What about the... “We can always adopt kids”... angle?
For that reason alone, pseudomarrieds should not be adopting kids: because by definition they are, deliberately and long-term, depriving him either of a father or of a mother. It is not in the best interest of children to be thrust without his consent into the household of a sexually- unbalanced couple.
And by "unbalanced" I mean "failing to provide the standard natural balance of male and one female." (Grrr, whatever happened to 50/50 gender quota where you really need it??)
The same goes for the commercial human-breeding technologies: males hiring a woman to produce a baby for them (reproductive concubinage). Or, on the other hand, donor-insemination (more accurately: vendor-insemination) where a woman or a couple of women buy the component they fancy (a few mililiters of seminal fluid) and ditch the component they don't fancy (the man himself--- the baby's father) ---
The state's "public interest" in human reproduction should be solely to secure the rights of the dependent child. A child's first natural right is to have a bond with his natural fathers and mother. If the natural father and mother are strictly unable to personally secure the child's right, then the child at least as a right to a man and a woman who can act as father and mother. Anything that deliberately obstructs that end--- that blocks the functional equivalent of a natural family --- should be curbed by law. Or a least not legalized, valorized, incentivized and subsidized.
For that reason alone, pseudomarrieds should not be adopting kids: because by definition they are, deliberately and long-term, depriving him either of a father or of a mother. It is not in the best interest of children to be thrust without his consent into the household of a sexually- unbalanced couple.
And by "unbalanced" I mean "failing to provide the standard natural balance of one male and one female." (Grrr, whatever happened to the demand for a 50/50 gender quota where you really need it??)
The same goes for the commercial human-breeding technologies: males hiring a woman to produce a baby for them (reproductive concubinage). Or, on the other hand, donor-insemination (more accurately: vendor-insemination) where a woman or a couple of women buy the component they fancy (a few mililiters of seminal fluid) and ditch the component they don't fancy (the man himself--- the baby's father) ---
The state's "public interest" in human reproduction should be solely to secure the rights of the dependent child. A child's first natural right is to have a bond with his natural fathers and mother. If the natural father and mother are strictly unable to personally secure the child's right, then the child at least as a right to a man and a woman who can act as father and mother. Anything that deliberately obstructs that end--- that blocks the functional equivalent of a natural family --- should be curbed by law. Or a least not legalized, valorized, incentivized and subsidized.