?

Men have practically infinite sperm. Women do not have practically infinite eggs, or even that many surplus. For this reason, it is quite practical to have banks of male sperm frozen, sitting around, because the men will produce more for their own reproduction, but it is not so to have banks of female eggs sitting around, as the women have a severely limited supply.

[inked]

Not an opportunity to attack gay "marriage" but an opportunity to demonstrate that biology rules.

Count Comfect, unfortunately, the storage of eggs is not the problem you make it out to be. You have undoubtedly heard of the problems with hundreds of thousands of stored embryos because they made too many. You know, the handy ones people want to use for embryonic research stuff. Ringing any bells?

To gather the full force of the arguments over time, one would need to go back to the original thread and read through my commentary over time. I don't repeat it each time because it upsets so many people here to have any one disagree regarding this matter. (Witnesses?)

I long ago predicted this sort of mess in gay "marriages" with nonbiological children (since it remains a fact that two homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally). The fact that it has taken time for the reality to manifest itself is not upsetting to me (other than sorrow for what the children are put through in any "divorce").

I'm not upset, nor gratified that I have been correct.

[Count Comfect]

Embryos aren't eggs, inked. Embryos have been fertilized. In the case of the frozen ones, intentionally. For use. Usually for the purpose of allowing the woman (and man) in question to reproduce. Spare eggs are a different question.

And your argument against gay marriage through artificial reproduction is still flawed, because it's still not an argument against gay marriage - just one against artificial reproduction. If that's your logic, I'm afraid we'll have to ban all marriages of infertile, menopausal, or otherwise non-child-bearing people, because if they want to have children, they too will have to use sperm or egg donors. And gays will still have relationships regardless of whether you allow marriage - and they'll still want kids. It still isn't a reason not to allow them to marry.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Not an opportunity to attack gay "marriage" but an opportunity to demonstrate that biology rules.

Count Comfect, unfortunately, the storage of eggs is not the problem you make it out to be. You have undoubtedly heard of the problems with hundreds of thousands of stored embryos because they made too many. You know, the handy ones people want to use for embryonic research stuff. Ringing any bells?

To gather the full force of the arguments over time, one would need to go back to the original thread and read through my commentary over time. I don't repeat it each time because it upsets so many people here to have any one disagree regarding this matter. (Witnesses?)

I long ago predicted this sort of mess in gay "marriages" with nonbiological children (since it remains a fact that two homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally). The fact that it has taken time for the reality to manifest itself is not upsetting to me (other than sorrow for what the children are put through in any "divorce").

I'm not upset, nor gratified that I have been correct.

The term "nonbiological children" would be contrasted to what? Biological children? Because children, of course, are innately biological. So it's not really that they're "nonbiological" that upsets you. Because they're not. In this case, at least, they seem to even be biologically directly related to one of the dyad parents. The other is related by law, such as it is, like any step, common law, or adoptive parent.

I think the term you're looking for is more along the lines of 'illegitimate', 'left-side of the blanket' and that old standby 'b*stard' children. Those terms traditionally describe children whose conception was outside church sanction, for one reason or another. The impact of having that term applied, however, fell largely on the children, rather than on the people who conceived them. Modern American law assumed paternity for married people until quite recently, when strides "forward" in DNA testing began to shift the burden of proof. Personally, I think that's a bad thing. "Putative" paternity has a lot of benefits for society that aren't necessarily assured by a mania for "blood lines." But of course that standard is hard to apply when people are prohibited by statute from marrying. The ancient Irish had it right, on this one. Your heir was your sister's son. Whatever anyone had been up to, you were assured that the two of you were related. (go ahead guys, check the math) Pragmatists, those Irish.

As for egg storage, CC is of course completely correct, that eggs are in more limited supply than sperm, either in stored or in situ condition. Also, they're a bugger to get out, and much harder on the donor than sperm. So they'll naturally be the limiting factor.

