Though we do not have all the answers, we cannot ignore the universal construct and how it works. The universe works. How it works, no one really knows. But all life with the exception of some really strange life form's are brought into creations by male/female sexual intercourse. Now without getting into "sexology 101", I will take it for granted everyone knows what that means. This union was not planned by us. Now who or what put the Earthly game together is a subject of much controversy.
What is important to know and I think to take into consideration is the Man/woman thing is a well accepted and, I might add, a well practiced thing world wide simply by the fact that there are now between 61/2 to 7 billion people existing here. From that alone, it seems the sexual union of a man and a woman, is doing what it was designed to do: have more humans. We call them babies, then children, then teenagers, then adults, then senior citizens then dead. That's life as we know it and it has been going on for arguably around 5000 years. From what we can empirically gather anyway. Although some scientific research conclude a much longer time.
What must be asked is, should there be an effort to change the Male/female thing in that for reasons we will not get into now, the resources on the planet and the people who live here seem to be out of balance--too many people and not enough resources to sustain them all. Whether it is indeed true or not is a subject perhaps we can discuss in another thread. Also, there is a extremely small segment of our population that are antagonistic to the male/female universal paradigm, who for reasons that have not been determined, can only find solace with members of the same sex. Is this a natural progression of mankind considering over population, or just an anomaly? This is what this discussion is all about. It is a fact, that these individuals cannot have offspring engaging in any type of sexual union amongst themselves. Yet, there are lower lifeforms that can. But those are "not human". Please, if we can let's stick with the "human being" as much as we can.
It is also important to note as far as the sexual intercourse itself, the human being is the only lifeform here, at least from what I know anyway, that does not have that particular part of the male/female relationship called sexual intercourse taken care of for them as the majority of lesser lifeforms do. (Such as a dog in heat) It seems the female human being has jurisdiction there and it is a matter of choice whom she chooses to have sexual intercourse with. They are not dependent on a particular part of the female physiology that raises a red flag that says "I am ready to be impregnated", like the lower life forms. Now if there was, I being a heterosexual male, I would have known that, I think. So I come to the conclusion based on that simple bit of logic, that sexual intercourse between men and woman falls squarely on the shoulders of the female. She determines if there is to be "whoopie" or not.
Now whoever or whatever (call it a universal consturct) put all this together, for reasons that can be deemed logical, included a special little reward that encourages the "sex act" between man and woman that insures we continue this sexual intercourse process that is essential for the continuation of our kind: THE ORGASM. God, do we all love the orgasm. Wow!!!! That little bit of physiology really works, which in and of itself would explain why there are so many of us. As a matter of a fact, we human beings,as are some other lower life forms, are capable of having an orgasm without engaging in sexual intercourse and that is called masturbation. Reaching that reward, without engaging in sexual intercourse itself. Now this is also a subject that is a little controversial, in that if every one only masturbated, it wouldn't take too long before there would cease to be human beings. So it can be concluded that, for us to keep on keeping on, the male sperm and the female egg have got to continue getting together to insure the continuation of our species. The only problem, those who can conceive conventionally or because it is not their sexual preference, there has got to be away to have a child and keep the almighty orgasm in tact. At least that would be my take on a woman's point of view considering the latter of the two who for reasons only she knows, hates and despises men and the institution of traditional union of man and woman. Period. A typical radical feminist view.
Now, we have devised a way that children can actually be manufactured without actually participating in sexual intercourse itself. The children who would be a product of that research are what we have coined as "test tube" babies or "in vitro babies", which result in the "manufacturing of a baby"; one process takes place outside of the woman's body and the other inside. So we have altered the traditional, universal method of having children, hence the word, "manufactured". Now we are able to have the orgasm in a variety of ways and still have children. Are we smart or what? Children have become a "commodity" that can actually be "bought". And that is precisely what sperm banks are for. Men are paid to deposit their sperm there so women can buy it. All they need is an egg. The amount of compensation the man will receive is dependant on his genetic structure. It's like going shopping for children. Now, because of our wonderful technology that allows us to "design" the child we buy as we can pick and choose the sperm we want, the homeless child, and there are literally millions of them, is pretty much screwed. Hmmm? Are we humane or what? God, bless us one and all. Of course, God, is also another controversial subject as it relates to just who or what God is, often discussed in this forum. I do not hold by religious interpretations, though I do have my own opinions on the subject.
