And where have I asserted such a thing, eh?
Have I not said 'natural fecundity inherent in the FEMALE GENDER'??? And is a homosexual woman not of the female gender??? And are you saying that a woman in a homosexual union is capable of exercising here natural fecundity WITHIN THAT UNION???
Please do not ascribe labels to me if you are incapable of comprehending my posts in the first place.
No place in your diatribes have you made any suggestion that lesbian women and their children be given government protection. You have been foursquare against gay marriage--with no caveats for lesbians. Are you changing your tune?
Your demand that a lesbian woman only gets to exercise her right to motherhood if she does it YOUR WAY is bigotry. Lots of sterile hetero couples get help outside of their union, so are you demanding that they and their children be denied legal protection too?
Fictional? Do you consider your inalienable rights fictional? Does it not strike you that the word 'motherhood' is gender-dependent - hence inapplicable to the opposite gender?
You are in the forefront on this site of being opposed to the inalienable rights guaranteed to all under the US Constitution, so where do you get off giving me flack? Your definition of "motherhood" is fictional, it exist only in your mind. You think that only women who do it according to the parameters set forth by the infallible Num should be allowed legal rights. That's the fiction.
As to the opposite gender being given motherhood rights, I say that anyone who is doing the work of mothering should applauded for it, but then I don't have your very narrow, fictional definition of motherhood.
You wish the natural fecundity of a woman to become subservient to financial remuneration??? And what of the child in question??? You wish to alienate a human being from his natural mother just so gay men can play at parenthood???
I wish people to be able to pursue their happiness. I don't intend to tell other women how they have to practice or use their "natural fecundity". If a woman wishes to bear children for money or religious reasons or just for the Hell of it, it's not my place to tell her she is wrong. I think that children should be protected. Your offensive and idiotic statement about gay men playing at parenthood is an excellent example of your ignorance and bigotry.
Where exactly have I suggested that homosexuals be punished for their sexual preference, hmmm?
Every time you call for them to be disenfranchised, denied their Constitutional rights, denied equality under the law, and disciplined with punitives measures for not living up to YOUR standards then you are attempting to punish them. When you deny them the right to have families because they don't do it the same way that you do, you are attempting to punish them.
Do they teach the right of motherhood for men in college biology or is there some gay school for that?
False issue based your personal definition. You hate gay men and you want to hurt them. It's called bigotry.
Easy for you to say genetic adaption when it suits your purpose. But when a specific biological trait (such as the reproductive system) is required, you cry bigotry to high heaven.
More obfuscation, thank you. This is what you do when you can't think of anything useful to say.
The 'biological equipment' of women, as you put it, comes with the necessary maternal predisposition, the same kind of predisposition you pretend to be present in gay men. Sewing this 'equipment' on gay men won't endow them with the fecundity of the female gender.
You are the only one defining motherhood and maternal predisposition as being found only in women, you do this so that you can attack gays. You haven't got any rational arguments, give it up, admit that you are a bigot and I will try to respect you for your honesty.
You have called me a bigot for more times than I can ignore. And I have no intentions of suffering the opinions of a misguided and ignorant fool.
Let's all note that Num didn't deny being a bigot, perhaps my comment above struck a chord in him.
I never said the female reproductive system constitutes motherhood in its entirety. It is, however, its MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
Once again we are treated to the definitions of the infallible Num, who sees fit to prescribe for all of humanity. I suspect that your swollen ego may be obscuring your vision if you think you are in a position to announce "minimum" standards for everyone else's practice of motherhood.
Only a fool with an absurd agenda would pretend men to have a right to motherhood.
Only a fool would think that he can prescribe proper behavior for all of humanity.
For someone who can't see the good in human civilization, you are desperate enough for its validation. You are sinking in a quagmire of stupidity of your own making.
I didn't say that I could not see value in civilzation, I said that it remains to be seen if it is really a good thing. Unlike you, I do not need to pass judgment on everyone and everything.
Marriage is not about what hole you stick your penis in. And your insistence on reducing a vital institution in society to something akin to that says so much about the level of your comprehension.
Unlike yourself, I'm not restricting marriage to one penis/hole combination, only YOU are trying to do that. I'm happy for any people who share love to enjoy the rights and privileges of legal union. You exclude, I include.
Sell silly someplace else.
See answer above.
You pretend to protect children and yet have no qualms in using women as commodities, eh? If that is indicative of your notions of 'protection', the world would be better off without it.
I have qualms about using any sentient being--including animals--and nothing in what I wrote said that I thought women should be used as commodities. I, however, would give women the right to do as they feel they should, I don't have any desire to restrict their ability to practice their motherhood anyway they choose--even if they are lesbians or they wish to be surrogate mothers. Again, unlike yourself, I know some women who have been surrogate mothers and they have gained an extended family by doing so, they have also brought great joy and happiness to others. You would deny this to people on the basis of YOUR narrow definitions and punish those who transgress. Bigotry.
I am arguing for the right of motherhood for WOMEN. A lesbian IS a woman who may still exercise this right through OTHER MEANS. And what is in vitro fertilization if not an exercise of the right to motherhood, eh?
No amount of in vitro anything would make a man concieve. Do you know why or do I need to spell it out for you? And does it make one a bigot by asserting this FACT?
It's entirely irrelevant, your narrow definition is the only thing that you can see. Try to look beyond that and see real people trying to live their lives happily with the people they love, some of them wish to raise families and I think they should have the right to do so--just like you do. You wish to prevent others from having what you have because of fear and ignorance which equals: Bigotry.
Just for the sake of the discussion, what do you think will happen if every consenting adult is given equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness--including equal protection under the law? Do you really think that all heterosexual people will become queer? Or become sterile? What frightens you so much that you are driven to hate like this?
And hate it is when you set out to deny to others the very things that bring the greatest joy into your own life.
