Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

The argument the dude in question is making is that not being provided a surrogate is prejudicial thus requiring a surrogate to be provided by the state. That's the entire point behind the post

---

Don't interrupt his outrage. He thinks he's so smart but continuously misses the point.

---

You guys are making up things that simply aren't present in the article, but anyways.

I knew what was in this thread when I read the title. Lol

Rockdoc said:

---

I knew what was in this thread when I read the title. Lol

---

sick burn…

TXAGFAN said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

I knew what was in this thread when I read the title. Lol

---

sick burn…

---

No burn intended.

Gay men wanting to be dads is a good thing.

Suing to get IFV, meh.
This is really iffy for me.

Sometimes we have to live with the choices we make.

And I do not think any insurance should pay for IVF if they do not want to.

I didn't have the insurance to let me have another because I probably would have stroked out with another one.

We decided the Boo was enough.

But suing because you need another woman to take the shots to give you a kid?

Yeah no.

Well, I think we've found the main problem for these two guys….

Quote:

---

Then there's the cost of a surrogate (called a "gestational carrier" when they carry embryos created from another woman's eggs).

---

Neither one of them is a women! Sorry, sports, you weren't intended to produce your own children with your union. Adopt.

"Gay men wanting to be dads is a good thing."

Why?

*** Stop derailing the thread. If you want to start a new one on that topic, go for it -- Staff ***

It's like they're just mad about being born, get over it, or make an exit.

I see staff edited so I'll remove my reply…

pacecar02 said:

---

It's like they're just mad about being born, get over it, or make an exit.

---

The posters in this thread seem mad about their existence that's for sure.

Women, am I right?

Oyster DuPree said:

---

Women, am I right?

---

Yep. They should know their role and be birthing vessels for gays!

Gay men are expected to be okay not having kids.

Yes. That's a fact of nature beyond any human control. That is not discrimination.

TXAGFAN said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

It's like they're just mad about being born, get over it, or make an exit.

---

The posters in this thread seem mad about their existence that's for sure.

---

At some point, folks have to learn to play the hand they're dealt.

The world has never been "fair".

If you're crippled, chances are it's gonna be hard for you to run a marathon.

Thems just the breaks. It does no good to wish for what aint possible.

ITS OKAY TO NOT BE A MARATHON RUNNER

Do something else.

We are not intitled to our wants and dreams, some of them will always be out of reach.

2SLGBTQIAA+Ukraine folks demanding special treatment at the expense and inconvenience of others? Who could ever believe it!

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

"Gay men wanting to be dads is a good thing."

Why?

---

Because kids are always awesome.

And in my experience, gay men are better parents than so many married couples.

Meth is so big

Tanya 93 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

"Gay men wanting to be dads is a good thing."

Why?

---

Because kids are always awesome.

And in my experience, gay men are better parents than so many married couples.

Meth is so big

---

Dont you dare discriminate like that! Gay men are just as capable of being meth heads as straight folk!

Tanya 93 said:

---

Meth is so big

---

....huh?

C@LAg said:

---

they are free to get a vagina the same way the rest of us actual reproductive males do.

---

I watched you walk into the room
I want to say this just right
If you ain't waitin' for somebody special
Would you be with me tonight?
I'm a doctor, I'm a lawyer, I'm a movie star
I'm an astronaut and I own this bar
And I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love, that's the truth
I can tell you what you wanna hear
Awesome secrets 'bout myself
I can tell you you're the only one, baby
There'll never be nobody else
Yeah, I'm runnin' for president, I got money to burn
My heart don't ache and my body don't yearn
And I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love, that's the truth
Maybe it would be easier just to come out and say it
I ain't never seen a woman quite like you
My family comes from royalty on my daddy's side
And I can read your palms and cards and tell you
Our love just can't be denied
I'm a doctor, I'm a lawyer, I'm a movie star
I'm an astronaut and I own this bar
And I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love
I'd lie to you for your love, that's the truth
That's the truth

Silian Rail said:

---

And demand to have a surrogate provided for them.

Two gay men who both attended law school filed a legal complaint against the City of New York arguing that not having access to a woman's reproductive potential is a form of discrimination, and that they are entitled to have the City pay for a "surrogate".https://t.co/bEvEGlyoV4 pic.twitter.com/tq8pD8UrNc

— Women's Voices (@WomenReadWomen) October 1, 2022

---

I thought they believe that men can pop out babies.

So they want the medical insurance company to cover medical procedures for someone who isn't covered by the policy?

Ag_B_10 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

And demand to have a surrogate provided for them.

Two gay men who both attended law school filed a legal complaint against the City of New York arguing that not having access to a woman's reproductive potential is a form of discrimination, and that they are entitled to have the City pay for a "surrogate".https://t.co/bEvEGlyoV4 pic.twitter.com/tq8pD8UrNc

— Women's Voices (@WomenReadWomen) October 1, 2022

---

I thought they believe that men can pop out babies.

