Two lesbians raised a baby and this is what they got.

[Elizabeth502]

Children only need to be raised in loving homes.

If it were only that simple, Conor…


Children need balance. Children need the complementarity that cannot be provided by people of the same gender, regardless of what roles they play or how “masculine” one of them “feels” or wants to be, and how “feminine” the other imagines himself to be. Children also need to have role models of both sexes. They need this because they unconsciously pattern those models as reference points as they mature.
“What is a man all about? What is a woman all about?” “Where can I see the masculine side of me portrayed; where can I see the ‘feminine’ in me developed?” “What does it mean to be a human being who in some sense has elements of both within it, so that I can relate healthfully to the whole human race, and comfortably so?”

Finally, they also need to see those two different sexes relating to each other in a healthy marriage (including recovering from arguments, making up, negotiating, reconciling, etc.), and again in the way specific to the way men and women do this together (which is utterly different from male-to-male and from female-to-female, because male communication, and reception of communication, is quite different from that of a female).

To deprive a child of the ongoing, daily experience of this complementarity is a form of selfishness and neglect. It restricts the child’s development. Having friends and relatives who occasionally provide this is insufficient. What research has proven is that unless someone or ones truly replace the primary parents in the household (such as a concerned & devoted housekeeper or live-in relative, who plays the part of a surrogate parent), the child’s primary reference point(s) is overwhelmingly the parent(s) – not parental friends, not aunts, uncles, etc.

One does not need “research” to determine how essential this daily complementarity is. This is a matter of life experience and what is evident without statistics of formal data.

 

[maryj]

This needs to be researched to prove that children raised by same-sex couples won’t grow up to be monsters, as many seem wrongly to think. That’s why we need the data; I think that’s apparent.

I say: Children only need to be raised in loving homes.
You say: Prove it.
I say: Here are the data.

Then the argument it over; we know it to be true as proved by science.

Animals are not consenting adults. This is a silly argument. When a dog can consent to marriage, I’ll advocate for your right to marry one.

NO ONE here has stated that children raised by same-sex couples grow up to be monsters…it’s a non argument. If you choose to look at data, compiled over a six year period by the United states department of health and human services,on the health and well being of children raised in different types of family units, Nuclear family children(those consisting of only a father,mother and biological children) are generally less disadvantaged in most areas…Then the argument is over; we know it to be true as proved by science cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

 

[Holly3278]

I think that this page would be a good start for educating yourself to be able to debate the whole “gay marriage” and children issue:

marriageuniqueforareason.org/children-faq/

 

[John21652]

This needs to be researched to prove that children raised by same-sex couples won’t grow up to be monsters, as many seem wrongly to think. That’s why we need the data; I think that’s apparent.

How can you say people are thinking wrongly if you need data to prove otherwise.
Typical of people like you.
No logic.

I say: Children only need to be raised in loving homes.
You say: Prove it.
I say: Here are the data.

You seem to be pre-empting the data.Just shows the lack of coherency in your argument, shown for what it is when you attempt to put words into other peoples’ mouths.

Then the argument it over; we know it to be true as proved by science.

Are you saying the data is in already? Meltzerboy says otherwise. So do a whole lot of other researchers.

Animals are not consenting adults. This is a silly argument. When a dog can consent to marriage, I’ll advocate for your right to marry one.

Then you’d better go tell that to Peter Singer, the ‘father’ of animal liberation. He disagrees with you. He has been criticised for a lot of things, but never his logic. Seems your inflated sense of self thinks otherwise.

Go away and do your homework and stop pretending to have what you so obviously don’t.

 

[Conor7]

How can you say people are thinking wrongly if you need data to prove otherwise.
Typical of people like you.
No logic.

I not sure what you mean by “people like you”? It’s extraordinarily presumptuous of you to think that you know everything there is know about me that you can place me neatly into a category.

You seem to be pre-empting the data.Just shows the lack of coherency in your argument, shown for what it is when you attempt to put words into other peoples’ mouths.

Are you saying the data is in already? Meltzerboy says otherwise. So do a whole lot of other researchers.

I am not even interpreting the data and it seems as those you are putting words into *my *mouth. You asked why the data are needed. I’m merely saying that if one makes an statement, the burden of proof lies with that individual to provide data.

Then you’d better go tell that to Peter Singer, the ‘father’ of animal liberation. He disagrees with you. He has been criticised for a lot of things, but never his logic. Seems your inflated sense of self thinks otherwise.

