Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Co-parentng - single gay male

2»

Comments

  • #32
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Definitely an element of that in any relationship type for sure. Which is essentially what I was saying in my last reply to you above.

    But it is not limited to that. Yes I wanted children to add to my life. But I also wanted them because of everything I knew I could bring to THEIRS too.

    I may not be taking up up right here, and I'm not criticising your decision to become a parent in anyway (most people want to at some pojny), but I don't think you can describe it as a partially selfless decision since you felt you could offer a lot to this non-existent person.

    If you didn't have them, they wouldnt exist so they wouldn't miss out on anything.

    Now if it was an adoption, then I would certainly agree with you that the decision was as much about as what you could do for another as what they could do for you.

    In fact if I ever did have a child (don't plan on it), it would definitely be adoption. Since I can't have kids with my husband to be, I think it would selfish to spend so much money and effort on having a child through surrogacy or what not when they are so many kids needing homes in the world today. I realise though actually adopting can be difficult.

    Sorry, that isn't any criticism - just an abstract discussion on an intangible concept.


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    floggg wrote: »
    I don't think you can describe it as a partially selfless decision since you felt you could offer a lot to this non-existent person.

    If you didn't have them, they wouldnt exist so they wouldn't miss out on anything.

    Their prior existence is not really relevant to the point I was making. The desire to GIVE to another life is still a (relatively) selfless one - regardless of the person who is to be the target of it yet exists or not. The relevant point is that desire to give - whether I give to an existing person or create a new person for that purpose, is not relevant to my point.

    Though I can equally point out that one of the things I have to "give" is the gift of life. I received it myself. I am quite grateful it was given to me.

    But there is a route here to extreme pedantry I fear. Because (as I think someone else in the thread also said if my memory is not messing with me or it might have been another thread this week, Ive read so many.) essentially _every_ act is selfish. It is all born of self desire. I _wanted_ to give to another. That is still me fulfilling MY want even if I was giving to another. So what is left that is NOT selfish really?

    But that pedantic road leads us to a point where the word "selfish" itself becomes meaningless because it means _too much_. I steal from my favorite poster on boards.ie when I say "A word that says everything - says nothing".

    Selfish in the first google definition offered is " lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." and clearly my motivations DID consider other people (their prior existence being as I said not as relevant as you might think or want) and was not "chiefly" concerned with my own personal - anything.


  • #34
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Their prior existence is not really relevant to the point I was making. The desire to GIVE to another life is still a (relatively) selfless one - regardless of the person who is to be the target of it yet exists or not. The relevant point is that desire to give - whether I give to an existing person or create a new person for that purpose, is not relevant to my point.

    Though I can equally point out that one of the things I have to "give" is the gift of life. I received it myself. I am quite grateful it was given to me.

    But there is a route here to extreme pedantry I fear. Because (as I think someone else in the thread also said if my memory is not messing with me or it might have been another thread this week, Ive read so many.) essentially _every_ act is selfish. It is all born of self desire. I _wanted_ to give to another. That is still me fulfilling MY want even if I was giving to another. So what is left that is NOT selfish really?

    But that pedantic road leads us to a point where the word "selfish" itself becomes meaningless because it means _too much_. I steal from my favorite poster on boards.ie when I say "A word that says everything - says nothing".

    Selfish in the first google definition offered is " lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." and clearly my motivations DID consider other people (their prior existence being as I said not as relevant as you might think or want) and was not "chiefly" concerned with my own personal - anything.

    It's kind of a stupidly abstract point to argue so I won't. I just thought being motivated by what you can give a non-existent person who wont want or need anything unless you bring them into existence was a bit circular.

    But the decision to have a child is hardly rational or logical - you sacrifice a large portion of your adult life and income so that you have the apparent privilege of being responsible for somebody who will be an unproductive, ungrateful and finally kinda stupid burden for the first 20-25 years of their lives, with no likely return on investment, and somehow the whole thing is meant to be the greatest thing that could ever happen to you.


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    It is not that circular when you realise one of the things you have to give - the gift of life - is not something you can give an existing person. They have it already. Though with the amount of blood I have given in my time - I like to think I have in that way "given" it to existing people too :)

    As for sacrificing part of your adult life - I never saw it that way. I see it as part of my adult life. Not a compromise - but part of the journey I am on. I can not say I felt I have sacrificed anything - nor see it as that kind of "investment" that I expect a return on. It is not so much that I am disagreeing with you - as much as I mean I simply do not recognise the words you use. Sacrificing your life to ME - is sitting around watching soap operas three nights a week :) Some people spend hours painting. One mans sacrifice of their time - is another ones choice on how to spend it.

