Elton John and his boyfriend adopt

[Deppo]

I hope it was before she died you c*nt.

 

Of course, I'm not some kind of sicko

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

A silly argument. What you're saying is that you should only be able to adopt a baby if you can produce a baby. What about all the infertile people out there who may wish to adopt? They can't produce a baby, so should the opportunity to adopt be taken away from them?

 

You just don't get it do you?! As long as they're not batty, it doesn't matter!

[Lighthouse]

I don't see any problem with it personally. There are plenty of kids out there who either don't have a a mum or don't have a dad. I'm sure it will be different for the kid, but I don't think it will be a problem as such. At least you know with Elton he's going to get the best upbringing money can buy. His childcare, education, healthcare etc. will all be far better than he could have had in Ukraine.

 

The problem would be if they were adopting a girl. I don't entirely agree with that because she wouldn't have a female rolemodel in her life.

[Gingeletiss]

You think you're so funny that you don't realise how much of a knob you come across as.

 

I think he does!

[Smirking_Saint]

No i am not, stop being a bellend.

 

That would mean i would take each and every case as an individual one.

 

In nature you require 2 sets of DNA to make a baby, two men cannot do that. Not just this but i worry about the effects from a psychological point of view.

[Gingeletiss]

I don't see any problem with it personally. There are plenty of kids out there who either don't have a a mum or don't have a dad. I'm sure it will be different for the kid, but I don't think it will be a problem as such. At least you know with Elton he's going to get the best upbringing money can buy. His childcare, education, healthcare etc. will all be far better than he could have had in Ukraine.

 

The problem would be if they were adopting a girl. I don't entirely agree with that because she wouldn't have a female rolemodel in her life.

 

 

Lol...so it's ok for two aging Homosexuals to adopt a boy child, and you see nothing wrong in that , but you think it would be wrong for it to be a girl! Whereas, imo, they shouldn't be able to adopt at all, as I think it is immoral, but in this wacky world of ours, it appears that it is very PC for this to happen. So I'd say it should of been a girl child, then there would be less stigma attached.

[Deppo]

Why hasn't dune said anything yet about sterilising single mothers? What sort of reactionary Nazi bigot is he anyway?

[scotty]

deppo is the spawn of a gay parenthood

 

deppo is also certifiable.

[Lighthouse]

Lol...so it's ok for two aging Homosexuals to adopt a boy child, and you see nothing wrong in that , but you think it would be wrong for it to be a girl! Whereas, imo, they shouldn't be able to adopt at all, as I think it is immoral, but in this wacky world of ours, it appears that it is very PC for this to happen. So I'd say it should of been a girl child, then there would be less stigma attached.

 

Age - That's a different issue and one which I have more of a gripe with that the homosexuality. I'm happier with a 30 year old gay couple adopting that a 63 year old straight couple, simply because it's going to be unfair on the kid having to look after ageing parents.

 

I think boys need a male role model and girls need a female role model. Not nescessarily in the same house, but a role model in some capacity, even if they only see them on weekends etc. I think half the problems in society stem from a lack of direction and discipline as a child. Half the scumbags on the Jermemy Kyle show got there because they didn't have a strong father figure as a child. Someone to whack them accross the arse and say, "don't do that, go and finish your homework". Kids need someone they can identify with and respect. This from the bloke who doesn't have any.

 

You can moan about being PC if you want. I'm hardly a PC happy clappy leftie type. I just don't see a problem with any of this.

[hypochondriac]

I don't see any problem with it personally. There are plenty of kids out there who either don't have a a mum or don't have a dad. I'm sure it will be different for the kid, but I don't think it will be a problem as such. At least you know with Elton he's going to get the best upbringing money can buy. His childcare, education, healthcare etc. will all be far better than he could have had in Ukraine.

 

The problem would be if they were adopting a girl. I don't entirely agree with that because she wouldn't have a female rolemodel in her life.

 

That's half the problem!

[Lighthouse]

That's half the problem!

 

Again, money is a different issue to homosexuality. I don't particularly have an issue with a child being born into poverty having a rich upbringing. I'm sure he will be spoiled, but it's better than being unwanted on the streets. It's not as if this isn't an issue with straight parents either. Look at the Royal Family, Beckhams kids, whichever African tribe Madonna has adopted this week.