My original statement was that dogs are not consenting adults. If both you and Peter Singer disagree, I’m OK with that. But I will take a stand right here and I say: Dogs are not and never will be consenting adults.

If you would like to convince me otherwise, I’ll be happy to entertain you arguments to the contrary.

Go away and do your homework and stop pretending to have what you so obviously don’t.

I needn’t remind you to be civil.

 

[chrysostim83]

The philosophical argument is that if the moral barriers against gay marriage are broken down, then there is no philosophical or moral barrier to allowing someone to marry a dog, a horse, or an elephant, because ‘love’ has become relativised. You also know I have used the “marry the dog” argument to challenge the notion of gay"marriage". It is not a strawman argument.

1. Not a strawman, of course, because John offers the argument with a straight face.
2. Consent does matter. Otherwise John would urge an argument like “if fornication is not wrong, then neither is rape, since consent of the victim is immaterial to the object of the act.” That’s obviously nonsense.
3. I wonder if John is getting tripped up by reversed conditionals? Clearly, if marriage to dogs were alright, then there would be no issue with gay marriage, but the reverse need not hold.
4. Is John able to present an argument that no moral barriers would remain? This is necessary because, in philosophy, arguments of the form [if X then there is no reason for Y; Y has a reason; therefore not X] are notorious for falling apart. Perhaps the remark about how “‘love’ has become relativised” was meant to be such an argument, but it needs very much to be fleshed out if it is.
5. Finally, I don’t think it’s possible to offer a valid reason for the contention that there is no moral distinction between marrying someone of the same sex and marrying a dog. For if there were no such distinction, then it would follow that the two cases are really one and the same, and that one of the parties to a gay marriage is therefore invariably an animal, albeit in human flesh appearing. Since that too is nonsense, the argument about marrying your dog is, as far as I’m concerned, a non-starter.

 

[meltzerboy]

How can you say people are thinking wrongly if you need data to prove otherwise.
Typical of people like you.
No logic.

You seem to be pre-empting the data.Just shows the lack of coherency in your argument, shown for what it is when you attempt to put words into other peoples’ mouths.

Are you saying the data is in already? Meltzerboy says otherwise. So do a whole lot of other researchers.

Then you’d better go tell that to Peter Singer, the ‘father’ of animal liberation. He disagrees with you. He has been criticised for a lot of things, but never his logic. Seems your inflated sense of self thinks otherwise.

Go away and do your homework and stop pretending to have what you so obviously don’t.

Come on, John, Conor isn’t being illogical. He says “seemingly wrong,” which means it is his hypothesis, not a foregone conclusion. He continues by saying that IF science proves otherwise, then the common belief is wrong based on the data. Furthermore, the point about consent DOES make the person-animal marriage not comparable to two people, and rather a strawman. (And, BTW, I did not know you had previously mentioned people-dog marriages.) Two members of a family marrying and polygamy are better examples for your argument. The latter has been (and still is) practiced and cousins have also married, but consensual father-daughter (or son) and mother-son (or daughter) marriages are a valid example to use for your side of the issue. But you’re right that the data are not completely in. Insofar as why we need research at all, raised by you and Elizabeth, the reason is that science is not based only on common sense. To illustrate with a different example, the belief that children will increase their motivation in school if they are given rewards for their performance is based on common sense. Yet research by social psychologists has shown that those children who are already internally motivated will become less attentive to the task when given rewards, and perform the task faster but sloppier and with less quality, for the purpose of receiving the reward. On the other hand, children not internally motivated will be influenced differently. Moreover, these findings are NOT transferable to adults, as other research has shown. There are literally countless examples such as this in the social sciences, which run counter to common sense. That’s why we need science to test everyday beliefs and assumptions based on experience and intuition. I’m not saying we should disregard experience and common sense entirely; but at the same time we must be cautious and not jump to conclusions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But you’re right that the data are not in. Insofar as why we need research at all, raised by you and Elizabeth, the reason is that science is not based only on common sense.

If I didn’t say it, what I meant was not that we should limit decisions to common sense, but that decisions about things like parenting (and even a heterosexual deciding to marry and become a parent) are not based only on common sense, nor only on “data.”

