Why are some people fine with gay marriages but find cousin marriages disgusting?

[Chrish]

What is the % for HIV/Aids for Gays compared to Hetro's?

Something that can be avoided through precaution.

On the other hand genetic complications are impossible to avoid

 

[miandadrules]

The study was done by the University of Bradford I think, It showed that older mostly White mothers over 34 had the same risk as cousin marriage for having disabled babies.

I asked for a breakdown of the demographics.

Also a detailed breakdown of what types of congenital defects are present within the said groups. Rather than grouping them all under an umbrella term of disabled babies.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You can create messed up genetics from incest but not from gay marriage

It seems so. I don't think cousin marriages are a good idea in any event, but I'm all for gay marriages in Britain if that's what the public wants.

 

[Specialisttailender]

Cousin marriage happens all the time in my ethnic village and even in my city but we don't witness any deformity in the child.

 

[Pakistanian]

My life's motto is "live and let live", people should do what they want as long as it isn't harming anybody.

 

[PakLFC]

I am uncomfortable not disgusted by cousin marriages. Those marrying in the same gender is against human nature, that is why it is disgusting.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am uncomfortable not disgusted by cousin marriages. Those marrying in the same gender is against human nature, that is why it is disgusting.

your public profile venue is described as Jurassic Park. Why would you be uncomfortable about anything in such a setting?

 

[Yossarian]

You can create messed up genetics from incest but not from gay marriage

Gay marriage can't mess up genetics for the simple reason that gay marriage cannot 'create genetics' in the first place. Although of course gay couples often like having the cake and eating it, buy getting a 3rd party (of the opposite gender) to help in the creation of 'genetics'.

And if the gay couple is two men wishing to play happy families, then they obtain a female to provide 50% of the source genetic material, along with using her (or another female's) body to act as the incubator, often on a paid basis, and then taking away the child from his/her mother as soon as it's born. Now tell me, in such a scenario, is it truly beneficial for the child to be conceived on a commercial basis like a commodity and then be snatched away from it's mother so that the two men can play at happy families?

 

[Black Zero]

In Canada active gay men are not allowed to donate blood.

 

[James]

Gay marriage can't mess up genetics for the simple reason that gay marriage cannot 'create genetics' in the first place. Although of course gay couples often like having the cake and eating it, buy getting a 3rd party (of the opposite gender) to help in the creation of 'genetics'.

And if the gay couple is two men wishing to play happy families, then they obtain a female to provide 50% of the source genetic material, along with using her (or another female's) body to act as the incubator, often on a paid basis, and then taking away the child from his/her mother as soon as it's born. Now tell me, in such a scenario, is it truly beneficial for the child to be conceived on a commercial basis like a commodity and then be snatched away from it's mother so that the two men can play at happy families?

What about adoption? Rather than surrogate. Adoption to me seems far more honourable.

 

[James]

I am uncomfortable not disgusted by cousin marriages. Those marrying in the same gender is against human nature, that is why it is disgusting.

What is human nature?

 

[James]

I think only atheists are okay with gay marriages. I do not think any religion is with this kind of marriages.

Many rabbis are happy to marry same-sex couples within the synagogue.

 

[Robert]

Gay marriage can't mess up genetics for the simple reason that gay marriage cannot 'create genetics' in the first place. Although of course gay couples often like having the cake and eating it, buy getting a 3rd party (of the opposite gender) to help in the creation of 'genetics'.

And if the gay couple is two men wishing to play happy families, then they obtain a female to provide 50% of the source genetic material, along with using her (or another female's) body to act as the incubator, often on a paid basis, and then taking away the child from his/her mother as soon as it's born. Now tell me, in such a scenario, is it truly beneficial for the child to be conceived on a commercial basis like a commodity and then be snatched away from it's mother so that the two men can play at happy families?

Sure, if it is an actual happy family. Why do you use 'play' as a perjorative?

We need more foster parents too. If gay couples want to foster then good on 'em, they are doing society a service.

