"Pete C." > wrote in message
ter.com...
>
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>> Pete C. wrote about mutual surrogacy:
>>
>> >> One one hand they would have all rights as a spouse regards the
>> >> children
>> >> and on the other no rights absent a surrogacy contract because the
>> >> child
>> >> they carried to term was not genetically their own as they doubled as
>> >> a
>> >> surrogate for thir on spouse. Now remove the *** factor here and
>> >> imagine
>> >> trying to apply the same laws equally here between a straight couple
>> >> and
>> >> a *** couple. IANL but I see some real equal protection isues here.
>> >>
>> >> King Solomon would go apeshit over that one.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yep, nothing but homophobic bias there, clearly shown by your
>> > implication that a married couple should forgo having children because
>> > your homophobic society thinks they will invariably get divorced and is
>> > uncomfortable considering normal spousal custody issues in the context
>> > of a marriage they don't approve of.
>>
>> It's not homophobic to say that something is weird,
>
> Care to tell me what is "weird" about a couple wanting to have children
> and using medical technology to overcome fertility issues? It's only
> "weird" if you are biased against the couple for some reason i.e. you're
> homophobic.
>

The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
indulgence for the sake of vanity. That is what makes things very very
complicated. Had they just each had a baby through IVF with their own eggs
in theri own wombs or artificial insemination or even sex with the donor
there would be no such complexities. Why that point has to be repeatedly
pounded into your skull does not bode well for your intelligence.

>> and it's not homophobic
>> to say that something is complicated.
>
> Parental custody is complicated in the event of a divorce - period. If
> you think that it would be notably more complicated if the couple is not
> heterosexual, it is indeed homophobic.

Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the ***
couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses. Got that? I am
ON THEIR SIDE in other words. It was purely a legal issue I was thinking
about. And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on the
books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
amongst ******* couples. Is either one of them a wife, a mother or a
surrogate. They seem to be all three at the same time and if the doo doo
hits the fans and things get ugly it will be a terribly hard case to
resolve. And I did say "if."

That is just asking a valid question and has nothing to do with homphobia.
Your very limted take on the subject coupled with your obstinant insistance
that any questions raised are automatically bigotry make it impossible to
discuss this with you. Just because they are *** dos not mean they are
beyond it all.

If you were correct I would only be homophobic against *******s because this
issue would never even be a possibility in a *** male marriage.

Paul
..