[hypochondriac]

Again, money is a different issue to homosexuality. I don't particularly have an issue with a child being born into poverty having a rich upbringing. I'm sure he will be spoiled, but it's better than being unwanted on the streets. It's not as if this isn't an issue with straight parents either. Look at the Royal Family, Beckhams kids, whichever African tribe Madonna has adopted this week.

 

I know that. What I'm saying is wealth should not be a factor when deciding who should and should not adopt kids. The fact that Elton is rich does not make him more suited to care for a child.

[scotty]

We should have a poll on who feels comfortable with Reggie Dwight and David adopting this baby boy.

[Lighthouse]

I know that. What I'm saying is wealth should not be a factor when deciding who should and should not adopt kids. The fact that Elton is rich does not make him more suited to care for a child.

 

And I'd agree with that, assuming of course the couple does have the money to provide a comfortable upbringing. You've just told me it's half the problem, then said it shouldn't be an issue. Make you mind up.

[hypochondriac]

And I'd agree with that, assuming of course the couple does have the money to provide a comfortable upbringing. You've just told me it's half the problem, then said it shouldn't be an issue. Make you mind up.

 

The issue is that because of their wealth and status they have effectively 'bought' this adoption in my eyes. If it had been any average 63 year old homosexual couple (if you can get an average version of that) they they would have been refused. The fact he has loads of money is half the problem.

[Lighthouse]

There's a minefield of issues here, I can't be arsed going through them all. In summary:

 

Gay people adopting kids - Fine

Old people adopting kids - Wrong

People getting kids due to wealth - Wrong

Kids not having a role model of the same sex - Wrong

The mental image of Elton bumming - Very very wrong

[Turkish]

I don't see any problem with it personally. There are plenty of kids out there who either don't have a a mum or don't have a dad. I'm sure it will be different for the kid, but I don't think it will be a problem as such. At least you know with Elton he's going to get the best upbringing money can buy. His childcare, education, healthcare etc. will all be far better than he could have had in Ukraine.

 

The problem would be if they were adopting a girl. I don't entirely agree with that because she wouldn't have a female rolemodel in her life.

 

and how many lads are really close to their mums?

[Turkish]

No i am not, stop being a bellend.

 

That would mean i would take each and every case as an individual one.

 

In nature you require 2 sets of DNA to make a baby, two men cannot do that. Not just this but i worry about the effects from a psychological point of view.

 

The people that think it's okay are in essence going against 1000s of years of family values and morality, scientific research and basic common sense to appear to have "modern", mainstream views which have been drummed into them by the happy clappy media. If the majority of people are honest about it they know deep down its not right or natural. Yes you can quote examples of sh*t hetrosexual couples or go on about his money and this will give the kiddie a good chance in life, but no one can deny that a child is at its happiest and best when it is raised by its bioligical parents. This reason alone is proof that a female/male relationship is a far better environment to grow up than a same sex one.

[Special K]

Firstly, it's not an adopted kid from the Ukraine, the nipper was born to a surrogate mother in California. Secondly, it's more likely to get ****ed up by the surreal world it will grow up in (celebrity nonsense) more than the fact that the parents are ageing poofters. But thirdly, i reckon it will get plenty of TLC and be well looked after by the old queens. Hurrah Sir Elton!! (and lifetime partner David Furnish, of course)

[Joensuu]

The people that think it's okay are in essence going against 1000s of years of family values and morality, scientific research and basic common sense to appear to have "modern", mainstream views which have been drummed into them by the happy clappy media. If the majority of people are honest about it they know deep down its not right or natural. Yes you can quote examples of sh*t hetrosexual couples or go on about his money and this will give the kiddie a good chance in life, but no one can deny that a child is at its happiest and best when it is raised by its bioligical parents. This reason alone is proof that a female/male relationship is a far better environment to grow up than a same sex one.

And i thought you said you weren't homophobic, 'not natural' tsk.

 

(Oh, and dont forget homosexuality has shared 1000's of years with us too, i'd warrent that the first gay 'adoption' will have preceded homo sapian sapian).

[Turkish]

And i thought you said you weren't homophobic, 'not natural' tsk.

 

(Oh, and dont forget homosexuality has shared 1000's of years with us too, i'd warrent that the first gay 'adoption' will have preceded homo sapian sapian).

 

See there you go again, accusations of homophoiba because i dont agree with the mainstream PC views. Can two men produce a baby togther? So therefore is it natural for two men to be parents to a child together in a relationship? It's not a question of being homophobic, it's a question of using common sense, some people it seems cant seperate the two.

