Wanting to have kids

Annasopra · 21-09-2015 9:08pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I'm not saying anything about any parental configuration being better, or indeed worse, than any other.

Yes you are. That is what you said.

One eyed Jack wrote:

it is considered by society to be the optimal parental configuration for a child (or children). Biologically, socially and culturally, the overwhelming evidence supports this view.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 9:36pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are enough genuine points to mediate around the eligibility of any parent or set of parents to meet their task of parenting a child without concerning oneself with how "different" a child may or may not feel for something so trivial.

See, to you, these matters are trivial, but to many of the children I have talked to, they are anything but trivial.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet the accusation remains true. If you are selling a narrative that a parental configuration is "less than ideal" or "compromises the welfare of a children" merely because it makes that child stand out as "different" then while you may be focusing on same sex couples specifically.... the argument you are making very much does apply to those other things the users here have listed.

I am not selling a narrative of anything being less than ideal. Do you understand at all what I mean when I suggest that most people in society aspire to an ideal. It's an aspiration. The OP was specifically interested in starting a thread in the LGBT forum to discuss whether other people share their aspiration to be a parent. They acknowledge the biological aspects of the equation, and what I am interested in discussing is the social and cultural implications of the idea of same sex parenting and whether it will ever become as normalised in society as an opposite sex married couple. This would certainly reduce the stigma upon children who are indeed the children of same sex parents. There are a few posters here who seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is a stigma in society towards children of same sex parents, and I would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss that and see what others thought. Clearly, some people don't think a whole lot of the idea.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have known, for example, genetically deaf people who married and chose to have children. They did so in full knowledge their children would be deaf too. This stands out. This is not the "norm". So your point applies to them too.

I have also close friends who were born to, and who themselves are, mixed race parents. And their children are very visibly what many people describe as "half Cast". This is also not "the norm" and it also stands out. Therefore your narrative very much does apply to those people too.

The same can be said for anything that makes a child feel different in the narrative you are selling here. Parents are in wheelchairs when no one else parents are? Feel different! Parents are midgets? Feel different! Parents are unemployed? Feel different! I could list this until one of us turns blue in the face.

It displays your own lack of faith in your own point that you throw it out there, but act like it magically does not apply to any other cases but the one you want it to, when it in fact does.

I too have plenty of anecdotal evidence that wouldn't be all that dissimilar to the anecdotes you present above, but I shall concern myself for the moment with the subject of this thread, and the criteria that are relevant to this thread, rather than be drawn off on other unrelated tangents.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you are describing one configuration as "ideal" and therefore the other ones as less than ideal, then you very much ARE saying something about some being better and worse than others. You might not want to be, but that is exactly what that rhetoric does, whether it sits well with you that you are doing so or not.

If you choose to perceive it that way, fair enough. That's nothing even close to what I said though.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But as others have pointed out you are right, you are SAYING that one is the ideal. But saying it, and repeating it, is about all you are doing. I am certainly not seeing you support it in any way with anything remotely approaching argument, evidence, data or reasoning.

I'll do better when you're paying me for my time, but until then, well, we're merely having a discussion on the internet that isn't likely to have any effect upon any forthcoming or future legislation regarding the welfare of children of married same sex couples in Irish society.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 9:46pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes you are. That is what you said.

It's as though you're purposely trying to quote me out of context and misrepresent my opinion. The very least you could do is read the rest of the post and you might better understand the context. These are the posts you're referring to in full -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule in society that says all children must have a mother and a father, but it is considered by society to be the optimal parental configuration for a child (or children). Biologically, socially and culturally, the overwhelming evidence supports this view.

Having two parents of the same sex is at best a compromise for the child (or children), that gives more weight to the welfare of the parents, than it does the child's welfare. Two parents of the same sex is not the optimal configuration for a child (or children).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I'm not saying anything about any parental configuration being better, or indeed worse, than any other. I'm saying that the ideal (which is an aspiration, rather than a reality), is two parents of opposite sex. I've already stated that their sexual orientation and what they get up to in the confines of their bedroom is irrelevant (in my opinion at least) to their ability to raise children.

