Wanting to have kids

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 01:47PM

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 02:03PM

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 02:17PM

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 09:50PM

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 08:36AM

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 05:37PM

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 06:43PM

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 06:47PM

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 06:52PM

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 07:12PM

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 08:57AM

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 05:15PM

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 06:54PM

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 08:37AM

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 02:45PM

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 02:56PM

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 02:59PM

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.

wakka12 · 20-09-2015 03:04PM

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.

Why should a mother and father be a right? What are the benefits over same sex parents exactly? thats your opinion, and should not be forced on everyone else.Maybe I think two fathers is best for a child and straight couples are denying their children the right of having two fathers by producing a child. Its entirely subjective and you have no proof to back up whatever point you're trying to push

Cody montana · 20-09-2015 09:22PM

Has any other gay individual wanted kids?

mattP · 20-09-2015 10:05PM

Yeah sorry but the topic has kind of veered way off course

Id love kids! I've been talking to a lot of other gay guys recently and I've noticed that most people my age (late teens) want kids, whereas most guys in their mid twenties dont. So maybe over time a lot of guys just change their mind.

Annasopra · 20-09-2015 10:06PM

I'd love to have children as well.

wakka12 · 20-09-2015 10:09PM

mattP wrote: »

Yeah sorry but the topic has kind of veered way off course
Id love kids! I've been talking to a lot of other gay guys recently and I've noticed that most people my age (late teens) want kids, whereas most guys in their mid twenties dont. So maybe over time a lot of guys just change their mind.

Id say a lot realise its a difficult thing to do. And hey, having kids is nice but not having them is hardly the worst thing either. Im a gay teenager and Id really love to have kids! Im fully aware of the fact that its likely I wont though. I just think its much harder first of all for gay men to meet a man they'd like to settle down with and have a family. Due to there being less gay people, so chances are less than they are for straights. Then after that obstacle theres the whole not being able to conceive naturally. And many countries don't allow lgbt adoption. So really Im not surprised a lot of gay men never have children.
But fingers crossed anyway. If it came down to it Id hope to have a close female friend I could help take care of with her.

Ten of Swords · 20-09-2015 10:17PM

Cody montana wrote: »

Has any other gay individual wanted kids?

I can barely take care of myself, couldn't imagine looking after a child would go well. :pac:

I don't mean that sarcastically either, it's a very worthy goal if you are prepared for that level of commitment, I'm just not. I would doubt myself too much.

I will be content being an uncle if it happens. Nothing more.

21-09-2015 08:29AM

martinjudge73 wrote: »

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

Which has nothing to do with the thread or the OPs question or topic. In fact acceptance of that reality is the very reason the OP posted the topic - so as to seek alternatives and information.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

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

I do not think we need to be told this - least of all by you. The OP is not suggesting doing any such thing - you are just projecting this.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

you can't call me prejudiced for saying a Child should know its Father and Mother

Nor have I in the two posts which you have thus far merely blatantly ignored. Your issue is not prejudice it would seem - so much as simply espousing nonsense without basis.

Your entire rhetoric has been based on this narrative that children "deserve" one parent of each sex - preferably the biological originals - but you have not based this narrative in anything real other than repetition of it.

And despite there being a world full of examples of this - children who turn out just fine by the way - you add a further narrative that doing it "by design" somehow worsens things. Again repetition rather than evidence appears to by the MO of choice in supporting this idea.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

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.

Yes - as I said I think what your point is is clear. You have soap boxed it with repetition quite often enough. What is not clear - mainly because you have simply ignored questions about it including whole posts - is what the basis for the point actually is. When someone asks what your point is based on - repetition of the point is not the answer they were looking for.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 09:02AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why must all children have a mother and a father?

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).

21-09-2015 09:16AM

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.

Which evidence is that then - I have not seen it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Two parents of the same sex is not the optimal configuration for a child (or children).

Why ever not?

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2015 09:43AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which evidence is that then - I have not seen it.

I don't think I can be of any assistance with your blinkered vision that you cannot see the evidence of heterosexual parents all around you.

Why ever not?

Because it is an immediate compromise upon the child that places more importance upon the will of the adults involved, than the welfare of the child.

Wanting to have kids

Comments