[Joensuu]

See there you go again, accusations of homophoiba because i dont agree with the mainstream PC views. Can two men produce a baby togther? So therefore is it natural for two men to be parents to a child together in a relationship? It's not a question of being homophobic, it's a question of using common sense, some people it seems cant seperate the two.

 

Turkish, your view stated in this thread suggesting that men need to find women attractive before they should want to raise children is nothing short of homophobic. Is it natural for men to want to raise kids? Is homosexuality natural? If you answer yes to both of those, your argument must be based on a personal fear or dislike. If you answer no, then i'm afraid you are homophobic.

 

It's become obvious to me that you are entrenched in your view (which is to your own loss and discredit). I'm interested at what lies behind your view; what causes someone to want to impose restrictions on the private lives of another. What gives you the right to prevent others from living their lives the way they want to? Is it religion, or something repressed in your past?

Edited 8 February, 2011 by Joensuu

[JustMike]

There's a minefield of issues here, I can't be arsed going through them all. In summary:

 

Gay people adopting kids - Fine

Old people adopting kids - Wrong

People getting kids due to wealth - Wrong

Kids not having a role model of the same sex - Wrong

The mental image of Elton bumming - Very very wrong

 

really?

[Lighthouse]

really?

 

I did think of you when I said that Mike, but like I said it doesn't have to be a mother and father living together. For a start three of yours have an older sister to look up to and I believe they all see mothers an aunties fairly regularly. I'm talking about if there are two gay men together, in which case there would be no woman involved at all.

[Lighthouse]

See there you go again, accusations of homophoiba because i dont agree with the mainstream PC views. Can two men produce a baby togther? So therefore is it natural for two men to be parents to a child together in a relationship? It's not a question of being homophobic, it's a question of using common sense, some people it seems cant seperate the two.

 

I can't build a car, are you saying I shouldn't drive one?

 

and how many lads are really close to their mums?

 

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I'd say most lads are pretty close to their mums, same as most girls are pretty close to their dads. I'm not knocking single parent marriages here. I'm saying you shouldn't deliberately put a young kid into a world where they have no contact from a relative of the same gender.

Edited 8 February, 2011 by Lighthouse

[Turkish]

I can't build a car, are you saying I shouldn't drive one?

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I'd say most lads are pretty close to their mums, same as most girls are pretty close to their dads. I'm not knocking single parent marriages here. I'm saying you shouldn't deliberately put a young kid into a world where they have no contact from a relative of the same gender.

 

Comparing bring up a child to driving a car just about sums up the logic of some people.

[hypochondriac]

I can't build a car, are you saying I shouldn't drive one?

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I'd say most lads are pretty close to their mums, same as most girls are pretty close to their dads. I'm not knocking single parent marriages here. I'm saying you shouldn't deliberately put a young kid into a world where they have no contact from a relative of the same gender.

 

Don't be so ridiculous.

[Deppo]

Comparing bring up a child to driving a car just about sums up the logic of some people.

 

Don't be so ridiculous.

 

Lighthouse has made a perfectly valid point, but as usual, some people are too challenged in the brain department to see it.

 

The arguement that Turkey has put forward is that it is not natural for homosexuals to have children, they biologically can't do it and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it is against the laws of nature and a bad, bad thing.

 

what Lighthouse should have said is - "I take it that you choose not to fly using aeroplane, but by flapping your wings, given that sitting in big metal bird is not not natural and against the laws of nature? Oh wait a second, you don't have any wings do you? No, because although you have the brain of a budgie, you are not a bird. Therefore you should never fly anyway. Similarly, when transporting yourself from one place to another, given that you only think things that are natural are proper and correct, I take it you shun cars, buses, motorcycles and other forms of transport other than your own legs? And given your insistence that only things that are biologically natural and correct, I am sure you grow all your own vegetables and refuse to purchase anything that has been processed. I'm surprised you even know who Elton John is because it's certainly not natural to sit in front of the big shiny box and watch the magic pictures is it? Nor are, as far as I'm aware, CD's and records natural. They are another example of something that man can create."

 

And then he should have called Hypochondriac a daft grass.

[Turkish]

Lighthouse has made a perfectly valid point, but as usual, some people are too challenged in the brain department to see it

 

The arguement that Turkey has put forward is that it is not natural for homosexuals to have children, they biologically can't do it and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it is against the laws of nature and a bad, bad thing.

