Wanting to have kids

Cody montana · 13-09-2015 5:54pm #1

Any other gay people want to have kids?

I'd love to have kids but being gay the opportunity is somewhat limited.

So are there any gay folk who have kids and how did you manage it?

martinjudge73 · 13-09-2015 9:24pm

Why not adopt? Many Kids with no family.

I don't believe in the designed baby thing and surrogacy. Its like buying a child to plug a hole and cutting intentionally its biological connection to one or both parents.

However adoption is a good option as you already have a Child that is missing a family.

eviltwin · 13-09-2015 9:27pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Why not adopt? Many Kids with no family.

I don't believe in the designed baby thing and surrogacy. Its like buying a child to plug a hole and cutting intentionally its biological connection to one or both parents.

However adoption is a good option as you already have a Child that is missing a family.

Adoption isn't exactly easy you know, it's virtually impossible unless you have loads of money and are prepared to wait years.

imme · 13-09-2015 9:31pm

How many would you like OP.

You say you want kids.

Is it something you have wanted for a while? Have you done any worthwhile research into your options/opportunities.

Adoption or surrogacy would look to be your only options.

In terms of adoption I think that outside of the western world there are so many people who have a terrible standard of living who will not even see 5-years of age.

mattP · 13-09-2015 9:51pm

eviltwin wrote:

Adoption isn't exactly easy you know, it's virtually impossible unless you have loads of money and are prepared to wait years.

Maybe he could consider becoming a foster parent instead. My aunt signed up and had a teenage foster child within months.
Now trust me - if theyre willing to give that woman a child the criteria arent very high, so any half decent person would probably be ranked highly :P On top of it all she is single so there was no partner that could pull up her rep
But I suppose "half decent people" (as in normal, run of the mill good people) is the best they can ask for. Its good enough for in or around 85% (guesstimating) of the other children in the country :P

Cody montana · 14-09-2015 6:21pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Why not adopt? Many Kids with no family.

I don't believe in the designed baby thing and surrogacy. Its like buying a child to plug a hole and cutting intentionally its biological connection to one or both parents.

However adoption is a good option as you already have a Child that is missing a family.

I don't want to adopt.
I want to carry on my bloodline.

Cody montana · 14-09-2015 6:22pm

imme wrote: »

How many would you like OP.

You say you want kids.

Is it something you have wanted for a while? Have you done any worthwhile research into your options/opportunities.

Adoption or surrogacy would look to be your only options.

In terms of adoption I think that outside of the western world there are so many people who have a terrible standard of living who will not even see 5-years of age.

2 or three, like a regular family.

mattP · 14-09-2015 7:12pm

Cody montana wrote:

I want to carry on my bloodline.

May I ask why its that important?
I myself believe that we're all humans parenting other humans, like 90% of that childs DNA will be the same as any other childs, the thing that inspires a bond has nothing to do with blood, it has to do with early mornings, late nights, blood (metaphorical) sweat and a lot of tears.

eviltwin · 14-09-2015 8:37pm

mattP wrote: »

May I ask why its that important?
I myself believe that we're all humans parenting other humans, like 90% of that childs DNA will be the same as any other childs, the thing that inspires a bond has nothing to do with blood, it has to do with early mornings, late nights, blood (metaphorical) sweat and a lot of tears.

For some people the desire to have your own child is huge. It's probably safer too as with foster care you're not the parents and adoption is all but extinct in this country nowadays.

mdudy · 14-09-2015 8:59pm

I want my own child(ren) eventually. Surrogacy is the only viable, yet expensive, option available at the minute, that I would consider to be honest.

Unless you have a very understanding friend of the opposite sex!

martinjudge73 · 14-09-2015 9:05pm

Cody montana wrote: »

I don't want to adopt.
I want to carry on my bloodline.

Well you can only do that if you find someone of the opposite sex. If you intentionally decide to have a child that won't have one or other of its biological parents then you should think of the consequences of this choice. A Child should never have its mother or father pre-designed out of its life.

As regards adoption, You should trying fostering first. There are lots of kids who don't have anyone.

mdudy · 14-09-2015 9:17pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Well you can only do that if you find someone of the opposite sex. If you intentionally decide to have a child that won't have one or other of its biological parents then you should think of the consequences of this choice. A Child should never have its mother or father pre-designed out of its life.