Decisions to marry (for heterosexuals), decisions to adopt (let’s say), for any couple, should involve the morality pursuant to the object of adoption (or biological parenthood). It is an innocent, captive, dependent human being we’re talking about, not a trophy, not a “right,” not a possession, not a membership card in the club of Parenthood. Thus, a person with an incurable mental illness (there are many), who has been diagnosed with that, sometimes decides not to marry and/or to marry but not reproduce, given uneasiness not only about his own ability to parent healthfully, but also due to concern about genetic consequences.

[There was a case not too long ago in which a pregnant woman who had a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, and tried to injure directly her child *in utero, decided to relinquish the daughter for adoption, given how conscious the mother was of her own illness. The daughter unfortunately inherited the same mental illness, and as a teenager acted out, murdering her stepmother and is now serving a very long prison sentence. Mom acted morally insofar as she was able; possibly adoption laws did not allow her to initiate contact on her own with the adopting parents; otherwise, professional intervention might have averted this tragedy.]

We have a universal human moral obligation to consider selflessly our decisions to become parents. (For a practicing Catholic, that would undoubtedly mean not getting married at all, if parenthood were a serious obstacle.)

“Common sense” is a simpliied version of a much more important term: collective human experience. That provides the longevity that new, experimental forms of “families” cannot sufficiently give us. And “data” is not just a matter of “no harm.” Parenting is designed to provide positively and inclusively a full experience of the human person (such as I described earlier), an experience which by definition two people of the same sex will never be able to provide.

 

[meltzerboy]

If I didn’t say it, what I meant was not that we should limit decisions to common sense, but that decisions about things like parenting (and even a heterosexual deciding to marry and become a parent) are not based only on common sense, nor only on “data.”

Decisions to marry (for heterosexuals), decisions to adopt (let’s say), for any couple, should involve the morality pursuant to the object of adoption (or biological parenthood). It is an innocent, captive, dependent human being we’re talking about, not a trophy, not a “right,” not a possession, not a membership card in the club of Parenthood. Thus, a person with an incurable mental illness (there are many), who has been diagnosed with that, sometimes decides not to marry and/or to marry but not reproduce, given uneasiness not only about his own ability to parent healthfully, but also due to concern about genetic consequences.

[There was a case not too long ago in which a pregnant woman who had a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, and tried to injure directly her child *in utero

, decided to relinquish the daughter for adoption, given how conscious the mother was of her own illness. The daughter unfortunately inherited the same mental illness, and as a teenager acted out, murdering her stepmother and is now serving a very long prison sentence. Mom acted morally insofar as she was able; possibly adoption laws did not allow her to initiate contact on her own with the adopting parents; otherwise, professional intervention might have averted this tragedy.]

We have a universal human moral obligation to consider selflessly our decisions to become parents. (For a practicing Catholic, that would undoubtedly mean not getting married at all, if parenthood were a serious obstacle.)

“Common sense” is a simpliied version of a much more important term: collective human experience. That provides the longevity that new, experimental forms of “families” cannot sufficiently give us. And “data” is not just a matter of “no harm.” Parenting is designed to provide positively and inclusively a full experience of the human person (such as I described earlier), an experience which by definition two people of the same sex will never be able to provide.

Sorry if I misquoted or misinterpreted what you said, Elizabeth. It was not (consciously) intentional, I assure you. After all, I’m not a politician! Yes, you make some good points, as always, and I’m open to hearing all sides of issues. Of course, as humans, we all start with certain preconceived ideas and hypotheses based on our life experiences, education, religious views, etc., and this includes scientists. Even the topics we’re interested in studying show a cognitive bias, and that’s not a bad thing. In fact, there is really no such thing as neutral perception or completely objective interpretation of data. This, combined with the possibility of errors in experimental design and procedure, make any scientific findings subject to scrutiny. I realize this and teach my students not to rely solely on science as a source of wisdom. Philosophy, the arts, theology, and collective human experience, as you say, come into play and make one a more fully-rounded scientist and person. Also, I like your comment about the data’s not being limited to “doing no harm.” Good researchers in this area should deal with the issue of whether same-sex parenting actually does any good for the child compared to the benefits of the traditional family, which they often do in their comparisons.

 

[mro]

Can we avoid calling homosexuals a “moral evil.”

Just say a child needs a mother and a father and freaking leave it at that…

Homosexuality is just one sin and it’s no worse than any other… I’m so tired of people here on CAF who feel it’s their God given right to destroy the homosexuals…

 

[Aquinas29]

It means nothing. This is a publicity stunt engineered by the homosexuals because they realize all their other stunts haven’t changed anyone’s mind.