 

what Lighthouse should have said is - "I take it that you choose not to fly using aeroplane, but by flapping your wings, given that sitting in big metal bird is not not natural and against the laws of nature? Oh wait a second, you don't have any wings do you? No, because although you have the brain of a budgie, you are not a bird. Therefore you should never fly anyway. Similarly, when transporting yourself from one place to another, given that you only think things that are natural are proper and correct, I take it you shun cars, buses, motorcycles and other forms of transport other than your own legs? And given your insistence that only things that are biologically natural and correct, I am sure you grow all your own vegetables and refuse to purchase anything that has been processed. I'm surprised you even know who Elton John is because it's certainly not natural to sit in front of the big shiny box and watch the magic pictures is it? Nor are, as far as I'm aware, CD's and records natural. They are another example of something that man can create."

 

And then he should have called Hypochondriac a daft grass.

 

F*ck me you are dull. You have a lot of time on your hands if you are able to hijack every thread with your nonsense. Oh and Turkey? brilliant! How long did it take you to think that up?

[hypochondriac]

F*ck me you are dull. You have a lot of time on your hands if you are able to hijack every thread with your nonsense. Oh and Turkey? brilliant! How long did it take you to think that up?

 

He is a troll and a total mong.

[Deppo]

F*ck me you are dull. You have a lot of time on your hands if you are able to hijack every thread with your nonsense. Oh and Turkey? brilliant! How long did it take you to think that up?

 

He is a troll and a total mong.

 

You have both hurt my feelings.

[buctootim]

In an ideal world kids should be adopted by two healthy, happily married parents in their late 20s / early 30s who have other children, good family and friends networks, are comfortably off, same race as the child, live in a great house near a good school, have got lots of interesting hobbies, are politically middle of the road.

 

In reality that isnt an option for most children up for adoption - so there is going to be some are of compromise. My kids dont have several of the 'ideal' indicators above. IMO finding suitable adoptive parents should take into account all factors, pluses and minuses, and find the best parents for that child. Being old, single, alternative lifestyle, different race etc shouldnt be automatic disqualifiers, but they should be balanced by strong pluses. Personally I find it hard to see how being adopted by two older, very famous men is the best option for the child given that disability free babies are in high demand - but then I dont know the full story.

[Deppo]

And that Elton John has got a right temper on him.

[bridge too far]

Some reports suggest that EJ is the biological father and that the baby was born to a surrogate mother.

[Deppo]

Eddie Jordan? The plot thickens.

[Shandy_Top_89]

Who would you rather have as a parent.............

 

Fred West

George Best

Michael Jackson

George Michael

Holly Johnson

Freddy Murcury

Elton John

 

Freddy Mercury as your dad, imagine how utterly glorious that would be.

 

......Well if he wernt dead obviously.

[hypochondriac]

Some reports suggest that EJ is the biological father and that the baby was born to a surrogate mother.

 

Disgusting for a 63 year old man to do that. It's cruel.

[Turkish]

Some reports suggest that EJ is the biological father and that the baby was born to a surrogate mother.

 

In some ways this makes it even more immoral.

[Deppo]

The only humane thing left to do is to tie the two poofters up, along with the "child" and burn them.

[scotty]

The only humane thing left to do is to tie the two poofters up, along with the "child" and burn them.

 

+1. Well said.

[Frank's cousin]

OK, as some of you feel that you need ‘FACTS’ here are a few.

People who are against this are prejudiced against homosexuals – ‘nothing against them as long as….’ Recognize that? The result our your deep seated insecurities and ignorance

Ignorance and lack of education is the reason for prejudice – this is fair enough if you have not had the luxury of education – understandable even, because fear of the unknown is fuelled by ignorance, but read these lines, learn something, see it as an education and your prejudice will be gone. Not wanting to change when you have had the opportunity to learn, is good old fashioned bigotry – so take your pick. Learn something or at least admit you are a bigot.

Fear of homosexuality is not new – it’s been around for about 2000 years as organized religions influence on society began to take hold – they wanted to create what they believed were values that would make a stable society – and the influence on societies of religious teachings are clear to see. We may say that we are ‘non-religious’ and don’t believe, but yet some still consider certain things ‘wrong’ and ‘unnatural’ – the source of these ‘teachings’ is nothing more than religious views.

