Congratulations To Elton & David !

[Gladys]

you are most likely an idiot.

Probably genetic; if only he knew it!

[spook]

Familial incest is sad to say far from unknown, so to allow the placing a young child, especially a young male child, in the care of two men who have elected to lead a legal but sexually immoral lifestyle is simply wrong.

 

While I reluctantly accept that it is now permissible to permit people to live in bizarre ways so long as they are not harming others the potential for devastating harm to a baby boy placed in a male homosexual relationship if the homosexual men do succumb to their abnormal sexuality in an incestuous manner is unimaginable. The risk just does not outweigh the potential for devastation.

 

Then there is the matter of the setting of precedence.

 

I have no doubt that both parties here are decent people in all other respects than their abnormal sexuality but what about homosexual pairs who are not so intrinsically decent and who will use this and other cases of permitting the procurement of a child to underwrite their desires?

 

No, there are some things that are just not right. Homosexuals procuring children is one such.

[Gladys]

Wow, do you wear winged collars and tails, because your opinions are certainly of that era.

 

You could apply the same concerns to a heterosexual couple, or indeed any sexually active and motivated adult.

 

Does your branch of christianity preach forgiveness, understanding and brotherhood, or fire and brimstone?

[spook]

Wow, do you wear winged collars and tails, because your opinions are certainly of that era.

 

You could apply the same concerns to a heterosexual couple, or indeed any sexually active and motivated adult.

 

Does your branch of christianity preach forgiveness, understanding and brotherhood, or fire and brimstone?

 

Forgiveness comes with repentance and the cessation of sinning, or the best attempts that anyone can make towards it while following the principle of JOY in making decisions about one's life.

 

Brotherhood comes within the Christian brotherhood. St Paul tells us in his letter to the Corinthians “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

 

Understanding does not include approval, and fire and brimstone in eternity are a thing that has been overlooked in an attempt to soften the afterlife of those who sin.

 

It is past time that the Christian Church took up once more concentrating more upon the nature of the stick and less about the sweetness of the carrot.

[Back to the Future]

 

 

No, there are some things that are just not right.

 

 

Mainly the things that are not right emanate from religion,and that means any religion.

[loaf]

I think I surprise myself a little when I say I have no objection to Elton and David's new child. The child will want for nothing and will have a life ahead of him that will be the envy of most people.

 

Perhaps we should be thrashing out debates at the other end of the scale a little more - the child that will have died due to poverty and disease by the time you read the end of this sentence, for example.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not once, you intensely irritating little man, have I made reference to them being gay. Not once. Please go back through my posts and point out where I have said that it is wrong because they are gay? You can't as I didn't. I am saying that in many cases there may be a reason why people cannot concieve and by circumventing nature there is a high risk of genetic defects. Just because science makes a certain thing possible does not necessarily mean that you should do it, or that doing it does not represent a considerable risk. Again I made no mention of anyone being gay in this posting either; I simply find the fact that rich people (gay or not) who think they can buy children or pay a surrogate, and that its totally 'ok', unsettling.

No, but what you have said is that you have concerns over the matter of surrogacy and adoption - on the basis of genetic defects, emotional issues, and the fact that the couple have empty lives that they are trying to fill. That appears to leave only heterosexual intercourse as the form of 'producing' a child that you find acceptable or of no concern.

 

What do you know either? You've had children have you or bought up someone else's children? Knowing your family and genetic background is an important part of knowing who you are. I am sure many of these children may in the fullness of time suffer emotionally, as many adopted children do, because they can't fill in the blanks in their genetic and family history. Only an idiot would suggest that there is no risk. But then clearly from your increasingly warped and petulant posts on MF you are most likely an idiot.

No, I have not. Have you? And have you successfully determined that children who have been adopted are needful of knowledge about their genetic lineage? You seem to be clutching for only what I can call excuses for why it seems concerning. Why the assumption that the child does not know their surrogate mother? And have you taken into account the worth and value of the specific relationship that the child has with his gay or otherwise parents vis-a-vis the fact that they are not genetic parents?