The child needs his father and mother. This is biological reality. The bigger problem is that the activists and their media enablers are attempting to make reality incidental. The repeated assaults on basic natural law assumptions is like sawing through the ropes that tie us to reality. Once they have completed this, then we float up into our imaginations, which is where the tyrants and their enabler (The Evil One) would like us to be.

Despite 40 years of government education, the natural law is still written on our hearts, and that makes the statists crazy. People instinctively realize what homosexuality is, and no amount of propaganda and glitter and Glee can change what is basically unchangeable. But if they can get us to live in the never never land of imagination, then all bets are off.

 

[mro]

It means nothing. This is a publicity stunt engineered by the homosexuals because they realize all their other stunts haven’t changed anyone’s mind.

The child needs his father and mother. This is biological reality. The bigger problem is that the activists and their media enablers are attempting to make reality incidental. The repeated assaults on basic natural law assumptions is like sawing through the ropes that tie us to reality. Once they have completed this, then we float up into our imaginations, which is where the tyrants and their enabler (The Evil One) would like us to be.

Despite 40 years of government education, the natural law is still written on our hearts, and that makes the statists crazy. People instinctively realize what homosexuality is, and no amount of propaganda and glitter and Glee can change what is basically unchangeable. But if they can get us to live in the never never land of imagination, then all bets are off.

Once again the “homosexuals are evil” argument… Say it’s a sin and leave it at that… There’s tons more worse things than a man loving a man or a woman in love with a woman…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Once again the “homosexuals are evil” argument… Say it’s a sin and leave it at that… There’s tons more worse things than a man loving a man or a woman in love with a woman…

Young man (my apologies if I have it wrong, that is, if you are neither young nor a man), you are all over the forum. Three posts in three different threads where you connected the dots of what posters did not say or implicate. Take a deep breath.

The forum is not a replacement or augmentation to any therapy that you say are receiving. It is best to slow down with the speed and false logic with which you arrive at conclusions.

Your journey towards a good understanding of morality does not end with 150+ posts and less than a week in reading posts and participating in the threads.
,

 

[Conor7]

It means nothing. This is a publicity stunt engineered by the homosexuals because they realize all their other stunts haven’t changed anyone’s mind.

The child needs his father and mother. This is biological reality. The bigger problem is that the activists and their media enablers are attempting to make reality incidental. The repeated assaults on basic natural law assumptions is like sawing through the ropes that tie us to reality. Once they have completed this, then we float up into our imaginations, which is where the tyrants and their enabler (The Evil One) would like us to be.

Despite 40 years of government education, the natural law is still written on our hearts, and that makes the statists crazy. People instinctively realize what homosexuality is, and no amount of propaganda and glitter and Glee can change what is basically unchangeable. But if they can get us to live in the never never land of imagination, then all bets are off.

I fail to see your point. If you wish to evoke natural law, then yes, homosexuality is part of natural law. Homosexuality has been observed ad nauseum in numerous other species besides homo sapiens. Additionally, same-sex parenting has been observed in nature, although to a lesser extent than in humans due to the infrequency of adoption agencies occurring in the wild.

Should you now wish to dismiss natural law on the basis of the argument that we, as humans, are called to be above animals, or an argument that is as equally ambiguous—I would then propose that we look beyond the archaic viewpoint that children can be raised properly only by two biological parents. I would further submit that humans, being the crafty bunch that we are, could indeed raise successfully children to whom we are not related biologically, rather than leaving unwanted offspring for dead or eating them, as occurs in nature.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ah yes, moveon.org, the bastion of rationality and moderately expressed views. Nah, they don’t have an agenda.

Zach Wahls was already featured long ago on other sites. I find, and found, his statements unconvincing as an argument for the elimination of the father figure in the household. Deliberately depriving a young man of a permanent father is a form of cruelty and neglect. There was no “abusive” father in the picture, no deadbeat, no other excuse to excise a father from the household which his “parents” selected without the boy’s consent. Merely not knowing what he missed does not prove he has not suffered from not knowing his true father instead of the “knowledge” of having a sperm donor. Further, I consider it exploitation of a son to use him as a spokesmouth.