You can clearly see when I am giving an objective opinion regarding society's attitudes to same sex couples raising children, and my own personal attitude to same sex couples raising children.

Annasopra · 21-09-2015 10:35pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's as though you're purposely trying to quote me out of context and misrepresent my opinion.

No.

I'm stripping everything away and simplifying what you said. I think all of your added context is completely irrelevant really.

The nub of what you are essentially saying is that parenting by a man and a woman is optimal (i.e. best). You're trying to dance around the issue in a wordy manner and claim that all the other added "context" matters. It doesn't.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 11:02pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No.

I'm stripping everything away and simplifying what you said. I think all of your added context is completely irrelevant really.

The nub of what you are essentially saying is that parenting by a man and a woman is optimal (i.e. best). You're trying to dance around the issue in a wordy manner and claim that all the other added "context" matters. It doesn't.

I'm genuinely not trying to dance around any issues in a wordy manner. I have my own personal experience of children of same sex parents, and their parents obviously, and we have talked about the stigma and the prejudice that they have faced in society, because of their unconventional family unit (though clearly not recognised as a family unit under the Irish Constitution).

Even in the many, many SSM threads there were on Boards, there was often opinons expressed along the lines of "I have no problem with marriage equality, but I don't think they should be allowed adopt children". You know how to use the search function.

What I am saying is, that in Irish society, as a whole, regards the optimum, or the ideal, or the aspirational goal if you like, as being a married opposite sex couple raising children. I even remember making the point myself in the SSM threads that many parents in same sex relationships are already raising children, and I was usually pointing that out to people who made the assumption above or were ignorant of the changes in legislation that were the Children and Family Relationships Bill at the time.

The added context does matter, perhaps not to some posters here, but to me personally, it does matter, because I try to take everything into consideration in discussing issues with people.

Annasopra · 21-09-2015 11:23pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I am saying is, that in Irish society, as a whole, regards the optimum, or the ideal, or the aspirational goal if you like, as being a married opposite sex couple raising children.

Fair enough. I accept that in general a lot of people in Irish society might have those views. I don't accept that that opinion or viewpoint is correct. I haven't seen any evidence at all that the ideal best way a child should be parented is a married opposite sex couple.

I also do completely accept your point that children with parents who are gay may struggle because they are different. However I think that is a matter of society learning to challenge that prejudice rather than allowing it to fester.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2015 8:18am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See, to you, these matters are trivial, but to many of the children I have talked to, they are anything but trivial.

Ah more of that "personal experience" and "people I have talked to" stuff you trot out anecdotally but unverified whenever actual evidence fails you. Yes I do feel it is trivial.... RELATIVE.... to the host of other concerns we have for a childs well being.

And that triviality does not just come from it itself being trivial, but from the fact you keep avoiding that there are INNUMERABLE reasons why a child might feel "different" and you are ineffectually flapping around a single one as if it makes a point.

It is further made trivial by the fact that differences are a GOOD thing and not something to be prevented or socially innoculated against. So the triviality of your non-point comes from not one, but THREE levels.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am not selling a narrative of anything being less than ideal.

Except in your own words you are and I am not the only one on the thread taking this meaning from it. So either you very much are selling that narrative, or you have simply worded your actual narrative so horrifically badly as to leave everyone but you with a different understanding of it.

Because if you say one configuration is the "ideal" and every other configuration is less than this ideal or a "compromise" of it.... then that IS the narrative you are selling of one being better than another. That is what "ideal" and "not ideal" mean relative to each other. Especially if you suggest, as you have, that it is a compromise of the child's very welfare.