    I wonder if the mods would like to move our posts to the other thread on "Why do you want to have children" though - as I fear we may have derailed here a bit :( Sorry all!


  • #36
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Chemical Byrne wrote: »
    Because, as I said, the gay man will probably want to live with his same sex partner rather than with the mother. The mother is probably going to want the baby to stay living with her most of the time, especially when it is small for breastfeeding etc. As the baby is spending most of its time with the mother that would make her the primary caregiver in my view.

    But thats all complete guesswork and assumptions. You dont know anything really about what might happen. Its very odd that you assum your assumptions as facts/reality.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Deleted User wrote: »

    I wonder if the mods would like to move our posts to the other thread on "Why do you want to have children" though - as I fear we may have derailed here a bit :( Sorry all!

    Its not really possible. The moderators of lgbt dont moderate ah and the moderators of ah dont mont moderate lgbt as well as that I think the discussion is fine as is.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #38
    Chemical Byrne
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Chemical Byrne


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But thats all complete guesswork and assumptions. You dont know anything really about what might happen. Its very odd that you assum your assumptions as facts/reality.

    Yes of course it is. I never stated that any of it was a fact or a certainty. I don't where you got that from . It just seems to be the most logical outcome in my opinion.


  • #39
    Rachiee
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭Rachiee


    Sorry OP no advice here. I can see where you are coming from wanting a Co situation on paper it seems lovely a child with two loving families. I just worry the reality is diffident and a single parent situation may be more stable.
    Im a single gay woman and gave thought about Co parenting with a single gay male friend of mine. This us a man who I love and trust and would have no problem sharing a life with for the next 20 years but ultimately I think the risks outweigh the benefits.
    Having to negotiate birthdays holidays visitations and all parenting healthcare education decisions its just too much with a best friend never mind a stranger.
    The idea of single parenting is not ideal and really quite scary but with support from friends and family it is do able.
    Obviously as a single man though you are quite short on options and adoption is a bit of a night mare and costs around 20k in legal fees never mind time off work. But just to say to consider all your options and be really careful as an unmarried father if she has a change of heart you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


  • #40
    Chemical Byrne
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Chemical Byrne


    Rachiee wrote: »
    S.....but just to say to consider all your options and be really careful as an unmarried father if she has a change of heart you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

    That really is the crux of the issue. Co-parenting would be all well and good but if the gay father isn't married to the mother then she holds ALL the cards. The father is not a legal guardian and the mother run off with the child if she gets tired of "co-parenting".


  • #41
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Chemical Byrne wrote: »
    Yes of course it is. I never stated that any of it was a fact or a certainty. I don't where you got that from . It just seems to be the most logical outcome in my opinion.

    I dont see why though. I mean to me its very odd to jump to conclusions about outcomes.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Chemical Byrne
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Chemical Byrne


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I dont see why though. I mean to me its very odd to jump to conclusions about outcomes.

    Well I figured that what I was saying was just the norm, ie baby staying with its mother etc, so wouldn't the same apply to a co-parenting situation?
    In fairness, the mother is the primary care giver more often than not. I would say most people would agree on that surely. I'm not saying whether its right, wrong or otherwise, just that that is the more common arrangement.


  • #43
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Chemical Byrne wrote: »
    Well I figured that what I was saying was just the norm, ie baby staying with its mother etc, so wouldn't the same apply to a co-parenting situation?
    In fairness, the mother is the primary care giver more often than not. I would say most people would agree on that surely. I'm not saying whether its right, wrong or otherwise, just that that is the more common arrangement.

    Of course the Mother being primary caregiver is common but the reality is this has changed and is changing. I just think its really odd to make any assumptions like that at all.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #44
    Chemical Byrne
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Chemical Byrne


    Well if you agree that it is the most common arrangement, then how is it odd that I would make that assumption?.

    Anyway, look, this is just going in circles. [ / pointless circular argument]


  • #45
    LLMMML
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭LLMMML


    I have to agree that having kids is a selfish act. It clearly is. The idea that you can bring great things to a life that won't exist unless you make it happen is pretty funny. But not all selfish acts are negative selfish acts. Id just like to see parents be a bit more honest about their motivations.


  • #46
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    LLMMML wrote: »
    I have to agree that having kids is a selfish act. It clearly is. The idea that you can bring great things to a life that won't exist unless you make it happen is pretty funny. But not all selfish acts are negative selfish acts. Id just like to see parents be a bit more honest about their motivations.