:clapping::clapping::yup:

Because this young man has not known and cannot ever know the love of a father as he grew up, there will be a gap within him. He cannot go backward and have knowledge and love of a father figure in his life. It is not fair to anyone to PURPOSELY deprive him or her of a two-parent family. 2 men cannot raise a girl to become a wife and mother, because they aren’t nor can they ever be female. They might be very involved and loving parents, but there is still SOMETHING MISSING and there always will be.

It is my belief that children raised by a lesbian or gay couple will always search for that missing element, in some way, for their entire lives.

 

[Conor7]

:clapping::clapping::yup:

Because this young man has not known and cannot ever know the love of a father as he grew up, there will be a gap within him. He cannot go backward and have knowledge and love of a father figure in his life. It is not fair to anyone to PURPOSELY deprive him or her of a two-parent family. 2 men cannot raise a girl to become a wife and mother, because they aren’t nor can they ever be female. They might be very involved and loving parents, but there is still SOMETHING MISSING and there always will be.

It is my belief that children raised by a lesbian or gay couple will always search for that missing element, in some way, for their entire lives.

I understand that this couple received sperm from a sperm bank, therefore one could reasonably make the distinction from adoption.

With this said, TheRealJulian, you write: “It is not fair to anyone to PURPOSELY deprive him or her of a two-parent family.”

Would you then argue that it is fair to deprive a child of any sort of nurturing parental environment, if it is not within a two-parent family (I assume you mean an opposite-sex couple)?

I’m not trying to trick you, I promise. I’m looking for clarity on your thought process.

I, personally, think placing a child in household with a same-sex couple who are looking to provide a permanent stable and nurturing environment is superior to leaving a child in an orphanage or shuffling that child through foster care.

Thoughts?

 

[John21652]

1. Not a strawman, of course, because John offers the argument with a straight face.

And Chrstostim number 83 dismisses the entire concept of Moral Relativism with a straight face too, I suppose?!

1. Consent does matter. Otherwise John would urge an argument like “if fornication is not wrong, then neither is rape, since consent of the victim is immaterial to the object of the act.” That’s obviously nonsense.

John never mentioned “consent” in his posts. So, therefore, how can you assert what John would say? Oh yes, you just like to make things up.

1. I wonder if John is getting tripped up by reversed conditionals? Clearly, if marriage to dogs were alright, then there would be no issue with gay marriage, but the reverse need not hold.

Reversed conditionals is usually a tool used in statements regarding Causation. Here you seem to have reversed cause and effect in order to make same strangely vague comment. I think you really should finish reading Hume, at least, before you venture down this path.

1. Is John able to present an argument that no moral barriers would remain? This is necessary because, in philosophy, arguments of the form [if X then there is no reason for Y; Y has a reason; therefore not X] are notorious for falling apart. Perhaps the remark about how “‘love’ has become relativised” was meant to be such an argument, but it needs very much to be fleshed out if it is.

Your exampoles of philosophical logic are rather stulted. If X then no reason for Y does not mean Y doesn’t exist. It just means you can’t find the reason. Obviously, the converse example you gave is equally rediculous. The relativisation of “love” is simply the logical and necessary outcome of Moral relativism.

1. Finally, I don’t think it’s possible to offer a valid reason for the contention that there is no moral distinction between marrying someone of the same sex and marrying a dog.

Anyone who supports same sex marriage is going to have to swallow a whole lot of logic to defend your point! For example, who are you to discriminate against the personal preferences of individuals who wish to show their love for the object of their love?

For if there were no such distinction, then it would follow that the two cases are really one and the same, and that one of the parties to a gay marriage is therefore invariably an animal, albeit in human flesh appearing.

You need to at least try to use the concept of “principles” which underly moral conclusions. If you succeed, you may seem similarities and logical consistencies between the two cases, rather than simplistically telling us they “…are really one and the same…”. However, your conclusion I’ll leave for you to tease out the meaning of a little more. Who am I to say you’re on the wrong track?!

Since that too is nonsense, the argument about marrying your dog is, as far as I’m concerned, a non-starter.

Then pray tell, what will you replace your moral relativism with?

 

[John21652]

I fail to see your point.

Why am I not surpised?

If you wish to evoke natural law, then yes, homosexuality is part of natural law.

Piffle! Sheer and utter nonsense. Furthermore, until you go away and do some homework, as I suggested earlier, you should refrain from posting such outrageous falsehoods.