Now I am open minded enough to suggest that if this is not what you mean then you simply word it better to tell us what you mean. But as you have worded it thus far.... repeatedly..... this is the only workable interpretation on offer from your words.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a few posters here who seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is a stigma in society towards children of same sex parents

Not that I have seen. Rather what I have seen is that people very much acknowledge it but do not think it is as large or as relevant as you do. Further they appear to think that not pandering to it, but proceeding with same sex parenting regardless, is the "we do not negotiate with terrorists" style response to it. They are doing _nothing_ wrong so they should not pander to the sources of such stigma, but should proceed regardless and to hell with them. And with time same sex parenting will be normalised well beyond the current state.... much like how single parenting is now much more normalised and lower in stigma than it would have been 20 or 30 years ago.

So no, do not misconstrue so willfully and falsely people simply parsing the point differently and coming to different conclusions on how to proceed relative to it.... as not acknowledging the point at all. It is the exact opposite.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I shall concern myself for the moment with the subject of this thread

Except they are not unrelated. They are the exact same thing, just with a slightly different subject matter. And the differing subject matter is not used so easily to simply dodge the point as you clearly wish to.

The simple fact is that these children will feel "different" too. And the sheer number of people feeling different for the sheer number of differing reasons, belies just how irrelevant your point is. The reason you want to dismiss the other examples entirely is because reality dilutes your point, and if you focus on one example if it and one only, it seems more relevant than it actually is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you choose to perceive it that way, fair enough. That's nothing even close to what I said though.

It is the only way to parse the words you have used. And there are 2 or 3 users above who are taking the _exact_ same meaning from it too. I know from much experience how communication can break down and how others can mistakenly or even willfully misrepresent what one is saying. But there also comes a point when you have to realize that perhaps the fault is with you and your wording and not with everyone else.

And the fact is you HAVE been saying one configuration is the "ideal" and every other one is less than this ideal, a compromise of this ideal, or a compromise of the wellfare of the child. Not just in one post, but in numerous posts. And not just one user but 4+ have noticed this and parsed it that way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll do better when you're paying me for my time

Yea just another one of your cop out throw away remarks here for why you will not be backing up anything you say. You do have quite the variety of them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I am saying is, that in Irish society, as a whole, regards the optimum, or the ideal, or the aspirational goal if you like, as being a married opposite sex couple raising children.

There is a large difference between saying "people regard it as the ideal" and "it actually is the ideal". The latter is something you have said numerous times in this thread and suggested it was supported by evidence you have not offered.

The former is something you are now simply back pedaling into, and is not something I disagree with heavily. There are many people who reckon this is the "ideal" but I reckon they have about as much basis for thinking so as you appear to. Which is to say: None.

But when discussing the ethics or morality of the issue, discussing with the OP how and whether he should have children, or anything else along those lines.... we should be concerned with what IS the ideals not what some handful of people of whatever size suspect the ideals may be.

One eyed Jack · 22-09-2015 8:29am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah more of that "personal experience" and "people I have talked to" stuff you trot out anecdotally but unverified whenever actual evidence fails you. Yes I do feel it is trivial.... RELATIVE.... to the host of other concerns we have for a childs well being.

What's this 'we' business? You can't speak for anyone but yourself, and you certainly don't, and will never speak for me.

I have no interest in addressing the rest of your thanks whoring waffle.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2015 8:37am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this 'we' business? You can't speak for anyone but yourself, and you certainly don't, and will never speak for me.

Nor have I pretended to. You really do have issues with the word "we" all the time. You constantly resort to this narrative that I am using it to pretend to speak for others. I am doing no such thing. WE as a society have a host of concerns related to our children. That is what I said here. No more. No less. when you want to cop out of answering a post it seems you just trawl through it for the word "we" and then go off on one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no interest in addressing the rest of your thanks whoring waffle.

Another one of your cop out throw away phrases. You have no interest in answering it because you can not. But rather than admit that, you just make it about me or make stuff up about me and playing the man but not the ball again. You are completely out of line here. Some Decorum please.

One eyed Jack · 22-09-2015 8:52am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor have I pretended to. You really do have issues with the word "we" all the time. You constantly resort to this narrative that I am using it to pretend to speak for others. I am doing no such thing. WE as a society have a host of concerns related to our children. That is what I said here. No more. No less. when you want to cop out of answering a post it seems you just trawl through it for the word "we" and then go off on one.