As regards adoption, You should trying fostering first. There are lots of kids who don't have anyone.

You would be against surrogacy in all situations, then?

LegacyUser · 14-09-2015 10:04pm

mdudy wrote: »

You would be against surrogacy in all situations, then?

Only if it's the sperm and egg of the father and mother that will raise the child.

newacc2015 · 14-09-2015 10:51pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Well you can only do that if you find someone of the opposite sex. If you intentionally decide to have a child that won't have one or other of its biological parents then you should think of the consequences of this choice. A Child should never have its mother or father pre-designed out of its life.

As regards adoption, You should trying fostering first. There are lots of kids who don't have anyone.

You say you agree with adoption and fostering, where no parents are present.But against surrogacy because one of the parents are missing. Contradiction much? You seem to forget thousands of women who cant carry a foetus to full term use surrogates to carry their embryos.

Your understanding of surrogacy seems quite limited.

Annasopra · 14-09-2015 11:04pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Well you can only do that if you find someone of the opposite sex. If you intentionally decide to have a child that won't have one or other of its biological parents then you should think of the consequences of this choice. A Child should never have its mother or father pre-designed out of its life.

As regards adoption, You should trying fostering first. There are lots of kids who don't have anyone.

Why must all children have a mother and a father?

martinjudge73 · 15-09-2015 7:40pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why must all children have a mother and a father?

Children naturally have a Father and Mother. Many children might not have one or both of their parents, however intentionally designing out a Father or Mother from a Childs life is not putting the the best intentions of the Child first. I am with Dolce and Gabbana when it comes to children, they deserve where possible a Mother and Father.

Gay people are perfectly capable of loving a child, why not give that love to the many children who have no one to care for them instead of deciding to procure one with a surrogate.

Annasopra · 15-09-2015 7:51pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Children naturally have a Father and Mother. Many children might not have one or both of their parents, however intentionally designing out a Father or Mother from a Childs life is not putting the the best intentions of the Child first. I am with Dolce and Gabbana when it comes to children, they deserve where possible a Mother and Father.

Gay people are perfectly capable of loving a child, why not give that love to the many children who have no one to care for them instead of deciding to procure one with a surrogate.

Why are a mother and father preferable to 2 mums or 2 dads though?

martinjudge73 · 15-09-2015 8:05pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why are a mother and father preferable to 2 mums or 2 dads though?

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the Child was not designed or denied the right to a Mother or Father.

A couple of years ago Elton John regretted his son did not have a mother, yet it was he who decided to procure a child with a surrogate and to remove the possibility of a mother. And then he went on the attack at D&G when they said a child should have a mother.

eviltwin · 15-09-2015 8:09pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that, as long as the Child was not designed or denied the right to a Mother or Father.

A couple of years ago Elton John regretted his son did not have a mother, yet it was he who decided to procure a child with a surrogate and to remove the possibility of a mother. And then he went on the attack at D&G when they said a child should have a mother.

How do you feel about straight couples using donors to have a baby? At least with a gay couple it's obvious to the child they were born with the aid of a third party.

mattP · 15-09-2015 8:17pm

martinjudge73 wrote:

A couple of years ago Elton John regretted his son did not have a mother, yet it was he who decided to procure a child with a surrogate and to remove the possibility of a mother. And then he went on the attack at D&G when they said a child should have a mother.

My aunt told me she regretted having her son. Very sad indeed, but it does not mean all women regret having children.
Just because Elton John said he regretted it does not mean that a) all parents would or b) a mother would have enhanced the childs life any more than another father could have.

c montgomery · 15-09-2015 8:20pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why are a mother and father preferable to 2 mums or 2 dads though?

Probably because it's a better balance.

eviltwin · 15-09-2015 8:39pm

c montgomery wrote: »

Probably because it's a better balance.

I'm sure the OP and his partner have women in their life to provide whatever it is you think two men can't.

martinjudge73 · 15-09-2015 8:49pm

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you feel about straight couples using donors to have a baby? At least with a gay couple it's obvious to the child they were born with the aid of a third party.

I don't think ANYONE should buy a child. Unless its someone who carries the baby for free using the genetic material of the Father and Mother who will raise the child. (like a women carrying a child for her sister)

Children are not commodities.. and Gay couples trying to fill a void create other issues for the Child who was designed not to have father or mother.