Fear of Homosexuality is driven by lack of understanding, ignorance and a fear that the individual themselves may ‘turn out gay’ - and the fear is there because of the way society is so prejudiced against gay people – sadly the society we live in is structured into cliquey groups as many never grow beyond that teenage sub culture of rules, where anybody who does not ‘fit in’ is victimized, bullied and generally not welcome … and this is in turn is not discouraged by those with bampot religious views… Most bigots don’t get the irony – the insults aimed at gay men for example such as ‘****sucker’ and a**ebandit, are meant to be threatening, yet these sexual acts are often expected from wives, girlfriends and one night stands…

Nature/Nuture - is no longer used as a scientific term. There is a deeper understanding that our behavior, characters and personalities are driven by genetic and environmental components. However, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to suggest that homosexuals are ‘brought up that way’ so there is no more chance of a child growing up gay because they have gay parents, than if they have straight parents. Just looking at the data, would lead you to these conclusions. Even if there was a perceived slight bias towards higher numbers of gay folk from gay couples, it would be most likely a result of the children not suppressing their natural feelings as having been brought up in a more enlightened way. The only control measure that would be scientifically accurate would be to know the exact numbers of people in heterosexual marriages who are actually gay… and getting an honest and accurate answer on that is impossible. Please note to all the non-scientists – data , facts figures are ONLY valid if you have a robust control group and both sets of data are subjected to appropriate statistical analysis to determine if there is any statistical significant difference.

Turkish you are embarrassing yourself with your complete of knowledge on what constitutes scientific data, scientific protocol and importantly the term ‘significant difference’ - I recommend you investigate this further before presenting lamentable right wing religious propaganda as scientific data or as you seem fond of doing, mentioning ‘scientific facts’ without any source or validity.

Homosexuality is not ‘unnatural’ or ‘immoral’ (see above about religion) – the fact that humans can be gay, straight or both (bi) is a direct result of the evolution of our species – NOT a ‘genetic mistake’ but a consequence of anisogamy – which is also the reason behind the evolution of all our secondary sexual characteristics. It is complex so go read up on it – but the up shot is that we have evolved emotional love and also the trait to have sex for pleasure rather than just reproduction – it explains a lot of things…

So will this adopted child be happy? Have a decent upbringing? I don’t know, I don’t know Elton John as a person. Can’t stand his awful MOR crap he records or that wailing over Diana… but apart from that I can’t comment. Will the child be bullied? Yup guaranteed as most adopted kids are bullied… and it’s all those nicely brought up children from heterosexual couples that will be doing it… If these kids had been brought up well and taught compassion and reason, there would not be the playground bullying that we see… my evidence for this? Not all children are bullies so blame the parents of those that are! (see we can all play the ‘FACT’ game… but this is at least based on a logical hypothesis, rather than ‘made up’ to support an uneducated view)

So as some of you are so keen to have a go based on ‘it’s PC gone mad’ … thought I’d finish with this: Those against this, or uncomfortable with this are either ignorant or bigots… the ignorant simply need education, the bigots are just moronic f*ckwits who can go feck themselves – ‘unPC’ enough for you?

 

PS. Love the satire Deppo LOL and Joenssu your posts +++++

[Turkish]

OK, as some of you feel that you need ‘FACTS’ here are a few.

People who are against this are prejudiced against homosexuals – ‘nothing against them as long as….’ Recognize that? The result our your deep seated insecurities and ignorance

Ignorance and lack of education is the reason for prejudice – this is fair enough if you have not had the luxury of education – understandable even, because fear of the unknown is fuelled by ignorance, but read these lines, learn something, see it as an education and your prejudice will be gone. Not wanting to change when you have had the opportunity to learn, is good old fashioned bigotry – so take your pick. Learn something or at least admit you are a bigot.

Fear of homosexuality is not new – it’s been around for about 2000 years as organized religions influence on society began to take hold – they wanted to create what they believed were values that would make a stable society – and the influence on societies of religious teachings are clear to see. We may say that we are ‘non-religious’ and don’t believe, but yet some still consider certain things ‘wrong’ and ‘unnatural’ – the source of these ‘teachings’ is nothing more than religious views.

