- This topic has 63 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think what your asking me to do is compare lesbians with homosexuals, possibly in relation to having children?
Um, aren’t lesbians homosexual women?
I used to work for the Terrence Higgins Aids Trust in which my main employer was gay. I could’nt care less aslong as we got on with the job etc.
You’re not about to stick a pitchfork into the next homosexual of any sex you meet, then. That’s something at least. Incidentally, are we being asked to draw any conclusions here as to whether you regard the gentleman in question as suitable parent material from your description of him? I’m a little puzzled as to what else the above brings to the argument otherwise.
I have to say off the top of my head I hav’nt got any lesbian people I would class as "friends".
I have. They’re lovely. Numerous gays and bis also. They’re all lovely, too. I can find you some right poisonous old sods as well, though, in the interests of balance.
I would broadly say that if lesbians or gay men chose to be that way
As you have already been pulled up on, assuming that homosexuality is as much a lifestyle choice as going vegan or wearing odd socks is risking putting yourself on pretty shaky ground.
I’d counter that, unless we’re all born solely with all-male or all-female genes (small clue: we’re not
), then there is an innate genetic predisposition within all of us to bisexuality until such time as a preference for one sex or another becomes established (which, for those among our number who remain bisexual, it does not).Quite what, if anything, influences that preference (social conditioning, peer pressure, or something more engrained and harder to quantify), is something with which we could fill another thread entirely and is not of immediate importance to this one – other than to say, no, consider carefully employing the term "choose to be that way". It’s never that simple. Never has been.
then they also have to give up the right to have children, which I suppose puts me in line with the catholic mob and just about every other church contingency!
If you’re referring to "church" solely in terms of physical structure rather than state of being, then maybe so; however, as a Pantheist (NB don’t go looking for a Pantheist church in the phone book….) I’d belong to the "x" of the equation "every church – just about every other church = x". Do as you will but harm none, kids.
Thats not to discriminate against people of different sexual persuasions of course, though i’m sure someone could argue it is.
With ease. How is it not discriminatory to be effectively saying, "I don’t dislike you, but don’t, um, you know, think of breeding or anything"?
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I’ll try and decode that woffle
Waffle indeed. Insolent pup.
Who knows, maybe he’d be fit to raise children, but as a general rule surely you’d have to rule it out,
Nope, absolutely not. Apart from anyone that posed an innate threat to minors, I’d rule out nobody.
I have. They’re lovely
lol, this is laughable, and not the point I might add.
The above was off-the-cuff and immediately pertinent to your concession that you know no lesbians. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m sure there are loads of lovely homosexual men and women out there the point is: not can they adopt a child in need, but whether they, or more specifically lesbians can have test tube babies by simply impregnatiing themselves with a mans sperm and then telling him to play no part in that child’s life.
Given that this article hails from the hate-everyone-a-bit-different Mail, I’d think twice before rushing to accept all printed therein as gospel, and there are any number of points about what little you reproduced of the article in question that would require verifying via a media source with less of an agenda.
It must be called into question whether there is the expectation, or indeed wish, on the part of the donors that they will play any part in the child’s life. Sperm donorship is not without its financial rewards – indeed, prices have risen in the last year in an attempt to lure back men frightened off from donating by the lifting of their right to anonymity. It would be thoroughly disingenuous of the Mail, yet entirely in keeping, to withhold anything which would suggest that at least some – and quite probably all – of the men’s involvement in the donorship scheme is driven by remunerative concerns rather than altruistic ones.
The fact that the recipients are same sex couples, rather than unfortunate, barren heterosexual ones, gives the Mail the kind of opportunity it loves to grasp to report upon another purported threat to the conventional family dynamic, whilst superficially arguing the case for the “wronged” men.
It seems to me your trying to take the moral highground
Nah. I tried it once but got a nosebleed up there.
no-one forces you to have sexual intercourse do they GC?
You haven’t met Mrs Column yet, have you, son.
If you’re referring to “church” solely in terms of I’d belong to the “x” of the equation “every church – just about every other church = x”. Do as you will but harm none, kids.
lol, if only you saw the whole argument as a mathmatical equation you might be nearer the mark. In this case i’m sure Einstein would conclude two lesbians doesn’t equal a baby.