I didn't trawl through it for the word 'we', it was in the first bloody paragraph, and you didn't say we as a society, and even then you cannot extrapolate out what to you seems trivial, as though it applies to the rest of society. I don't get the whole 'coming out' idea for people who are LGBT, but I'm not so ignorant as to assume that just because it's trivial for me, everyone else feels the same way I do.

Another one of your cop out throw away phrases. You have no interest in answering it because you can not. But rather than admit that, you just make it about me or make stuff up about me and playing the man but not the ball again. You are completely out of line here. Some Decorum please.

I read through your post, and only in the last paragraph did you start addressing my last post. Joey got where I was coming from, and that was enough for me. I don't care if four, or a million other people didn't get where I was coming from. You wasted your own time typing out all the rest of that post which was mostly just obtuse waffle and snide condescension... and then you demand decorum?

You've got balls, I'll say that much.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2015 9:18am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't trawl through it for the word 'we', it was in the first bloody paragraph, and you didn't say we as a society

In this case yes, but I was not limiting what I said to this case. I was discussing your MO as a whole. And context is everything. I did not say "society" because it was not required. It is abundantly clear that I mean we as a society, or as a people, have a host of concerns for the well being of our children. I have, you have, everyone on this thread seemingly has. There is _nothing wrong_ with my use of the word here. You just used it to get pedantic over trivialities to dodge replying to any of the actual content of my post.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and even then you cannot extrapolate out what to you seems trivial

I have explained on three different levels why it is trivial, any one of which alone torpedoes the relevance of the child feeling "different" but all three together is over kill.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read through your post

And then dodged the entire content with a throw away empty nonsense. And the entire post, not just the last paragraph, was relevant to yours. So stop pretending otherwise just to excuse coping out of it so bruskly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

mostly just obtuse waffle and snide condescension... and then you demand decorum?

It was not such thing at all. You are just making that up to justify your completely out of line emotional reaction it it.

One eyed Jack · 22-09-2015 9:44am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In this case yes, but I was not limiting what I said to this case. I was discussing your MO as a whole. And context is everything. I did not say "society" because it was not required. It is abundantly clear that I mean we as a society, or as a people, have a host of concerns for the well being of our children. I have, you have, everyone on this thread seemingly has. There is _nothing wrong_ with my use of the word here. You just used it to get pedantic over trivialities to dodge replying to any of the actual content of my post.

So you expect I should understand what you mean to say, when you yourself constantly, and I mean constantly, nitpick through my posts and go so far as to critique and criticise my understanding of english, and then you assume I should magically understand where you're coming from because you failed to make yourself clear. I'm hardly being pedantic when you have set the standard.

I have explained on three different levels why it is trivial, any one of which alone torpedoes the relevance of the child feeling "different" but all three together is over kill.

All you have actually done is explained in three different ways why you consider it trivial. Just because something is irrelevant to you, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to anyone else. I used the example of a person coming out, and the fact that I don't get it, but that seems to have gone over your head, or more likely, you must have considered it irrelevant.

And then dodged the entire content with a throw away empty nonsense. And the entire post, not just the last paragraph, was relevant to yours. So stop pretending otherwise just to excuse coping out of it so bruskly.

If you choose to pad out your posts with personal insults and my 'MO', or reference my posts in other forums and criticise my english, damn straight your posts are going to be dealt with bruskly. Show a small amount of cop on, and I may be more amenable and open to showing your posts some decorum.

It was not such thing at all. You are just making that up to justify your completely out of line emotional reaction it it.

My what? Honestly, in written form, you have no clue of my emotional state. Instead of trying to read into what I've written, try reading what I actually have written, and respond to that, instead of making all sorts of personal digs, and then calling for decorum?

You get back what you put out there, and if you can't treat people with respect, you can expect the same in return. All that is required of me here is that I keep it civil. I don't have to show you any respect when you have consistently treated my posts as something you wouldn't wipe your arse with.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2015 10:24am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you expect I should understand what you mean to say, when you yourself constantly, and I mean constantly, nitpick through my posts

Two entirely different things. You have in the past blatantly misunderstood basic English. There is an example above where you took the phrase "So what?" from another user as a dismissal when it was the opposite. And correcting those errors is NOT nit picking at all.

