Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[gianfranco]

Oh dear God – where to begin…

1. Jesus was not talking about hypocrisy in the sense of calling people out for something we ourselves are guilty of, unless your hypothesis is that the crowd at the stoning was full of other adulterers.
2. You say Jesus told us not to judge “in the context of projecting on others” and then say that “asking that one’s culture follow norms and preserve traditions” is not projecting on others. Who do you think society is made of? OTHERS! Our challenge is to live virtuous lives despite what goes on in society – not to force society to be virtuous with us.
3. The example you give, while tragic, is evidence of your clear bias against gay people even if you don’t realize you have it. Statistical analysis of crime data shows gay people are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. Just like Catholic priests aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else – despite the equally chilling stories about them. You, and everyone else who believes that, is falling victim to a common mental trick in which items that are unusual for two reasons (child abuse AND gay people, or child abuse AND a priest) stand out in your memory more and therefore seem more common (than say, child abuse and some straight family member – which is MUCH MUCH MUCH more of a problem).

I don’t understand your post. Why do you automatically presume/ think I have a bias against gays?

How is being socially conservative a scapegoating and projection onto others?

Why is the Truong-Newton story not an important one? Statistics notwithstanding, did you not think the second journalist made an important point?

Who can deny that Truong’s homosexuality, and Newton’s, and their connection to NAMBLA, has meaning and was the driving motivation for them to adopt a boy?

What of these statistics?

Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

**The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. **

To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

. . . ]

frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

 

[gianfranco]

@QuasiCatholic:
Continued : Pedophilia statistics

A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: “It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy.”[5] Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”[6]

A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.”[7]

Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study, which refers to the “under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys.”[8]

Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: “The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves.”[9]

**The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: **“Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims.”[10]

**The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds: **“Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report.”[11]

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The two points you’re missing though are:

1. The number of children molested does not equate to the number of molesters. Since boys are less likely to report, it’s reasonable that any one molester who molests boys would have more victims than any one molester who molests girls before they’re caught.
2. Pedophilia, homosexuality and sex abuse of boys by men are not interchangeable ideas. Many of the men who molest boys are married and are by all other accounts straight. This is because sex abuse – like rape – is about power, not sexual attraction. So you can’t assume that all of the boys who are molested are molested by “gay” men.

Everything that I have seen based on crime statistic analysis shows that openly gay men are no more likely to be sexual predators than any other man.

As to what’s wrong with the story you shared:

1. Your “journalist” appears to just be a guy with a WordPress blog, unless you can point toward evidence that he’s a professional. I googled him and got nothing.
2. The examples he gives of what the original journalist “missed” is ridiculous – the house was clean, the kid had pet chicks (we raised pet chicks in school, it’s sort of a common kid activity), and he hadn’t named them yet (because they’re CHICKS! They probably just hatched and there are probably a bunch of them and they probably all look almost exactly the same). Plus, even if any of that is odd, it’s not exactly something I’d connect with sex abuse …
3. Using a single example of a couple with bad motives to cast aspersions on an entire group of people is ridiculous. Just because that’s why they adopted a kid doesn’t mean that’s why most people adopt kids. And it doesn’t mean that’s not why some straight people adopt kids either. You’re assuming that their criminal behavior is a predictable result of their sexuality, which you wouldn’t do with a straight couple. Which is why I say you are biased against gays – because you think a gay couple engaging in human trafficking isn’t an unusual occurrence.

 

[gianfranco]

The two points you’re missing though are:

1. The number of children molested does not equate to the number of molesters. Since boys are less likely to report, it’s reasonable that any one molester who molests boys would have more victims than any one molester who molests girls before they’re caught.
2. Pedophilia, homosexuality and sex abuse of boys by men are not interchangeable ideas. Many of the men who molest boys are married and are by all other accounts straight. This is because sex abuse – like rape – is about power, not sexual attraction. So you can’t assume that all of the boys who are molested are molested by “gay” men.

Everything that I have seen based on crime statistic analysis shows that openly gay men are no more likely to be sexual predators than any other man.

