I will answer these though:
Gay marriage has in now way "degraded" women or girls. If you agree with her on that you too are a bigot and a misogynist.
And you are looking at that through a lens of hindsight. How morally superior you must be!
To repeat, the concern was around the use of the term 'marriage'.
This was a concern in other countries as well. Not just here.
And just for the people reading this thread from this page and haven't read the rest:
And it was an issue for other LGB people, too.
And
The Baroness was actively involved in getting the act brought to parliament to strengthen same sex partnerships!
I mean.... hardly the act of a homophobe.
And I am really happy to keep on repeating this.
The Baroness is not say lesbian families are "unnatural" because they are created through IVF, adoption, or family breakup. She's saying they are unnatural because she quite clearly believes they are a perversion. Did she ever refer to straight families that have been created through IVF or adoption as neither "normal or natural"? No, she picked on lesbian families because she is a homophobic bigot despite the fact that they are created in exactly the same way.
And you know this how? How do you know what she meant? Have you read anything else about it?
As for your point "Is that arrangement a 'greater' outcome for that child, than a child having some kind of knowledge and contact with their biological father as well?"
Once again you are showing your non-expertise on LGBT issues.
Plenty of lesbian families are created thanks to sperm bank donors who do not want to know the child. Others are created through adoption because the father is no in a position to raise the child e.g. he could be in a murderer in prison. Some are created through family breakup - and yes usually these kids do know their fathers.
And once again, you have failed to engage with the substance of my post.
Your post is ALL about the parents. When have you ever stopped to consider the child and listened to children of these families as they get older and discuss their feelings? Particularly of donor children. Particularly children who have no knowledge of both their biological parents.
You discuss adoption and other family arrangements, in adoption and fostering, these are children who have already been born and need specific support. But they also have been telling society too about their needs.
Children born with donor egg or sperm have been created specifically for the need of the parents. Do you understand that? Have you ever thought about their needs? This is a discussion topic regularly discussed on this board, I encourage you to read up about it. There are also some very experienced adoptive parents who have quite interesting views and experiences to report.
But is sum, lesbians families do not necessarily need a sperm donor in their lives. You betray a very heteronormative, misogynistic and anti-lesbian attitude if you think they cannot manage superbly without him. Children require love, not men in their lives.
No, hearache you are not even trying to understand anything I posted. All you do is double down and throw out the same old tropism answers. Which is your usual method of non-engagement.
Children are telling society, as children and as adults, that they want to know about at the very least, if not have a relationship with both their biological parents. Their voices are quite easy to find. They have founded support groups and they talk at conferences.
You are determined to diminish and minimise their rights and their experiences to prioritise the parents. The groups are growing and their voice is too.
I have said there are ways to make this work for both parents and children and I am sure that many families seek to do this now. I am not confident at all that even 15 years ago, that many families sought to listen to other children's experiences with the intent of helping their own family. But many of them are now.
Children require love, not men in their lives.
For the last time, children at some stage in their lives, require at least knowledge of a parent who contributed to their birth, if not having a relationship.
Your 'mantra' like reply is completely ignoring a child centred approach.
I genuinely do think you should get to know more lesbian and gay families. That would be an eye opener for you. I would say though that if you call any of them "neither normal or natural" then they will be very offended.
I genuinely do think you need to stop trying to portray yourself as holding the universal opinions of all LGB people. And I genuinely do think you are again false in your view that I don't know lesbian and gay families.
Do you know any LGB? Because you certainly don't seem to understand that some LGB people have different views that are just has valid as yours. Plus some of those LGB people actually have feminist view points as well... something you have proven you know nothing about.
And your interpretation of 'normal or natural' stated decades ago is as always, only the bad faith interpretation. Plus it also allows no room for development on her part.
So, I am not going to respond any more to your posts about the Baroness, except to post references to full posts where I have shown your posts to be absolutist, completely polarised in thinking, completely selective, disingenuous and dishonest.