    To me you are you giving so much that the idea it is selfish is completely wrong. As a parent you give time, energy, commitment, money, emotions, support. I dont know how giving all of that could be considered selfish. I really don't.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #47
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Co....parenting? We're talking about a child here, not a timeshare apartment in Tenerife. I'm aware that families come in all shapes and sizes but deliberately having a child with a person you dont know and have no other connection with because you think you want to give a child a replica of your idyllic family upbringing in rural Mayo 40 years ago? This beggars belief.


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Probably not a fair analogy by any means. Time Shares are something you share with people you do not even know - and you only care for them 2 weeks a year while youre with them.

    Not quite what is being described in the OP. Actually Co Parenting relationships can be - relatively speaking - a hell of a lot more child orientated than children brought up with married couples. As for many (not generalising just saying many) the primary focus is the relationship - and then come children. But with co-parenting the primary focus is the child.

    Do not sweep that paint brush in either direction - but do not underestimate that difference either.


  • #49
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    There is a troll called Thaidad persistently trolling this thread. He has reregistered about 17 accounts at this stage. I had closed this thread but actually I'm now reopening it as we shouldn't feel threatened or bullied here in discussing things. If you notice any odd or suspicious behaviour in this thread or in LGBT generally from new accounts please report the posts and don't engage.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #50
    LLMMML
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭LLMMML


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    To me you are you giving so much that the idea it is selfish is completely wrong. As a parent you give time, energy, commitment, money, emotions, support. I dont know how giving all of that could be considered selfish. I really don't.

    You're confusing the reasons people have kids with the time they put into that child. What about those who have a child because they think it will fix their failing relationship?

    And time investment doesn't mean you were unselfish or a good parent. I know plenty of people whose parents invested a lot of time and energy into having the perfect child and who made the child's life a misery when it didn't live up to expectations.

    I think the Iona Insitute have a point, though they misuse it horribly. Two parents living in one home in a stable relationship does seem to be best.

    I've no problem with families that end up not in this state, and I think their children turn out fine, but purposely bringing a child into a situation with as many possible pitfalls as co-parenting is a selfish act.


  • #51
    xLisaBx
    Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭xLisaBx


    Have you a close female friend that would have the baby for you? I know it sounds absurd, but she'd be like a surrogate who doesn't cost a lot :)


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Rachiee
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭Rachiee


    LLMMML wrote: »
    I think the Iona Insitute have a point, though they misuse it horribly. Two parents living in one home in a stable relationship does seem to be best.

    There has been very little scientific finding on this loving stability is what is important there is nothing to say that a co-parenting situation couldn't be stable and loving if done right.


  • #53
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    LLMMML wrote: »
    You're confusing the reasons people have kids with the time they put into that child.

    No. Im not. I mentioned Time AND energy AND commitment AND money AND emotions AND support

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #54
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,014 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    xLisaBx wrote: »
    Have you a close female friend that would have the baby for you? I know it sounds absurd, but she'd be like a surrogate who doesn't cost a lot :)
    But he's not looking for a surrogate; he's looking for a co-parent. Big difference!


  • #55
    LLMMML
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭LLMMML


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    No. Im not. I mentioned Time AND energy AND commitment AND money AND emotions AND support

    But the willingness to invest these things is not why people have kids. They want kids because they think it will improve their life. Pretending it's some selfless act because it takes effort is misleading. It's like pretending the time someone spends on a hobby is the same as the time they spend doing something they don't like. Completely different things.


  • #56
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    LLMMML wrote: »
    But the willingness to invest these things is not why people have kids. They want kids because they think it will improve their life. Pretending it's some selfless act because it takes effort is misleading. It's like pretending the time someone spends on a hobby is the same as the time they spend doing something they don't like. Completely different things.

    I think its impossible to determine that all people who want children want them purely for selfish reasons.

    In addition to think being a parent is actually one of the least selfish things a person does in life.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #57
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I think its impossible to determine that all people who want children want them purely for selfish reasons.

    In addition to think being a parent is actually one of the least selfish things a person does in life.

    I really can't see any other reason for a planned pregnancy other than the fact that at least one of the persons involved WANTS a baby

    They do it for themsleves and whatnot brings to their life. Sure, once the baby is conceived their lives become secondary to the child's, and so the act of parenting itself is generally a selfless task.

    But intentionally conceiving one is an act motivated by the desires of parents, and what they want.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Advertisement