This is entirely different from my entirely correct usage of "we" in the context I used it. You are simply nitpicking language to distract from the fact you are contriving to not actually answer or respond to a SHRED of the content of my actual post after your threw your toys out of the pram above with your entirely vacuous stock "waffle" phrase.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All you have actually done is explained in three different ways why you consider it trivial.

Nope, false from you again. What I did was explain why it is trivial with arguments entirely independent of me. Your issue is that the child will feel somehow "different" for having Same Sex parents.

This argument trivialises ITSELF in the face of the innumerable reasons why any child can and does feel different. Nothing to do with ME here. The argument is independant of me.

As is the argument that differences are a good thing anyway and not to be avoided. Again nothing to do with me. The arguments stands apart from me, on it's own merits, and you are simply not addressing it but making it all about me to dodge it.

The same with the argument that we should not be pandering to such standards in the first place. If some people have an issue with others being "different" then that is a mark against THEM, not against the thing that makes the child "different" in any sense.

And it is quite apparent that you do not even take your own argument that seriously when we see how desperately you want to dodge the implications of it. The same argument would be EQUALLY applicable to children of midgets, deaf people, people in wheelchairs, mixed race parents and much more.

So no, these arguments stand entirely for themselves independent of any subjectivity you want to impart to them with imagination.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you choose to pad out your posts with personal insults

I have done no such thing. So once _again_ you are merely inventing trivialities to derail the discussion and your entire response from this line on can be dismissed at this level. From making things up I have not done..... to vacuous throw away phrases like "waffle" you are simply contriving not to answer the content of my post and dismiss it and run.

I am not so easily derailed so I will simply summarize the dodged points again and bring the discussion back to the topic that you are so transparently desperate to derail it from:

1) You have discussed some kind of "ideal" without establishing on any level what it is, how you constructed it, or what form it takes.

2) You have called the opposite sex two person configuration the "ideal" and suggested this is supported by "overwhelming evidence" which you have not actually provided despite multiple requests from more than one person.

3) You have simultaneously declared that one configuration is the ideal while all others are beneath this ideal, a compromise, or a compromise of the welfare of a child. Yet in the next breath you declare you have not said anything about one being better than the other. So you are _either_ drastically contradicting yourself OR you have simply articulated your position remarkably badly.

4) You appear to think that a child feeling a little "different" from other children is inherently a bad thing. Yet you have not really supported this claim in any real sense other than essentially saying: I have talked to some people who agree with me sometime somewhere that I can not verify in any way.

5) You have failed to establish the relevance of a child feeling different at all, either in relation to the great wealth of actual concerns we have related to the welfare of our children, or in terms of the sheer size of other factors that currently have children feeling "different".

22-09-2015 10:32am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you suggesting that having looked around, you cannot see that the vast majority of children in Irish society are raised by heterosexual married couples?

Never said or even suggested that once. Read the post again - Try understanding it again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there is a difference in how society views those who deviate from the norm.

Never denied once that there is a difference in how some people in society view some things. I just do not think consideration of whether they are unconventional or not is relevant to a consideration of whether they are "ideal" or not. I see them as two different things. You see a link it seems but are not explaining it's relevance at all well.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if we are to regard what is most beneficial for children in that society, then we must acknowledge and take all factors into account

And that is what the approach I suggested twice or more now does. You start from the bottom up - consider the things that are "ideal" for the welfrare and upbringing of a child - and then using that list decide what parental configurations are ideal or not.

I suggested things that could and should be on that list. Protection. Food. Security. Shelter. Education. And more. And the things I suggest should be on the list I can argue for why they should be on the list if asked.

What I am not seeing is why "Feeling no different from anyone else" - or some argument like it - should be on that list. I am seeing that assumed in your posts - but I am not seeing any support for it as a position.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Strawman arguments don't help. That's not any narrative I'm selling. I'm talking specifically with regard to the children of same sex couples.