For you to make the statement that “…homosexuality is a part of natural law” demonstrates that, without a shadow of doubt, you do not know what the Natural Law is. You think the law of nature is the natural law. Well, it isn’t. Catholicism, not to mention the other main religions of the world, are based on Natural Law moral reasoning, not the supposed law of the jungle.

Homosexuality has been observed ad nauseum in numerous other species besides homo sapiens.

Another myth that others besides you have tried to perpetuate. For starters, homosexuality is a human construct. To ascribe it to animals is a classic case of anthropomorphisation. Homosexuality amongst animals is a long standing point that the pro-homosexual lobbiests have tried to run for a long time now. It has been shot down in flames. If you somehow think homosexuall ‘type’ behaviour is normal for animals and so must be for humans, then you should be OK with humans killing and eating their young like many animals do.

Additionally, same-sex parenting has been observed in nature, although to a lesser extent than in humans due to the infrequency of adoption agencies occurring in the wild.

Are you trying to tell us that same sex parenting in the wild would increase if there were more adoption agencies in the wild? Oh, too funny.

Should you now wish to dismiss natural law on the basis of the argument that we, as humans, are called to be above animals, or an argument that is as equally ambiguous—

I think the word you are looking for is “convoluted”, not “ambiguous”. Convoluted describes your argument quite well. You see, why would the person to whom you responded and who wrote in support of Natural Law, now want to dismiss it? More so, why would he want to dismiss it based on “… the argument that we, as humans, are called to be above animals…” when it is the Natural Law that actually keeps us above the level of animals? That is one of the reasons, of course, that the protagonists of gay ‘marriage’ try so hard to knock down the very concept of Natural Law.

I would then propose that we look beyond the archaic viewpoint that children can be raised properly only by two biological parents.

Er, are you suggesting that robots be used? Well, they aren’t biological, like humans! Or is it you are suggesting that robots help biological parents? Hmmm, that’s not a bad idea…

I would further submit that humans, being the crafty bunch that we are, could indeed raise successfully children to whom we are not related biologically,

rather than leaving unwanted offspring for dead or eating them, as occurs in nature.Thank God we have Natural Law morality to prevent people behaving like lions and polar bears, eh?!

 

[mro]

Why am I not surpised? Piffle! Sheer and utter nonsense. Furthermore, until you go away and do some homework, as I suggested earlier, you should refrain from posting such outrageous falsehoods.

For you to make the statement that “…homosexuality is a part of natural law” demonstrates that, without a shadow of doubt, you do not know what the Natural Law is. You think the law of nature is the natural law. Well, it isn’t. Catholicism, not to mention the other main religions of the world, are based on Natural Law moral reasoning, not the supposed law of the jungle.

Another myth that others besides you have tried to perpetuate. For starters, homosexuality is a human construct. To ascribe it to animals is a classic case of anthropomorphisation. Homosexuality amongst animals is a long standing point that the pro-homosexual lobbiests have tried to run for a long time now. It has been shot down in flames. If you somehow think homosexuall ‘type’ behaviour is normal for animals and so must be for humans, then you should be OK with humans killing and eating their young like many animals do. Are you trying to tell us that same sex parenting in the wild would increase if there were more adoption agencies in the wild? Oh, too funny.

I think the word you are looking for is “convoluted”, not “ambiguous”. Convoluted describes your argument quite well. You see, why would the person to whom you responded and who wrote in support of Natural Law, now want to dismiss it? More so, why would he want to dismiss it based on “… the argument that we, as humans, are called to be above animals…” when it is the Natural Law that actually keeps us above the level of animals? That is one of the reasons, of course, that the protagonists of gay ‘marriage’ try so hard to knock down the very concept of Natural Law.

Er, are you suggesting that robots be used? Well, they aren’t biological, like humans! Or is it you are suggesting that robots help biological parents? Hmmm, that’s not a bad idea…

I would further submit that humans, being the crafty bunch that we are, could indeed raise successfully children to whom we are not related biologically,

 

[Nate13]

@mro
Can I suggest you not try to speak with authority about natural law when you clearly don’t have a good grasp of what the concept even is? If you are truly serious about your faith I suggest doing some research to find Catholic explanations that can maybe help you to further grasp the points that are being made. The least I think you could do would be to hear the Church out of the subject before you dismiss it. If you search online I know you can find free audio of talks given on the subject.