Gay couples adopting did not deny the child anything, they are just being open to helping when nobody else wants to.

ted1 · 15-09-2015 8:51pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Adoption isn't exactly easy you know, it's virtually impossible unless you have loads of money and are prepared to wait years.

Kids aren't just for Christmas. Many couples spend loads on IVF and take years to conceive. Once you have kids they still cost loads.
Adoption shouldn't be ruled out

martinjudge73 · 15-09-2015 8:57pm

ted1 wrote: »

Kids aren't just for Christmas. Many couples spend loads on IVF and take years to conceive. Once you have kids they still cost loads.
Adoption shouldn't be ruled out

Exactly. If a gay couple wants to support a child then adoption or fostering is the right path. Lots of kids that need support. If straight people object then just ask them why they didn't adopt or foster the child.

eviltwin · 15-09-2015 8:58pm

ted1 wrote: »

Kids aren't just for Christmas. Many couples spend loads on IVF and take years to conceive. Once you have kids they still cost loads.
Adoption shouldn't be ruled out

Adoption pretty much is off the table. Domestic adoption is all but gone and there are huge obstacles to adoption from abroad. A lot of countries are effectively closed for adoption and some won't take on same sex couples. There are people waiting years to adopt. If you want biological children as the OP does then it makes sense to try other means first.

eviltwin · 15-09-2015 9:00pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I don't think ANYONE should buy a child. Unless its someone who carries the baby for free using the genetic material of the Father and Mother who will raise the child. (like a women carrying a child for her sister)

Children are not commodities.. and Gay couples trying to fill a void create other issues for the Child who was designed not to have father or mother.

Gay couples adopting did not deny the child anything, they are just being open to helping when nobody else wants to.

Wanting to have a child does not mean you see it as a commodity. That's a really insulting thing to say. People who have to use assistance want their kids for the same reason people who are able to have them naturally do.

martinjudge73 · 15-09-2015 9:23pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Wanting to have a child does not mean you see it as a commodity. That's a really insulting thing to say. People who have to use assistance want their kids for the same reason people who are able to have them naturally do.

Two men can't naturally have children. I have a friend who is the father to two children with a lesbian couple. He has them weekends, he is there father and they have two mothers. They are perfectly fine.

However when two men cut the mother out of a childs life completely and deliberately then its a problem.

We should where possible let nature run its course. Surrogacy is not natural.(for gay or straight people)

Look at the movie Any Day Now. There are many children like this. Gay people need to show their humanity and help children who have been neglected or abandoned. Instead of creating a child that is designed not to have what most children have.

Annasopra · 15-09-2015 10:02pm

c montgomery wrote: »

Probably because it's a better balance.

Says who?

mattP · 15-09-2015 10:02pm

martinjudge73 wrote:

However when two men cut the mother out of a childs life completely and deliberately then its a problem.

Why is it a problem? If the child was not raised by a mother then the child doesn't have a mother to be removed from.
I can see this going round in circles for hours and hours so here's what I think in a nutshell - Being raised by a loving parent(s) is all that matters. So what if two gay men opted for surrogacy - the child does not know a mother to lose. Instead (s)he has two dads who clearly want the child very much, and so will put the best interests of the Child forward throughout his/her life. I am aware that there are a lot of children out there in the foster care system who need parents - but that applies just as much to straight couples as gay couples.

Annasopra · 15-09-2015 10:04pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Two men can't naturally have children. I have a friend who is the father to two children with a lesbian couple. He has them weekends, he is there father and they have two mothers. They are perfectly fine.

However when two men cut the mother out of a childs life completely and deliberately then its a problem.

We should where possible let nature run its course. Surrogacy is not natural.(for gay or straight people)

Look at the movie Any Day Now. There are many children like this. Gay people need to show their humanity and help children who have been neglected or abandoned. Instead of creating a child that is designed not to have what most children have.

Why is there a problem? How is the child any worse off?

mdudy · 15-09-2015 10:05pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Two men can't naturally have children. I have a friend who is the father to two children with a lesbian couple. He has them weekends, he is there father and they have two mothers. They are perfectly fine.

However when two men cut the mother out of a childs life completely and deliberately then its a problem.

We should where possible let nature run its course. Surrogacy is not natural.(for gay or straight people)

Look at the movie Any Day Now. There are many children like this. Gay people need to show their humanity and help children who have been neglected or abandoned. Instead of creating a child that is designed not to have what most children have.