Then thankfully no straw man arguments were used. You are talking specifically about one case yes - no one is denying that. What you are not liking is that people are showing the implications of the specific argument you are making. Because the argument you make applies to those cases too - and you have not made a single suggestion as to why they do not.

So yes - if you declare SSM parenting is "less ideal" because it makes the child feel "different" - than that same argument is equally applicable in every way to - say - the "half caste" children of inter-racial couples in Ireland. Because they are every bit "outside the majority norm" as SSM parents would be.

If you do not like the implications of your own argument - perhaps it is useful to revisit the argument for yourself.

One eyed Jack · 22-09-2015 10:52am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Two entirely different things. You have in the past blatantly misunderstood basic English.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Never said or even suggested that once. Read the post again - Try understanding it again.

If I didn't know better, I'd be given to thinking you're both more interested in yourselves, and less interested in actually contributing anything worth reading. That's what I actually don't understand. My english is fine btw, seems to be easily understood by the vast majority of posters on Boards, except for you two.

I can live with that compromise.

22-09-2015 10:53am

Once again you commenting on the poster and not the post - to deflect from the fact you are not replying to anything in that post. If you want to get back to the topic any time and actually reply to what I have written - I will be here.

folamh · 22-09-2015 10:57am

I'm not opposed to surrogacy being legal, but the idea of using females as incubators makes me uncomfortable.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2015 11:00am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I didn't know better, I'd be given to thinking you're both more interested in yourselves, and less interested in actually contributing anything worth reading.

Well lucky you do know better than is it not, but nice dodge of my entire post _AGAIN_. I have always loved the phrase "If I did not know better I would think" however because it allows one to make a comment but not actually invest in that comment. It would be like me saying "If I did not know better, I would think you are highly emotionally invested in making people think you are much more informed and intelligent than you actually are, and the source of your emotional outbursts when confronted is due to people hindering that agenda".

See how it works? You can start the sentence with "If I did not know better" then throw out anything, and then not have to invest in backing it up because you can simply back pedal behind "Oh I was not saying that, I was saying that is what I WOULD think if I did not know better".

But linguistic gymnastics aside it is clear that this is another in a line of posts on this thread where you are throwing out a vacuous non-response in order to not ACTUALLY reply to another user in any way. So I think it VERY clear here which one of us is "less interested in actually contributing anything worth reading." and your first clue is: Its not me.

Lets stick to the topic and thread as I requested above and stop you playing the man not the ball. I am not so easily derailed so I will simply summarize the dodged points again and bring the discussion back to the topic that you are so transparently desperate to derail it from:

1) You have discussed some kind of "ideal" without establishing on any level what it is, how you constructed it, or what form it takes.

2) You have called the opposite sex two person configuration the "ideal" and suggested this is supported by "overwhelming evidence" which you have not actually provided despite multiple requests from more than one person.

3) You have simultaneously declared that one configuration is the ideal while all others are beneath this ideal, a compromise, or a compromise of the welfare of a child. Yet in the next breath you declare you have not said anything about one being better than the other. So you are _either_ drastically contradicting yourself OR you have simply articulated your position remarkably badly.

4) You appear to think that a child feeling a little "different" from other children is inherently a bad thing. Yet you have not really supported this claim in any real sense other than essentially saying: I have talked to some people who agree with me sometime somewhere that I can not verify in any way.

5) You have failed to establish the relevance of a child feeling different at all, either in relation to the great wealth of actual concerns we have related to the welfare of our children, or in terms of the sheer size of other factors that currently have children feeling "different".

folamh wrote: »

I'm not opposed to surrogacy being legal, but the idea of using females as incubators makes me uncomfortable.

The idea of USING them as such would not sit well with me either. A scenario where a woman perfectly happily volunteers herself for it and is entirely ok with it however sits just fine with me I think. Because it is her body, her choice, and her life. And that is the exact opposite of "using" her for anything. Or at least you are no more "using" her than you are "using" a waitress when you order your meal, or a taxi driver when you request they take you somewhere.

