Irish Independent: Mums and dads are optional extras in the evolution of families.

Links234

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-mums-and-dads-are-optional-extras-in-the-evolution-of-families-2481459.html

Pretty rotten article!

I find it odd that it doesn't cite any kind of research that children would be any less cared for, or that not having a biological mother and father would be a considerable drawback, the author just kind of assumes it as if it were fact, ending the article with:

Where are the so-called "children's rights" campaigners when you want them most?

I also hate these kinds of tangents:

We give in to whatever demands the gay lobby makes of us simply in order to show our "tolerance".

it's a tactic that some people think gives them leave to say something offensive :rolleyes:

mikom

Pretty rotten Thread title!

rainbow kirby

David Quinn really doesn't deserve the oxygen of publicity at all. He just needs something or someone to flail at every few weeks.

Links234

mikom wrote: »

Pretty rotten Thread title!

sigh, nitpickers... it's fixed.

Chuchoter

To be honest most of the time I find the daily mail more balanced and reasonable than that rag of a broadsheet. I've written to them several times over the **** they come out with, like putting gay people and paedophiles in the same list of 'deviants' and calling Kim Petras' transition basically similar to giving your kid an iphone because they pestered you enough. No-one ever calls them up on anything :mad:

L1011

David Quinn has some serious issues which mean that he has to throw a jibe about homosexuality in to every third (or more) article he writes. If I was him, I'd be off to a psychologist to take a look and see if there's anything I was repressing...

baby and crumble

it's the Independent.

/thread.

Chuchoter

Its not even just him, its the entire damn paper.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/children-arent-guinea-pigs-1632440.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/remember-a-baby-is-for-life-not-just-for-christmas-2480829.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-scalpel-cant-rewrite-history-whatever-the-surgery-2236627.html

I don't understand why this is allowed in a major newspaper. I wouldn't mind, but when half the country (including my family) read the stupid thing they are much more inclined to believe their opinion than any other one.

DS333

The same David Quinn who, when it suits him, will claim that he and the Church have nothing against gays... You know that once he's said that he'll launch into something offensive - like throwing a dog a bone and then kicking it in the teeth. For all his christianity, he seems to have forgotten that his Boss said that the one and only commandment was to love God above all things and your neighbour as yourself. Perhaps, in his eyes, we don't count as neighbours. God alone knows... A sad individual, I'd say.

Since I'm very christian myself I won't say, "I hope.":D

baby and crumble

reading those links (which I would never usually do seeing as I HATE the independent and hate giving their site traffic...) I really do believe that years ago the reporters there would have been supporters of the eugenics movement, no doubt arguing for the forced sterilization of people with disabilities.

How on earth can anybody not think that removing/changing someones genitals without their consent is a horrendous breach of human rights???????????????????????????????????????? (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/children-arent-guinea-pigs-1632440.html)

Azure_sky

rainbow kirby wrote: »

David Quinn really doesn't deserve the oxygen of publicity at all. He just needs something or someone to flail at every few weeks.

That man is the Bill O' Reilly the Irish media and the Indo' is the Fox news of the Irish media. They take a conservative slant on almost everything.

crayolastereo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/children-arent-guinea-pigs-1632440.html



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/remember-a-baby-is-for-life-not-just-for-christmas-2480829.html



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-scalpel-cant-rewrite-history-whatever-the-surgery-2236627.html



I don't understand why this is allowed in a major newspaper. I wouldn't mind, but when half the country (including my family) read the stupid thing they are much more inclined to believe their opinion than any other one.

Freedom of the press and supply and demand. If enough people didn't buy it then it wouldn't be exist in its current state.

SugarHigh

I agree with him about falsifying the birth being stupid. If you played no part in the Childs birth why would appear on the birth cert and just because you are not going to raise the kid doesn't mean your name should be removed from it.

Pretending the child has a different lineage doesn't make it true and they will still have to keep a record of his biological parents for medical reasons.

They can still be good parents but why pretend they did something they didn't.

Chuchoter

They change adoptive birth certs. Putting a randomers name on a birth cert doesn't mean you'll be able to track them down to get a big medical history when you need them, all it does is create loads of legal crap to wade through.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

They change adoptive birth certs. Putting a randomers name on a birth cert doesn't mean you'll be able to track them down to get a big medical history when you need them, all it does is create loads of legal crap to wade through.

I like how the person who actually gave birth is just "some randomer". A birth cert is a historical record of facts. You can't wish away facts. Why not just give them a deed poll?