 

The fact that the child loves his parents and is in a loving parental relationship you would think would be enough in this society, unless you want to express your serious concerns about the emotional well-being of many children from single-parent families, dysfunctional families, abusive parental relationships, etc. I think you need to think more about these supposed risks on balance with other these other examples.

 

Identifying the supposed need, in itself, for a child (not an adult) to determine their lineage (if unknown) appears be pretty stupid to me. Emotional issues may arise if a child CANNOT find out who their genetic parents are. Is this likely in a surrogate situation though?

 

If you think that's unfair its only because I find you accusing me of being homophobic offensive as I have never said anything about their personal situation other than they are two rich men who think they can buy what they want.

I said I am beginning to catch a whiff of homophobia. I MAY be wrong. But the problem is that you are coming across as someone who appears to be singularly concerned with the matter of surrogacy by these two people. You appear to have an issue with surrogacy and compensating the surrogate mother for her trouble, but these comes across as compounding excuses to the view that you take that the child is only there to fill some void. That could be homophobic, unless you have some good explanation of why in this particular example there is a void to be filled. Why aren't these two people who simply want to have a child to love?

 

And I do apologise if I am so irritating, but you appear to have very silly views on the matter. Is it not right to let you know this?

[Terse]

FFS! You are such an ignorant knob, LDV!

Like many others, he is simply saying that he finds it uncomfortable that babies are treated as commodities to be bought and sold! Are you really so thick that you can't grasp that?

Are you really so far up your own arse that you have to seek out some 'whiff of homophobia' whenever somone who is gay becomes the subject of criticism?

And when you ask 'have you successfully determined that children who have been adopted are needful of knowledge about their genetic lineage?' have you not realised that hundreds, if not thousands, of adopted children spend much of their adult lives in search of their true parentage?

Your bigotted ignorance on this subject - as on so many others - reveals you for an annoying, poorly-educated self-centred twat of the first order.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No, I am afraid that you are ignorant and possibly as equally stupid on the thinking on this matter as OldManxFella! Did you properly read my last post (and even ones)? I don't think you did!

 

I know he finds it uncomfortable that babies are treated as commodities. But they are really being treated as commodities. Yes, they are in poorly defined sense of involving being bought and sold - by finding someone who is willing to carry a child and offering them compensation for this, but the character of these transactions do not really comform to those of a commodity. There would be concerns were it to be case that babies were turned into commodities, but this has not happened. What really is the concern with this form of compensation for surrogacy? That the child's life is considered to be of less value?

 

Did I not make it clear enough for you that I was discussing the matter of a CHILD wanting to know their lineage? Of course many adults want to find out who their biological parents are WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW, but we are talking about children here, children who don't necessarily know the ins and outs of sex and how children are made until they older. They therefore most likely do not have the understanding and interest to give consideration to the matter as an adult would do.

And OldManxFella seems to be placing a great deal of weight on the matter of 'emotional issues', even using the term 'risk'. This is asinine. As explained, we are talking about children who more likely know their surrogate, but do we even think that for there has been serious psychological harm done to the ADULT who was ADOPTED and can't find their biological parents? In some case maybe. But AGAIN, we are talking about a different matter with adoption.

 

As for the gay thing. You'd have to pretty stupid to overlook that fact that there appears to be a real focus on this supposed idea that the couple in question have some empty void they must fill and that this is a very peculiar idea.

Why the assumption that they have empty lives and void to fill? An answer to this would clear up the matter. As it sounds as if this couple are being singularly identified as not really wanting a child for the same reasons as other couples. Why?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Familial incest is sad to say far from unknown, so to allow the placing a young child, especially a young male child, in the care of two men who have elected to lead a legal but sexually immoral lifestyle is simply wrong...

 

I have no doubt that both parties here are decent people in all other respects than their abnormal sexuality but what about homosexual pairs who are not so intrinsically decent and who will use this and other cases of permitting the procurement of a child to underwrite their desires?