---

Maybe they're not gay enough, have to be a little bit gayer?

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

They need a surrogate and a donor…two different things.

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

Their own eggs.

The insurance company should not be expected to pay for IVF on a female that isn't even covered by the policy. Completely unreasonable request. They need to get a surrogate who will use her own eggs and pay for IUI out of pocket. They sound entitled and whiny TBH.

redcrayon said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

Their own eggs.

The insurance company should not be expected to pay for IVF on a female that isn't even covered by the policy. Completely unreasonable request. They need to get a surrogate who will use her own eggs and pay for IUI out of pocket. They sound entitled and whiny TBH.

---

1) The article indicates this plan has paid for IVF for a surrogate.
2) I've never heard of a surrogate being a donor as well, it's certainly not standard practice by any stretch.

Why do some of you insist on just making things up? Serious Q.

But wait, there's more...

“Gay men now want insurance companies to treat being born male as a disability or as a protected category, one which requires paid compensation. They are protesting the ‘unfairness’ of not having been born biologically female.” pic.twitter.com/4QqpUO4Y2P

— Women's Voices (@WomenReadWomen) October 1, 2022

Talk about twisting his words.

How so?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How so?

---

He compared them as it relates to women having bodily autonomy, not saying surrogates are sex workers.

TXAGFAN said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

Their own eggs.

The insurance company should not be expected to pay for IVF on a female that isn't even covered by the policy. Completely unreasonable request. They need to get a surrogate who will use her own eggs and pay for IUI out of pocket. They sound entitled and whiny TBH.

---

1) The article indicates this plan has paid for IVF for a surrogate.
2) I've never heard of a surrogate being a donor as well, it's certainly not standard practice by any stretch.

Why do some of you insist on just making things up? Serious Q.

---

1)The article did not say the insurance company paid for the surrogate side of IVF. You're making things up. Why are you doing that? Serious Q. I know of no insurance company that pays for procedures on a person they don't cover.

2) Traditional surrogates use their own eggs. It can most certainly be done.

redcrayon said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

Their own eggs.

The insurance company should not be expected to pay for IVF on a female that isn't even covered by the policy. Completely unreasonable request. They need to get a surrogate who will use her own eggs and pay for IUI out of pocket. They sound entitled and whiny TBH.

---

1) The article indicates this plan has paid for IVF for a surrogate.
2) I've never heard of a surrogate being a donor as well, it's certainly not standard practice by any stretch.

Why do some of you insist on just making things up? Serious Q.

---

1)The article did not say the insurance company paid for the surrogate side of IVF. You're making things up. Why are you doing that? Serious Q. I know of no insurance company that pays for procedures on a person they don't cover.

2) Traditional surrogates use their own eggs. It can most certainly be done.

---

As long as the don't provide for a surrogate for a straight couple, I have no problems with this.

redcrayon said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

"Surrogacy" and "IVF" are different things, but these guys actually need a "surrogate" for both. They cant get IVF without someone providing the eggs. Does the IVF coverage that a female gets cover the costs of some kind of process to acquire and fertilize donor eggs from someone else besides the persons covered? Or does it just cover the IVF process for their own eggs?

---

Their own eggs.

The insurance company should not be expected to pay for IVF on a female that isn't even covered by the policy. Completely unreasonable request. They need to get a surrogate who will use her own eggs and pay for IUI out of pocket. They sound entitled and whiny TBH.

---

1) The article indicates this plan has paid for IVF for a surrogate.
2) I've never heard of a surrogate being a donor as well, it's certainly not standard practice by any stretch.

Why do some of you insist on just making things up? Serious Q.

---

1)The article did not say the insurance company paid for the surrogate side of IVF. You're making things up. Why are you doing that? Serious Q. I know of no insurance company that pays for procedures on a person they don't cover.

2) Traditional surrogates use their own eggs. It can most certainly be done.

---

Read what I wrote again on point 1 (what you typed is not the same thing) and that is NOT standard practice - 3 separate people: sperm from one of husbands, egg donor, and surrogate. Know a lot of gay men with kids and did some extensive research on this once upon a time, have NEVER heard of a surrogate being the egg donor. Can't think of why this would be any different for straight people unless the wife in couple was able to be the egg donor, again not surrogate.

Here's the link by the way, not some cherry-picked screenshots in a Twitter feed:

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/01/how-gay-parenthood-through-surrogacy-became-a-battleground

And for the quote I referenced:

Quote:

---

Briskin was working alongside colleagues who were happily availing themselves of the benefits he wasn't entitled to. One of his co-workers an older, single woman became a mother using donor sperm, IVF and surrogacy.

---

But please, just keep making up lies that fit your POV.