And yes knowing the parents name would-be quite useful when tracking down that persons medical history.

Links234

Azure_sky wrote: »

That man is the Bill O' Reilly the Irish media and the Indo' is the Fox news of the Irish media. They take a conservative slant on almost everything.



Freedom of the press and supply and demand. If enough people didn't buy it then it wouldn't be exist in its current state.

ugh, there's some dire garbage...

Gender identity disorder: not so much a medical syndrome as a career choice for the aspiring celebrity.

I don't swear much, but ****ing hell :mad:

rainbow kirby

Links234 wrote: »

I don't swear much, but ****ing hell :mad:

Might be best not to read the Indo for the sake of your sanity! :eek:

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

I like how the person who actually gave birth is just "some randomer". A birth cert is a historical record of facts. You can't wish away facts. Why not just give them a deed poll?

And yes knowing the parents name would-be quite useful when tracking down that persons medical history.

All the surrogate/sperm donor did was a job they got paid for, so they are really quite irrelevant in my eyes. You would know the name anyway and I would assume you had asked for a full medical history, why would it need to go on the birth cert, thereby complicating everything from passports, registering schools, hospital admissions?

Azure_sky

Gender identity disorder: not so much a medical syndrome as a career choice for the aspiring celebrity.

L.Jenkins

rainbow kirby wrote: »

David Quinn really doesn't deserve the oxygen of publicity at all. He just needs something or someone to flail at every few weeks.

He doesn't deserve oxygen at all for writing such one sided bullshít. Neither does Eilis O'Hanlon for quoting that:

Gender identity disorder: not so much a medical syndrome as a career choice for the aspiring celebrity.

In relation to Kim Petras. If my hormones weren't all over the place from quiting smoking and my blood boiling, I may have brushed it off, but I really want to fúcking slap someone now.

Teddy_Picker

crayolastereo wrote: »

Its not even just him, its the entire damn paper.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/children-arent-guinea-pigs-1632440.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/remember-a-baby-is-for-life-not-just-for-christmas-2480829.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-scalpel-cant-rewrite-history-whatever-the-surgery-2236627.html

I don't understand why this is allowed in a major newspaper. I wouldn't mind, but when half the country (including my family) read the stupid thing they are much more inclined to believe their opinion than any other one.

Pretty sickening articles crayola, and this woman has the gall to call herself a journalist? Some of these days E O' H is going to choke on her own bile. :mad:

I think the Indo must be using the manatee tank system to produce their copy, just fire a few balls into a tank, with say, teh gayz, wimmin and lookin for rights and that noise, bleedin liberal Crypto-Marxist feminazis, the PC brigade and their yoooman rites eh whatever next ehh? etc. etc. on them, and hey presto, another Kevin Myers/Ian O' Doherty/Quinn/O' Hanlon article to delight its loyal fanbase!

mikom

Links234 wrote: »

sigh, nitpickers... it's fixed.

Try again.

Links234

mikom wrote: »

Try again.

>_<

now...

xsiborg

i think its the celebrity status of the couple involved here that galls me, its a bit like the way we all threw our eyes up to heaven at the "news" that madonna or angelina were going "cahhhntravershal" again by buying adopting a baby tlhat was not even remotely the same culturally as them.

i also read recently that neither EJ nor mr. furnish bothered with the ukranian baby they wanted to adopt a while back, save to throw him a few quid every now and then.

We'll see a lot more of this in the news, but that's the way society has become- i want so i shall have... until the novelty wears off, then i'll just tip down to the sperm bank, make a deposit, wait for my investment to mature, and nine months later i'll have a new toy to show off, thats even faster than santa can deliver, he only comes once every twelve months! :rolleyes:

i think this article wasnt specifically an LGBT issue but moreso a commentary on society in general, but like a lot of people nowadays the author felt the need to reiterate throughout the piece- "im not homophobic, but"... in case he offended well, anybody really!

if one is offended by this piece, then god help you when little johnny is old enough to bring a friend home and little mickey points and utters a derogatory term in your direction! my five year old son is not averse to calling me fatty, no matter how many times i've told him its not nice! its what kids do because they're too young to CARE about how YOU feel. in this case however- EJ, DF, and even madonna, are too OLD to care about how their CHILD feels!