[inked]

Interesting use of terms, there. None of which I used or actually thought of, I must say. When two eggs are fused from the "parents" which are both female, or two sperm fused from the "parents" which are both male, then we can talk of the biological children of homosexual couples. Otherwise, it's not biological in the plain sense of "parent", is it?

Nice try at misdirection, though. Does it usually work well for you?

CountComfect, my point was the availability of eggs with which the embryos were made. I personally know of one individual who produce 25 harvestable eggs in one episode of hyperstimulation and who is having them stored with no intention of using them? Why do in vitro fetilization clinics specializing in older clientele advertise for egg-donors on college campuses (payment for eggs)?

No doubt eggs are more difficult to acquire than sperm. That wasn't the argument at all. Op cit.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Interesting use of terms, there. None of which I used or actually thought of, I must say.

You didn't use the term "nonbiological children" in the post I quoted? Do you see that it's there now?

When two eggs are fused from the "parents" which are both female, or two sperm fused from the "parents" which are both male, then we can talk of the biological children of homosexual couples. Otherwise, it's not biological in the plain sense of "parent", is it?

You seem confused. My point is, all the children are biological. Not all the parents are related to them biologically. To have families where there are parents (in every normally used and legal way) who are not biologically related is quite common. Adopted families are like that. Step families are like that. Remarriages from widowed people are like that, just to name 3. The "plain sense of parent" is not restricted to "originator of sperm and egg" in other families, so why does it bulk so big for you in gay families?

So, maybe I can clarify.

1) B*stardy, as a concept, refers to the behavior of adults more than it speaks to anything innate in children. It seems to be the behavior of adults that you have issue with, and for reasons similar to the ones which give 'illegitimate children' their definition. Therefore I suggested that your definition of 'children raised by gay people' as 'nonbiological' was a social, rather than a scientific, definition, like "b*stard."

2)This definition, applied socially, primarily hurts the children, rather than the adults. Therefore, the use of it is of limited utility except in perjoration.

3) Arguing against gay marriage on the basis of an example of unmarried gays doesn't make much sense. There are points for and against marriage among any people. But unless you're willing to argue that the behavior of unmarried heterosexual people is applicable to a discussion of the merits of heterosexual marriage I can't really see how this example is relevant.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Not an opportunity to attack gay "marriage" but an opportunity to demonstrate that biology rules.

For now. Old habits die hard, but they do perish eventually.

[inked]

"I think the term you're looking for is more along the lines of 'illegitimate', 'left-side of the blanket' and that old standby 'b*stard' children. Those terms traditionally describe children whose conception was outside church sanction, for one reason or another. The impact of having that term applied, however, fell largely on the children, rather than on the people who conceived them. Modern American law assumed paternity for married people until quite recently, when strides "forward" in DNA testing began to shift the burden of proof. Personally, I think that's a bad thing. "Putative" paternity has a lot of benefits for society that aren't necessarily assured by a mania for "blood lines." But of course that standard is hard to apply when people are prohibited by statute from marrying. The ancient Irish had it right, on this one. Your heir was your sister's son. Whatever anyone had been up to, you were assured that the two of you were related. (go ahead guys, check the math) Pragmatists, those Irish."

The above are the terms that I didn't use. Glad you can use a dictionary though and have a grasp of the terms you use, sisterandcousinandaunt.

BJ, which old habit do you refer to in you "old habits die hard"? Biological reproduction in the sense of requiring a male and a female or an egg and a sperm (which are derived from the male and the female, respectively, however they may be brought into contact for zygote formation)? Or, are you daring to suggest that biology is the old habit and that science will allow the de novo construction of each? You are being enigmatic, aren't you? If not, I must say it is touching how your faith has grown since last we chatted here on the 'Moot. (Gives me hope that does!)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So far, I haven't needed a dictionary for any of my terms, although I have an unhealthy reliance on spell-check, in the interests of being somewhat understandable.

Will you be replying to the content of anyone's posts? Count Comfect's question about assisted reproduction, perhaps? I don't flatter myself you'll reply to me, of course.

[The Gaffer]

Don't hold your breath, Sis.