 

[Chrish]

Gay marriage can't mess up genetics for the simple reason that gay marriage cannot 'create genetics' in the first place. Although of course gay couples often like having the cake and eating it, buy getting a 3rd party (of the opposite gender) to help in the creation of 'genetics'.

And if the gay couple is two men wishing to play happy families, then they obtain a female to provide 50% of the source genetic material, along with using her (or another female's) body to act as the incubator, often on a paid basis, and then taking away the child from his/her mother as soon as it's born. Now tell me, in such a scenario, is it truly beneficial for the child to be conceived on a commercial basis like a commodity and then be snatched away from it's mother so that the two men can play at happy families?

Yeah but why would we care if they raise the child just like normal parents/ family ?

In your opinion Hetro couple using surrogate mother is also considered snatching the child from original mother ?

They are essentially doing the same thing

 

[Yossarian]

Sure, if it is an actual happy family. Why do you use 'play' as a perjorative?

We need more foster parents too. If gay couples want to foster then good on 'em, they are doing society a service.

Please read correctly. The post was referring to gay men/couples using women as egg donors and incubators, and then having the child taken away from it's mother so that they can play at being happy families.

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah but why would we care if they raise the child just like normal parents/ family ?

In your opinion Hetro couple using surrogate mother is also considered snatching the child from original mother ?

They are essentially doing the same thing

Yes, they are using another woman simply as an incubator, and then snatching the child away from it's mother just to satisfy their own whims.

Everyone talks about the "child's best needs". Well the child's "best needs" is not to be planned and conceived as if it was a commodity, and then snatching it away from the mother in whose womb it has developed and spent the first part of it's life.

So yes, using a surrogate is putting the whims of the eventual foster/adopted parents ahead of the best needs of the child.

 

[Chrish]

Yes, they are using another woman simply as an incubator, and then snatching the child away from it's mother just to satisfy their own whims.

Everyone talks about the "child's best needs". Well the child's "best needs" is not to be planned and conceived as if it was a commodity, and then snatching it away from the mother in whose womb it has developed and spent the first part of it's life.

So yes, using a surrogate is putting the whims of the eventual foster/adopted parents ahead of the best needs of the child.

So you have issues against surrogate parenting more so than gay marriage, am I correct?

Personally I don't care but to me it would make more sense to simply adopt a child rather than using surrogate. Because you can be a father of surrogate but the mother would still be different than your actual partner so it sort of defeats the purpose IMO

 

[Gayle_Force]

Yes, they are using another woman simply as an incubator, and then snatching the child away from it's mother just to satisfy their own whims.

Everyone talks about the "child's best needs". Well the child's "best needs" is not to be planned and conceived as if it was a commodity, and then snatching it away from the mother in whose womb it has developed and spent the first part of it's life.

So yes, using a surrogate is putting the whims of the eventual foster/adopted parents ahead of the best needs of the child.

Yea the child is definitely not "snatched" away. The surrogate is provided with full disclosure and she is only allowed to be a surrogate after she understands all the implications and consents to it.

 

[Yossarian]

So you have issues against surrogate parenting more so than gay marriage, am I correct?

Personally I don't care but to me it would make more sense to simply adopt a child rather than using surrogate. Because you can be a father of surrogate but the mother would still be different than your actual partner so it sort of defeats the purpose IMO

No. I don't have 'issues' with it. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of on the one hand saying "what's best for the child's needs"' whilst planning and conceiving it as if it was a commodity, and then snatching it away from the mother in whose womb it has developed and spent the first part of it's life.

 

[Yossarian]

Yea the child is definitely not "snatched" away. The surrogate is provided with full disclosure and she is only allowed to be a surrogate after she understands all the implications and consents to it.

I'm talking about what's in the best interest of the child, not the surrogate mother who's often being paid to be an incubator.

It's not in the "best interest of the child" for it to be planned and conceived as a commodity, akin to a commercially bred calf, and then as soon as it's born to then be snatched away from the one in whose womb it had developed to become a human being. The child never 'gave consent' or was provided with 'full disclosure', so I don't see the point of saying the surrogate mother was.

 

[Gayle_Force]

I'm talking about what's in the best interest of the child, not the surrogate mother who's often being paid to be an incubator.