Fear of Homosexuality is driven by lack of understanding, ignorance and a fear that the individual themselves may ‘turn out gay’ - and the fear is there because of the way society is so prejudiced against gay people – sadly the society we live in is structured into cliquey groups as many never grow beyond that teenage sub culture of rules, where anybody who does not ‘fit in’ is victimized, bullied and generally not welcome … and this is in turn is not discouraged by those with bampot religious views… Most bigots don’t get the irony – the insults aimed at gay men for example such as ‘****sucker’ and a**ebandit, are meant to be threatening, yet these sexual acts are often expected from wives, girlfriends and one night stands…

Nature/Nuture - is no longer used as a scientific term. There is a deeper understanding that our behavior, characters and personalities are driven by genetic and environmental components. However, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to suggest that homosexuals are ‘brought up that way’ so there is no more chance of a child growing up gay because they have gay parents, than if they have straight parents. Just looking at the data, would lead you to these conclusions. Even if there was a perceived slight bias towards higher numbers of gay folk from gay couples, it would be most likely a result of the children not suppressing their natural feelings as having been brought up in a more enlightened way. The only control measure that would be scientifically accurate would be to know the exact numbers of people in heterosexual marriages who are actually gay… and getting an honest and accurate answer on that is impossible. Please note to all the non-scientists – data , facts figures are ONLY valid if you have a robust control group and both sets of data are subjected to appropriate statistical analysis to determine if there is any statistical significant difference.

Turkish you are embarrassing yourself with your complete of knowledge on what constitutes scientific data, scientific protocol and importantly the term ‘significant difference’ - I recommend you investigate this further before presenting lamentable right wing religious propaganda as scientific data or as you seem fond of doing, mentioning ‘scientific facts’ without any source or validity.

Homosexuality is not ‘unnatural’ or ‘immoral’; (see above about religion) – the fact that humans can be gay, straight or both (bi) is a direct result of the evolution of our species – NOT a ‘genetic mistake’ but a consequence of anisogamy – which is also the reason behind the evolution of all our secondary sexual characteristics. It is complex so go read up on it – but the up shot is that we have evolved emotional love and also the trait to have sex for pleasure rather than just reproduction – it explains a lot of things…

So will this adopted child be happy? Have a decent upbringing? I don’t know, I don’t know Elton John as a person. Can’t stand his awful MOR crap he records or that wailing over Diana… but apart from that I can’t comment. Will the child be bullied? Yup guaranteed as most adopted kids are bullied… and it’s all those nicely brought up children from heterosexual couples that will be doing it… If these kids had been brought up well and taught compassion and reason, there would not be the playground bullying that we see… my evidence for this? Not all children are bullies so blame the parents of those that are! (see we can all play the ‘FACT’ game… but this is at least based on a logical hypothesis, rather than ‘made up’ to support an uneducated view)

So as some of you are so keen to have a go based on ‘it’s PC gone mad’ … thought I’d finish with this: Those against this, or uncomfortable with this are either ignorant or bigots… the ignorant simply need education, the bigots are just moronic f*ckwits who can go feck themselves – ‘unPC’ enough for you?

 

PS. Love the satire Deppo LOL and Joenssu your posts +++++

 

I didn't say homosexuality is unnatural or immoral, if you are going to critise my posts at least get them right. What i said was it is unnatural for two men to have and raise a child. If it was natural, then a man having sex with another man would result on one of them getting pregenant, correct?

[Lighthouse]

Comparing bring up a child to driving a car just about sums up the logic of some people.

 

Don't be so ridiculous.

 

It seems this simple metaphor has gone way over the heads of some people, so I will go back to the basics.

 

The ability to conceive a child and the ability to raise a child are two completely different concepts. You only have to look at examples like the Baby P fiasco to see that. Some woman got knocked up and 9 months later a baby fell out of her. Brilliant. Does that mean she is a suitable mother? No, of course not. Between this woman (I forget her name) and her boyfriend they neglected and beat a baby to death.

 

It's the most tedious of tedious links. What you are saying is that a straight father raising a child is natural, but a gay farther isn't. Why? Because a straight father can conceive a child "naturally". In other words a straight father is a suitable parent because he sh*gged some woman 9 months ago, but a gay father isn't because he didn't.

 

I don't normally agree with Deppo, but he makes a valid point here. We do thousands of things in every day life which aren't "natural". Your car, your TV, your ipod... you go on holiday flying isn't natural. You get there and disagree with the Spannish food, the doctor gives you antibiotics, that's not natural. The list is endless.

 

Let's put it another way. Single parent families. There are loads of people out there, be it single mums or single dads, who raise a kid on their own. If a man can raise a kid on his own, why can't two men? I've got a friend who shares a flat in London with his brother. Should they be banned from having kids because 2 men living together isn't natural? Where exactly is the problem? A man can raise a kid without a mother in the house, no problem. Two men can share a house, that's no problem. Is it simply the fact that the two men have a sexual relationship that is the problem here?