As to what’s wrong with the story you shared:

1. Your “journalist” appears to just be a guy with a WordPress blog, unless you can point toward evidence that he’s a professional. I googled him and got nothing.
2. The examples he gives of what the original journalist “missed” is ridiculous – the house was clean, the kid had pet chicks (we raised pet chicks in school, it’s sort of a common kid activity), and he hadn’t named them yet (because they’re CHICKS! They probably just hatched and there are probably a bunch of them and they probably all look almost exactly the same). Plus, even if any of that is odd, it’s not exactly something I’d connect with sex abuse …
3. Using a single example of a couple with bad motives to cast aspersions on an entire group of people is ridiculous. Just because that’s why they adopted a kid doesn’t mean that’s why most people adopt kids. And it doesn’t mean that’s not why some straight people adopt kids either. You’re assuming that their criminal behavior is a predictable result of their sexuality, which you wouldn’t do with a straight couple. Which is why I say you are biased against gays – because you think a gay couple engaging in human trafficking isn’t an unusual occurrence.

I’m sorry if I present as thinking that this gay couple was typical of all gays. I simply believe that scrutiny (albeit not necessarily with regard to the exact aspects which the writer chose to look at ) is called for.

Did you see the other statistics I posted? Oh, dear. It seems I am trying to say something which is being viewed as plain bigotry or bias, which I don’t believe is my actual purview.

I’m afraid I don’t understand why a heterosexual man would choose to exert power over boys and not girls. I assume these “married men” are closeted gay men, but perhaps I am wrong in this assumption.

 

[EasterJoy]

The two points you’re missing though are:

1. The number of children molested does not equate to the number of molesters. Since boys are less likely to report, it’s reasonable that any one molester who molests boys would have more victims than any one molester who molests girls before they’re caught.
2. Pedophilia, homosexuality and sex abuse of boys by men are not interchangeable ideas. Many of the men who molest boys are married and are by all other accounts straight. This is because sex abuse – like rape – is about power, not sexual attraction. So you can’t assume that all of the boys who are molested are molested by “gay” men.

Everything that I have seen based on crime statistic analysis shows that openly gay men are no more likely to be sexual predators than any other man.

As to what’s wrong with the story you shared:

1. Your “journalist” appears to just be a guy with a WordPress blog, unless you can point toward evidence that he’s a professional. I googled him and got nothing.
2. The examples he gives of what the original journalist “missed” is ridiculous – the house was clean, the kid had pet chicks (we raised pet chicks in school, it’s sort of a common kid activity), and he hadn’t named them yet (because they’re CHICKS! They probably just hatched and there are probably a bunch of them and they probably all look almost exactly the same). Plus, even if any of that is odd, it’s not exactly something I’d connect with sex abuse …
3. Using a single example of a couple with bad motives to cast aspersions on an entire group of people is ridiculous. Just because that’s why they adopted a kid doesn’t mean that’s why most people adopt kids. And it doesn’t mean that’s not why some straight people adopt kids either. You’re assuming that their criminal behavior is a predictable result of their sexuality, which you wouldn’t do with a straight couple. Which is why I say you are biased against gays – because you think a gay couple engaging in human trafficking isn’t an unusual occurrence.

Excepting that homosexuals cannot have biological children together and children are most vulnerable to abuse by non-biological relatives in the home, the pedophilia connection is not particularly relevant. The most common profile of a pedophile is to be married to a woman.

The more relevant trend is that homosexuals are going out and finding people of the opposite sex so that they can have a child biologically related to one of them. IOW, societal acceptance of same-sex relationships is leading to planned out-of-wedlock births. The acceptance of same-sex couples as “just the same” as heterosexual couples is currently encouraging homosexuals to get together with the intention to have children out of wedlock by sexual consort with a third party, to compensate that other parent so that he or she will sign away parental rights, and then attempting to raise the children with a same-sex lover substituted for the other living biological parent.

I think that is a kind of human trafficking. It is done with the best of intentions, I do not doubt that, but surrogacy treats children as chattel and living biological parents as easily replaceable. It is bad enough when death or other misfortune separates a child from a living parent. To do it on purpose in order to imitate a biological family? I think that is just wrong.

 

[gianfranco]

Excepting that homosexuals cannot have biological children together and children are most vulnerable to abuse by non-biological relatives in the home, the pedophilia connection is not particularly relevant. The most common profile of a pedophile is to be married to a woman.

