"buy a child"

That's condescending and demeaning to the many couples, hetero or not, who have adopted children: many (as a couple I know closely) not because they are unable to have children, but because they are spiritually led to give a home to children in need (both were adopted from orphanages in India), rather than further populate the world. Yes, they paid money: to go to India, to find the children, to pay the lawyers needed to get the visas and other papers. Not to mention the operations need to correct birth defects in one of the children. Not to mention a PhD Astrophysicist taking time out of her career (many months) in order to make this happen.

If that's "buy a child," then we should all have been so lucky to have been "bought" and have such great, loving and spiritually led parents.

I also know the children well, having watched them grow up during the last 5+ years. They will grow up without a prejudicial bone in their bodies. I wish I could say the same for many of the traditional moralists whom I encounter.

>>>>Whether they are rules is at question: that's the point. The set of moral/cultural precepts implied are tradition: that they are anything else must be demonstrated, not taken for granted.
>>>
>>>How does procreation work? Is that to be changed to a lab function now?
>>
>>In some cases like in normal couples: a lesbian couple I know "borrowed" a close friend.
>
>I know that happens. They can go that route or buy a child. I feel sorry for the child (and yes - I'd guess there are exceptions where the child actually benefits somehow).
>
>>
>>And there is lots of evidence that not all children are the genetic offspring of the man the mother was
>>married to/living with or however you want to call it, even excluding artificial insemination because of male infertility.
>
>Still basically using a man and a woman rather than something and something else.