[Verbal]

The only humane thing left to do is to tie the two poofters up, along with the "child" and burn them.

 

Why? Do you think dune and turkish would make a nice bonfire? And what is this "child" you speak of? Does its name begin with "h"?

Edited 9 February, 2011 by Verbal

[Turkish]

It seems this simple metaphor has gone way over the heads of some people, so I will go back to the basics.

 

The ability to conceive a child and the ability to raise a child are two completely different concepts. You only have to look at examples like the Baby P fiasco to see that. Some woman got knocked up and 9 months later a baby fell out of her. Brilliant. Does that mean she is a suitable mother? No, of course not. Between this woman (I forget her name) and her boyfriend they neglected and beat a baby to death.

 

It's the most tedious of tedious links. What you are saying is that a straight father raising a child is natural, but a gay farther isn't. Why? Because a straight father can conceive a child "naturally". In other words a straight father is a suitable parent because he sh*gged some woman 9 months ago, but a gay father isn't because he didn't.

 

I don't normally agree with Deppo, but he makes a valid point here. We do thousands of things in every day life which aren't "natural". Your car, your TV, your ipod... you go on holiday flying isn't natural. You get there and disagree with the Spannish food, the doctor gives you antibiotics, that's not natural. The list is endless.

 

Let's put it another way. Single parent families. There are loads of people out there, be it single mums or single dads, who raise a kid on their own. If a man can raise a kid on his own, why can't two men? I've got a friend who shares a flat in London with his brother. Should they be banned from having kids because 2 men living together isn't natural? Where exactly is the problem? A man can raise a kid without a mother in the house, no problem. Two men can share a house, that's no problem. Is it simply the fact that the two men have a sexual relationship that is the problem here?

 

I'm not struggling with the metaphor at all, its just that it is a stupid one. How anyone can compare using a machine to move from one place to another to bringing a child into the world, raising a human being is beyond me. The simple and unarguable fact is this. Two men cannot produce a child together, for thousands of years the family unit has been a mother and a father raising a child. Just because the last 20 years or so it's become fashionable to be gay it doesn't make it right or correct for two of them to adopt and raise a child. Oh and before i get accused of homophobia again i'm just going to add now that my sister and cousin are gay, so pi*ses on the accusations of being ignorant. I've not mentioned it before because i wanted to see how many people trotted out that line because i dont believe in everything the media tells me, unlike some of you.

[bridge too far]

Turkish, lots of heterosexual couples can't have children - hence IVF.

 

And lots of heterosexual couples resort to the male donating sperm to be used with a surrogate egg. That's exactly what's happened here.

[Turkish]

Turkish, lots of heterosexual couples can't have children - hence IVF.

 

And lots of heterosexual couples resort to the male donating sperm to be used with a surrogate egg. That's exactly what's happened here.

 

I can see you aren't getting it. Despite repeating myself 100 times. I am not talking about men and women who are physically incable due to some sort of incapability, i am talking about men and men or women and women, who are naturally incapable. The traditional family unit is father, mother, child is it not?

[solentstars]

The people that think it's okay are in essence going against 1000s of years of family values and morality, scientific research and basic common sense to appear to have "modern", mainstream views which have been drummed into them by the happy clappy media. If the majority of people are honest about it they know deep down its not right or natural. Yes you can quote examples of sh*t hetrosexual couples or go on about his money and this will give the kiddie a good chance in life, but no one can deny that a child is at its happiest and best when it is raised by its bioligical parents. This reason alone is proof that a female/male relationship is a far better environment to grow up than a same sex one.

oh dear i,m watching england denmark match we are winning 2-1 but you go on worrying about elton and his boyfriend and don,t forget the virgin mary did not have sex when she had her baby.

[solentstars]

I can see you aren't getting it. Despite repeating myself 100 times. I am not talking about men and women who are physically incable due to some sort of incapability, i am talking about men and men or women and women, who are naturally incapable. The traditional family unit is father, mother, child is it not?

 

if you not married the traditional family use to call the kids bastards to

[Turkish]

oh dear i,m watching england denmark match we are winning 2-1 but you go on worrying about elton and his boyfriend and don,t forget the virgin mary did not have sex when she had her baby.

 

so engrossed in it you are posting on here?