The more relevant trend is that homosexuals are going out and finding people of the opposite sex so that they can have a child biologically related to one of them. IOW, societal acceptance of same-sex relationships is leading to planned out-of-wedlock births. The acceptance of same-sex couples as “just the same” as heterosexual couples is currently encouraging homosexuals to get together with the intention to have children out of wedlock by sexual consort with a third party, to compensate that other parent so that he or she will sign away parental rights, and then attempting to raise the children with a same-sex lover substituted for the other living biological parent.

I think that is a kind of human trafficking. It is done with the best of intentions, I do not doubt that, but surrogacy treats children as chattel and living biological parents as easily replaceable. It is bad enough when death or other misfortune separates a child from a living parent. To do it on purpose in order to imitate a biological family? I think that is just wrong.

You raise a very important point, and one that leaves aside all arguments about molestation and proclivity to perversion.

Surrogacy, egg and sperm donation, etc. undertaken by gay couples is in effect a desire to imitate heterosexuality and its natural and necessary issue.

It places the couple’s desire for respectability and all the perks which come from being parents above the child’s rights to blood, parental ties, and ancestry. These last should be granted their natural supremacy.

 

[frobert]

I’m sorry if I present as thinking that this gay couple was typical of all gays. I simply believe that scrutiny (albeit not necessarily with regard to the exact aspects which the writer chose to look at ) is called for.

Did you see the other statistics I posted? Oh, dear. It seems I am trying to say something which is being viewed as plain bigotry or bias, which I don’t believe is my actual purview.

I’m afraid I don’t understand why a heterosexual man would choose to exert power over boys and not girls. I assume these “married men” are closeted gay men, but perhaps I am wrong in this assumption.

You are grasping at straws. The courts–the place where it counts–have repeatedly dismissed such arguments as nonsense. If you want to stop gay marriage then you will need to change tactics. All you are doing is spewing out nonsense and looking foolish.

Pedophilia is having an erotic interest in children that exceeds one’s erotic interest in adults. In many, not all, the sex of the child is due to who is available. Where is my proof, all I have is my experience and that of my colleagues in treating both victims and perpetrators.

I think a more interesting question is why you, “… assume these “married men” are closeted gay men.”

 

[QuasiCatholic]

You raise a very important point, and one that leaves aside all arguments about molestation and proclivity to perversion.

Surrogacy, egg and sperm donation, etc. undertaken by gay couples is in effect a desire to imitate heterosexuality and its natural and necessary issue.

It places the couple’s desire for respectability and all the perks which come from being parents above the child’s rights to blood, parental ties, and ancestry. These last should be granted their natural supremacy.

Great – so fight to make surrogacy illegal then.

 

[EasterJoy]

Stop gay marriage now? Why don’t we just try to blow up the Sun while we’re at it? Both pursuits are equally productive uses of one’s own time and energy. The Sun will certainly die out on its own someday, but it definitely won’t be NOW or anytime soon for that matter, and nothing we do can have an impact on hastening that occurrence. Likewise, gay marriage isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and nothing anyone does can change that or reverse the trend, so we’ll just need to wait this one out. Let things run their course… If gay marriage is really that bad, the issue is going to probably resolve itself once everyone sees how bad it is. But as far as the present is concerned, I don’t think it is wise to waste one’s time by trying to achieve the impossible. Life is short, so let’s try to have a positive impact on this world rather than dabbling in pursuits that will yield no results.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some places where gay marriages can be stopped, like the Middle East and most African nations. Then there are some places where gay marriage can’t be stopped, like the United States and many of the most developed nations in the modern world.

Some people might consider the trends in the United States to be especially concerning. Not only does the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, but even the majority of American Catholics seem to be on board with it too. Plus, there is the generational problem, where over two-thirds of young people support same-sex marriage, which will certainly only rapidly increase during the next few years as same-sex couples become commonplace. At this point, nationwide recognition of same-sex relationships is pretty much inevitable.

I don’t say this to condemn or condone any specific type of behavior. I’m just acknowledging the reality of the situation…

Rather than focusing so much on such an unnecessary pursuit, maybe all that energy can be channeled toward something more productive… You know, like trying to stop or discourage things that actually cause much more significant harm to the family and society at large.

I mean, clearly those who support marriage bans believe that government should operate paternalistically by banning or discouraging things that cause meaningful harm to the public. So, I think those who are fighting marriage equality should instead try to target the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the gun industry, and so on… you know, things that tear apart families everyday in much more real ways than gay marriage ever could.