You're kidding? Well if you have such concerns then I seriously think all these straights that feel any compulsion to breed should be immediately sterilised! Why? Because there is a certainty that many straight Daddies will fiddle about with their kid - I mean, that's where most sexual child abuse is carried on, in the home. The risk really is too great to have such men get their wife pregnant because of their need to underwrite their desires. All the more worrying in view of the fact that straight men are more likely to kiddy fiddle if one considers the statistics compared to the relative incidence in proportion to gay men.

[oldmanxfella]

No, but what you have said is that you have concerns over the matter of surrogacy and adoption - on the basis of genetic defects, emotional issues, and the fact that the couple have empty lives that they are trying to fill. That appears to leave only heterosexual intercourse as the form of 'producing' a child that you find acceptable or of no concern.

 

Well I'm sorry but without the aid of science natural and basic biology is all you have. If you are gay clearly there is no situation in which you can naturally procreate. You either accept that as part of your make up and lifestyle choice or you adopt. I certainly would never say that gay people wouldn't make good parents, or that they should not have families, and many gay couples have so much to give a child. However I am against people being rich enough to buy what they can't have or what nature cannot give them - particularly when there are so many children still in this world who would benefit from adoption. To me they would rather 'buy' a child rather than deal with the emotional issues an adopted child may bring with it as these emotional issues might not fit their lifestyle (and here I mean media scrutiny rather than them being gay before you start). Surrogacy is the easy option - probably until they are about 14 and all the questions start coming about who they are and where they came from.

 

I have not. Have you? And have you successfully determined that children who have been adopted are needful of knowledge about their genetic lineage? You seem to be clutching for only what I can call excuses for why it seems concerning. Why the assumption that the child does not know their surrogate mother? And have you taken into account the worth and value of the specific relationship that the child has with his gay or otherwise parents vis-a-vis the fact that they are not genetic parents?

 

Yes. I have seen first hand many of the issues adopted children have in their teens and later years. Clearly however you just like talking through your arse from your own little blinkered LDV world where reality does not exist.

 

The fact that the child loves his parents and is in a loving parental relationship you would think would be enough in this society.

 

That is never enough I'm afraid and any parent would tell you that. We are all sentient beings with a need to establish what our place in the world is and where we come from. Just loving is never enough.

 

I said I am beginning to catch a whiff of homophobia.

 

And I'm starting to detect a whiff of bullshit about most of what you post on MF.

 

Why aren't these two people who simply want to have a child to love?

 

Because they have spent £100k of their money to buy a child that they couldn't have without scientific intervention such as IVF when other options clearly existed. Clones were mentioned by the OP and I suppose in 100 years time these sort of rich empty types won't see any harm in cloning themselves and creating a 'little me' either once science allows it. It does not make it any more right however just because something can be bought and paid for in a Lab. A whole new world of personal identity is opening up and it is not without the risk of serious psychological issues.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well I'm sorry but without the aid of science natural and basic biology is all you have. If you are gay clearly there is no situation in which you can naturally procreate. You either accept that as part of your make up and lifestyle choice or you adopt. I certainly would never say that gay people wouldn't make good parents, or that they should not have families, and many gay couples have so much to give a child. However I am against people being rich enough to buy what they can't have or what nature cannot give them - particularly when there are so many children still in this world who would benefit from adoption. To me they would rather 'buy' a child rather than deal with the emotional issues an adopted child may bring with it as these emotional issues might not fit their lifestyle (and here I mean media scrutiny rather than them being gay before you start). Surrogacy is the easy option - probably until they are about 14 and all the questions start coming about who they are and where they came from.

But you haven't presented this as simply an argument against surrogacy in itself because of genetic problems, but seem to have appended that possible fact to support your argument that these people are supposedly buying a commodity because they have empty lives. Is your issue with surrogacy itself or these particular people?

 

And you seem to not recognise why a gay couple (and straight ones) choose surrogacy over adoption. Surrogacy isn't something just celebrities do (as you probably know) and it is done because the prospective parents want to be involved in the raising of the child from not long after they are born. It is understandable.