Teddy_Picker

Urgh, I see Myers has now added his 2 cents worth (although 2 cents may be a generous appraisal). Didn't see that one coming :rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-buying-a-birth-cert-doesnt-make-elton-a-parent-2483878.html

DS333

Obviously David Quinn has let his prejudice run riot. In the past he hasn't written articles denouncing heterosexual men for marrying much younger women and fathering children at 70, 80 or 90 years of age.

From Quinn's own Christian perspective, hasn't Elton John brought another human being into this world? Didn't God will the child into existence by infusing a soul into his body? Isn't that child one of His children who has the possibility of being in His Presence for all eternity in heaven? Does Quinn think that he shouldn't have been born? It's an odd stance for so ardent a pro-lifer to take. And what about fathers who die prematurely when their children are very young? Are they an argument against marriage and the begetting of children?

He just doesn't want children to be fathered, reared or adopted by homosexuals. Pity he doesn't have the cojones to say it straight out.

Azure_sky

I treat these sort of people like I treat jerks and trolls on the internet-put them on ignore.

baby and crumble

xsiborg wrote:

i think its the celebrity status of the couple involved here that galls me, its a bit like the way we all threw our eyes up to heaven at the "news" that madonna or angelina were going "cahhhntravershal" again by buying adopting a baby tlhat was not even remotely the same culturally as them.
...
We'll see a lot more of this in the news, but that's the way society has become- i want so i shall have... until the novelty wears off, then i'll just tip down to the sperm bank, make a deposit, wait for my investment to mature, and nine months later i'll have a new toy to show off, thats even faster than santa can deliver, he only comes once every twelve months!

Hang on a second. Hundreds of couples every year take part in inter-country adoptions here. The rules and regulations for such adoptions are stringent. In every country a social worker report MUST be prepared. The same is true in the US, as all countries who allow legal adoptions over seas require this. The process here can take up to 5 years from putting your name down as wanting to adopt to actually being able to bring home your child.

Yes, the system is faster in the US because some social workers are privatised, so more are emplyed in this area of work over there, so reports are prepared faster, which means adoptions can proceed at a faster rate.

And you do realise that it takes much more than 1 trip to the sperm bank to get pregnant, right? Most of the time it takes multiple goes to get pregnant, moreso with surrogacy.

With regards to your assertion that this wasn't really about LGBT issues, have you noticed that all the celebrities that cause 'scandal' by adopting children are in some way linked closely to the LGBT community?

Angelina & Brad- Angie is bisexual, and both are staunch believers and supporters of gay rights. They are always mentioned. fact is, i don't see any of Angelinas kids going mental- they seem to all intents and purposes to be great parents to all their kids.

Madonna- Always been a huge supporter of gay rights with a massive gay fanbase and her own flirtations with bisexuality. Cue furore when she adopted.

Elton & David- well we can all agree on these guys gay pedigree!

But is Diane keaton mentioned? burt reynolds? George Lucas? Hugh Jackman? sandra Bullock? No. because they are all straight, they are assumed to be capable parents with no 'gay controversies'.

xsiborg wrote:

i also read recently that neither EJ nor mr. furnish bothered with the ukranian baby they wanted to adopt a while back, save to throw him a few quid every now and then

.

So? They are not the childs parents. I don't mean to be harsh, but how could they be interested in a child that they do not parent who lives in a different country? They support him financially it would appear if they 'throw him a couple of quid'. that's more than they have any obligation to do.

xsiborg wrote:

if one is offended by this piece, then god help you when little johnny is old enough to bring a friend home and little mickey points and utters a derogatory term in your direction! my five year old son is not averse to calling me fatty, no matter how many times i've told him its not nice! its what kids do because they're too young to CARE about how YOU feel. in this case however- EJ, DF, and even madonna, are too OLD to care about how their CHILD feels!

So ignorant children saying something offensive about you is a reason not to have a child? Hello? Are you even on this planet? Couples want a child because they want to raise a child, teach it right and wrong and bring someone else into their lives that they can love. If anyone is willing to go through the arduous procedure of either adopting which can take years or finding a suitable surrogate or sperm donor, then they are more suitable to be parents, in my opinion, that a couple who have drunken sex and 9 months later realise sh!t's about to get real.

And Kevin Myers and his ilk are not simply commenting on general parenting. They have never to my knowledge written anything against childless straight couples who adopt overseas, have IVF treatments or have a child through surrogacy. THAT makes them homophobic. Show me an article where they deride straight couples (not single parents, because they're so right wing they hate anything that doesn't fit in with the stereotype of a nice normal god fearing 'family' whatever that might be) and I'll happily retract that statement.

I'll just call them ignorant instead.