I’m not – Einstein was a fellow Pantheist
It’s not discriminatory to say that people who can’t make babies through natural genetic and biological means shouldn’t do so. thats not even taking into account the theory that every child should have two parents of different genda and so on.
For “theory”, read “inexact science”. Mrs Column had a far more happy, stable, loving upbringing with one parent than our two best mates did (and still do, regrettably) with their respective sets of “conventional” parents, and these would hardly rate as isolated examples within our social circle, never mind the wider world.
All love is precious, how- and wheresoever it occurs, and heaven knows there’s not enough of it around as it is without allowing moral / social condemnation, legislation, religious edicts, and whatever else standing in the way of it.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Of course it’s a lifestyle choice, no-one forces you to have sexual intercourse do they GC? So therefore no-one forces you to be gay either. This is another segment of the liberal argument that no-one has to take responsibility for what they do.
Why should a homosexual person have to "take responsibility for what they do" (as if it’s some sort of crime or something) any more so than a heterosexual person? Sounds ludicrous to me..
I’m not – Einstein was a fellow Pantheist
Welcome to the fold GC
It must be called into question whether there is the expectation, or indeed wish, on the part of the donors that they will play any part in the child’s life. Sperm donorship is not without its financial rewards – indeed, prices have risen in the last year in an attempt to lure back men frightened off from donating by the lifting of their right to anonymity. It would be thoroughly disingenuous of the Mail, yet entirely in keeping, to withhold anything which would suggest that at least some – and quite probably all – of the men’s involvement in the donorship scheme is driven by remunerative concerns rather than altruistic ones.
I was a sperm donor for some years and, like blood and bone marrow donation, regard it as a small altruistic gesture to the public good. Fortunately the highly questionable waiving of the ‘natural father’s’ right to anonymity in 2005 coincided with that inevitable time in all chaps’ lives when ejaculate can be measured in micro-litres rather than milli-litres so I gave it up and now just attempt the ‘real thing’ on the last Thursday in each month
I would not have entertained the idea of sperm donation had anonymity not been an option.
Regarding same-sex parenthood. It strikes me that this is a major and difficult decision for such a couple to make and as such they will have thought very carefully about it. Which allied to the thorough vetting they will undergo from the authorites – in the case of adoption/fostering at least – surely makes it likely that the percentage of ‘good’ and loving parents from this group will be greater than that from the ‘usual’ heterosexual set-up. Of course on the few occasions that something goes terribly wrong in a same-sex family, some sections of the media gleefully blow it up out of all proportion.
All a child needs is a happy childhood in a stable, loving home and – in its broadest sense – a decent education.
IMO if those criteria are fulfilled it matters little if the parent(s) are man/woman man/man, woman/woman, single man, single woman.
’tis the children that matter
I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say again Drone which is quite worrying.
The children should be considered first, in all cases, whatever it is. I believe lesbians can have kids but they have to pay for the pleasure. I don’t believe IVF treatment should be available for free on the NHS to anyone, I also dont think abortions should be. I believe you are dealt the hand you are dealt and that’s that.
Marb, as the point I was trying to get across, perhaps too subtly, on another thread:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/forum/v … c&start=30
and the point that some have tried to make on this thread seems to have sailed straight over your head, I feel it is time to be more blunt.
One of the things that worries me most about modern life is that people who wear their illiteracy and bigotry like a badge of honour seem to think that their opinions count not just as much as the next man’s but more so.
People should try spelling correctly, writing coherently, arguing logically, and then people just might take the points they make seriously.
If I could be reincarnated, I would come back every time as the son of a one-legged lesbian single mother than the son of a bigot and a fool.
But, I would not deny the latter his biological "right" to breed or adopt any more than I would deny him the right to read The Daily Mail.
ruin the thread with personal insults as you might.
Well said.
Grasshopper, you should take your accurate insults and shove them right up your erse!
I don’t believe IVF treatment should be available for free on the NHS to anyone,
I believe you are dealt the hand you are dealt and that’s that.