Now you remember that small segment of our population that exist that can only find solace with there own sex. This is good news, although the male side of that segment can only have a child by adoption or if the other male partner has a child by the conventional, universal method, which says, by the way, that lifestyle, same sex, is a matter of choice, though it does not totally eliminate some genetic anomaly, but that has never been proven. It's a mutual orgasm thing, and a "birds of a feather kind of philosophy",IMO.
Now where are we? We have the majority of the world still having sexual intercourse and producing children the "old fashioned" way keeping with universal tradition, which I might add is because of the "thrill of orgasm" in many instances, with little regard to that environment the child is born into. These unfortunate offspring "new people" exist in all cultures and number into the millions as it relates to the nurturing and care they need to grow into well balanced human beings. This, in part is due to the economic structure in the world and many cannot afford to adequately take care of the children they have. Nevertheless the orgasm is still doing it's job. So if one truly has the desire to have a child and for whatever reason can't create one "naturally" there are millions to choose from. Unfortunately the "design a child" procedures are winning, hands down. Allowing the female side represented by the "alternative lifestyles" worldwide an opportunity to conceive a child who have no earthly idea of who the father is. Now here is were it really gets sad. If those women who fall into those "alternative lifestyles" can have a child, then by all means the men should to and allowed to adopt. Put an innocent child in a home where anal intercourse, and God know what else is the order of the day.. God, what a lucky child. The birds and the bees have evolved to the birds and the goats and the cows, and the chickens and the pigs. Hell, it don't matter anybody can have a kid now. To hell with any universal construct.
Now to the meat of the matter. In all my research and in my own mind, virtually no, none, nada consideration is given to the welfare of the child and what is ideal for "them". This has been all about adults and what adults want. As if having a child is no more important than any other commodity an adult desires to possess like a car or a refrigerator custom made to their liking. I am of the opinion, it is the orgasm and the desire for it alone, that is responsible for the awful plight of the children we are bringing into the world today. It seems to me, the insatiable desire for carnal pleasure totally overrides any and all understanding of what is in the best interest to the child. Who in the hell cares? We just want a kid.
Also any critical thought given as to why this universal blueprint exists in the creation of the male and the female in order to have children to continue the species has all but vanished from the Earth. This universal construct that consist of the man and the woman creating a child by "natural" means in accordance with that universal construct that created man and woman has gone totally out of control. IMO
Now I am a red blooded heterosexual male and as all of my kind am susceptible to the lure of the all powerful orgasm and there were times in my life I did succumb to it and engage in sexual intercourse for carnal reasons only. Had it not been for the willingness of the female, those sexual liaisons would have never occurred. If she had not been willing, I would be typing these words from a prison cell. I am extremely lucky those did not produce a child. So I am fully aware of what those male drives are all about. Though I have no clue as to the female drives or even if those drives can be compared to those of the male. But there is one fact for sure, the female knows a hell of a lot more about us males and our drives, than we male's will ever know about their's. Though, in my opinion, one of the strongest, if not the strongest drives in a woman is to have and nurture a child. Take that and couple it with the sex drive of a male, it can be assured there will never be a lack of children in the world. Considering the current statistics and the millions of children born into poverty, of which I blame the insanity of our economic structure for much of that, of which I have discussed on many occasions, we need to stabilize the family structure, not eliminate it or alter it. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature and we will pay a dear price for that too,IMO.
If we considered the child more and that union that is responsible for all of our existence, the universal, biological or nuclear family structure, I honestly feel those "alternative lifestyles" would not exist in the world today. We have created an adult world and we dump our children into it with little or no regard to their welfare. It is because of the lack of critical thought regarding this universal construct,coupled with those efforts by those who represent those "alternative lifestyles" effort to destroy it stemming from a sense of retaliatory guilt associated with being alien to that traditional structure and are creating a more carnal world they can be comfortable in as if that carnality is the only "joy" they get in life, are the matters at hand. No matter how you rationalize it, in all cases, it's the child that gets the #@%^$ end of the stick. Having a child simply to have a child is the wrong reason to have a child. And to have one as a result of orgasmic delight is also just as wrong.
It's all about self and what we as adult's want. The ego gone insane. If you think this "new reality" of buying a child is going to pan out to meet the needs of those who "desire" children to satisfy some greedy or carnal urge is going to pan out, you are absolutely, willfully and selfishly ignorant. I promise you, we need to stop messing with this universal dynamic called the nuclear family and do all in our power to strengthen it, or, in my opinion we will create a chaotic existence of the likes no one could imagine. It is time we put the child where they belong, at the top of list of all our priorities for they will construct OUR future. Remember, Hitler, Dalmer, Bundy and Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski were too, once, children.