Your language and choice of words are actually quite insulting.

And FYI a 'designed' baby is one whose actual genetics have been altered to achieve better looks/skills or to eliminate hereditary diseases.

If somebody wants their own child, with their own genetic make up surely that is more natural than adopting a child who does not share the same genetics? No? Okay.

And further, cite an academic study, not a film. Like seriously? A fictional film?

donaghs · 16-09-2015 1:47pm

mattP wrote: »

Why is it a problem? If the child was not raised by a mother then the child doesn't have a mother to be removed from.
I can see this going round in circles for hours and hours so here's what I think in a nutshell - Being raised by a loving parent(s) is all that matters. So what if two gay men opted for surrogacy - the child does not know a mother to lose. Instead (s)he has two dads who clearly want the child very much, and so will put the best interests of the Child forward throughout his/her life. I am aware that there are a lot of children out there in the foster care system who need parents - but that applies just as much to straight couples as gay couples.

What if the child grows up wanting a connection with their natural/DNA mother? Its important that this information should be available. Maybe the child would want more than the name and address of someone, especially if they've passed away or left the country.

It's quite common you know for people to seek out their birth/DNA families, whether their adopted etc).

16-09-2015 2:03pm

c montgomery wrote: »

Probably because it's a better balance.

Not sure what this sentence even means. Can you expand on it a bit? Balance of what? Better how?

martinjudge73 wrote: »

when it comes to children, they deserve where possible a Mother and Father.

You have been using words like "deserve" and "their right" a lot without actually qualifying them in any way. Why do they deserve or require any such thing? Who says it is a "right"?

For me the only thing worth arguing that a child needs is the list of things we know they actually need. Food - stability - protection - education - love - understanding - guidance and so forth. Nothing on this list has any relevance to who actually provides it. Be it a single parent - or 2 or more parents of any sex configuration - or parent(s) with or without a direct family DNA connection.

The things you are arguing for seem to be based on little more than what is traditional - "normal" - or common.

Cody montana wrote: »

I don't want to adopt. I want to carry on my bloodline.

Then your options are quite limited - and in some ways dependant on what sex you yourself are. I do not know you or recall having read any of your posts before - so I will not assume

What options have you considered and which ones have you rejected and why?

Neyite · 16-09-2015 2:17pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

We should where possible let nature run its course. Surrogacy is not natural.(for gay or straight people)

Look at the movie Any Day Now. There are many children like this. Gay people need to show their humanity and help children who have been neglected or abandoned. Instead of creating a child that is designed not to have what most children have.

Adoption and fostering is always trotted out when gay people want a baby. Why?

I'm unable to have a baby with my hetro partner without a doctor or clinic "designing" the process for me. So I'm no different in that respect to a gay couple. The difference is though, that my partner and I can admit that we paid for Assisted Reproduction and would not get judged on our choice to have our own baby instead of fostering or adopting the way a gay couple would. We don't get called selfish because we want a baby with our genetics. No hetro couple faces being grilled that way, or castigated because they chose to impregnate with their own baby instead of taking in a toddler or small child from the other side of the world. I went to the fertility clinic because I wanted to get pregnant, feel the kicks, plan a nursery, look forward to the due date, to give birth to our baby. I wanted to hold my newborn, to do the night feeds.

I'm over the age limit for adoption as is my partner. Even if age was not a factor, our finances are. It can cost tens of thousands to adopt. Very few children are available for adoption, there is a very long waiting list of years.

Foster care requires one of the partners to be a stay at home parent, which is not an option for a lot of families. It also can require specific training because children in foster situations often come with issues that need to be worked on. And some people simply don't want the pain of falling in love with a child, being a parent to them for maybe years only to have that child snatched away from them and the other children in the family and given back to their bio parents. I would love to foster, but I know I'd be broken every time I'd to hand a child back.

Why is it that people who cant have a baby without intervention are constantly in the firing line for seemingly selfish choices but nobody ever hears it said about naturally fertile people who go about having babies all the time?

martinjudge73 · 16-09-2015 9:50pm

mdudy wrote: »

Your language and choice of words are actually quite insulting.

And FYI a 'designed' baby is one whose actual genetics have been altered to achieve better looks/skills or to eliminate hereditary diseases.

If somebody wants their own child, with their own genetic make up surely that is more natural than adopting a child who does not share the same genetics? No? Okay.