It's not in the "best interest of the child" for it to be planned and conceived as a commodity, akin to a commercially bred calf, and then as soon as it's born to then be snatched away from the one in whose womb it had developed to become a human being. The child never 'gave consent' or was provided with 'full disclosure', so I don't see the point of saying the surrogate mother was.

In most countries, the parents and the state decide what is in the best interest of the child until the child reaches the age of majority. I don't see how this is any different. A child born in extreme poverty does not get an option to provide consent either. In the case of surrogacy the child is atleast provided with a base level of financial security and it is insured that the chid will receive the basic needs of life.

 

[Gayle_Force]

So you have issues against surrogate parenting more so than gay marriage, am I correct?

Personally I don't care but to me it would make more sense to simply adopt a child rather than using surrogate. Because you can be a father of surrogate but the mother would still be different than your actual partner so it sort of defeats the purpose IMO

I think the problem people find with adoption, other than the continuation of the family genetics, is that most families prefer to have the child from the stage of infancy, the process for which I think is extremely difficult and time consuming to do specially in the west.

 

[Yossarian]

In most countries, the parents and the state decide what is in the best interest of the child until the child reaches the age of majority. I don't see how this is any different. A child born in extreme poverty does not get an option to provide consent either. In the case of surrogacy the child is atleast provided with a base level of financial security and it is insured that the chid will receive the basic needs of life.

A child born in extreme poverty is not a pre-planned and deliberate decision to conceive the child as a commodity akin to a commercially bred calf, unlike a child born to a surrogate mother who is. If you can't see the difference between the two then it's no point discussing with you further.

 

[Robert]

Please read correctly. The post was referring to gay men/couples using women as egg donors and incubators, and then having the child taken away from it's mother so that they can play at being happy families.

That was my reading. Why do you use 'play' as a perjorative?

 

[Yossarian]

I think the problem people find with adoption, other than the continuation of the family genetics, is that most families prefer to have the child from the stage of infancy, the process for which I think is extremely difficult and time consuming to do specially in the west.

Catering for the whims of the new parents as opposed to the best interests of the child, which is not to be conceived as a commercial commodity. Commercial operations impregnate cows, and then take the calves away from the mothers so as to use the mothers milk for their own needs, and use the calves for meat.

Giving away a child whose mother is unable to support the child, and/or the child was conceived when it should not have been (due to rape, incest, mother being too young..) is vastly different to a pre-planned conception, using another woman as the incubator, and then taking the child away from it's mother (ie in whose womb it developed). All that is for the benefit of the parties involved, the future parents and the surrogate, and not for the benefit of the child.

 

[Yossarian]

That was my reading. Why do you use 'play' as a perjorative?

Why not? How is it in the best interest of the child for it to be planned and conceived like a commodity, using a (usually paid for) female as an incubator, and then taking the child away from it's mother as soon as the child is born? Don't you believe that the interests of a child should be first and foremost? Including, if at all possible, not to be snatched away from it's mother as soon as it's born? And only to be separated from it's mother as a last resort, and not as a preplanned business transaction?

 

[Gayle_Force]

Catering for the whims of the new parents as opposed to the best interests of the child, which is not to be conceived as a commercial commodity. Commercial operations impregnate cows, and then take the calves away from the mothers so as to use the mothers milk for their own needs, and use the calves for meat.

Giving away a child whose mother is unable to support the child, and/or the child was conceived when it should not have been (due to rape, incest, mother being too young..) is vastly different to a pre-planned conception, using another woman as the incubator, and then taking the child away from it's mother (ie in whose womb it developed). All that is for the benefit of the parties involved, the future parents and the surrogate, and not for the benefit of the child.

Firstly, When I referred to a child born in poverty, I did not mean that the child is given away for adoption. Let me re-state a child's consent is not asked when he/she is born and brought up in poverty. In case of surrogacy at least it is assured that the child's minimal needs will be met.

Secondly, it is generally considered better for the parents and the child to be together from the stage of infancy. But I agree with you, there is no benefit to discussing this further as you are pretty much stuck on that commercially bred calf thing.