Besides, improving these detrimental parts of society may make other issues easier to address down the road. When a house is on fire, do you try to fix the broken plumbing first? No, you put out the fire and then later fix the plumbing. There are more pressing issues that we should be dealing with at the moment. Same-sex marriage is so insignificant and innocuous by comparison, and it would almost be irresponsible to devote so much attention to this matter at the expense of neglecting actual issues of consequence.

We should be trying to strategically tackle issues in society so that our efforts don’t go to waste. At the present, investing time and energy toward opposing marriage equality is an exercise in futility. Let’s get our priorities in order and go after more important issues that we can actually make some progress on. The health of the family depends on such a tactical approach.

Maybe public opinion will change in the marriage debate once the destructive impact of marriage equality becomes obvious… unless there are no apparent negative effects, in which case… well shucks, that would make it even more difficult to win public support, then. But, hey, if marriage equality doesn’t eventually cause widespread societal devastation, then that’s only more of a reason to focus on the other detrimental issues that do undeniably ravage society on a daily basis.

How young do you have to be to consider today’s public opinion unassailable when yesterday’s clearly was not? I hope I never get so old that I just give in to Doublespeak and Doublethink without saying a word against it. “Marriage equality” is today’s Doublespeak: the thinking is that if homosexuality is treated as if it were exactly the same as heterosexuality, then it will in fact be exactly the same as heterosexuality, with all the same effects on individuals and society. The thinking that sex partners are what make the world go around, while perpetuating the species is a thoughtless and irrelevant one-time act that sets up no permanent relationships between the parents or the children and would be just as well accomplished in a laboratory as in a faithful embrace. Dare to see it, dare to think it, dare to act as if it were so, and it will be so. It is the ultimate example of our current mania for self-definition in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

It may be true that propaganda will succeed in making recognition of the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals into some kind of bigotry in the minds of the intellectually spoon-fed, and therefore will be around for awhile because most of the people who couldn’t be misled were shouted down.

Still, if no one dares to speak the truth, when will falsehood ever be defeated? Will the public really consent to this propoganda when the pretense is not out of sight and out of mind–“not affecting my marriage, after all”–but widespread and pervasively present, affecting as many families as no-fault divorce does now? (Anyone remember when no-fault divorce was nothing that anyone with a healthy marriage would have to worry about?)

 

[JimG]

Here is part of what Archbishop Cordileone said at the March for Marriage.

"Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more. Love is the answer. But love in the truth. The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright injustice.

That is our very nature, and no law can change it. Those with temporal power over us might choose to change the definition of marriage in the law even against all that we have accomplished through very generous participation in the democratic process, but our nature does not change. If the law does not correspond to our nature, such that there is a conflict between the law and nature, guess which will prevail? And people will figure it out."
The full text of his speech can be found here.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Here is part of what Archbishop Cordileone said at the March for Marriage.

"Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more. Love is the answer. But love in the truth. The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright .
​

If this is true, then the Catholic Church should oppose adoption.​

 

[gianfranco]

Great – so fight to make surrogacy illegal then.

There are movements - and in some European countries already legislation - aimed at banning surrogacy contracts, egg and sperm donation, and reserving assisted reproductive technologies only for the young infertile couples. I think this is as it should be.

But it is by no means an attack on gays: Plenty of older singles have availed themselves (selfishly, I think) of these medical assistance protocols.

 

[EasterJoy]

If this is true, then the Catholic Church should oppose adoption.

The Church does oppose deliberately depriving a child of a parent who could care for him or her in order to satisfy the desires of the adoptive parent. The Church certainly opposes paying a fertile person to have your child for you, and then telling that parent to abdicate their place as the child’s parent so that your lover can have it, instead.

Adoption is placing a child whose parents are dead or unable to care for him or her with an adult or adults who will give the child a secure and permanent home. To arrange for a child to be conceived with the intention of fulfilling the desire of a non-parent for a child is not adoption. That is making a child into chattel, and the Church has always opposed it, even for heterosexuals.

 

[gianfranco]

If this is true, then the Catholic Church should oppose adoption.

Adoption is not ideal. It is a necessary evil: Children are in the world whose parents cannot care for them. Thus do couples save them by adopting them.