And further, cite an academic study, not a film. Like seriously? A fictional film?

However two men or Two Women can't have a Child with their Genetic Make up.

Why is it insulting to accept nature? A gay couple who fosters or adopts is not denying the child a father or mother, they are stepping forward to care for the child.

Paying a women to have a baby for you who will never have a chance to a father or mother at all is not natural. Am I right??

As regards surrogacy, I don't think anyone gay or straight should should avail of it.

eviltwin · 16-09-2015 10:43pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

However two men or Two Women can't have a Child with their Genetic Make up.

Why is it insulting to accept nature? A gay couple who fosters or adopts is not denying the child a father or mother, they are stepping forward to care for the child.

Paying a women to have a baby for you who will never have a chance to a father or mother at all is not natural. Am I right??

As regards surrogacy, I don't think anyone gay or straight should should avail of it.

Of course they can't and that's where the wonder of science comes in. You don't have to agree with it but it's a legitimate option for the OP. He doesn't need people moralising about his desire to have a family.

mdudy · 16-09-2015 10:46pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

However two men or Two Women can't have a Child with their Genetic Make up.

Why is it insulting to accept nature? A gay couple who fosters or adopts is not denying the child a father or mother, they are stepping forward to care for the child.

Paying a women to have a baby for you who will never have a chance to a father or mother at all is not natural. Am I right??

As regards surrogacy, I don't think anyone gay or straight should should avail of it.

No but we're getting closer to that day. British scientists have already made embryos from two females and one male, circa. 2008, however these embryos have not been used and were mainly for research into the elimination of genetic diseases. American scientists have also followed suit. The obvious advancements that these studies will have for same-sex couples are fantastic.

Also Cambridge researchers have demonstrated how to make the cells that will become an egg from the skin cells of a human. They hope to be able to find a way to turn these cells into an egg which can then be fertilised by the other partner in the relationship.

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(14)01583-9

You seem awfully ill informed of surrogacy in general, and full of unreasoned, illogical opinions.

I never said that it is insulting to accept nature, I said your rhetoric was insulting. Procurement of children is an awfully dense way to water down surrogacy; why is it always the people against surrogacy that have a problem with the money involved. People who engage in surrogacy are 100% ready to be parents. Their children are not unplanned; these people have saved hard for their children's future.

And what is nature? Nature evolves. We evolve. Our knowledge of science and medicine evolves and improves. Could surrogacy not be seen as scientifically aided evolution? Or are you a creationist?

No, you're not right. You're completely, obliviously wrong. I was raised by my mother and father. They were definitely not my only gender role models. Infact they were probably my least important, considering how much time a child spends outside the home and around other adults - school, friends, family. A same-sex couple will be even more aware of this, and thus ensure that there are positive gender role models in the child's life. The child is not going to locked in a house for its life with only two men or two women around it.

Assisted reproduction is one of the best and most important scientific advances of our age. How can you be against a loving couple wanting to have a child of their own? There is nothing more heartbreaking to see than people who so desperately want to have a child but naturally can't. Surrogacy inc. IVF bring such hope to these situations.

17-09-2015 8:36am

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Why is it insulting to accept nature? A gay couple who fosters or adopts is not denying the child a father or mother, they are stepping forward to care for the child.

There you go with that same "denying" rhetoric that I questioned above in a post you appear to have decided to just ignore. You are filling the basket of this link between a child and it's genetic actual parents with more relevance than I feel is warranted - or that you have seen fit to justify.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Paying a women to have a baby for you who will never have a chance to a father or mother at all is not natural.

Again - so what? There seems to be some theme in your post that a child having not just parents - but specifically one of each sex - is in some way important or even relevant at all. Yet you are using this as a platform to make your posts from - when the replies are actually questioning that platform - not what you preach from it.

As for "natural" that is even less relevant. I have yet in my entire life seen any reason to mediate our concepts of good and bad based on what is "natural". Natural != good. Unnatural != bad. We do a multitude of things daily that are far from "natural" - including having this very conversation over electrons through the internet - without sparing a moments thought to the moral relevance of the unnatural nature of it. So it seems to me concerns about what is "natural" tend only to be manufactured as a go to argument when no reasonable arguments present themselves.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I don't think anyone gay or straight should should avail of it.