Very nice posts, by the way. You write well.

An interesting article in the paper this weekend, incidentally about the experience of dads who discovered they had grown-up "biological" children they didn't know about. It cited:

One piece of research in the 70s accidentally discovered that up to 30% of a group of around 250 women had a child who could not have been the offspring of its putative father.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/sto...077633,00.html

Hardly scientific, but it puts a different light on the fetishisation of family.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ, which old habit do you refer to in you "old habits die hard"?

The idea, when legal issues arise, that "biology rules" when it comes to custody a child, which is not the same as responsibility for a child. I don't think biology should have anything to do with it, it should be purely a matter of how good of a parent you are.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The idea, when legal issues arise, that "biology rules" when it comes to custody a child, which is not the same as responsibility for a child. I don't think biology should have anything to do with it, it should be purely a matter of how good of a parent you are.

I share your concern for children, Brownjenkins, but who is going to administer and design that test?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't hold your breath, Sis.

Very nice posts, by the way. You write well.

An interesting article in the paper this weekend, incidentally about the experience of dads who discovered they had grown-up "biological" children they didn't know about. It cited:


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/sto...077633,00.html

Hardly scientific, but it puts a different light on the fetishisation of family.

Thank you, Gaffer.

That article is so sad. How it reads to me (and I'm biased) is that some of these adult childrenHAD families, and they decided to cast out a net and look for more. That's significantly more horrible to me, somehow, than adult divorce, the divorce of a family. It's one of the yawning pits of adoption, in my observation. If anyone, an adopted child, an adoptive parent, a birth parent, any kind of relative, anyone wants to start saying "so and so isn't your real family" the lid is off Pandora's box. Who doesn't know a time when a rebellious teen was muttering about their parents? Now that time is next door to getting DNA tested, in case you really ARE a prince/ess in disguise.

If I was an adoptive parent, I don't think I'd be generous about that. All that caretaking should count for something.

[The Gaffer]

Yes. And one of the saddest things was the story of the step-parent using it as a term of abuse.

Still, I can understand someone from a perfectly well-adjusted existence wanting to know their biological parents, especially after having kids of their own (when one "feels" a biological sense of connection matters most).

I guess it just so happens that that desire can also be born out of not having a good experience of one's "natural" (i.e. caretaking) family.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I share your concern for children, Brownjenkins, but who is going to administer and design that test?

The government and legal system. Obviously, it's far from perfect, but it's better than leaving things solely up to biology.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Biology definitely "favors", if you can call it that, women over men in the "get baby" race. Men, on the whole, need to negotiate more.

Thats because women are one and done (for nine months at least) so biologically they better be a bit more careful about who they choose to roll in the hay with. Whereas we men... well give us a glass of milk and its on to the next cave...

On a strictly genetic level it pays to be somewhat polygamous in action if not in words. And thats true even for females! Although to a lesser extent then males.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The government and legal system. Obviously, it's far from perfect, but it's better than leaving things solely up to biology.

Be more specific, smartiepants. Who in "the government" will be writing a test you'll take to see whether you get to keep your children or you have to turn them over to me, to do a better job. The people responsible for the national budget? Your local school board? A panel of MSW's from child protective? Right now, no one is 'leaving it up" to anyone, there's a halt and lame assortment of "checks and balances" on child-rearing. But if you're actually going to impose standards on this business, I want to know who gets to pick what they are.

*passes IR a glass of milk*

[Count Comfect]

sis, I think bj means, for example, the courts deciding who gets custody. I might be wrong, but I think that's what he means.

[brownjenkins]

Yes, I meant it at the reactive level. When I hear stories about mothers wanting their biological child back after some other family has raised it for years the injustice of it bothers me.

In a broader sense, it would be nice if parents had to go through some of the same things those who want to adopt must in order to have a child, because there are a lot of bad parents out there, but there is no practical method of enforcement.

Maybe one day we will come of with a pregnancy vaccine that you can't have reversed 'til you can prove you are ready.