For example a close friend of mine recently needed blood. I happily put myself forward as a donor. I was being his friend. I was not being "used by him" as a blood bank or blood cell production factory.

wonderfulname · 22-09-2015 1:29pm

**MOD POST

If everybody would like to calm down and take a step back for a moment...

taxAHcruel - If you feel someones posting goes against the rules of the site please report it rather than stating so on thread, it doesn't help matters.

One eyed "I have no interest in addressing the rest of your thanks whoring waffle" Jack - This is a discussion site, where we discuss topics, if you cannot contribute don't respond. This is a warning, if you continue to post in this fashion you will be banned from the thread.

And lastly all, below is the topic, as set out in the OP, stick to it:

Cody montana wrote: »

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?

wakka12 · 22-09-2015 7:14pm

folamh wrote: »

I'm not opposed to surrogacy being legal, but the idea of using females as incubators makes me uncomfortable.

So don't think of them as incubators. They're not inanimate objects, they are helping a couple who can't conceive. Its a beautiful thing and shouldn't make you uncomfortable.

frostyjacks · 23-09-2015 7:35am

wakka12 wrote: »

So don't think of them as incubators. They're not inanimate objects, they are helping a couple who can't conceive. Its a beautiful thing and shouldn't make you uncomfortable.

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

mattP · 23-09-2015 7:45am

frostyjacks wrote:

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit.

Thats a pretty rash generalisation to make, dont you think?

wakka12 · 23-09-2015 7:49am

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Slight generalisation no? I only know of one surrogate mother personally and she conceived for her best friend and her husband who were unable to have a child of their own.

frostyjacks · 23-09-2015 8:24am

wakka12 wrote: »

Slight generalisation no? I only know of one surrogate mother personally and she conceived for her best friend and her husband who were unable to have a child of their own.

I think you were generalising when you said surrogacy was a beautiful thing. It's big business, which reduces women to baby-making factories. Exploits women in the third world as well.

Annasopra · 23-09-2015 8:28am

If you want a debate on the morality of surrogacy try the humanities forum

Hexen · 23-09-2015 10:26am

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Surrogacy laws differ by country. In Ireland there's no legal framework, if one comes in it is likely to make commercial surrogacy illegal. In many countries it is illegal whether commercial or altruistic (France, Italy). Other countries allow surrogacy only if it is non-commerical (Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK - expenses are covered in the UK). Some countries allow both altruistic and non-commercial surrogacy (India, Georgia).

It is a big business in India but I guess that is not relevant to this thread as under legislation passed there in 2013 it is illegal to act as a surrogate for same-sex couples (or unmarried, or single people).

martinjudge73 · 23-09-2015 8:03pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Yes.. that was the point I was making because I was digitally killed. Who could imagine gay people are so unfriendly to other LGBT people.

Annasopra · 23-09-2015 8:23pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you want a debate on the morality of surrogacy try the humanities forum

Further debates on surrogacy will be deleted.

OldNotWIse · 04-11-2015 2:17pm

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.

Children placed for adoption are some kind of charity cause now? They're more likely to be from a woman who is incredibly selfless and has made an impossible, difficult decision to give up a baby that she has carried for nine months for reasons only she has the right to base her decision on, and a couple who clearly desperately want a child and have gone through the nightmare of the screening and processing of prospective parents.

I don't see any "charity" in that, nor do I fully understand you reasoning behind why, if you think having gay parents is so bad, that it's acceptable for a child who has been placed for adoption to be given to them? Are they lesser beings? I don't agree with you that a child needs a parent of both sex, but why does your argument not extend to children placed for adoption? Are they on the scrap heap? Give them to the gays because nobody wanted them?

OldNotWIse · 04-11-2015 2:18pm

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Yes.. that was the point I was making because I was digitally killed. Who could imagine gay people are so unfriendly to other LGBT people.

How dare gay people not be one big happy, rainbow coloured family....

Wanting to have kids

Comments