Totally agree with you there – there are much more important things for NHS money to be spent on.
If people want to pay for IVF then fine, but on the NHS no.
Grasshopper, you should take your accurate insults and shove them right up your erse!
I disagree regarding the point about IVF treatment on the NHS.
Whats next?
Smokers, it’s all your own fault, so no cancer treatment unless you can pay for it yourself.
Hey! Coffin-dodger! Of course you’ve got Alzheimers – you’re 92! No treatment for you – it serves you right for living so long.
If it falls under the jurisdiction of ‘medical treatment’, then it should be available free-of-charge on the NHS, whatever it is – so long as the affected persons NI contributions are up-to-date.
I think there’s a difference between someone who is ill and someone who wants something, like an abortion, kid, sex change, grasshopper.
If it falls under the jurisdiction of ‘medical treatment’, then it should be available free-of-charge on the NHS, whatever it is – so long as the affected persons NI contributions are up-to-date.
Grasshopper – in an ideal world yes, but we do not live in an ideal world and money has to be prioritised to the most essential needs.
I’m afraid, by no stretch of the imagination, can fertility treatment be described as essential medical treatment. To put it bluntly no one has an absolute right to procreate. So some people are not able to have children naturally, well that is the hand life has dealt them, live with it.
If they are that desparate to raise a child then pay for fertility treatment or, better still, adopt – there are plenty of children looking for a loving adoptive family.
I think there’s a difference between someone who is ill and someone who wants something, like an abortion, kid, sex change, grasshopper.
Ok Davros, sex-change I’ll perhaps give you.
Abortion though? Are you advocating, therefore, that women who want an abortion should be forced to go to back-street hatchet-men, rather than have this operation on the NHS? Or are you advocating that, as they got themselves knocked-up in the first place, they should be forced to go through with it, and deal with the consequences?
That to me seems much more a moral stance, than one which seeks to preserve NHS resources for more ‘deserving’ ailments. If it’s money your worried about, you may want to consider the incidental cost to society (tangible and intangible) of an unwanted child. But that’s an altogether different argument, for a different thread, which I can confirm now, I can’t be arsed getting into.
I would argue that it is every woman’s right to conceive – that’s why they have quims, after all
, and any woman who is infertile but wishes to have a child, probably feels that she does indeed have an ‘illness’ of some description.I was a sperm donor for some years and, like blood and bone marrow donation, regard it as a small altruistic gesture to the public good. Fortunately the highly questionable waiving of the ‘natural father’s’ right to anonymity in 2005 coincided with that inevitable time in all chaps’ lives when ejaculate can be measured in micro-litres rather than milli-litres so I gave it up and now just attempt the ‘real thing’ on the last Thursday in each month
Excellent post above and beyond the bits I’ve chomped out here, Drone, and bless you for proving me partly wrong with regard to the altruism / filty lucre balance above
. Can’t argue with a word of what you said about the vetting process – there’d be far too much for the authorities to lose by not performing this with fingertip-search precision.gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that it’s easy to be judgemental about a lot of things until it actually happens to you – as most of the people on this thread seem to be men how can any of you have any idea what it is like to be a woman unable to have a child…..
No experience of outright infertility per se, perhaps, Moe, but my previous girlfriend’s polycystic ovaries effectively ruled out any prospect of her procreating without potentially fatal consequences; and yes, that prospect absolutely crushed her.
We finished (amicably enough, if my invite to her forthcoming wedding is any guide) for reasons other than this, but I believe moves towards her and her husband-to-be adopting are at an advanced stage now.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that it’s easy to be judgemental about a lot of things until it actually happens to you – as most of the people on this thread seem to be men how can any of you have any idea what it is like to be a woman unable to have a child…..
I don’t think it is a sexist thing at all Mo.
There are plenty of men who are devastated because they cannot father children, equally there are women who could not care less if they have children or not. It is not something that can be generalised about.
I am not saying women are not devastated by not being able to have children, but at the end of the day that’s life. None of us can have everything we want in life.
There are options including adoption and IVF is available, but I still contend there are more important things for limited NHS money to be spent on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.