"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "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.

It is only weird and complicated in your mind due to your bias. They are
each surrogates for their spouses biological child, there is nothing
weird, extraordinary or complicated about it.

>
> >> 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?

Someone has to push equal protection issues through the courts or they
never get resolved.

> I am
> ON THEIR SIDE in other words. It was purely a legal issue I was thinking
> about.

Not, you aren't. You clearly indicated you thought they were selfish,
thoughtless, and should not have had the children due to your perceived
complications and presumption that they will invariably get divorced.

> 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."

Yes, "if", and if so then perhaps the laws will get invalidated / fixed
to provide the constitutionally guaranteed equal protection. Without
such cases the unequal protection will remain.

>
> That is just asking a valid question and has nothing to do with homphobia.

You did more than ask a legal question, you attacked the character and
judgment of the couple having the children.

> 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.

Your homophobia and ignorance of IVF make it impossible for you to
recognize your bias.

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

No, your homophobia might be more prominent in this case, but we haven't
heard your thoughts on the case of a *** male couple having children
with their own sperm using egg donors and surrogates which is indeed
possible and would make each a biological parent of one of the children
just as in the case we have been discussing.