Then you should not avail of it. But if we are to have the conversation that no one else other than you should not avail of it - then that is a conversation that requires a little more substance from you than thus far presented.

And it is a conversation that would be better engaged with without emotionally divisive terminology like the procurement of children as commodities. As if people like the OP are any less invested in a relationship with the child they end up parenting or in the well being of that child. Such rhetoric is designed only to emotionally undermine the parent-child relationship they seek by portraying it as somehow "less" than that the rest of us "norms" enjoy.

martinjudge73 · 17-09-2015 5:37pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Of course they can't and that's where the wonder of science comes in. You don't have to agree with it but it's a legitimate option for the OP. He doesn't need people moralising about his desire to have a family.

I wasn't moralising. The evolution of mankind has taken many millennium. What man naturally has become is a result of nature. We can't on the one hand hold women up and tell them that natures way is best and to breast feed and bond etc... and then say to two men that its fine to pay a women to have a baby for then that is pre-determined never to have a mother. Cutting intentionally the mother out of the picture is going against nature. Its not a moral argument I am making, its a natural one.

Thousands of kids have gone looking for their parents to understand who they are. Its only natural to want to know where you come from.

Every single gay person I know had a Mammy... A mothers female love is unique.

eviltwin · 17-09-2015 6:43pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I wasn't moralising. The evolution of mankind has taken many millennium. What man naturally has become is a result of nature. We can't on the one hand hold women up and tell them that natures way is best and to breast feed and bond etc... and then say to two men that its fine to pay a women to have a baby for then that is pre-determined never to have a mother. Cutting intentionally the mother out of the picture is going against nature. Its not a moral argument I am making, its a natural one.

Thousands of kids have gone looking for their parents to understand who they are. Its only natural to want to know where you come from.

Every single gay person I know had a Mammy... A mothers female love is unique.

Now you are getting into the territory of elevating motherhood to some godlike status. I don't think gender matters. I'm a mother. I'm not particularly motherly. My kids love me and need me because I'm their parent, I'm what they know. If my children had been adopted those people would be the ones my kids love. The love I have for my children is not unique. I do agree with you that where possible children should know their origins though but that's not a gay issue.

Annasopra · 17-09-2015 6:47pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I wasn't moralising. The evolution of mankind has taken many millennium. What man naturally has become is a result of nature. We can't on the one hand hold women up and tell them that natures way is best and to breast feed and bond etc... and then say to two men that its fine to pay a women to have a baby for then that is pre-determined never to have a mother. Cutting intentionally the mother out of the picture is going against nature. Its not a moral argument I am making, its a natural one.

Thousands of kids have gone looking for their parents to understand who they are. Its only natural to want to know where you come from.

Every single gay person I know had a Mammy... A mothers female love is unique.

But it seems to me like you very much are moralising by suggesting that a child who is raised by a gay couple would have inferior parenting.

mattP · 17-09-2015 6:52pm

martinjudge73 wrote:

I wasn't moralising. The evolution of mankind has taken many millennium. What man naturally has become is a result of nature. We can't on the one hand hold women up and tell them that natures way is best and to breast feed and bond etc... and then say to two men that its fine to pay a women to have a baby for then that is pre-determined never to have a mother. Cutting intentionally the mother out of the picture is going against nature. Its not a moral argument I am making, its a natural one.

You imply that two men are inadequate parents - although you try very hard to dance around saying that.

martinjudge73 wrote:

Thousands of kids have gone looking for their parents to understand who they are. Its only natural to want to know where you come from.

And if they want to find out about their birth mother they can. Your point is...?

martinjudge73 wrote:

Every single gay person I know had a Mammy... A mothers female love is unique.

An awful, terribly blunt attemp at pathos rhetoric. A parents love is unique. Everyone loves differently; but one thing is damn sure - if two gay men opt for surrogacy you know they will love that child no matter what.

jobbridge4life · 17-09-2015 7:12pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Exactly. If a gay couple wants to support a child then adoption or fostering is the right path. Lots of kids that need support. If straight people object then just ask them why they didn't adopt or foster the child.

Your position is completely devoid of logic and boils down to the following...

'gays = good enough to parent straight parents cast offs but...
gays not good enough to parent a child of their own bearing.'

If you have the faintest reason that the above makes sense in a non prejudiced way I'd really like to read it.

18-09-2015 8:57am

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I wasn't moralising. The evolution of mankind has taken many millennium.