Conversely, as EasterJoy says so aptly, gay couples get together more and more often in these times with the idea of*** deliberately creating children to be born out of wedlock, separated from the mother or father. ***

 

[gianfranco]

How young do you have to be to consider today’s public opinion unassailable when yesterday’s clearly was not? I hope I never get so old that I just give in to Doublespeak and Doublethink without saying a word against it. “Marriage equality” is today’s Doublespeak: the thinking is that if homosexuality is treated as if it were exactly the same as heterosexuality, then it will in fact be exactly the same as heterosexuality, with all the same effects on individuals and society. The thinking that sex partners are what make the world go around, while perpetuating the species is a thoughtless and irrelevant one-time act that sets up no permanent relationships between the parents or the children and would be just as well accomplished in a laboratory as in a faithful embrace. Dare to see it, dare to think it, dare to act as if it were so, and it will be so. It is the ultimate example of our current mania for self-definition in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

It may be true that propaganda will succeed in making recognition of the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals into some kind of bigotry in the minds of the intellectually spoon-fed, and therefore will be around for awhile because most of the people who couldn’t be misled were shouted down.

Still, if no one dares to speak the truth, when will falsehood ever be defeated? Will the public really consent to this propoganda when the pretense is not out of sight and out of mind–“not affecting my marriage, after all”–but widespread and pervasively present, affecting as many families as no-fault divorce does now? (Anyone remember when no-fault divorce was nothing that anyone with a healthy marriage would have to worry about?)

Well, well said.

 

[EasterJoy]

Great – so fight to make surrogacy illegal then.

We do speak out against surrogacy, and oh, how “heartless” we are made out to be when we do. How we are berated for “wishing my child never existed.” Oh, the Doublespeak is there waiting for us on that front, too. The propaganda of those who want what they want because they want it, who claim so loudly that “it doesn’t hurt anyone, so shut up and mind your own business,” it never rests.

 

[gianfranco]

Here is part of what Archbishop Cordileone said at the March for Marriage.

"Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more. Love is the answer. But love in the truth. The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright injustice.

That is our very nature, and no law can change it. Those with temporal power over us might choose to change the definition of marriage in the law even against all that we have accomplished through very generous participation in the democratic process, but our nature does not change. If the law does not correspond to our nature, such that there is a conflict between the law and nature, guess which will prevail? And people will figure it out."
The full text of his speech can be found here.

Thank you for posting this. I see even today people are misunderstanding the Pope’s words about love and acceptance to mean he is going along with the whole agenda. Neither he nor the Archbishop are.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are movements - and in some European countries already legislation - aimed at banning surrogacy contracts, egg and sperm donation, and reserving assisted reproductive technologies only for the young infertile couples. I think this is as it should be.

But it is by no means an attack on gays: Plenty of older singles have availed themselves (selfishly, I think) of these medical assistance protocols.

Just for the record, the Church supports medical advances that assist infertile couples trying to achieve pregnancy, but opposes all reproductive technologies that eliminate direct sexual intercourse between spouses as the only morally-acceptable means for achieving pregnancy.

 

[JimG]

What is truly remarkable to me is the doublespeak of which Easter Joy spoke in post #202. War is peace, truth is false, lies are true. It is as if I am living in Orwell’s world, and in a way I am.

To make same sex ‘marriage’ equal to real marriage is simply a fiction. They have nothing in common. Real marriage requires complementarity of the sexes; it is a conjugal union ordered to the procreation of children, and the joining of children to their mothers and fathers in families. Same sex marriage is not like that. It can never be conjugal, can never be sexually complementary, can never be procreative, can never generate children. It can only treat them as commodities.

Same sex unions didn’t begin the destruction of marriage, but it took full advantage of the destruction which was already begun by contraception and the sexual revolution. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation—these are all sins against marriage, but same sex marriage turns the institution completely on its head, overturning all of civilizational history. For what?

 

[gianfranco]

Just for the record, the Church supports medical advances that assist infertile couples trying to achieve pregnancy, but opposes all reproductive technologies that eliminate direct sexual intercourse between spouses as the only morally-acceptable means for achieving pregnancy.

Thank you for clarifying that. I am not a Catholic, so I know very little about what is acceptable or not with regard to ART (Assisted Repro Tech). (I had an Italian father who was a Roman Catholic but was raised my my British Protestant mother.)

So would I be correct to assume that the Church would frown upon the 46 year old career woman who decides to go with donor egg( or surrogate and sperm donor) to have a child and raise it as an older single woman? This type of practice I believe is illegal in Germany (but of course legal in the US).