 

[PakLFC]

your public profile venue is described as Jurassic Park. Why would you be uncomfortable about anything in such a setting?

Public profile has nothing to do with this subject. Even in Jurassic Park we don't have cousin marriages.

 

[Yossarian]

Firstly, When I referred to a child born in poverty, I did not mean that the child is given away for adoption. Let me re-state a child's consent is not asked when he/she is born and brought up in poverty. In case of surrogacy at least it is assured that the child's minimal needs will be met.

Secondly, it is generally considered better for the parents and the child to be together from the stage of infancy. But I agree with you, there is no benefit to discussing this further as you are pretty much stuck on that commercially bred calf thing.

You need to see the difference between a child being conceived and born as business transaction, with the child being removed from it's mother as the central objective of that transaction when complete, and a child born in circumstances where, as a last resort, it has to be separated from it's mother.

 

[PakLFC]

What is human nature?

Things that are considered normal like hunger .Now you will ask what "normal" is. Google describes human nature in the following words.

"The general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans." I replace "all" with most.

 

[Robert]

Why not? How is it in the best interest of the child for it to be planned and conceived like a commodity, using a (usually paid for) female as an incubator, and then taking the child away from it's mother as soon as the child is born? Don't you believe that the interests of a child should be first and foremost? Including, if at all possible, not to be snatched away from it's mother as soon as it's born? And only to be separated from it's mother as a last resort, and not as a preplanned business transaction?

In that case I call on you to extend your definition of "playing happy families" to include heterosexual couples who buy surrogate babies.

 

[Leo23]

Can you elaborate on the social implications and these pressures you speak of?

put yourself in the shoes of such a kid. imagine growing up with gay parents when the majority in your society have a mother and a father or a single parent. how would you react to your parents especially at a young tender age when you don't know what it means to be gay? what about the confusion in your mind?

imagine going to school and other kids ask about your parents. how would you explain to them that both your parents are men or women unlike theirs?

gay couple adoption is putting young kids into a strange and difficult situation for no fault of theirs

 

[Leo23]

Things are changing.

What you think deviant may be normal soon.

Also, the kids of gay couple are perfectly normal. It is accepted in West at least. Rest of the world needs to catch up.

Asian and African countries would be better off if a big chunk of their population become gay. One way of reducing population.

that's the problem

it will never be "normal"

it is the natural instinct of humans (like other species) to reproduce and prevent its race from going extinct. that is why reproduction exists in the first place.

that is why the vast majority of the people will always be heterosexual because homosexuality is simply not a natural thing. it goes against the laws of nature.

the implications of being brought up by gay parents will always exist especially if you are gay yourself. there will be a conflict between you and your parents.

i have no issues with gay marriage but i do believe that gay adoption is harsh on the kids because they have been forced into an unnatural environment

a baby needs both a mother and a father and that is why nature has the system of reproduction. having two fathers or two mothers is not normal and never will be.
[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION]

 

[WebGuru]

If you knew someone who regularly drove drunk without incident would you encourage others to do so?

Would you also encourage them to have their child in the car with them whilst they are behind the wheel when under the influence? I mean children die in road traffic accidents more often with people not drunk than drunk.

I mean according to your logic it can happen either way.

Where i said i support it or encourage it? I just shared my own experience from real life.

 

[Yossarian]

In that case I call on you to extend your definition of "playing happy families" to include heterosexual couples who buy surrogate babies.

I do extend it to include heterosexual couples. They're doing it for their own happiness and not the child's. The child that they've planned and conceived as a commodity, by renting someone else to be the mother/incubator, and then taken it away from it's mother as soon as it's born. That in no way can be seen as 'a last resort' for the safety, happiness and needs of the newborn child.

 

[Chrish]

 

[Yossarian]

@ Chrish ^^^ Hhmmm. At least 2 of the customers had close relatives who were gay. Selective editing of the show me thinks.
It would have been interesting to include the circumstances under which the woman became pregnant in the first place and why she wished to give up the baby at all and deprive the baby of the love/bond between a child and it's mother.