Genetically yes. But our evolution has been much faster since the advent of cultural evolution. The concerns and products of which in many ways overrule and biological evolutionary concerns. We are no longer a slave to our evolutionary past - least of all morally. Which is why I rubbish any attempts to mediate the morality of subjects like this by declaring by fiat what is "natural" or not. Your "going against nature" nonsense is just that - nonsense - and we "go against nature" all the time every day in nearly everything we do. Think about that next time you don a condom.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Thousands of kids have gone looking for their parents to understand who they are.

And multitudes more have not. It sounds like a large number but in the greater scheme of the size of the human population it is insignificant. This is however their choice if they want to pursue their heredity.

It has nothing to do with homosexuals looking for surrogacy - but is an issue across the board for adoption and more. But that SOME kids grow up and make this decision later in life - that says nothing much at all about the actual morality of adoption or surrogacy.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Every single gay person I know had a Mammy... A mothers female love is unique.

Quite the assertion and one that sounds pretty and lovely on paper but is in fact not that true. Parental love is a thing - but I have seen no reason to think that females have some unique form of it. We all afford love to our children - biological or not - and the impression there is something unique about one sex over the other appears to stem from little more than them being individuals. Was my mothers love unique in relation to my fathers love? Sure - but because they were individuals not because they were male and female.

martinjudge73 · 18-09-2015 5:15pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Your position is completely devoid of logic and boils down to the following...

'gays = good enough to parent straight parents cast offs but...
gays not good enough to parent a child of their own bearing.'

If you have the faintest reason that the above makes sense in a non prejudiced way I'd really like to read it.

Two gay people can't bear children. Its not devoid of logic, its accepting reality.

As for saying that adopting is parenting straight parents cast offs.. Well that is very insulting to those child, esp to the many children that Gay People have adopted.

Children are not pets that we bring to life for our pleasure, they are the result of union of a Man/Woman. That is nature. When we turn against nature it creates all sorts of problems as we have seen time and time again. you can't call me prejudiced for saying a Child should know its Father and Mother, know where it came from, know how his/her grandparents died, know their brothers or sisters. We go down the route of surrogacy we could end up with people not knowing anything about half their family..BY DESIGN.

This thread is about wanting to have kids. Gay people are perfectly able to raise a child and love it. My point is that deciding to bring a child into the world without any contact with one or other of its nature parents is wrong. (be it a straight or gay person doing this).

The Randy Riverbeast · 18-09-2015 6:54pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Children are not pets that we bring to life for our pleasure

They tend to be just that. I wouldn't call them pets but a lot of couple plan to have a child because they want one. They derive some happiness from having a child so they have one. It's the same for plenty of people regardless of their sexuality.

Annasopra · 19-09-2015 8:37am

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

They tend to be just that. I wouldn't call them pets but a lot of couple plan to have a child because they want one. They derive some happiness from having a child so they have one. It's the same for plenty of people regardless of their sexuality.

It's really much more than that.

LLMMML · 20-09-2015 2:45pm

I don't think its about a child needing a mother and father. It's about a child having a genetic parent which it probably won't have access to. Especially if done in another country.

In the case of adoption it's fine as the child by circumstance will not have access to his genetic parents, regardless of whether a gay or straight couple adopt him.

With assists reproduction it's also fone (assuming the parents sperm and egg are used) as that child has full access to his genetic parents.

Sperm donation and surrogacy purposely create a situation where a child does not have access to one of his genetic parents. It's not that he needs a mother. It's that she exists and the child has limited (if any) access to her. I don't know if egg donors in the US keep in touch with the resulting children of their donations but I doubt it.

wakka12 · 20-09-2015 2:56pm

mattP wrote: »

May I ask why its that important?
I myself believe that we're all humans parenting other humans, like 90% of that childs DNA will be the same as any other childs, the thing that inspires a bond has nothing to do with blood, it has to do with early mornings, late nights, blood (metaphorical) sweat and a lot of tears.

Its important to some people okay, he doesn't need to justify why he wants to carry on his bloodline. Theres nothing wrong with it.

wakka12 · 20-09-2015 2:59pm

Also, it will soon be possible to create babies using two sperm or two eggs alone.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/two-father-babies-could-soon-be-possible-no-egg-donor-required
Great news for lesbian couples, but men will still need to find a surrogate mother.

Wanting to have kids

Comments