Are you also against parents who did not buy what they could not have and had a friend have the child for them?

 

As for the matter of emotional issues due to media scrutiny, I really don't see how you can figure this a probable issue. How do you know or think it is likely that they chose to find a surrogate because they thought it too risky to adopt a child because an adopted child might have emotional issues? It doesn't seem likely to me at all. It may possibly be the case, but you seem to present it as a likelihood.

 

And yes, maybe it is at 14 that they start to ask questions or when it really comes to their mind as to who their biological mother is, if they didn't already know. Well...they can find that out. Where do you get this idea that it will cause problems, or even risks as you say?

 

Yes. I have seen first hand many of the issues adopted children have in their teens and later years. Clearly however you just like talking through your arse from your own little blinkered LDV world where reality does not exist.

The reality is that you are talking about teens and later years, which I have already mentioned is a different matter to a child through most of their formative years. It also has to be recognised that surrogate children were not given up in the same manner as adopted children, so any psychological issues surrounding rejection will not be present. We are talking about the specifics of biological parentage. And may I ask some more about these first hand issues? What were these problems exactly?

 

That is never enough I'm afraid and any parent would tell you that. We are all sentient beings with a need to establish what our place in the world is and where we come from. Just loving is never enough.

Maybe not in many cases. But considering you have an interest in establishing potential outcomes - however unlikely in some cases, in forming your argument, it would seem far better to opt for surrogacy to reduce the likelihood of these emotional issues that would be far more likely present in THEIR child were it to be adopted. And as parents, they would wish to have a child that would be the least potentially, psychologically damaged. Not because of some peculiar idea of media scrutiny, but because it is their child. The vast majority of parents would not want otherwise. Some very good people don't care and would like to adopt regardless.

 

Because they have spent £100k of their money to buy a child that they couldn't have without scientific intervention such as IVF when other options clearly existed. Clones were mentioned by the OP and I suppose in 100 years time these sort of rich empty types won't see any harm in cloning themselves and creating a 'little me' either once science allows it. It does not make it any more right however just because something can be bought and paid for in a Lab. A whole new world of personal identity is opening up and it is not without the risk of serious psychological issues.

They had other options, but I have already talked about the option of adoption and why it not always desirable. The only questionable thing I find is that they have made things complicated by the child having two mothers, which is unnecessary and unfair. But it matters not how much they have spent, for their desire to have a child is on face no different that any other regardless of the money involved. (Oh, and they did give their son is a really awful name. Zachary is bad enoug, but the rest is just evil).

As for clones, well maybe some day. But let's talk about reality!

[macmannin]

"But let's talk about reality!".Haha

[oldmanxfella]

And you seem to not recognise why a gay couple (and straight ones) choose surrogacy over adoption. Surrogacy isn't something just celebrities do (as you probably know) and it is done because the prospective parents want to be involved in the raising of the child from not long after they are born. It is understandable.

 

Yawn, yawn, yawn ... yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn ...

[Matt Bawden]

Wow, do you wear winged collars and tails, because your opinions are certainly of that era.

 

You could apply the same concerns to a heterosexual couple, or indeed any sexually active and motivated adult.

 

Does your branch of christianity preach forgiveness, understanding and brotherhood, or fire and brimstone?

 

Forgiveness comes with repentance and the cessation of sinning, or the best attempts that anyone can make towards it while following the principle of JOY in making decisions about one's life.

 

Brotherhood comes within the Christian brotherhood. St Paul tells us in his letter to the Corinthians “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

 

Understanding does not include approval, and fire and brimstone in eternity are a thing that has been overlooked in an attempt to soften the afterlife of those who sin.

 

It is past time that the Christian Church took up once more concentrating more upon the nature of the stick and less about the sweetness of the carrot.

 

Are you serious? You must live in Salem. Your Christian Church and human hating God need to take up residence somewhere other than this planet they are most unwelcome.